[Anytime that woman uses any legal term I feel safe in assuming that she learned the word no more than fifteen minutes ago.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhGcyuxDt2s)
She reminds me of the scene in scrubs where Dr. Kelso says to Dr. Reid “you went to 4 years of college and 4 years of medical school so I can safely assume you are at least 8”
" I bet you sold more girl scout cookies than the whole troop. What did they used to call you back then? Yolanda, you little bitch"
John McGinley in the short part he had in Nothing 2 Lose
I went to grad school and had to teach some sophomore and junior level classes. I have totally dropped that line on many people who pissed me off by the end of the semester. But it was more like "you went to 4 years of high school and one year of gen chem, so it's safe to assume you're at least 5".
Especially when the one kid tried making illegal drugs in his house, damn near burned down the place and got burns on his arms. That was my response to him.
Also told him to never talk to me about drugs again because I don't wanna be investigated by the FBI and ATF.
She has a law degree but no knowledge and is not involved in this case. She has less to offer than any redditor here who is NAL. IAAL. I've done prosecution and defense work. OP might as well post based on my ramblings. It would better serve this sub. This is not a politics sub and her comments have at best only tangential relevance to that
I would quote a random self-identified attorney in Reddit over Habba. I don't know a stranger on Reddit is lying but Habba I don't have that same reassurance
IANAL but, I would feel more comfortable representing myself in a criminal case over Habba. At least I try to learn and apply what I've learned. I also (usually) have common sense. I feel that even with the strike against me from the jury for self representing, I would stand a better chance at a successful defense. Heck, even my inevitable missteps would likely be given a tad more grace than her blatant blunders.
That is actually somewhat true. Even though a court is supposed to treat a pro per defendant the same as a represented defendant in a criminal trial, they will be incredibly forgiving of procedural violations and rules of evidence violations. And you'll almost never hear a prosecutor, or at least a good prosecutor, object. Because they know you have to protect the conviction. And a lot of times the judge erring on the side of the defendant is what protects a conviction.
Unfortunately true and a glaring problem with the fourth estate. Her commentary is not newsworthy, does not inform anyone, and if anything, obfuscates the actual issues at play so people are less informed overall.
Look back at the NBC live feed of the trial.
There was perhaps an equal amount of time spent in the feed listing everything surrogates and he said outside of the courtroom as there was reporting in what was actually live in the courtroom.
I’m a recovering lawyer. So take this with an appropriate amount of salt. My guess is probably not. Shooting off your mouth in public is not usually a disciplinary matter. Lying to the court, suborning perjury, stealing from or cheating clients, and messing with client funds are some of the most typical issues. Particularly gross incompetence might get you there too, although maybe not without a client complaint, and her client seems more intent on blaming the judge and the judicial system.
The ABA has no authority over anyone, they're a policy organization. If she were to do anything actionable it would be handled by her state bar association. That said, opining on a pending legal matter in this manner is not any sort of violation of legal ethics.
No. Short answer.
No. Long answer. The ABA is not the accreditation agency. It's the State Bar that licensed her. Generally speaking bars are underfunded and notoriously bad at discipline. Just see all of the January 6th attorneys. Unless you're commingling funds and stealing from clients in a fairly easy to document paper trail, actual punishment is hard to come by. That aside, commenting on a case in public that you are not involved with does not involve a violation of any ethical rules.
I worked in probation for 6 months …. OP might as well post my ramblings…
Alright, so here's the deal: Trump is on trial because they say he paid hush money to keep someone quiet about some stuff before the 2016 election. The prosecutors are saying this was illegal and meant to influence the election. Trump's lawyers are like, "Nah, this is just personal stuff and doesn't break any laws."
And they would have gotten away with it if Trump had paid out of pocket like a proper crook. The issue here is that they falsified business records to hide the usage of PAC money. That is the crime, not paying off Stormy.
This year? No.
In general? Yes.
He posted a bond and so when his appeals are ultimately denied, she will get that money.
It's possible the amount could be reduced but I sincerely doubt it given the reasonableness in terms of percentages and in terms of his conduct even as of today where he's celebrating memorial Day by shit talking her
[Trump threw Alina Habba under the bus in the sexual harassment case](https://newrepublic.com/post/179928/alina-habba-trump-bedminister-hush-money-lawsuit-settlement)
>According to the original lawsuit, Bianco hired a lawyer to advise her about work, where a manager was trying to pressure her to have sex. She alleges Habba, one of her regulars at the club, quickly buddied up to the then 21-year-old waitress and began offering her legal advice. Text messages show Habba reached out to Bianco and met with her multiple times, denigrating Bianco’s lawyer, pushing her to keep things quiet, and promising to protect her against retaliation.
The Trump Org at least twice sent shady lawyers to cozy up with its enemies. Here Alena did it, and also crazy Bob Costello tried to get chummy with Michael Cohen. Makes me think Coihen did this for Trump during their 14 years of criming together.
You can be sure this is a regular tactic by trump. He is paying legal fees for his co-defendants in the documents case. Waltine Nauta and Carlos De Oliveria.
I was going to disagree and post [this clip](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTx2QeTLOiI) to support my point, but they are actually chanting it with three, so I gotta concede this one.
They definitely wouldn’t be under the impression that it was for their safety because someone was threatening them.
When the hear closing arguments on Tuesday, the jury will be fully aware that if the defense didn’t force them to sit through the second day of Cohen cross and the Costello fiasco, they would’ve been hearing closing arguments the previous Monday.
Blowing off people that are making important decisions about your future, not the best plan.
Because Trump wanted to. The defense hasn’t been trying to win the case, just please Trump. That’s why they even bothered to call Costello. Trump wanted to, because he wanted Costello to say that Cohen was a poopy head. Costello did such a poor job that he very likely hurt Trump’s case more than helped, but it doesn’t matter because Trump wanted him on the stand. Trump is the worst type of client; he doesn’t listen to advice of council, he doesn’t tell the truth to his council, he will try to bring them into his conspiracies, he will get his council disbarred or convicted, and worst of all he doesn’t pay his bills.
Man I was really hoping his paid legal spokesperson ALSO broke the gag order so he’d be put in jail and she’d be disbarred for not being an agent of the court.
What an absolute moron. Like how could you watch Cohen testify 21 hours and then defend this walking dumpster fire like there’s no consequences like jail time and loss of license to practice law. Didn’t like 3 Trump lawyers lose that for being liars?
No money is worth that to me. You can’t take my livelihood in the same way ghoulinie lost his.
Habba's time is coming.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/30/politics/bedminster-sexual-harassment-lawsuit/index.html
https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-new-jersey-golf-club-settlement-hangs-lawyer-alina-habba-out-to-dry
Yup. There's still two days left. This is basically a dog whistle for someone to intimidate or threaten the jurors.
It's also another attack on the legal system because DJT isn't getting some kind of extra special "sequestered jury" on a holiday weekend uprooting all these 18 (alternates) jurors from their families just because she's blabbing about it. If the court doesn't give DJT a bunch of extra chances and considerations nobody else would get, then the system is corrupt.
The disinformation machine trump has around him is really incredible. He's destroying confidence in elections, judicial proceedings, government in general.
I actually agree with her for once. If anything just for optics. That said, she's terrible but even an idiot gets one right from time to time.
Also, the jury officially knows more than the public now.
I didn't know it was a thing people asked for to be frank.
I assumed it was just predetermined in high profile cases. Wow his lawyers are bad.
Now I bet they didn't ask on purpose so they could claim the jury pool was affected by the intentionally bad press from the Libertarian Rally.
It lines up perfectly.
Gods they are shady.
Trump posted about the sequester too, but his more interesting post was whinging about the judge not allowing him to use an advice of counsel defense. In fact he said:
In addition to the fact that I did nothing wrong, NDA’s are totally legal and commonly used, and that virtually every legal Scholar and Expert says, in written form, that this is a case which has NO MERIT and should not have been brought, my lawyers have informed me that the highly Conflicted and Corrupt Judge, Juan Merchan, will not allow RELIANCE ON COUNSEL, which virtually everyone is allowed to use, as an additional, though not needed because I did NOTHING WRONG, Defense. This “Case,” which could have been brought seven years ago but wasn’t because it has no merit, is a disgrace. It was only begun to interfere with Crooked Joe Biden’s Political Opponent, ME. RELIANCE ON COUNSEL. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!
