Legal experts: Trump lawyer’s “embarrassing” performance “making the jury dislike her intensely”
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."
"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.
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.
Why must we slur the muppets this way? Miss piggy would never!
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.
They probably pay more, anyway.
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.
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?
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.
Botox and fillers. Just such a bad idea, it never turns out well, but so many people are convinced it makes them look better.
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.....
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’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".
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?
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
