- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Alina Habba ERUPTS after verdict against Trump "Judge edited my questions and his answers"
Posted on 1/26/24 at 11:53 pm
Posted on 1/26/24 at 11:53 pm
Attorney Alina Habba: Ladies and gentlemen, you are not allowed to be stripped of every defense that you have. You are not allowed to be told that you can’t bring it up. And imagine a point where a judge tells the lawyer before your client, the former President of the United States, the leading candidate and obvious nominee for the Republican Party, before he takes the stand to defend himself. Ms. Haba, tell me the questions you’re going to ask in open court and tell me exactly what he’s going to respond. And then edited my questions, edited the response he was allowed to give.
And guess what my client did? He took the stand. He abided by the rules of this corrupt system that I have seen.
We will immediately appeal. We will set aside that ridiculous jury. And I just want to remind you all of one thing. I will continue with President Trump to fight for everybody’s first Amendment right to speak. Everybody’s a right to defend themselves when they are wrongfully accused. And to be able to say, I didn’t do it, and to double and triple and quadruple down and say, this is wrong. This is wrong. We are in the state of New York. We are in a New York jury. And that is why we are seeing these witch hunts, these hoaxes, as he calls them, and this is another one of them be brought in New York, in states where they know they will get juries like this.
Video in link. LINK
And guess what my client did? He took the stand. He abided by the rules of this corrupt system that I have seen.
We will immediately appeal. We will set aside that ridiculous jury. And I just want to remind you all of one thing. I will continue with President Trump to fight for everybody’s first Amendment right to speak. Everybody’s a right to defend themselves when they are wrongfully accused. And to be able to say, I didn’t do it, and to double and triple and quadruple down and say, this is wrong. This is wrong. We are in the state of New York. We are in a New York jury. And that is why we are seeing these witch hunts, these hoaxes, as he calls them, and this is another one of them be brought in New York, in states where they know they will get juries like this.
Video in link. LINK
12
Posted on 1/26/24 at 11:57 pm to BCreed1
Her tits are her best asset.
Posted on 1/26/24 at 11:59 pm to LuckyTiger
quote:
Alina Habba
quote:
tits
Pics or GTFO
This post was edited on 1/27/24 at 12:00 am
Posted on 1/26/24 at 11:59 pm to BCreed1
Very similar stuff happened in the Alex jones case
Posted on 1/27/24 at 12:06 am to BCreed1
This happens to innocent civilians all the time. I’ve see it on many occasions in federal court where the judge limits the accused right to defend themselves. It’s fricking bullshite!
Posted on 1/27/24 at 12:13 am to LuckyTiger
quote:
Her tits are her best asset.
No wonder women think we are sexist pigs.
Posted on 1/27/24 at 12:16 am to BCreed1
good.. our justice system should be fair for everyone..
frightening how much power a judge can hold over someone's life - even when obvious bias, corruption, backroom dealing & prejudice is apparent.. if you've ever been on the wrong side of this crap (whether a small town or something huge like this case) it's incredible how limited you, your defense & even your avenue for appeal can be....... we have one of the best Justice Systems in the world - when it operates as designed.. but God help ya if you walk into a courtroom where the judge has a preconceived version of events, facts, etc..
frightening how much power a judge can hold over someone's life - even when obvious bias, corruption, backroom dealing & prejudice is apparent.. if you've ever been on the wrong side of this crap (whether a small town or something huge like this case) it's incredible how limited you, your defense & even your avenue for appeal can be....... we have one of the best Justice Systems in the world - when it operates as designed.. but God help ya if you walk into a courtroom where the judge has a preconceived version of events, facts, etc..
Posted on 1/27/24 at 12:24 am to iHEARTcorndogs
quote:
Very similar stuff happened in the Alex jones case
If I remember that one the judge (or accusers) asked for all their email and computer records and they handed them over.
Then they said “more” and they said “that’s all we have.”
“More!!!!”
“We don’t have anything else!!”
Then the judge just said guilty.
Posted on 1/27/24 at 1:21 am to BCreed1
Federal system looking like a corrupt criminal enterprise.
Posted on 1/27/24 at 1:36 am to BCreed1
Posted on 1/27/24 at 2:00 am to BCreed1
Let's get something straight, Habba is lying to you by omission, She is absolutely unqualified to be 1st chair in a $1000 Burger King bump up case much less than a case with millions of dollars on the line BUT she knew good and well she would not be able to pursue the line of questioning she attempted to because no judge is going to let you relitigate a previous case in a follow-on case.
Habba submitted a list of questions she wanted to ask and was limited to two of those because Kaplan was not going to let them try to relitigate the first case. This is a not unusual and fairly standard limit to the scope of questioning in a follow-on trial where a trier of fact has adjudicated certain issues. Habba could have asked more questions that fell within the scope of the trial at bar but I assume she chose not to in order to prevent opening her defendant up to a nasty cross. There is nothing unusual about this sort of limited scope. The time to put on the testimony Habba wanted to get in was in the last case where Trump chose not to testify. That is the case that Joe Tacopina tried and then withdrew from Trump's representation on the current case.
There are plenty of issues surrounding this case to be pissed off about, not the least of which is the changing of the law to facilitate the actions but the only thing anyone should be pissed off about that went on in Kaplan's court room is the fact Trump was represented by someone that should absolutely not been standing up in that court. Habba proved to be woefully lacking in the very basics of trial advocacy. Getting evidence into the record and using a deposition to impeach a witness is trial advocacy 101. It is by far the most incompetency I have seen in a trial with anything like the possible ramifications this trial had in my 30 years of trial experience. Out of the 100s of attorneys I have seen plying their trade in a trial court, she is one of a very few that looked like they had never tried a case in their life and most of that handful were indeed trying their first case.