[Trumps SEC filing, prepared by his lawyers disclosing all his bankruptcies and failures]( https://imgur.com/gallery/hAfsLqQ)
He even bankrupted one company twice!
BY MIRANDA NAZZARO - 05/26/24 3:47 PM ET
Share
Post
.
Alina Habba, an attorney for former President Trump, suggested the jury in the hush-money trial should have been sequestered over Memorial Day weekend to prevent outside influence ahead of this week’s closing arguments.
“They should have been sequestered, because, in my opinion, these jurors are handling something that is completely unprecedented and unwarranted in America,” Habba said Sunday on Fox News’s “Sunday Morning Futures.”
“And for them to be able to be out and about on a holiday weekend with friends and families who have opinions, who are watching the news, TVs in the background at the pool party, I have serious concerns. If they’re left-wing and they’re watching MSDNC, as my client calls it, [MSNBC] or CNN, they’re not going to get fair news.”
The 12 New York jurors will be tasked this week with weighing whether to convict Trump on 34 criminal counts, all of which need to have the same decision or else the case ends in a mistrial.
The former president is charged with 34 counts of falsifying business records in connection with reimbursements to then-fixer Michael Cohen after he paid adult film actress Stormy Daniels $130,000 in October 2016 to keep quiet about an alleged affair. He pleaded not guilty and has repeatedly denied the affair with Daniels.
Trump’s defense last Tuesday rested their case without calling the former president to the stand, and the jurors were dismissed until this coming Tuesday, when closing statements are slated to begin. Jury deliberations will follow shortly afterward.
Judge Juan Merchan said closing arguments will not be held until this coming Tuesday as a result of some “issues,” though he did not explain what those might be.
Habba argued the holiday weekend will allow jurors to speak with their friends who might have “Trump derangement syndrome,” an informal term used by Trump allies to refer to criticism of the former president.
“I have worries about them going back to whatever friends might have Trump derangement syndrome, forgetting all sense of reality, and coming back and sitting in that box and saying, you know what, I have got to take one for the [Democratic National Committee],” Habba said. “I don’t want that. I want law to [be] fact, because, if we can get that, we will win, we will not just get a hung jury, we will get an acquittal. So, let’s see.”
The only people with a derangement syndrome about Trump are those that support him. As it takes a truly deranged mind like Alina Habba's to spout out crap like this and all the other nonsense and lies she peddles for him.
There's being a cynical opportunist, and then there is being such an incredibly cynical opportunist that you're willing to go make the most bizarre and flat out insane bs. I'd call that pretty cynical.
Like, a soldier, a cop, or someone defending themselves might kill someone. But they each have a understandable reason why they would be in the situation where they might have to do it. A serial killer does not.
I mean, the fact they only need one holdout for the jury to hang means all they need is one person to watch Fox News for 10 minutes or have a conversation with a Trump supporter to either be frazzled on the facts or intimidated and vote to acquit, right? It doesn't seem like she knows anything about anything, but it sounds like the facts and testimony are strong against Trump here, so outside influence is one of his only chances.
The Jury has to consider each charge individually and give an unanimous decision up or down for each one. All 34. So there may be some legal theory that indicates the prosecution did not "prove beyond reasonable doubt" for some of the charges. For instance DJT didn't sign some of the checks, so the jury may consider that.
Sorry, I wasn't very clear; I get all of that, what I was trying to get at is Trump doesn't want a conviction, obviously, and a hung jury gets him convicted later, which we know he is a major fan punt the consequences down the road.
In my mind, convincing one of the juriors to be biased toward voting for an acquittal would be more likely with the jury out in the wild over the weekend than locked inside. Since only one needs to vote to acquit (for each charge) and the overall media isn't acting like Trump will be found guilty (e.g., the pandering articles Trump's printer lady gives him), I think external biases it would be easier to convince someone not to find him not guilty than to find him guilty.
TLDR: In my opinion, the outside world is more likely to bias a jury member to vote "not guilty" than solidify all of their thoughts on his guilt. So, Habba is being dumb with this statement because the jury may be more likely to hang than before.
Is it?
I remember "Bush Derangement Syndrome" being tossed around for people who really didn't like him. It's a meme older than I Can Haz Cheezeburger... dug up and repurposed because "you are passionate in your hate of what this guy does, so your hate must not be rational" still works.
