(Photo
by
Isaac
Brekken/Getty)
Last
week,
Donald
Trump
moved
for
a
mistrial
in
his
New
York
civil
fraud
case
on
grounds
that
Justice
Arthur
Engoron
is
mean
to
him.
The
performative
motion,
filed
by
Trumpland
lawyers
Chris
Kise,
Alina
Habba,
and
Cliff
Roberts,
leaned
heavily
into
the
claim
that
there
is
something
inappropriate
about
the
judge’s
relationship
with
his
principal
law
clerk,
whom
Trump
falsely
accused
of
being
Senator
Chuck
Schumer’s
girlfriend.
As
proof
they
cite
their
own
choreographed
outrage
on
October
25,
when
each
of
them
complained
in
open
court
about
her
behavior.
They
also
allege
that
she
exceeded
contribution
limits
to
various
local
Democratic
committees,
a
claim
recently
surfaced
by
the
conservative
outlet
Breitbart.
Thus
the
partisan
positions
of
those
committees
are
imputed
wholesale
to
the
clerk,
and,
by
the
transitive
judicial
property,
to
the
judge
himself.
But
if
you
outsource
your
legal
research
to
Breitbart,
you
might
miss
a
few
nuances.
Luckily,
Justice
Engoron,
who
is
not
in
the
habit
of
filing
motions
based
on
vibes,
man,
was
happy
to
elucidate
Trump’s
counsel
in
his
order
denying
their
motion.
First,
he
dropkicked
the
affidavit
from
the
retired
judge
Trump’s
lawyers
trotted
out
as
an
“expert
witness”
to
opine
that
all
the
trial
judge’s
decisions
were
wrong.
“[L]egal
arguments
are
for
counsel
to
make,
and
for
judges
to
decide.
Therefore,
such
expert
affidavit
is
neither
necessary
not
permitted,”
he
noted
icily,
with
a
string
cite
describing
this
as
“black
letter”
law,
“so
well-established
that
it
is
often
deemed
a
basic
premise
or
assumption
of
evidence
law-a
kind
of
axiomatic
principle.’”
Then
he
noted
that,
as
a
candidate
for
judicial
office,
the
regular
contribution
limits
didn’t
apply
to
money
used
to
purchase
tickets
to
campaign
events:
When
deducting
the
price
of
tickets
to
political
functions
that
my
Principal
Law
Clerk
attended
from
all
the
contributions
to
which
defendants
cite,
the
remainder
is
still
well
below
the
ethical
and
legal
permissible
annual
limit.
Defendants
further
attempt
to
argue
that
since
my
Principal
Law
Clerk
attended
events
sponsored
by
certain
organizations,
also
legally
and
ethically
permitted,
each
and
every
separate
action
and
position
by
those
organizations
should
be
imputed
to
her,
and
by
proxy,
to
me.
Such
arguments
are
nonsensical;
and
in
any
event,
they
are
a
red
herring,
as
my
Principal
Law
Clerk
does
not
make
rulings
or
issue
orders
–
I
do.
“I
have,
pursuant
to
22
NYCRR
100.3(B)(6)(6)(c)
and
Advisory
Opinion
07-04,
an
absolute
unfettered
right
to
consult
with
my
law
clerks
in
any
way,
shape,
or
form
I
choose,”
he
added,
swatting
aside
the
ridiculous
suggestion
that
he
is
somehow
unduly
influenced
by
his
staff.
And
he
defended
his
habit
of
linking
to
stories
about
the
case
(including
from
ATL)
in
his
alumni
newsletter.
“When
an
online
publication
mentions
a
graduate,
including
myself,
I
include
an
excerpt
and/or
a
link,
usually
both.
Consequently,
I
have
been
the
subject
of
entries
concerning
this
case
due
to
its
undeniable
newsworthiness,”
he
wrote.
“I
neither
wrote
nor
contributed
to
any
of
the
articles
on
which
defendants
focus,
and
no
reasonable
reader
could
possibly
think
otherwise.”
Indeed,
it
is
unlikely
that
readers
thought
the
judge
was
the
author
of
posts
mocking
Habba
for
whining
about
“‘Litigious’
Prosecutors
Trying
To
Frame
Her
Client
For
The
Crime
Of
Having
A
Messy
Office”
or
praising
the
judge
for
offering
Trump’s
lawyers
a
“Free
Lesson
On
How
Privilege
Works.”
And
still, no,
really,
you
shouldn’t
have.
The
Attorney
General’s
office
urged
the
court
to
allow
full
briefing
on
the
matter
to
“avoid
the
potential
for
motion
practice
before
the
Appellate
Division”
and
to
“allow[]
this
Court
to
address
Defendants’
spurious
allegations
in
the
first
instance,”
rather
than
on
interlocutory
appeal.
But
Justice
Engoron
refused,
writing,
“in
good
conscience,
I
cannot
sign
a
proposed
order
to
show
cause
that
is
utterly
without
merit,
and
upon
which
subsequent
briefing
would
therefore
be
futile.”
And
so
the
proceedings
ground
on
today
in
Manhattan.
But
soon
we’ll
all
take
another
fun
field
trip
to
the
First
Judicial
Department.
Whee!
Elizabeth
Dye lives
in
Baltimore
where
she
writes
about
law
and
politics
and
appears
on
the Opening
Arguments podcast.