|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Eh, you miss all the fish you never launch fishing expeditions to find. I'm still not clear merchant was a bad lawyer to take the shot even if it proved to be a total airball. From what I've seen, all her actual filings were of the "people are saying there's fish over there, can we go fishing?" variety. Worded to be as salacious as possible for the press, but still clear enough that they had nothing concrete.
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 05:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 15:01 |
|
|
haveblue posted:Yes, and it was very short and boring (scroll up) The bits that made it to the jury were pretty boring but there was plenty of drama behind it, unless the below is all fabricated. Screenshots all thanks to kazil in the GBS thread: (n.b. Roberta Kaplan is the prosecution)            
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 06:35
|
|
|
I have a legal question. Are the judges formally briefed on the other trials? I'm pretty sure judges can follow how the other trials are going but are they expected to follow them?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 07:16
|
|
|
I'm not going to lie, the plaintiff's attorney and judge having the same surname makes the transcripts a little difficult to follow, but it does enhance the levity.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 07:31
|
|
|
Ulf posted:The bits that made it to the jury were pretty boring but there was plenty of drama behind it, unless the below is all fabricated. Screenshots all thanks to kazil in the GBS thread: It's only boring BECAUSE both the judge and the prosecution knew exactly what Habba and Trump were trying to pull, and shot that poo poo down multiple times. I do love the "Can I still ask the second question?" "Which one, it keeps changing" bit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 13:03
|
|
|
Gyges posted:From what I've seen, all her actual filings were of the "people are saying there's fish over there, can we go fishing?" variety. Worded to be as salacious as possible for the press, but still clear enough that they had nothing concrete. Well, if she was intending to muddy the waters and cast doubt on the process then she achieved her goal. The right wing chud-farmers are spinning this so hard we could power the nation for a month just by attaching some magnets to them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 13:03
|
|
|
Cimber posted:Well, if she was intending to muddy the waters and cast doubt on the process then she achieved her goal. The right wing chud-farmers are spinning this so hard we could power the nation for a month just by attaching some magnets to them. Which they would do regardless.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 14:13
|
|
|
mutata posted:Which they would do regardless. Yeah this. No one should give much of a poo poo what the chuds get worked up about or say at this point. They straight up invent things to get worked up about if there is nothing to misrepresent or lie about anyways. What does matter is what actions they're taking, if any, to try and pull off another J6. So far they seem to be largely responding poorly and fearfully to J6'ers not only getting locked up but getting increasingly harsher (but still not nearly harsh enough) sentences. I think they're all waiting to see if Trump can pull off another win. If he does they'll absolutely back him 110% and go full fash. If he loses they'll bitch bitterly about it but largely do nothing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 15:09
|
|
|
I hope that guy's sister-in-law is feeling better now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 15:41
|
|
|
Which means the jury got to hear him deny it after all, nice job everyone
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 15:54
|
|
|
We can only hope https://twitter.com/eorden/status/1750893530728284211
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 15:55
|
|
|
Personally I wish the last line of this was "bring in the bailiffs" https://twitter.com/innercitypress/status/1750893476139462712
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 15:56
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Personally I wish the last line of this was "bring in the bailiffs" Or at the very least "Bring in the dancing lobsters!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTsdvAdsFR4
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 15:58
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/innercitypress/status/1750896349300543513?s=20
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 16:02
|
|
|
Awww da widdle piss baby is sad. Boo loving hoo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 16:07
|
|
|
mdemone posted:Which means the jury got to hear him deny it after all, nice job everyone Immediately after being coached by the judge that Trump is not allowed to deny the previous finding, the jury gets to hear a brief sample of Trump denying the previous finding. During a defamation hearing in which Trump’s character is an underlying issue. Probably not a bad outcome for the prosecution. And I think the key was it was kept as brief as possible
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 16:09
|
|
|
Let the record show that he got mad. Please put in the papers that he got mad.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 16:14
|
|
|
Eric Cantonese posted:I hope that guy's sister-in-law is feeling better now. I told her to take a break from doing deep dives into the news. Just watch the basic evening news if you can’t stay away, but don’t go down online rabbit holes of gloom and doom. Stay off the internet. She hasn’t brought anything up since. So far so good. I’ve honestly thought about telling her to get an account here but I don’t think that would help her out much. Probably the opposite. Nash fucked around with this message at 17:02 on Jan 26, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 16:57