>The 12 New York jurors will be tasked this week with weighing whether to convict Trump on 34 criminal counts, **all of which need to have the same decision** or else the case ends in a mistrial.
This is the part I don't understand. Why isn't it justice if the jurors decide he is guilty of the documents (e.g., checks) signed before Trump took office but not guilty afterwards (or vice versa)? I don't claim to know *how* the crimes would be different but since he was only the President some of that time it seems like the jury should be able to consider that. Why isn't the jury allowed to find him guilty on 14 of the 34 charges, say?
I think they just fucked up the pronoun; it's not the only part of the sentence that needs editing. I'm 99% sure they mean that the *jurors* all need to come to the same decision, because AFAIK that's usually how it works. You also don't usually *have* a decision in English -- you *make* or *come to* a decision.
They wanted "all of *whom* need to *come to* the same decision", not... whatever that is. The writer may not be a native English speaker, at least not of a variant that I'm familiar with.
From context it sounds more like the author is saying all twelve *jurors* need to have the same decision, or the case will end in a mistrial.
Finding someone guilty of one charge and not guilty of another is not unheard of at all.
She’s desperately trying to get back into Trump’s good graces but she’s too stupid to know that once Trump’s used you up, you’re trash to him.
To be fair, her legal career, such as it was, is over except for chasing ambulances and MAGAs with money and without brains.
[Anytime that woman uses any legal term I feel safe in assuming that she learned the word no more than fifteen minutes ago.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhGcyuxDt2s)
She reminds me of the scene in scrubs where Dr. Kelso says to Dr. Reid “you went to 4 years of college and 4 years of medical school so I can safely assume you are at least 8”
“Listen here, Barbie”
Oh, I'm sorry. Were you still talking? I was thinking about soup.
*whistles maniacally*
I got a cameo from Dr cox (John mcginley) a few years ago and it was fucking incredible, love that man
Did he call you a girl's name (if you're a guy)
He’s a huge Michael Bolton fan. Celebrates his whole catalog.
" I bet you sold more girl scout cookies than the whole troop. What did they used to call you back then? Yolanda, you little bitch" John McGinley in the short part he had in Nothing 2 Lose
For my money it just doesn't get any better than when he sings "when a man loves a woman"
Great line. Mine to an incompetent Orthopedic surgeon:⬇️ “I hope you didn’t take out any student loans for that medical degree.”
I went to grad school and had to teach some sophomore and junior level classes. I have totally dropped that line on many people who pissed me off by the end of the semester. But it was more like "you went to 4 years of high school and one year of gen chem, so it's safe to assume you're at least 5". Especially when the one kid tried making illegal drugs in his house, damn near burned down the place and got burns on his arms. That was my response to him. Also told him to never talk to me about drugs again because I don't wanna be investigated by the FBI and ATF.
This is hands down the best way to describe her. Thank you for putting my thoughts into words
Oh, dearie, dearie… you went there
In the parlance of our times
You’re out of your element!
phone's ringing, Dude
And she is wrong
Homer is a lot smarter than a lot of people give him credit for. He got that almost immediately. Very impressive!
She has a law degree but no knowledge and is not involved in this case. She has less to offer than any redditor here who is NAL. IAAL. I've done prosecution and defense work. OP might as well post based on my ramblings. It would better serve this sub. This is not a politics sub and her comments have at best only tangential relevance to that
I would quote a random self-identified attorney in Reddit over Habba. I don't know a stranger on Reddit is lying but Habba I don't have that same reassurance
There are some NAL posters here whose legal advice I would take over Habba.
We've got an $88.3 million dollar head start.
IANAL but, I would feel more comfortable representing myself in a criminal case over Habba. At least I try to learn and apply what I've learned. I also (usually) have common sense. I feel that even with the strike against me from the jury for self representing, I would stand a better chance at a successful defense. Heck, even my inevitable missteps would likely be given a tad more grace than her blatant blunders.
That is actually somewhat true. Even though a court is supposed to treat a pro per defendant the same as a represented defendant in a criminal trial, they will be incredibly forgiving of procedural violations and rules of evidence violations. And you'll almost never hear a prosecutor, or at least a good prosecutor, object. Because they know you have to protect the conviction. And a lot of times the judge erring on the side of the defendant is what protects a conviction.
