ADVERTISEMENT

Alina Habba, attorney for the worst President in history

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jesus H. That picture gave me the creeps. What the hell is that on the Right?
mqdefault.jpg
 


I wonder why they wouldn't allow this as evidence of Carroll being an outright whacko lol shame that the outfit she allegedly wore when trump assaulted her didn't come out until years later. She's an obvious fraud.
 
Lying Donnie Sexual Abuser loses again. This time to the tune of $83 + million dollars to E Jean this time. So says the jury of his peers. God is that man stupid. I hope she was worth it when he abused her... as it's now cost him approx. $89 million.🫡
 
What probably delights me most about this is imagining Trump and Habba before the trial. Devising a strategy. Confident they would stick it to E Jean. Taking down the judge. Beating the system. And emerging victorious as everyone exclaimed how brilliant they were. Then reality hit. And now they're that guy cannon balling into the pool only to break his ass after he learns it's frozen solid.
 
he's not just the worst president but one of the worst americans ever. Especially if apply: know better, do better.
The Founders never envisioned such a rogue or scallywag being the president, but they put in a fail safe. They just didn’t envision a broken 2 party system where the House and Senate wouldn’t impeach such a scallywag.
 
One side benefit for Turd...be pretty easy to claim "ineffective counsel" on appeal.
 
So what you are all saying is that Trump lost this case on a bunch of procedural nonsense? That courtroom and the Deep State do seem to have a lot in common.

Was there any evidence that the underlying incident actually happened? This woman is clearly looney tunes and has been regularly creative, in writing her books. The subject matter of her books is not a lot different from what she dreamed up here.

Her first lawyer committed malpractice when he failed to bring her columns and her books into the case. Those books should have been required reading for everyone involved. This lawyer is much better, but noticeably hamstrung by nuance that only the judge apparently can see.
 
So what you are all saying is that Trump lost this case on a bunch of procedural nonsense? That courtroom and the Deep State do seem to have a lot in common.

Was there any evidence that the underlying incident actually happened? This woman is clearly looney tunes and has been regularly creative, in writing her books. The subject matter of her books is not a lot different from what she dreamed up here.

Her first lawyer committed malpractice when he failed to bring her columns and her books into the case. Those books should have been required reading for everyone involved. This lawyer is much better, but noticeably hamstrung by nuance that only the judge apparently can see.

Just type "fake news" next time and save us 3 paragraphs
 
So what you are all saying is that Trump lost this case on a bunch of procedural nonsense? That courtroom and the Deep State do seem to have a lot in common.

Was there any evidence that the underlying incident actually happened? This woman is clearly looney tunes and has been regularly creative, in writing her books. The subject matter of her books is not a lot different from what she dreamed up here.

Her first lawyer committed malpractice when he failed to bring her columns and her books into the case. Those books should have been required reading for everyone involved. This lawyer is much better, but noticeably hamstrung by nuance that only the judge apparently can see.
Is it worth explaining to you that this was purely about the punishment phase, and Trump was already found guilty? Is it worth explaining to you the testimony from the first trial that the jury based their decision on? Is it worth explaining to you that if you lose one case, your best course of action is to STFU? Is it worth explaining to you that you should hire good lawyers, not just ones that look good in a two piece lounging beside the pool at Mar A Lago?
 
So does Trump rehire her for appeal if he can somehow scrounge up the money for escrow?
 
So what you are all saying is that Trump lost this case on a bunch of procedural nonsense? That courtroom and the Deep State do seem to have a lot in common.

Was there any evidence that the underlying incident actually happened? This woman is clearly looney tunes and has been regularly creative, in writing her books. The subject matter of her books is not a lot different from what she dreamed up here.

Her first lawyer committed malpractice when he failed to bring her columns and her books into the case. Those books should have been required reading for everyone involved. This lawyer is much better, but noticeably hamstrung by nuance that only the judge apparently can see.
This is embarrassing
 
Appellate work is typically a different skill set, so he shouldn’t. But I think the only skill set he looks for is someone who argues loudly with the judge and in front of the cameras. So he’ll probably stick with her.
Sounds like she was way in over her head. But he's probably banging her, so unless he can find a better hotter lawyer to bang at the appellate level, his dick, just as it did with his raping, will do the talking.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT