467

"Trump doesn't have an appeal": Experts say Trump may fire lawyer after being "burned very severely" (www.salon.com)

submitted 5 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

101 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Legal experts skewered Alina Habba's "comedy of bumbling errors" in Trump defamation trial

Former President Donald Trump's appeal of the $83.3 million verdict in the defamation case brought by E. Jean Carroll is unlikely to succeed, legal experts say.

"Let me ruin the suspense for everyone. Trump doesn't have an appeal," Nashville lawyer Brian Manookian argued Friday. "I know the talking heads on TV who have never tried a case or appealed a jury verdict have to mention it. Here's why it isn't going to fly."

A person must "preserve a reversible error at the trial level" in order to have a case with merit on appeal, Manookian explained, ultimately blaming Trump's lack thereof on his legal team in the case.

"This is why you hire competent counsel. You need someone who actually knows the rules of evidence and procedure," he said. "Alina Habba had no clue what was occurring throughout the trial. She not only failed to preserve any remote grounds for appeal, like a moron, she repeatedly and unintentionally waived them over and over."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] [email protected] 86 points 5 months ago

Looks like typical DJT operating procedures. Hire incompetence and then blame the system for their incompetence. I used to do high stakes litigation. We would have an attorney on our trial team whose only responsibility was preserving error. I wonder if DJT will sue her for malpractice. That would probably make her extra sad for servicing his tiny mushroom.

[-] [email protected] 40 points 5 months ago

We gotta end small-dick hate, homedog.

[-] [email protected] 25 points 5 months ago

It's not small dick hate. It's calling out the shallowest thing that would piss trump off. It's especially poetic as he makes exaggerated claims about his persons all the time, including what we know is a complete exaggeration on the size of his dick (thanks Stormy).

Any other person I'm in total agreement with you.

Just not this one. Not after he fucking mocked a disabled person on live TV and suffered zero consequences.

This is all we've got right now.

[-] [email protected] 12 points 5 months ago

Being one of the lesser-endowed, I'll allow it.

[-] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago

Body shaming isn't acceptable just because it's someone you don't like.

[-] [email protected] 11 points 5 months ago

I get the same vibe. I don't care about DJTs hurt feelings for being called "small dick", but I do recognize that there are people out there who actually are "lesser endowed", and its gotta be frustrating to see it used as an insult all the time. Maybe having a "small dick" isn't the greatest, but its also totally acceptable and people shouldn't be made to feel negatively about something they really had no control over. My two cents lol

[-] [email protected] 6 points 5 months ago

Body-shaming of people who don't overcompensate and claim the exact opposite of their particular issue, you mean?

Like, when a 100% blind guy wants to take up cataract surgery because of their acute eyesight, you're gonna say "dawg, it's maybe not your thing". And if they persist with full-page ads as to their keen eyesight, then we have DJT.

It's a yes from me.

[-] Socsa 12 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

I don't hate small dicks. I hate people who act like massive assholes because they have small dicks.

load more comments (12 replies)

this post was submitted on 30 Jan 2024

467 points (97.8% liked)

politics

18138 readers

3659 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News