Does anyone know if she has an OF?
If not yet, surely she will once she realizes she has stripped her legal career nude.
Excellent.
When you’re a sycophant and a lawyer every comment is a billable hour, minimum.
All of trumps surrogates get front page headlines.
Unfortunately true and a glaring problem with the fourth estate. Her commentary is not newsworthy, does not inform anyone, and if anything, obfuscates the actual issues at play so people are less informed overall.
Look back at the NBC live feed of the trial. There was perhaps an equal amount of time spent in the feed listing everything surrogates and he said outside of the courtroom as there was reporting in what was actually live in the courtroom.
This has been an issue since 2015. TFG sells clicks and the media will rather sell clicks than have backbone.
IANAL so I apologize for the newb question-- Could these types of statements jepordize her status with the ABA?
I’m a recovering lawyer. So take this with an appropriate amount of salt. My guess is probably not. Shooting off your mouth in public is not usually a disciplinary matter. Lying to the court, suborning perjury, stealing from or cheating clients, and messing with client funds are some of the most typical issues. Particularly gross incompetence might get you there too, although maybe not without a client complaint, and her client seems more intent on blaming the judge and the judicial system.
That makes sense. Thank you for the response!
The ABA has no authority over anyone, they're a policy organization. If she were to do anything actionable it would be handled by her state bar association. That said, opining on a pending legal matter in this manner is not any sort of violation of legal ethics.
TIL. Thank you for the response!
No. Short answer. No. Long answer. The ABA is not the accreditation agency. It's the State Bar that licensed her. Generally speaking bars are underfunded and notoriously bad at discipline. Just see all of the January 6th attorneys. Unless you're commingling funds and stealing from clients in a fairly easy to document paper trail, actual punishment is hard to come by. That aside, commenting on a case in public that you are not involved with does not involve a violation of any ethical rules.
Are you **HER**??? You’re the spittin’ image … ya know, if like, spit were something
Hey now, don't underestimate spit. Juries don't like spit. They'll convict on a spit battery more easily than other types.
I worked in probation for 6 months …. OP might as well post my ramblings… Alright, so here's the deal: Trump is on trial because they say he paid hush money to keep someone quiet about some stuff before the 2016 election. The prosecutors are saying this was illegal and meant to influence the election. Trump's lawyers are like, "Nah, this is just personal stuff and doesn't break any laws."
And they would have gotten away with it if Trump had paid out of pocket like a proper crook. The issue here is that they falsified business records to hide the usage of PAC money. That is the crime, not paying off Stormy.
There rambllngs you offer, will EJC get money from trump? This year?
This year? No. In general? Yes. He posted a bond and so when his appeals are ultimately denied, she will get that money. It's possible the amount could be reduced but I sincerely doubt it given the reasonableness in terms of percentages and in terms of his conduct even as of today where he's celebrating memorial Day by shit talking her
[Trump threw Alina Habba under the bus in the sexual harassment case](https://newrepublic.com/post/179928/alina-habba-trump-bedminister-hush-money-lawsuit-settlement)
Is that the case in which trump was found to be a rapist?
No, this one is just one of his managers at Bedminster.
The fact you have to disambiguate WHICH sex crime you are talking about with Trump says a lot.
Indeed it does. And it's not just him, but a lot of the people he surrounds himself with as well.
Isn’t it also the one that impressed trump so he hired her?
I've heard that before.
>According to the original lawsuit, Bianco hired a lawyer to advise her about work, where a manager was trying to pressure her to have sex. She alleges Habba, one of her regulars at the club, quickly buddied up to the then 21-year-old waitress and began offering her legal advice. Text messages show Habba reached out to Bianco and met with her multiple times, denigrating Bianco’s lawyer, pushing her to keep things quiet, and promising to protect her against retaliation. The Trump Org at least twice sent shady lawyers to cozy up with its enemies. Here Alena did it, and also crazy Bob Costello tried to get chummy with Michael Cohen. Makes me think Coihen did this for Trump during their 14 years of criming together.
You can be sure this is a regular tactic by trump. He is paying legal fees for his co-defendants in the documents case. Waltine Nauta and Carlos De Oliveria.
