That was a combination of Sullivan and anti-SLAPP legislation. Are you sure there isn’t a statute? Interesting that the judge apparently noted the article won a Pulitzer. Good grief.
I’ve said often that Marc Elias is a helluva good lawyer and the Republicans can’t keep up with him. I have no clue about his pedigree. I also think he’s dishonest and brings frivolous actions. But he has a sympathetic ear in many cases. Trump will never have that.
Actually, I do know someone who couldn't find a job after graduating law school.
Hey, I recognize you are more of an authority on this than I am, but I'm not arguing her competence or incompetence. And yes, obviously attractive people of both genders (the only 2, not the mentally deranged ones) have tremendous career advantages.
Yep, you're right. The court applied anti-SLAPP to the tort claim. And found it frivolous.
www.documentcloud.org
OK, bad judge out to get her in NY.
And you know this because of a reporter (who probably doesn’t know a courtroom from a shopping mall) writing about a client and lawyer she doesn’t like? In my humble and “objective” opinion, the Trump judgments are a gross miscarriage of justice and are a product of a system and lawyers in official positions aligned against him. That bleeds into those who represent him. There are many stories of lawyers who have suffered consequences from firms and clients because of that repewntation. Marc Elias even started a highly visible effort to go after all Trumps lawyers that I posted about months ago. That’s disgusting.
They have transcripts of the court proceedings. Read them.
Agree. I wish Jack Smith, Alvin Bragg, Leticia James, Fani Willis, and their minions and lovers would heed this. Based solely on what I have read and heard directly from those lawyers, I think Habbas has more brains than all of them, especially Jack Smith. He made a huge ego/ Trump-hate blunder in the records case.
Excellent point. Habba is at least as competent as that clown show of prosecutors.
I’m sure you’ll reject this because of the source , but it’s damning.
www.salon.com
One more thing. Habba understands official immunity which is much more than we can say for a trial court, three CA judges, and three Supreme Court Justices, also all female.
The lead trial attorney withdrew? I wonder if Habba asked for a continuance to secure trial counsel and the trial court denied the motion. I agree, courtroom experience is courtroom competency, it looks like she didn’t have eitherI’m sure you’ll reject this because of the source , but it’s damning.
Experts: Trump lawyer already “making the jury dislike her intensely”
"Glaringly obvious" incompetence on display as judge tells jury to "disregard everything Ms. Habba just said."
That's call BSing and if you ever worked in the corporate world you'd know it can take you a long ways. Sad but true.
Why are you taking backhanded shots at goat? Goat and I definitely disagree on a lot of things but that's okay. No matter what you think he's not dumb... and he'll probably admit that he can be an a$$hole sometimes. 🤣
How about posting something that supports your opinion that she’s smart and thoughtful?
I already said my opinion comes from how she responds to interview questions and some of which she has written. She is responsive to questions, clear, concise and thoughtful in many ways. I think that signals smartness. That is more than we can say for many other high profile people. They always wanna beat around the bush.
Because I think the notion that Habba understands the law better than those judges is preposterous
She understands immunity better. Weren’t you also one of those who thought the hypothetical of killing a political opponent was relevant to the imminently issue? If not, apologies.
They need to convince some of those lawyers to go to medical school because there's sure not enough of them. I called a few months ago to make an appointment with my dermatologist and it was gonna be over a year before I could get one.
She doesn’t.
habba hubba
photoshop but still.....
I posed the question of whether a president delivering a speech in a public place with no public attendance restrictions is an official act and therefore claims arising from such a speech are immune.
His communications with Pence re his VP duties is covered.
Why not? Giving public speeches is what presidents do. There could be an argument about the context, but having given that some thought, I can’t come up with an appropriate test.