Also never let your client leave the courtroom during any part of the trial especially closing arguments it gives the jury license to do anything and it is begging for a big verdict in a civil case. I don't know why Joe Joseph Tacopina withdrew from the case but Trump ended up with worse representation in the courtroom than I could ever imagine someone with his assets ever being stuck with.
Habba submitted a list of questions she wanted to ask and was limited to two of those because Kaplan was not going to let them try to relitigate the first case. This is a not unusual and fairly standard limit to the scope of questioning in a follow-on trial where a trier of fact has adjudicated certain issues. Habba could have asked more questions that fell within the scope of the trial at bar but I assume she chose not to in order to prevent opening her defendant up to a nasty cross. There is nothing unusual about this sort of limited scope. The time to put on the testimony Habba wanted to get in was in the last case where Trump chose not to testify. That is the case that Joe Tacopina tried and then withdrew from Trump's representation on the current case.
There are plenty of issues surrounding this case to be pissed off about, not the least of which is the changing of the law to facilitate the actions but the only thing anyone should be pissed off about that went on in Kaplan's court room is the fact Trump was represented by someone that should absolutely not been standing up in that court. Habba proved to be woefully lacking in the very basics of trial advocacy. Getting evidence into the record and using a deposition to impeach a witness is trial advocacy 101. It is by far the most incompetency I have seen in a trial with anything like the possible ramifications this trial had in my 30 years of trial experience. Out of the 100s of attorneys I have seen plying their trade in a trial court, she is one of a very few that looked like they had never tried a case in their life and most of that handful were indeed trying their first case.
Also never let your client leave the courtroom during any part of the trial especially closing arguments it gives the jury license to do anything and it is begging for a big verdict in a civil case. I don't know why Joe Joseph Tacopina withdrew from the case but Trump ended up with worse representation in the courtroom than I could ever imagine someone with his assets ever being stuck with.
Posted on 1/27/24 at 2:24 am to 4x4tiger
quote:
4x4tiger
TYFYS sir
Posted on 1/27/24 at 2:31 am to one and all
quote:
but God help ya if you walk into a courtroom where the judge has a preconceived version of events, facts, etc..
Or a lot of money for a good atty. This banana republic judicial system will eat up the middle class just as much as those at poverty level.
You need a lot of money for a good defense.
Posted on 1/27/24 at 2:34 am to Obtuse1
quote:
Let's get something straight, Habba is lying to you by omission, She is absolutely unqualified to be 1st chair in a $1000 Burger King bump up case much less than a case with millions of dollars on the line BUT she knew good and well she would not be able to pursue the line of questioning she attempted to because no judge is going to let you relitigate a previous case in a follow-on case.
Habba submitted a list of questions she wanted to ask and was limited to two of those because Kaplan was not going to let them try to relitigate the first case. This is a not unusual and fairly standard limit to the scope of questioning in a follow-on trial where a trier of fact has adjudicated certain issues. Habba could have asked more questions that fell within the scope of the trial at bar but I assume she chose not to in order to prevent opening her defendant up to a nasty cross. There is nothing unusual about this sort of limited scope. The time to put on the testimony Habba wanted to get in was in the last case where Trump chose not to testify. That is the case that Joe Tacopina tried and then withdrew from Trump's representation on the current case.
There are plenty of issues surrounding this case to be pissed off about, not the least of which is the changing of the law to facilitate the actions but the only thing anyone should be pissed off about that went on in Kaplan's court room is the fact Trump was represented by someone that should absolutely not been standing up in that court. Habba proved to be woefully lacking in the very basics of trial advocacy. Getting evidence into the record and using a deposition to impeach a witness is trial advocacy 101. It is by far the most incompetency I have seen in a trial with anything like the possible ramifications this trial had in my 30 years of trial experience. Out of the 100s of attorneys I have seen plying their trade in a trial court, she is one of a very few that looked like they had never tried a case in their life and most of that handful were indeed trying their first case.
Also never let your client leave the courtroom during any part of the trial especially closing arguments it gives the jury license to do anything and it is begging for a big verdict in a civil case. I don't know why Joe Joseph Tacopina withdrew from the case but Trump ended up with worse representation in the courtroom than I could ever imagine someone with his assets ever being stuck with.
I remember some discussions from people like Napolitano, prior to these cases getting started. They talked about how difficult Trump makes things for his attorneys. They talked about how there is or could be difficulty for Trump, finding the best representation as a result, and some other things. He interviewed Tacopina, iirc. Trump does a lot of damage to himself.
Posted on 1/27/24 at 4:15 am to tigersbh
quote:
No wonder women think we are sexist pigs.
Sexism benefits women
Posted on 1/27/24 at 4:18 am to POTUS2024
quote:
Trump does a lot of damage to himself.
Trump is obviously not perfect, but it is beyond obvious that he is being chased, attacked, and punished by a corrupt judicial system.
This post was edited on 1/27/24 at 4:19 am
Posted on 1/27/24 at 4:56 am to Loserman
quote:
Sexism benefits women
Well, if you are cute.
If you are ugly...
Posted on 1/27/24 at 5:07 am to 4x4tiger
Figures trump would get a dumb blonde for a lawyer. He’s more concerned with shitting on top of her head than winning the case. Sad man.
Posted on 1/27/24 at 7:41 am to BCreed1
quote:
And imagine a point where a judge tells the lawyer before your client, the former President of the United States, the leading candidate and obvious nominee for the Republican Party, before he takes the stand to defend himself.
This isn’t a complete thought
Posted on 1/27/24 at 7:47 am to Obtuse1
quote:
There are plenty of issues surrounding this case
There is everything wrong with this case.
Defending the actions of the court here just makes you a tyrant frick head that loves licking boots.
This post was edited on 1/27/24 at 7:48 am
Page 1 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News