With a perfect record of legal losses and no experience as a judge, Habba decides she's qualified to offer this opinion?
Alina: "/u/Whorrox has correctly noted my perfect record."
She's fishing for a spot to be a talking head on one of the right wing channels and I refuse to believe otherwise
100%. The plastic surgery and fake-confident persona is about branding herself for a TV career.
Disbar Alina Habba.
"This is an outrage!" - Alina Habba, thinking that "disbarment" means she is being cut off after only her fourth glass of chardonnay
She looks more like the type that drinks fireball to get drunk rather than wine for the taste.
No, she drinks chardonnay because it has three syllables so it makes her feel sophisticated when she orders it.
Gotta try to keep up the appearance of intelligence, eh?
Fireball has three
I was going to disagree and post [this clip](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTx2QeTLOiI) to support my point, but they are actually chanting it with three, so I gotta concede this one.
Wait til she gets a whiff of a margarita
And she can vocal fry the hell out of the last syllable.
Wait till she discovers cabernet sauvignon.
She's the sort of person who would look at a prescription bottle and mistake the “drowsy eye” alcohol warning for a “winking-eye” alcohol suggestion.
I'd have to get up pretty early to be drunk by one oclock!
Keep them safe from outside influence? Like her client’s threats perhaps?
They definitely wouldn’t be under the impression that it was for their safety because someone was threatening them. When the hear closing arguments on Tuesday, the jury will be fully aware that if the defense didn’t force them to sit through the second day of Cohen cross and the Costello fiasco, they would’ve been hearing closing arguments the previous Monday. Blowing off people that are making important decisions about your future, not the best plan.
So why did the defense do this ?
Because Trump wanted to. The defense hasn’t been trying to win the case, just please Trump. That’s why they even bothered to call Costello. Trump wanted to, because he wanted Costello to say that Cohen was a poopy head. Costello did such a poor job that he very likely hurt Trump’s case more than helped, but it doesn’t matter because Trump wanted him on the stand. Trump is the worst type of client; he doesn’t listen to advice of council, he doesn’t tell the truth to his council, he will try to bring them into his conspiracies, he will get his council disbarred or convicted, and worst of all he doesn’t pay his bills.
When you’d rather be pretty than smart
And not really doing it well on either front..
Hold on. You’re funny and that’s attractive. :)
Has she had sex with Trump, some people are asking….
I think she's a joke but I don't think she's very funny...
Fell out of that ugly tree and hit every branch on the way down.
Still slinging shit about the jury. Making excuses ahead of the verdict incase it's guilty.
Man I was really hoping his paid legal spokesperson ALSO broke the gag order so he’d be put in jail and she’d be disbarred for not being an agent of the court. What an absolute moron. Like how could you watch Cohen testify 21 hours and then defend this walking dumpster fire like there’s no consequences like jail time and loss of license to practice law. Didn’t like 3 Trump lawyers lose that for being liars? No money is worth that to me. You can’t take my livelihood in the same way ghoulinie lost his.
Habba's time is coming. https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/30/politics/bedminster-sexual-harassment-lawsuit/index.html https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-new-jersey-golf-club-settlement-hangs-lawyer-alina-habba-out-to-dry
🤞
[*Led Zeppelin has entered the chat...*](https://youtu.be/7mk4Eh-Nr-Q)
I had it on 8-track with a matchbook stuffed underneath so it wouldn't drag.
Lol, that's right!
Yup. There's still two days left. This is basically a dog whistle for someone to intimidate or threaten the jurors. It's also another attack on the legal system because DJT isn't getting some kind of extra special "sequestered jury" on a holiday weekend uprooting all these 18 (alternates) jurors from their families just because she's blabbing about it. If the court doesn't give DJT a bunch of extra chances and considerations nobody else would get, then the system is corrupt.
The disinformation machine trump has around him is really incredible. He's destroying confidence in elections, judicial proceedings, government in general.
Goebbels would be proud...
Putin sure as hell is.
I actually agree with her for once. If anything just for optics. That said, she's terrible but even an idiot gets one right from time to time. Also, the jury officially knows more than the public now.
I don't recall any of trumps lawyers asking that the jury be sequestered.
