this post was submitted on 30 Jan 2024
457 points (97.7% liked)

politics

19090 readers
4116 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Legal experts skewered Alina Habba's "comedy of bumbling errors" in Trump defamation trial

Former President Donald Trump's appeal of the $83.3 million verdict in the defamation case brought by E. Jean Carroll is unlikely to succeed, legal experts say.

"Let me ruin the suspense for everyone. Trump doesn't have an appeal," Nashville lawyer Brian Manookian argued Friday. "I know the talking heads on TV who have never tried a case or appealed a jury verdict have to mention it. Here's why it isn't going to fly."

A person must "preserve a reversible error at the trial level" in order to have a case with merit on appeal, Manookian explained, ultimately blaming Trump's lack thereof on his legal team in the case.

"This is why you hire competent counsel. You need someone who actually knows the rules of evidence and procedure," he said. "Alina Habba had no clue what was occurring throughout the trial. She not only failed to preserve any remote grounds for appeal, like a moron, she repeatedly and unintentionally waived them over and over."

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 89 points 9 months ago (1 children)

"I do think part of the rough week he had was having chosen a counsel who doesn't seem to have any, not just chops, but judgment about how you try a case like this when it's already been established[,]and you may not quibble that your client has sexually assaulted the plaintiff and then lied about it."

Shitheads in Ohio be like, “Imma vote for him!” Because corporate journalism has failed catastrophically.

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 108 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

Stop blaming the media.

When he said he liked soldiers who didn't get captured, the main stream media reported it. When the pussy grabber tape came out the media was all over it. They played the tapes of him talking about perving on the Miss Teen USA contestants.

I saw one of his defenders on The View. One of the panelists kept repeating 'grab the pussy' over and over. The woman who was supporting Trump asked her not to use that offensive language.

The media reported and the MAGoos decided it didn't matter.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 54 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (5 children)

Stop absolving the media. They absolutely have some culpability here for treating whackjobs with the same credulity they treat scientists, treating existential threats against democracy as if they're a normal part of the political horse race, and otherwise perpetuating habitual and systemic balance fallacies on a massive scale. The "MAGoos" didn't just go off the deep end on their own; the media helped mislead them straight off it.

[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 28 points 9 months ago (2 children)

The other poster actually gave examples. You posted something but vague references to a "balance fallacy" (I love how you cited that, but not any examples. lol) . .and have a way better upvote to downvote ration than the other poster.

This is the perfect example of this place using the upvote as the "I agree" button rather than actual, good arguments that add to the discussion. People want to shit on the media, and you gave them an a vague, effectively unchallengeable post to do so. Congrats.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] grabyourmotherskeys@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Exactly, we all know what terrible person he is because of this.

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 14 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Trump and his people treat the media the same way surly tweens treat their parents. If the NY Times says that Trump is one of the richest people in the world his people will repeat that claim over and over. If the Times says that Donnie took money from Putin it's FAKE NEWS!

[–] Tolookah@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

And if they said that he took money from Putin to become one of the richest in the world, that's just good business.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] collapse_already@lemmy.ml 86 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Looks like typical DJT operating procedures. Hire incompetence and then blame the system for their incompetence. I used to do high stakes litigation. We would have an attorney on our trial team whose only responsibility was preserving error. I wonder if DJT will sue her for malpractice. That would probably make her extra sad for servicing his tiny mushroom.

[–] Ferrous@lemmy.dbzer0.com 40 points 9 months ago (2 children)

We gotta end small-dick hate, homedog.

[–] Tyfud@lemmy.world 25 points 9 months ago (2 children)

It's not small dick hate. It's calling out the shallowest thing that would piss trump off. It's especially poetic as he makes exaggerated claims about his persons all the time, including what we know is a complete exaggeration on the size of his dick (thanks Stormy).

Any other person I'm in total agreement with you.

Just not this one. Not after he fucking mocked a disabled person on live TV and suffered zero consequences.

This is all we've got right now.

[–] slingstone@lemmy.world 12 points 9 months ago

Being one of the lesser-endowed, I'll allow it.

[–] Ferrous@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Body shaming isn't acceptable just because it's someone you don't like.

