Jake Tapper Cuts Away from Alina Habba Tirade Outside Courthouse, Calls Her ‘Not Particularly Effective’ as a Lawyer

HABBA: “There was no proof, and I couldn’t prove that she didn’t bring in the dress, there was no DNA, there was no expert, my experts were denied, two of them, two of them were denied to come in. They didn’t bring — let me bring up that Reid Hoffman funded Ms. Kaplan. And you know what we got in there? That my witness, who was her friend, who said that she is a drug addict and the drug addict is herself. That friend, I found out in there, was paid for by Ms. Kaplan’s firm and that is disgusting. That is a violation of everything I stand for, and that is why I stand with Trump. And that is why so many Americans are so proud that he is running again, and so excited to run to the ballot box. But don’t get it twisted. We are seeing a violation of our justice system. Ladies and gentlemen, you are not allowed to be stripped of every defense that you have. You are not allowed —“

TAPPER: “Alright, so you’re getting an idea now about why Donald Trump’s attorney is perceived as effective as she is, which is not particularly effective. Laura Coates, if you could truth-spot a little bit of this, Alina Habba was saying that Donald Trump was not allowed to introduce defenses. What is she talking about?”

COATES: “She’s talking about nonsense and she’s trying to rewrite history. And I honestly would not be surprised if she herself is now vulnerable to accusations that she has made, defamatory statements of some kind without proof to the contrary. But let me tell you, he did have an opportunity, Jake. This was the damages phase of a trial that he could have attended last year. His presence was voluntary in the sense of whether he was required to actually sit in the trial, but his defense was not voluntary. He had every opportunity, essentially, to put forth evidence, to put up a defense, to testify himself, to do all the things that she spoke of on that courthouse step just now. They made it a decision that was different from that. Now, you had the penalty phase of a trial, and the judge specifically told them, here are the parameters. We’re not re-litigating this issue. A jury has already decided the issue that you could have participated fully in. And for that reason, you are limited in trying to have a second bite at the apple. Even in the Big Apple. That was the clear directive from the judge. And so to suggest somehow that it is New York or the jury system, or somehow something nefarious was going on that muzzled the defense in the way that they chose to actually defend the case is truly ludicrous. But, you know, this is really par for the course in terms of why what you saw on the courthouse steps has been additive for a campaign even if it is destructive inside of a courtroom. But make no mistake, America, the only role of this particular defense counsel during this phase of the trial was about the damages, not whether a sexual assault had occurred, not the decisions of whether it was discredited. Those were issues of fact as we call them, meaning the factfinder, the jury, whose job it is to determine the credibility of witnesses before them, to assess the evidence, to follow the directions of the judge, they made a determination, they would like a different conclusion but that is not injustice defined.”