"Slam"
Find a better word.
this post was submitted on 26 Jan 2024
39 points (93.3% liked)
politics
19047 readers
4024 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.
- 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
We have people whose vocabulary consists of "imagine" and "literally" and a jumble of mis-joined words and bad pluralization.
Imagine u literally backup emails
This is the hill you're defending?
He's gotta be running out of lawyers willing to take him as a client at this point
Letting him testify
Cute they think that was her decision, let alone her idea to have him rant in the trial. Donnie wanted desperately to speak out in almost every prior case so far, and especially so now we are in primary season to maintain his victim complex
She's not a competent lawyer by even the most generous of standards. I agree that this was absolutely his idea, but she also has a fiduciary responsibility to her clients, so the blame is certainly hers. He can't actually take the stand unless called by a lawyer, and no competent lawyer would have done that (and some of his other lawyers even prevented him in other cases).
She's a colossal fuckup, no matter whose hairbrained idea it was initially.
And I guess that's the reason why two of his lawyers withdrew, one even the day before trial, because they could not convince him to stay silent and did not want to watch him testify and could not hinder him to testify because of the law.
You cannot blame a lawyer for allowing their client to testify, they literally have an ethical obligation to allow a client to testify if the client chooses to (ABA Model Rule 3.3(9) ). You can call her competency into question for other reasons, but she would absolutely be sanctioned if she didn't allow him to testify.
Neat! I learned something! Thanks.
It's not America he is used to, for all these years of golfing, being a showman and conman and hanging out with Epstein and Co with no care for the world around. He could do that until he die, the US of A could've let him. But for whatever reason he went all in.
Habba's mission is not to be a good lawyer within the rules and traditions of the courtroom. Habba's mission is to drag the proceedings as much as possible out of the rules of the courtroom, and into the rules of "I'm the leader, do as I say or I'll have you shot."
A lawyer who's staying within the rules of the courtroom is pretty much doomed to failure, and will interfere with mission #2 while they're failing, which is why Trump hates them. Trump is so generally incompetent that it remains to be seen whether mission #2 will be successful. But Trump and Habba are in no way using bad strategy when they try mission #2, because it's certainly possible to win that game, whereas mission #1 is a lost cause at this point.
Habba argued that her arguments for the case's dismissal were being misunderstood, offering to clarify them for the judge. But Kaplan's response was short. “No,” he replied.
He hired some less than excellent bimbo lawyer and it's working out predictably
Based on the lawsuit against her by a former client, she's an insane backstabbing snake, not a bimbo.
Her husband was a member at one of Trump's golf courses. She finds out that a waitress at the course was sueing the place and her manager because he had sexually abused her for years and coerced her into it with job threats.
She befriended the woman, convinced her to drop the actually beneficial lawyer she had, got her to sign an NDA and accept a pittance sum under 20k. Then dropped the woman as a client.
Allegedly that's how she got the job with Trump. She turned around and went to him and told him what she did and how she saved him millions of dollars.
However, as I said, the woman is now sueing her and she is facing potentially being disbarred for that evil act.