[–] FabledAepitaph@lemmy.world 10 points 9 months ago

I get the same vibe. I don't care about DJTs hurt feelings for being called "small dick", but I do recognize that there are people out there who actually are "lesser endowed", and its gotta be frustrating to see it used as an insult all the time. Maybe having a "small dick" isn't the greatest, but its also totally acceptable and people shouldn't be made to feel negatively about something they really had no control over. My two cents lol

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 6 points 9 months ago

Body-shaming of people who don't overcompensate and claim the exact opposite of their particular issue, you mean?

Like, when a 100% blind guy wants to take up cataract surgery because of their acute eyesight, you're gonna say "dawg, it's maybe not your thing". And if they persist with full-page ads as to their keen eyesight, then we have DJT.

It's a yes from me.

[–] Socsa@sh.itjust.works 12 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (4 children)

I don't hate small dicks. I hate people who act like massive assholes because they have small dicks.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] uid0gid0@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Would he have some kind of case for appeal due to incompetent counsel?

[–] collapse_already@lemmy.ml 12 points 9 months ago

No. In a criminal case, but not in a civil lawsuit.

[–] JimmyBigSausage@lemm.ee 51 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Didn’t she have a gaming laptop computer at the beginning of the trial in court? Game on!

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 26 points 9 months ago (1 children)
[–] ericisshort@lemmy.world 17 points 9 months ago (1 children)

And it wasn’t even hers. The gaming laptop belonged to the court and was used for the live transcript feed.

[–] aew360@lemm.ee 6 points 9 months ago (4 children)

I have a hard time believing that to be honest

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 43 points 9 months ago

You get what you pay for 🤫

[–] LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee 27 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Then I want to thank Alina Habba for helping to preserve a chance for democracy in the US.

[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 10 points 9 months ago

she was pretending to be smart.

[–] Varyk@sh.itjust.works 27 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Can he call for an appeal or mistrial based on inadequate legal protection or ineffective assistance of council?

Is that a thing?

[–] evolatic@lemmy.world 53 points 9 months ago (4 children)

Not in a civil trial. That's only for criminal trials.

[–] Varyk@sh.itjust.works 9 points 9 months ago

Cool, thanks

[–] SkybreakerEngineer@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Won't stop him from trying. Delay, delay, delay

[–] gregorum@lemm.ee 8 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

Having to put up 120% of the judgment amount in order to file an appeal might stop him, however. He probably doesn’t have that much cash lying around, and his properties may be tied up in other legal matters, so he might not be able to use them as collateral.

[–] formergijoe@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago

He'll just use campaign funds and hope he becomes president so he can pardon himself for illegally using campaign funds

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] aniki@lemm.ee 6 points 9 months ago

I think it can be argued by a competent appeals attorney but the likes of them working with Trump at this end-game are 0.

[–] fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de 20 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Would I be a bigot if I were to observe that she probably wouldn't be trumps lawyer if she were an overweight balding middle aged male?

[–] imPastaSyndrome@lemm.ee 14 points 9 months ago

No because you're not judging anyone but trump

[–] troybot@midwest.social 12 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Are you referring to Rudy Giuliani? Because he was also incompetent.

[–] billiam0202@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago

No no no, he said "middle aged". Ghouliani is clearly much older.

[–] JeeBaiChow@lemmy.world 16 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Lol. Let's see if she gets paid.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern 10 points 9 months ago

I'd say what kind of professional wouldn't get payment upfront from Trump these days, but

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago (8 children)

But people here on Lemmy have told me repeatedly that she isn't stupid and that she was creatively doing Trump's bidding! As recently as yesterday!

Do you mean to tell me she is stupid?!

[–] jak@sopuli.xyz 6 points 9 months ago

I don’t think she’s a good lawyer, but I also don’t think she’s stupid. I would call her shrewd. She’s exactly where she wants to be, if her end goal is more than 15 minutes of fame (which it seems to be, given that radio show). If trump sues her, she can just extend her time in the spotlight. If not, she can always sue him for nonpayment herself

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] gennygameshark@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago

Well, I've never found Trump appealing... 🥁🥁🥁

[–] Red_October@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Obviously he'll fire his lawyer, he goes through them like most people go through tissues.

History tells us that he's also not going to pay her and will probably be a person of interest when she's charged with a felony.

[–] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago (2 children)

A good lawyer would have reserved ground for an appeal. But she is not a good lawyer. Trump is going to write the check, but he will not see the money come back.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] crazyCat@sh.itjust.works 3 points 9 months ago

This is gold Jerry, freaking gold.

load more comments
view more: next ›