Breaking: trump Wants New Lawyers

QP! said:
Yup, she did not even know how to 'enter in evidence' and asked the judge when he scolded her 'how she was supposed to do it'.

Again 'their stupidity is our Super Power'. We do not have to win because we are smart or even right (which we are), ... we win because they are so painfully stupid that Trump shows up to consequential trials with a lawyer who admits 'she would rather be pretty than smart because she can fake smart'. 'Faking Smart' may serve someone like her from time to time ...right up until they have to speak in a court.
Click to expand...

She actually said that? :whoa:
 
Is Trump saying that having big tits does not always equal a win in court?


Now that is just nonsense.
 
Concart said:
Not even Saul. He had to have at least some control over Walter. Trump is the worst client in the history of lawyers. And THIS guy is going to solve the Ukraine/Russia war in 24 hours?

He can't even write a cogent sentence. Just stop.
Click to expand...

trump was trying to convince a jury that he was a master of self control... And could not control himself in a courtroom. trump still does not realize what he did wrong there.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
She actually said that? :whoa:
Click to expand...

Yes.

It is why i repeat over and over 'their stupidity is our super power'.

It was absolutely clear, time and again, that Habba had no clue as to how to introduce evidence or testimony or other things she wanted to do in court and the Judge was constantly forced to stop her and correct her and TELL WHAT SHE NEEDED TO DO to introduce it.




The judge quickly realized Habba's lack of knowledge in the courtroom early on during the cross examination during the following exchange. The transcripts below have been brilliantly reported from inside the courtroom by Matthew Russell Lee of Inner City Press:

Habba: You said, I came to New York to interview Fran Lebowitz.

Judge Kaplan: Can I get the transcript?

Roberta Kaplan: Your Honor, I don't see the difference

Habba: May I proceed?

Judge Kaplan: No. She just said something. And you haven't provided the transcript

Judge Kaplan: Ms. Habba, we're going to do it my way in this courtroom and that's how it's going to be. You tell me the line number and I read it. Then we go from there.

Habba: I was reading --

Judge Kaplan: We are going to take a recess...

Judge Kaplan then questioned what Habba was attempting to enter into the record:

Judge Kaplan: Do not read it out loud. What line numbers?

Habba: Page 14, 6 through 8.

Judge Kaplan: What are you doing, offering into evidence?

Habba: I'm offering it as impeachment.

Judge Kaplan: Those are 2 different things.

And it didn't end there:

Habba: Do you know if there is a communications team at the White House?

Carroll: I don't know.

Habba: I represent to you that it does.

Judge Kaplan: You're not going to be representing anything, or you'll be a witness.

Even after being continuously warned, Habba tried to break the rules:

Habba: Many people called you a liar before the President made his statement -

Carroll's lawyer: She's not asking a question.

Habba: I wasn't finished. It says, "You're a pathetic old hag"

Judge Kaplan: It's not in evidence.

Habba: I'm trying to get it in.

Judge Kaplan: No, we are not going to read out loud a document not yet in evidence. We are going to take a break right here to 3:30 and you're going to refresh your memory about how you get a document in.

Ouch.

When the court resumed session, Judge Kaplan warned Habba once again, "Ms. Habba can't use documents that are not in evidence."

Habba found herself flustered in the courtroom, clueless of how to cross examine a witness. Judge Kaplan found himself again having to explain to Habba the basics of how courts work:

Habba: Did you receive Tweets in the 5 hours before President Trump spoke.

Carroll: I hadn't seen them.

Habba: Were you tagged?

Judge Kaplan: Don't get into content!

Habba: How do you suggest I proceed?

Judge Kaplan: Show it to her, ask if she recognizes it.

Habba: Do you recognize it?

Carroll: Yes.

Judge Kaplan: It's not marked. It should be marked. Do it appropriately. Do it overnight. They. Need. To. Be. Premarked.
Click to expand...

I bolded just one but read the entire transcript and see how laughably bad Habba was.

And yet Maga thinks they keep losing because the system is rigged.

Rigged against STUPIDITY, yes. If you are so stupid that you do not even know how to argue your case and you are so stupid you hire a lawyer who thinks 'it is better to be pretty than smart because i can fake smart', then you should expect to lose.

And when is Habba going to start faking 'smart'? Why did she not do it in court?
 
QP! said:
Yes.

It is why i repeat over and over 'their stupidity is our super power'.

It was absolutely clear, time and again, that Habba had no clue as to how to introduce evidence or testimony or other things she wanted to do in court and the Judge was constantly forced to stop her and correct her and TELL WHAT SHE NEEDED TO DO to introduce it.






I bolded just one but read the entire transcript and see how laughably bad Habba was.

And yet Maga thinks they keep losing because the system is rigged.

Rigged against STUPIDITY, yes. If you are so stupid that you do not even know how to argue your case and you are so stupid you hire a lawyer who thinks 'it is better to be pretty than smart because i can fake smart', then you should expect to lose.

And when is Habba going to start faking 'smart'? Why did she not do it in court?
Click to expand...

it looks like the judge is just an asshole making things difficult.

your misreading of this entire thing is yet another reason you're losing.
 
Blazed Pascal said:
it looks like the judge is just an asshole making things difficult.

your misreading of this entire thing is yet another reason you're losing.
Click to expand...

Ok. you do not know how courts work. Neither does she. They have rules of evidence to follow. The courts have legal procedures to follow, and like you, she did not know what they were.
 
Nordberg said:
Ok. you do not know how courts work. Neither does she. They have rules of evidence to follow. The courts have legal procedures to follow, and like you, she did not know what they were.
Click to expand...

no they don't.

the judge was making all that shit up on the spot.

of course things can be read into evidence.
 
Blazed Pascal said:
no they don't.

the judge was making all that shit up on the spot.

of course things can be read into evidence.
Click to expand...

No things CANNOT simply just be read into evidence on the spot, without it being submitting to the court and the lawyer prior. And lawyers cannot 'represent' what something means as that puts them into a spot of testifying and thus open to cross examination. Lawyers are NOT witnesses. They put on witnesses and they can represent things and then lawyers on both sides can challenge it.

This keeps the court from being a mess of lawyers just adding in anything they want randomly, relevant or not, and the judge having to give constant rulings that it is not relevant or allowed.

But you are stupid and do not know this and thus you will continue to think you are right.
 
QP! said:
No things CANNOT simply just be read into evidence on the spot, without it being submitting to the court and the lawyer prior. And lawyers cannot 'represent' what something means as that puts them into a spot of testifying and thus open to cross examination. Lawyers are NOT witnesses. They put on witnesses and they can represent things and then lawyers on both sides can challenge it.

This keeps the court from being a mess of lawyers just adding in anything they want randomly, relevant or not, and the judge having to give constant rulings that it is not relevant or allowed.

But you are stupid and do not know this and thus you will continue to think you are right.
Click to expand...

it can be if the judge is not being an asshole.
 
Blazed Pascal said:
it can be if the judge is not being an asshole.
Click to expand...

No they cannot.

"Evidence" is not just some spontaneous thing you spring on the other counsel. That is not how things work.

A person cannot just spouting some BS conspiracy nonsense in court telling the court "i am reading in new evidence" and an hour later no one, but other Cters have any clue what the person is talking about.


Things need to be considered by the judge to ensure they are relevant and there is no 'trust me... i just found this in my pocket and it is great evidence' exception.

You think there is but that is because you are a stupid person who believes stupid things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top