{"id":1966,"date":"2026-06-13T13:36:53","date_gmt":"2026-06-13T13:36:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/propertyrelocationusa.com\/?p=1966"},"modified":"2026-06-13T13:36:53","modified_gmt":"2026-06-13T13:36:53","slug":"trump-lawyer-barreling-toward-lifetime-bench-seat-despite-disturbing-red-flags-experts","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/propertyrelocationusa.com\/?p=1966","title":{"rendered":"Trump lawyer barreling toward lifetime bench seat despite ‘disturbing’ red flags: experts"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

One of Donald Trump’s personal lawyers in the E. Jean Carroll case is days away from a lifetime seat on a powerful federal appeals court, and legal experts say his written confirmation responses are riddled with “disturbing” red flags that can’t be ignored.<\/p>\n

Read more This plan will make Trump\u2019s birthday his most miserable yet<\/a><\/p>\n

Justin D. Smith serves as the counsel of record in Trump v. Carroll, <\/em><\/em>where the president has asked the Supreme Court to overturn<\/u> the civil judgment that found him liable for sexual abuse and defamation of Carroll. Trump has consistently denied Carroll’s allegations, calling them a “hoax” and “politically motivated.” He has continued to appeal both civil verdicts.<\/p>\n

Smith was nominated<\/u> by Trump as an “America First Fighter” in February to serve as a judge for the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis. The Senate advanced Smith by a unanimous consent agreement on Thursday and is set to vote on Monday.<\/p>\n

But Smith\u2019s to the Senate Judiciary Committee\u2019s questions are \u201cdisturbing\u201d and present \u201ca whole host of red flags,\u201d said Nora Demleitner, a legal scholar and former president of St. John’s College in Annapolis, Maryland.<\/p>\n

Notably, Smith continues to misrepresent details about Carroll\u2019s case relating to a \u201cLaw & Order: Special Victims Unit\u201d episode in his responses to from Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.<\/p>\n

That includes misattributing<\/u> to Carroll a quote from Trump\u2019s former lawyer Joe Tacopina about an \u201camazing coincidence\u201d involving a less-than-one-minute plot point from the \u201cLaw & Order\u201d episode.<\/p>\n

Smith’s cert petition to the Supreme Court attributes the phrase “amazing coincidence” to Carroll herself \u2014 language Carroll never used. <\/p>\n

The phrase was coined by Tacopina, Trump’s lawyer at the time, during cross-examination. Carroll used “amazing” to praise the “Law & Order” writers for “keying in to the psyche of their viewers.” When Tacopina rephrased her response as “amazing coincidence,” Carroll pointedly substituted “astonishing” and immediately denied basing her allegation on the show.<\/p>\n

Durbin asked Smith about how he \u201cmisrepresented\u201d the details of a \u201cLaw & Order\u201d episode in his , which gave Smith \u201ca chance to clear the record,\u201d said Harold Krent, law professor and interim dean at the Chicago-Kent College of Law.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe fact that he would have a misstatement again would be either he’s very lazy, stubborn or very careless \u2014 or it’s material,\u201d Krent said.<\/p>\n

Since Smith likely wasn\u2019t under oath answering the Senate Judiciary questions, misstatements in the responses wouldn\u2019t be perjury, but \u201cit would be considered a false statement to Congress if he would ever be investigated and charged with that,\u201d Krent said. <\/p>\n

Lawyers can also \u201cget punished under attorney disciplinary rules if you exaggerate too much,\u201d Krent said.<\/p>\n

\u201cIf you flat out lie, then it is presumably some kind of false statement to an official authority, almost never prosecuted,\u201d Krent said.<\/p>\n

The Trump administration \u201cis not going to investigate [Smith], but a subsequent administration could investigate and have to decide whether that was a material misstatement or again just a careless or maddening exaggeration.\u201d <\/p>\n

Instead, the Trump administration announced investigations related to the case last month, looking into whether Carroll herself<\/u> committed perjury, along with investigations<\/u> into the nonprofit of Democratic billionaire and LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman, who helped fund Carroll\u2019s litigation against Trump.<\/p>\n