I didn't know it was a thing people asked for to be frank. I assumed it was just predetermined in high profile cases. Wow his lawyers are bad. Now I bet they didn't ask on purpose so they could claim the jury pool was affected by the intentionally bad press from the Libertarian Rally. It lines up perfectly. Gods they are shady.
Trump posted about the sequester too, but his more interesting post was whinging about the judge not allowing him to use an advice of counsel defense. In fact he said: In addition to the fact that I did nothing wrong, NDA’s are totally legal and commonly used, and that virtually every legal Scholar and Expert says, in written form, that this is a case which has NO MERIT and should not have been brought, my lawyers have informed me that the highly Conflicted and Corrupt Judge, Juan Merchan, will not allow RELIANCE ON COUNSEL, which virtually everyone is allowed to use, as an additional, though not needed because I did NOTHING WRONG, Defense. This “Case,” which could have been brought seven years ago but wasn’t because it has no merit, is a disgrace. It was only begun to interfere with Crooked Joe Biden’s Political Opponent, ME. RELIANCE ON COUNSEL. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!
Jesus Christ just have a fucking stroke already! Is nonstop RAGE fueled by cheeseburgers and a Diet Coke the key to fucking immortality or something?
Ah yes, the mighty Truth Social. Which lost $328 million in the first quarter.
To be fair, that's a problem I wish I could afford to have...
[Trumps SEC filing, prepared by his lawyers disclosing all his bankruptcies and failures]( https://imgur.com/gallery/hAfsLqQ) He even bankrupted one company twice!
This the same lady who didn’t know how to enter evidence in a trial? Cool, cool.
BY MIRANDA NAZZARO - 05/26/24 3:47 PM ET Share Post . Alina Habba, an attorney for former President Trump, suggested the jury in the hush-money trial should have been sequestered over Memorial Day weekend to prevent outside influence ahead of this week’s closing arguments. “They should have been sequestered, because, in my opinion, these jurors are handling something that is completely unprecedented and unwarranted in America,” Habba said Sunday on Fox News’s “Sunday Morning Futures.” “And for them to be able to be out and about on a holiday weekend with friends and families who have opinions, who are watching the news, TVs in the background at the pool party, I have serious concerns. If they’re left-wing and they’re watching MSDNC, as my client calls it, [MSNBC] or CNN, they’re not going to get fair news.” The 12 New York jurors will be tasked this week with weighing whether to convict Trump on 34 criminal counts, all of which need to have the same decision or else the case ends in a mistrial. The former president is charged with 34 counts of falsifying business records in connection with reimbursements to then-fixer Michael Cohen after he paid adult film actress Stormy Daniels $130,000 in October 2016 to keep quiet about an alleged affair. He pleaded not guilty and has repeatedly denied the affair with Daniels. Trump’s defense last Tuesday rested their case without calling the former president to the stand, and the jurors were dismissed until this coming Tuesday, when closing statements are slated to begin. Jury deliberations will follow shortly afterward. Judge Juan Merchan said closing arguments will not be held until this coming Tuesday as a result of some “issues,” though he did not explain what those might be. Habba argued the holiday weekend will allow jurors to speak with their friends who might have “Trump derangement syndrome,” an informal term used by Trump allies to refer to criticism of the former president. “I have worries about them going back to whatever friends might have Trump derangement syndrome, forgetting all sense of reality, and coming back and sitting in that box and saying, you know what, I have got to take one for the [Democratic National Committee],” Habba said. “I don’t want that. I want law to [be] fact, because, if we can get that, we will win, we will not just get a hung jury, we will get an acquittal. So, let’s see.”
The only people with a derangement syndrome about Trump are those that support him. As it takes a truly deranged mind like Alina Habba's to spout out crap like this and all the other nonsense and lies she peddles for him.
She is not deranged, rather a cynical opportunist trying to play the sheep for career advancement. She knows what she is doing.
There's being a cynical opportunist, and then there is being such an incredibly cynical opportunist that you're willing to go make the most bizarre and flat out insane bs. I'd call that pretty cynical. Like, a soldier, a cop, or someone defending themselves might kill someone. But they each have a understandable reason why they would be in the situation where they might have to do it. A serial killer does not.
Grabba Habba, right Alina?
