407
submitted 9 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

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
[-] collapse_already@lemmy.ml 69 points 9 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.

[-] Ferrous@lemmy.dbzer0.com 37 points 9 months ago

We gotta end small-dick hate, homedog.

[-] Tyfud@lemmy.world 19 points 9 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.

[-] slingstone@lemmy.world 11 points 9 months ago

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

[-] Ferrous@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 9 months ago

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

[-] FabledAepitaph@lemmy.world 7 points 9 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

[-] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 6 points 9 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@sh.itjust.works 9 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

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

[-] uid0gid0@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

Would he have some kind of case for appeal due to incompetent counsel?

[-] collapse_already@lemmy.ml 8 points 9 months ago

No. In a criminal case, but not in a civil lawsuit.

[-] HopeOfTheGunblade@kbin.social 4 points 9 months ago

Not in a civil trial, from what I'm hearing, but IANAL.

[-] TheFriar@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago

Same. I’m analing right now.

this post was submitted on 30 Jan 2024
407 points (97.4% liked)

politics

19089 readers
1480 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS