Legal experts: Trump lawyer’s “embarrassing” performance “making the jury dislike her intensely”
"Glaringly obvious" incompetence on display as judge tells jury to "disregard everything Ms. Habba just said"
Trump lawyer Alina Habba struggled through her cross-examination of E. Jean Carroll on Wednesday.
U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan, who is overseeing the defamation case against the former president, repeatedly admonished the attorney for running afoul of his court rules and general procedures.
Prior to Carroll’s testimony, Habba requested an adjournment so that Trump could attend his mother-in-law’s funeral.
“The application is denied. I will hear no further argument on it. None. Do you understand that word? None. Please sit down,” Kaplan, a Bill Clinton appointee, told Habba about the motion that he already denied.
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.
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.
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:
...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:
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.
The judge and Trump literally had an exchange in court the other day confirming what you are saying.
Can judges not order people to be gagged? I thought that was a thing?
Trump wants to play victim.
This judge is literally about to cancel Trump Co, down to the last overpriced building.
The problem is that Trump has successfully turned any form of accountability into a campaigning and fundraising opportunity. Everybody insisted that his trials would sink his campaign, and they've done nothing but bolster it. His court appearances now are little more than glorified campaign rallies. And once Trump realized that not even court proceedings are enough to rattle his base, he has been exploiting that ever since.
He doesn't care about the outcome of this or any other trial any more, except for the SC case that would effectively remove him from the ballot. All he cares about is turning the court cases into circuses he can fundraise off of, and stalling for as long as possible until he wins a 2nd term in office and just makes all of it go away (Yes, even the state stuff, because he'd be in a position to say "you've made your decision, now let's see you enforce it.)
And the thing is, there's a non-zero chance he very well may get his wish
Not white people. Duh.
Wealthy people. Broke White people get fucked by the courts too.
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.
The judge is going to stay cool & keep handing Ms. Carroll cash, although I'd love to see Trump sitting in a jail cell till the end of this trial.
Are we talking about the same assclown here?
E. Jean Carroll is the victim who is suing Trump for defamation. She already won once, then he immediately jumped in front of a news camera and defamed her again. Since he’s physically incapable of keeping his mouth shut, she’ll keep getting money from him.
Fair, though the phrasing is what I questioned: he's not handing over anything. It's being taken from him and awarded this specific victim. Let's not, by any stretch of our language, give him one iota of benefit to any doubt. 🤌🏼
E. Jean Carroll is the victim that is currently using Trump like an ATM with no limit on withdrawals.
Points A and B are not my concern, but the implication that the fetid fuckpuppet is somehow "handing" over his money at any point is. It's being taken from him, against his will, and deservedly so.
Why must we slur the muppets this way? Miss piggy would never!
Let's be real, Ms. Piggy would judo chop the shit out of Habba.
"There's only enough room on this show for ONE hot blond worried about gay frogs! HIIII-YAH!"
I heard that in her voice.
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.
Certainly more than the $0.00 Trump will cough up.
I can guarantee she’s working on retainer. No lawyers will work for him without being paid up front.
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.
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?
when Rachael Maddow retires, it will be the end of an era. She is so good.
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.
It's as if you can actually see her haggard soul just under the inch-thick makeup.
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.
And she has that Asus RoG laptop.
I have an ASUS ROG laptop. Are you saying I'm not pretty 😥
No, you're Rico Suave, you're handsome 😉
😅😂🤣
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.....
That's going to be so much ammo for Trump... I'm sure it was meant to waste time, but really? They couldn't let him go to a funeral?
I hate that man with every single fiber of my being, and even a bunch of fibers from others, but still if it's a real thing then why not let him go? The propagandists are going to have a field day with this one... :/
He can go. He isn't needed in court. You fell for his baloney
Why didn't the judge just say that instead of saying no and handing them a "clip" to use? Good that he can go, but I feel like everyone involved needs to understand the impact of what they say/do in his cases. Propagandists will use every bit of information they can to manipulate people :(
Because the judge already said that. You know the part where he said "I have ruled"? That means they already discussed it, in the past.
I understand that part, my point was more that he could have said something like "Trump is free to go to the funeral as we don't need him here, but I have already ruled that we will not postpone blah blah blah."
I just hate giving the propagandists easy ammo. I know we shouldn't all be walking on eggshells all the time though. This whole situation sucks...
That is literally exactly what the judge said. I hate to tell you homie, but you're the mark. A five second Google search would confirm that the judge explicitly and specifically said that Trump did not need to be present for this case, and was free to attend the funeral if he wished. That whiny fucking pussy doesn't give a fuck about Melania's mother unless he can bury her on another one of his golf courses for a tax break.
It’s doesn’t matter. They’re going to say some stupid shit about it no matter what happens or what the judge says.
It was a motion that was denied at the outset of the trial. Trump is just trying to slow the court. The judge is having none of it.
Because he didn't ask if he could go. He asked if the trial could be delayed. The judge is not telling him he can't go. He's saying the trial won't be put off. And, as other posters have pointed out, this was a request that has already been made and denied a while back. Why would the judge's answer change?
Exactly why you shouldn't pander to them and let them dictate the narrative. They don't care about the truth even when you spell it out for them, and they'd edit and twist anything anyone says to fit their agenda.
He did: “I am not stopping him from being there,” the judge said, referring to the funeral.
He even offered to move Trump’s testimony to accommodate it. https://time.com/6556087/donald-trump-defamation-trial-starts-funeral/
He’s allowed to go to the funeral. He doesn’t need to be in the courtroom, but wants to be there because it lets him get sound bites to play into his victim complex and run fundraisers. The judge refused to delay the case for Trump’s absence because Trump isn’t required to be in court.
He is already allowed to go because he’s not required in court—his attorneys are and they are present. What Habba is doing is asking the court to delay the whole trial. Again.
"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".
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.
What is she doing? Doesn’t she have a racist hotel pool to run or something?
Pool's closed due to AIDS, unfortunately.
Ha! I thought maybe I was reaching too far back 😂
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.
Totally imagine this happening in the courtroom. https://youtu.be/gYzfTHO9tkY?si=4ePcDXWSah5mH-6D
This doesn't sound like a legal expert, this sounds like gossip and I'm angry to have accidentally read it
I read every bit of the transcript of Habba's attempts at cross yesterday, and what was described in the article was accurate. It was actually less embarrassing for her than the actual transcripts.
The rest were opinions from other lawyers and experts as to how things went yesterday. It's pretty common to cite the opinion of experts in order to give context about a subject that the layperson may not be familiar with.
Perhaps you are confusing gossip with opinion? Not sure how one could make that mistake accidentally, bit you never know.
This sounds like gossip because it doesn't matter legally. And the opinions of experts on whether a jury "likes" a lawyer is similarly a thing, that if i were an expert, i would hesitate to comment on. Perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps this "article" deserves the airquotes i just hope you visualized me making
Perhaps you just need to learn what gossip is.