Originally published at: Habba objects to her own document
…
7 Likes
Is Alina Habba representing Ivanka as well?
6 Likes
it really is kind of funny. as the judge says:
“There is no jury here. It’s just me,” he said. “So you keep objecting to the same thing when really you just have an audience of one.”
he’s going to see the evidence and have to rule on it either way. ( although, i guess it would matter for appeal maybe. )
ivanka is only a witness. her fraud was outside the statue of limitations
26 Likes
The documents were rigged!
8 Likes
Yeah, she knows that. She knows exactly who her audience is. His name is Donald Trump. She’ll sing a different tune once she realizes she’s never getting paid.
24 Likes
It really is funny. There’s a huge difference between telling a judge “you can’t let the jury see that because it will bias them against my client” and “please don’t look at that because it will bias you against my client.” The fact that it was the defense’s own document is just icing on the cake.
22 Likes
Ivanka is not a party to the action (due to Statute of Limitations issues). I believe she has her own representation.
I owe @Gatto a coke.
9 Likes
hooray frosty beverages.
i keep worrying that i’m going to write “statue of limitations”, and then i wonder what that would look like. maybe if they ever decide to cast ■■■■■ in bronze?
not bronzer of course. he does that to himself.
10 Likes
But she has the nerve to call Letitia James “not bright”.
6 Likes
I bet Judge Engoron never had to castigate Letitia James for unprofessional behavior in Court like interrupting a judge or trying to reargue decided issues.
9 Likes
I really get the impression Judge Engoron loves trying this case as a change of pace from the usual stuff in his part (commercial lease violations, insurance cases, consumer credit, slip and falls and car accidents…)
Also he gets to use his stentorian voice in castigating Habba and co for their baseline incompetence as litigators.
6 Likes
I’ve got to imagine that objecting to every piece of documentation - especially those you provided yourself - is really going to prejudice the judge against any of your objections moving forward. Meanwhile Trump is grandstanding and going on rants that are doing nothing but clearly annoying the judge. It’s kind of weird when the audience for these court shenanigans isn’t even in the court, and actively undermine the defense.
Huh, I wonder if, “We lost because we did everything we could to annoy the shit out of the judge during a bench trial” is grounds for an appeal…
10 Likes
This woman, a part of her is missing.
1 Like
6 Likes
5 Likes
That was something unexpected. I decided to try “statue of limitations” in Bing, and see what came out.
I did not expect it to pretty much correct me. All of them were along the same theme.
6 Likes
I do feel some wonderful schadenfreude from seeing Trump’s lawyers proving on a daily basis that they are worth exactly as much as Trump is going to pay them.
11 Likes
The way I’ve heard it explained is that Trump and his counsel are basically doing everything they can do to try to piss off the judge. They want to drive him to a point where he loses his shit so they can say how unfair and unstable he was on appeal. It is… a strategy I guess.
I’m not sure how effective it will be in the long term. The judge hasn’t really been taking the bait despite constant needling. Trump has already basically admitted his guilt under oath. The “it’s a victimless crime” defense isn’t likely to win anybody over. And besides, the judge has already ruled against Trump and the whole point of these testimonies is to decide penalties. Pissing off the judge is a great way to guarantee statutory maximums.
The whole thing is just so ridiculous and shows just how much preferential treatment Trump is getting. (Cue the unironic Republican cries of “two justice systems!” when that’s exactly what’s happening here.) He has been antagonizing the court constantly yet all he seems to get are fines that mean nothing to him.
12 Likes
Not a workable one since there is no such thing as a “judicial bias appeal”.
Especially not the judge, since the statute Trump is being litigated on doesn’t require identification of a victim. Especially since liability was already decided.
Basically Trump’s legal team is stumping for defenses that don’t exist but are being played up to an ignorant fan base.
8 Likes
I’ve always assumed that Trump is performing for his base - despite the lack of recordings, his utterances get conveyed by the media. The judge says Trump can’t do random shit he wants to do (e.g. read a statement), Trump acts aggrieved and says, “Of course you’d say that.” Trump’s lawyers are, to a lesser degree, doing the same thing (though their primary audience is Trump himself). The more Trump can paint himself as oppressed and righteously aggrieved, the more support he gets from his base (and, he hopes, this will somehow allow him to avoid consequences, one way or another - either via stochastic terrorism or he becomes president dictator and voids his convictions).
8 Likes
