I'm so tired of this two-tiered justice system. Just once, for fuck's sake, treat this sack of shit like you would a black teenager caught with weed in Texas.
this post was submitted on 18 Jan 2024
416 points (97.3% liked)
politics
19089 readers
3878 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
She's being this incompetent on purpose, so that when actual lawyers start to point out all the obvious flaws in her work, she and her client can continue to complain about how the "Deep State" is biased against them. The more incompetent she is, and the more negative attention she gets, the more Trump's political supporters get behind him.
It doesn't even matter if she gets disbarred after this, all she has to do is bleach her hair and she has a guaranteed gig as a legal correspondent any of the Conservative Media outlets. They probably pay more, anyway.
I don't think it's on purpose, though I agree she'll go on to do grape [sic] things as a blonde muppet in the Conservative griftosphere. I read the transcripts yesterday, and based on her performance, she was using the questions to lead to:
- A motion for mistrial
- A motion for recusal
...both of which she attempted in this same fucking trial, like she thought she was Phoenix Wright. The best part, though, is when she objected to evidence presented. A paraphrase:
AH: Objection!
Judge: On what grounds?
AH: It's prejudiced.
Judge: Ms. Habba, all evidence presented by the plaintiff is going to be prejudiced. That's the nature of the evidence.
She literally tried the "because it's damaging to my case" defense! ROFL
Right, you are evaluating her actions from the perspective of a lawyer who is trying to get the best outcome for their client within the legal framework of a trial. But that is not her goal.
Her goal is to make her client look like he's being persecuted. She doesn't care if her arguments are accepted by the judge. In fact, she would prefer the judge to go nuclear and lose his temper, because her client can use that to his advantage.
Trump is operating the same way. He practically begged the judge to throw him out of the courtroom. He got away with it because the judge understands exactly what Trump is doing. Trump would have used that expulsion to fundraise off of. He wants the courts mad at him, because he believes he can get votes out of it.
Trump is operating the same way. He practically begged the judge to throw him out of the courtroom. He got away with it because the judge understands exactly what Trump is doing.
The judge and Trump literally had an exchange in court the other day confirming what you are saying.
"Mr. Trump, I hope I don’t have to consider excluding you from the trial.”
Trump threw his hands up in response.
“I understand you’re probably eager for me to do that,” Kaplan said.
Reporters in the courtroom heard Trump say, “I would love it.”
“I know you would,” Kaplan said.
Can judges not order people to be gagged? I thought that was a thing?
load more comments
(3 replies)
I think it can be both. She's trying to throw the case out (because that eats into "valuable" campaigning time) and she's also trying to make a circus so they can claim persecution, both of which she is failing spectacularly at.
Ultimately, he'll lose no votes, but I'm not interested in that for this particular case. I want to see Trump get the book thrown at him for being a whiny little baby who pathologically can't stop defaming the person he raped.
This is a pretty good indicator of the quality of her legal guidance, in that she's halfway to a valid form of objection, but seems to have forgotten the other half of it. You are allowed to object to evidence or testimony that is more prejudicial (i.e. "the defendant was seen kicking puppies at the dog park on a weekly basis") than it is probative, meaning that ts useful in proving or disproving the allegations (the case was actually about a bank robbery not involving puppies at all). You can't just cry "prejudiced!" and expect the judge to go along with you.
Trump's team also did themselves no favors by objecting out of turn, especially after he explicitly ordered "one witness, one lawyer" during a recess.
They probably pay more, anyway.
Certainly more than the $0.00 Trump will cough up.
load more comments
(1 replies)
This case is just like the New York one. The matter of guilt is already settled, only the award remains.
The real lawyers will work on the real case, witch is the appeal. Habba's job is to make headlines, keep Trump in the news, and fight every inch no matter how useless. Just because her behavior makes her a bad lawyer, doesn't mean she's not serving her client, or that she's dumb. Habba's legal work probably amounts to tens of millions of dollars in free prime time advertising for Trump's reelection.
Trump's strategy is to be in the news everyday. So many scandals that only Rachael Maddow can keep it all straight. Is it a good strategy? It worked in 2016.
Make no mistake, her job is incredibly simple: stall and waste as much of the court's time as possible and give Trump potential mistrial grounds.
When I read about her glaringly obvious mistakes (according to an article regarding admitting evidence,stating positions on things where the judge said she'd turn into a witness if her statement was true) that was the first thing that came to mind, she's there to make it last longer, and doesn't seem like the courts have a way to handle it well without a new trial so it goes slowly. Trump is like a full blown security test on US political and legal systems and they aren't performing well to his strategies.
Just because her behavior makes her a bad lawyer, doesn’t mean she’s not serving her client, or that she’s dumb.
Doesn't she risk being debarred?
I don't know her plans, but it wouldn't matter to me if I made bank off this one clown show of a trial. Dress me up! 🤡
deleted by creator
I don't think it's a "strategy" as much as "the only thing he knows". Remember, this guy has only made money in real estate. Everything else flopped. He has the strategy of a real estate salesman who tells you unverifiable things like "George Washington had dinner here" and "it will double in value".
It's going to backfire now because it gets boring. Why do you think everyone in NYC hates him?
load more comments
(1 replies)
Yeah, but she's very pretty. Did she tell you that she's pretty?
“I can fake being smart."
Please start at any time.
She can't fake being pretty, either.
She's certainly not my idea of attractive, but considering how much she looks like Melania, she is Trump's idea of attractive.
Donald Trump's attorney wants the public to know her good looks are more important than her intelligence, because she can "fake being smart."
What a horrible world we live in, if someone feels the need to live like that.
I don't know if that's just an unflattering picture, but she... just no. Her head is so small she looks like she has microencephalitis from that angle. But granting that it's probably just an unfortunate camera angle, she is still looking very mid. I wouldn't look twice at her.
HABBA: But my client has to choose between attending his mother in law’s funeral…
KAPLAN: I have ruled. Sit down.
HABBA: I don’t like to be spoken to that why. Please refrain. I am asking for an adjournment for a funeral.
KAPLAN: Denied. Sit down.
I'm sure she's good at something.....
load more comments
(11 replies)
"Oh no, they're not taking me seriously!"
Cashes 2.5 million dollar check
"Anyways..."
With a performance like that, I'm not entirely convinced she was smart enough to get her payments upfront. We all know the famous low Valerian saying - "A Trump never pays his debts"
I actually undershot, since the 2.5 must've been just from one PAC.
3.5: https://www.newsweek.com/alina-habbas-firm-has-been-paid-over-35m-defend-trump-1862002
Where did the check come from?
Trump's PACs, in turn funded by a bunch of people who are being told how they're funding his "campaign".
Kaplan repeatedly interrupted Habba’s questions, including when she began to read from a document that had not been formally entered into evidence, sending the trial to a recess.
“During which you should refresh your memory about how it is you get a document into evidence," Kaplan told the lawyer.
God damn.
He can't be found guilty and have it stick. He can blame his defense and ask for a retrial. Later. Almost immediately after the delayed verdict, but you know... later.
This isn't about being found guilty though, right? This is about determining damages. He might appeal how much he needs to pay, but he's already been found civilly liable.
Habba
What is she doing? Doesn’t she have a racist hotel pool to run or something?
I wouldn't even be surprised if Republicans try to vote for Trump even as he sits behind bars.
Can presidents pardon themselves to be released from prison?
I don't have that much faith that one in twelve New Yorkers isn't a MAGA moron.
view more: next ›