|
|
|
To be clear, there is no prosecution. It's a civil case--Roberta Kaplan is the plaintiff's lawyer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 17:07
|
|
|
What's with these DoJ letters in the GA case? Someone I was talking to last night was acting like this is the holy Grail super gotcha and the entire thing is over because of it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 17:09
|
|
|
Nope it looks like all the divorce-related stuff in the GA case is a big nothingburger, which is why buying into RW framing of poo poo is stupid.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 17:12
|
|
|
Zotix posted:What's with these DoJ letters in the GA case? Someone I was talking to last night was acting like this is the holy Grail super gotcha and the entire thing is over because of it. The DOJ hasn't filed anything in the GA case. Maybe he was talking about ex-Trump official Jeffrey Clark subpoenaing records of emails between the prosecutor and the White House/DOJ because he says he is only being targeted for political reasons and all the charges need to be dismissed?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 17:13
|
|
|
whydirt posted:Nope it looks like all the divorce-related stuff in the GA case is a big nothingburger, which is why buying into RW framing of poo poo is stupid. I don't that proves there was no affair going on (the divorce was IIRC due to the guy's wife cheating), but it seems that it was their best best of digging something up. So maybe it will all go way now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 17:16
|
|
|
Sir John Falstaff posted:To be clear, there is no prosecution. It's a civil case--Roberta Kaplan is the plaintiff's lawyer. Thanks for that, I did my best but I’m no… law-talking guy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 17:28
|
|
|
Everyone in this thread is a lawyer, just most of us are pro se, and just like in court, when real lawyers encounter a pro se there is going to be a lot of hand holding, corrections, and threats.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 17:37
|
|
|
What's a pro se and does it differ from per se?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 17:39
|
|
|
Pro se is representing yourself. Per se is a turn of phrase relating to something existing as described.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 17:41
|
|
|
Trump just posted, "...Carroll says, “Rape is sexy,” and numerous other things that totally exonerate me."
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 17:58
|
|
|
Y'all ANAL. i also ANAL. ANAL!!!
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 18:03
|
|
|
"They asked if I was a pro se lawyer. I said I could be a per se lawyer. They said welcome aboard."
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 18:03
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:The DOJ hasn't filed anything in the GA case. Yeah that's what he was talking about. Basically saying that the DoJ had their hands in the GA case, it shows that it's politically motivated, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 18:08
|
|
|
Zotix posted:Yeah that's what he was talking about. Basically saying that the DoJ had their hands in the GA case, it shows that it's politically motivated, etc. He just claimed that and asked for emails. It hasn't been proven or anything. If the DOJ really is out to get him and giving marching orders to local Georgia government officials via official email accounts, then Clark should get away with everything because a conspiracy that bad doesn't deserve to succeed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 18:12
|
|
|
Holy poo poo Habba's closing argument is quite something. It's clear of course it's for Trumps/fanbase benefit and not the court of course. e: Thanks to kazil again:   
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 18:12
|
|
|
Hey, i might not be a lawyer but I'm still a better lawyer than Alina Habba
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 18:18
|
|
|
Maybe she's angling to give Trump grounds to appeal by way of ineffective counsel?  Also, those were the closing arguments? I thought you weren't supposed to object during closing. Or maybe it's just bad form?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 18:25
|
|
|
Velocity Raptor posted:Maybe she's angling to give Trump grounds to appeal by way of ineffective counsel? You can object. Mostly it's not needed because usually lawyers know not to introduce evidence or testify during closing
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 18:25
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports/status/1750925366154174947 Oh it was established by a mere jury? 12 randos said that and we're supposed to just go along with it?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 18:25
|
|
|
elhondo posted:Hey, i might not be a lawyer but I'm still a better lawyer than Alina Habba She's not trying to make an actual case. She's making happy the guy who signs her paychecks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 18:26
|
|
|
Velocity Raptor posted:Maybe she's angling to give Trump grounds to appeal by way of ineffective counsel? For those not in the know, you don't have a right to an attorney in civil cases, so this appeal doesn't apply. Now the comedy question is: does Alina Habba understand that?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 18:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 15:01 |
|
|
Velocity Raptor posted:Maybe she's angling to give Trump grounds to appeal by way of ineffective counsel? Ineffective counsel is criminal-only. If you’re being accused of a crime you need an adequate defense, but for civil stuff it’s your right to have a dipshit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2024 18:29
|
|
