this post was submitted on 01 Feb 2024
221 points (95.5% liked)

politics

19107 readers
2711 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
 

Alina Habba "can't even do things that you learn in evidence class," says CNN legal analyst Elie Honig

A former White House attorney for Donald Trump said Wednesday he's "not surprised" the former president is looking for new representation for his appeal of the defamation trial verdict, calling out Trump lawyer Alina Habba's management of the case. Trump announced late Tuesday that he was seeking new counsel for his appeal of the $83.3 million verdict in the defamation lawsuit brought by writer E. Jean Carroll. Habba, who served as Trump's lead attorney and frequently clashed with the presiding judge throughout the trial, handled the case "in the mafia way," Ty Cobb told CNN Wednesday, according to HuffPost.

“She’s done his bidding. She's articulated his political narrative of victimization and unfairness in the judicial system and made some outlandish claims, including the conflict claims,” Cobb continued. "And she lost, so she's a loser. I’m not surprised that Trump is looking for appellate representation.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 123 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (18 children)

I doubt he will replace her with anyone more competent. He can’t afford anyone good, has a poor track record of picking lawyers, and he’s burned too many bridges without the cash to pay for it.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 9 months ago (3 children)

That's a good point. I should offer my services and then let him take the stand to his own detriment. I'll even say I'll do it for free upfront.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

That's kind of a cool idea, but depending on where you are this is illegal and/or unethical as lawyers have a fiduciary duty to represent their client's best interest.

https://www.stimmel-law.com/en/articles/fiduciary-duty

A lawyer owes a fiduciary duty to a client. The lawyer must at all times act in the best interest of the client and must make full disclosure of any economic or other interest that the lawyer has that might conflict with the interest of the client. The lawyer is obligated to take all actions and give all advice that will benefit the client and to use professional skill and energy to protect the client’s interests. Should a conflict of interest arise (for example, the lawyer discovers that one client wishes to hire him to sue another one of his clients) the lawyer must immediately make full disclosure of such conflict and take steps to immediately end the conflict regardless of the personal cost to the lawyer.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago

The client gets to decide the client's best interest. If he wants to take the stand, blocking him from doing so would be a violation of fiduciary duty.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 9 months ago

Good thing I'm not a lawyer.

load more comments (14 replies)