politics
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.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
This article evaluates her based on her skill as a lawyer, defending her client. That's the job that every other lawyer does. That's not what Trump hired her for, though. Trump knows he will lose this. Her job is to delay the inevitable as much as possible. And she gets a bonus if she manages to get him some platform to air his grievances publically.
This is kind of at odds to the standards of the legal profession, though, and she will probably get disciplined for it. I just hope she was "fake smart" enough to get paid up front.
Bruh. He hired her because she gives his mushroom a funny feeling.
I believe it's still called a spore at that size.
Back in the day, a lot of authentic cowboys headed to Hollywood to work as stuntmen. She's kind of like those cowboys; an actual lawyer playing the role of a lawyer.
You give her way too much credit. I've never taken the bar exam, but, based on having known some very stupid lawyers I am guessing several things:
Habba is just clearly stupid. I don't know why people are suggesting anything else.
She even essentially admitted as much.
As a dear friend of mine likes to say "Someone had to graduate at the bottom of the class."
1 and 2 are more likely. It's pretty damn hard to bribe your way past the bar, you'd have to pay a lot of people and trust none of them care about their careers or potentially getting prosecuted.
Maybe, but this is also America, where you can do practically anything you want if you're rich.
I'm actually curious how you'd even do it logistically. There's like three separate sets of people minimum for the tests, a whole anonymous grading system you'd have to game somehow and for that I'm pretty sure the person grading doesn't know the number of the paper they're grading, and then the actual admissions committee. I guess you could just bribe the admissions committee and have them fake a result but, again, there's a separate national multistate test whose results get factored in. Maybe pay someone to take the test for you but the chances they get caught are...medium.
The more I think about it, it's actually easier to just memorize law and pass the bar.
Look at Boebert and Sarah Palin. Neither is a scholar, but both won office. If you use what you have to get what you want, you're smart in my book. I wouldn't want her as my lawyer, but she'll probably end up a TV pundit with a six figure salary.
Imma just remove all these replies under rule 3, come on guys, you're both too smart for internet slap fighting. :)
You missed one!!
I kid. Thanks for the service.
Imma just remove all these replies under rule 3, come on guys, you're both too smart for internet slap fighting. :)
Interesting how some people take so much pride in their ignorance.
As for you not responding anymore, I'm dubious, but we'll see.
Those toddlers just need to be smarter than their parents to get what they want....
They really don't. They just need to know how to use cuteness as a weapon. That and whining.
I mean that's just instinct and evolution. No conscious thought required.
That was sort of my point. You don't have to be smart to get what you want.
Bobo and Caribou Barbie aren't lawyers though... which kind of strays from the topic of "dumb lawyers".
I do still wonder how Jack Thompson passed the bar... but Habba, Giuliani, Eastman, Powell and Wood make me think anyone could do it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Thompson_(activist)
I snorted milk out my nose. Just saying.
Look. These people didn't get the job on their skill but on the light drama they create while doing whatever they've been told to do to further their own success.
Just like another poster noted, that some have to graduate at the bottom of their class, the pool of scummy politicos on their last career option must be deep enough they could pick two with marketability and malleability to be a success as a conservative talking head.
Didn't come up with those, but it bears reposting.
I'm paraphrasing badly, but Einstein said that if measure intelligence by how well a species climbs trees, dolphins would be considered idiots.
But this isn't a criminal case, it's a civil case in the state of New York. Even if Trump wins in November, he will still have to pay up, and wont be able to pardon himself or tell his AG to drop the case. All Habba us doing is pissing off the judge
He's not paying a damn thing himself, it will come out of some SuperPAC. He doesn't care that it's illegal. He already knows nobody can investigate him if he is President, except for Congress, and he just needs 34 Senators willing to keep him away from any consequences of that.
I wouldn't be so sure of this.
Let's say Trump gets back into office in November. And let's say he's facing an eleventy billion dollar judgement against him in this case, along with whatever criminal penalties come from his other state cases.
What if Trump just says "Nah, I'm not gonna pay.". Then what? She sues a third time? As a sitting President, the court system is likely to defer any lawsuit until after his term is over, saying that his Presidential duties supersede her civil claims. Similarly, if he's facing house arrest or jail time, it's similarly likely that the courts would rule that states would have to wait for his term to be over in order to incarcerate him.
And by 2028, he could be dead. If his next attempts are successful, he may very well install himself as a dictator, backed by a Congress and Supreme Court too scared to do anything about it out of fears of retribution from his base (And we have already seen plenty of evidence that judges and lawmakers can be intimidated enough to back down out of fear of retribution). Or even if he does leave office, he'd be effectively restarting the clock and just dragging the cases back out indefinitely.
Either way, if he gets back into office, he will have several paths to choose from which could lead to him even avoiding state incarceration or civil penalties that he can't outright pardon himself from. The only way he has even a chance of seeing consequences for his actions are if he loses the election. Any other outcome is a victory for him well above and beyond winning the election itself.
Nope. See Clinton v. Jones, 1997:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_v._Jones
"landmark United States Supreme Court case establishing that a sitting President of the United States has no immunity from civil law litigation, in federal court, for acts done before taking office and unrelated to the office.[1] In particular, there is no temporary immunity and thus no delay of federal cases until the President leaves office.[1]"
It sounds like you haven't ever seen a subpoena sent to a financial institution. As long as Trump's money is in a US bank or financial institution, it's easy to get.
You just have to prove to a judge that he's not paying. The judge issues a subpoena to the financial institution to hand over information regarding any accounts he has. If he has trusts, it's a bit more complicated but no US financial institution is going to shield any of their clients from legal fines or penalties. They can easily lose their license for that.
Once all the asset details are known, the judge orders payouts. I'm not a lawyer and have never done it, but just looking at wording on the subpoena is enough. "Chase Bank will provide all documents related to accounts owned or controlled by or for the benefit of: whoever". Their legal department wants to comply as fast as possible with something like this, so they will issue checks as soon as they can.