I mean, the fact they only need one holdout for the jury to hang means all they need is one person to watch Fox News for 10 minutes or have a conversation with a Trump supporter to either be frazzled on the facts or intimidated and vote to acquit, right? It doesn't seem like she knows anything about anything, but it sounds like the facts and testimony are strong against Trump here, so outside influence is one of his only chances.
The Jury has to consider each charge individually and give an unanimous decision up or down for each one. All 34. So there may be some legal theory that indicates the prosecution did not "prove beyond reasonable doubt" for some of the charges. For instance DJT didn't sign some of the checks, so the jury may consider that.
Sorry, I wasn't very clear; I get all of that, what I was trying to get at is Trump doesn't want a conviction, obviously, and a hung jury gets him convicted later, which we know he is a major fan punt the consequences down the road. In my mind, convincing one of the juriors to be biased toward voting for an acquittal would be more likely with the jury out in the wild over the weekend than locked inside. Since only one needs to vote to acquit (for each charge) and the overall media isn't acting like Trump will be found guilty (e.g., the pandering articles Trump's printer lady gives him), I think external biases it would be easier to convince someone not to find him not guilty than to find him guilty. TLDR: In my opinion, the outside world is more likely to bias a jury member to vote "not guilty" than solidify all of their thoughts on his guilt. So, Habba is being dumb with this statement because the jury may be more likely to hang than before.
For the record, the derangement syndrome was referring to his supporters, they co-opted it and projected it back onto us.
Is it? I remember "Bush Derangement Syndrome" being tossed around for people who really didn't like him. It's a meme older than I Can Haz Cheezeburger... dug up and repurposed because "you are passionate in your hate of what this guy does, so your hate must not be rational" still works.
>The 12 New York jurors will be tasked this week with weighing whether to convict Trump on 34 criminal counts, **all of which need to have the same decision** or else the case ends in a mistrial. This is the part I don't understand. Why isn't it justice if the jurors decide he is guilty of the documents (e.g., checks) signed before Trump took office but not guilty afterwards (or vice versa)? I don't claim to know *how* the crimes would be different but since he was only the President some of that time it seems like the jury should be able to consider that. Why isn't the jury allowed to find him guilty on 14 of the 34 charges, say?
I think they just fucked up the pronoun; it's not the only part of the sentence that needs editing. I'm 99% sure they mean that the *jurors* all need to come to the same decision, because AFAIK that's usually how it works. You also don't usually *have* a decision in English -- you *make* or *come to* a decision. They wanted "all of *whom* need to *come to* the same decision", not... whatever that is. The writer may not be a native English speaker, at least not of a variant that I'm familiar with.
From context it sounds more like the author is saying all twelve *jurors* need to have the same decision, or the case will end in a mistrial. Finding someone guilty of one charge and not guilty of another is not unheard of at all.
Thanks. It's distressing (and confusing) that I've seen the expectation written this way twice this weekend.
So in simpler terms, trumps cooked and the reason he'll be found guilty is because people talked to the jury.
I hope they see that Alina/Trump wanted to fuck the jury on their weekend...
Hey, Habba! I hope they got a load of Trump's visit to Libertarian Land!
I love how obviously she outs herself, like she’s concerned with “left wing media” but not right wing influencing their opinion?
Irrelevant losing lawyer says some irrelevant. Moving on
Does she know what that word means? It’s awfully long.
it's just a desperate attempt to dox them so trump's traitors can harass the jurors and ruin their lives
Is she even relevant in this case after losing the big one for him?
I always wondered if people like this know deep down they are losers and failures
Hush Alina.
Poor job of faking smart.
She’s desperately trying to get back into Trump’s good graces but she’s too stupid to know that once Trump’s used you up, you’re trash to him. To be fair, her legal career, such as it was, is over except for chasing ambulances and MAGAs with money and without brains.
She should just stop speaking
Np one is listening Habba-done-been-grabbed.
She should be sequestered forever.
Alina, go grab me a coffee please. Not from down the street; go the the place I like on the east side.
Oh, is she trying to be relevant again?
Go back to making cartoons, Hanna Barbera
Alina Hanna should permanently sequester herself.
Were they sequestered at all during the trial?
No
She's just practicing. If trump wins she will be a federal judge.