@Buck_Godot I think your link doesn’t go where you intended it to go.
You mean she wasn’t at a trial about some poor kid being forced to make an ashtray in school back in the 70s? Then I have no idea what this case is even about anymore! Witch hunt!
The link was fixed.
But I do like the idea of Trump suing a kid for an ashtray they made in school.
We’ll never know, because Trump’s lawyer never properly prepared to be able to ask whatever questions she had in mind. I don’t see it my self?
And make the “beautiful tribute” about himself at some point.
Be very careful, I’m pretty sure certain members of the SCOTUS would agree with you. And be more than happy to sit around collecting . . . benefits from their “friends” while waiting on literal legions of law clerks are busy resubmitting everything on Federalist authorized parchment.
Back to topic though. Yeah, I’m of the opinion other than running down the clock as much as possible, Trump has already gone all in on the next election and therefore sees this case as nothing more than another source to drum up the outrage of his legions. IF he wins, he’ll use all means to squash, quasi-legal and otherwise. And if he DOESN’T win, said outrage will be a powerful tool for starting a cold (dear god, please cold) civil war with a substantial popular support as various states refuse to comply, either directly or via lawfare.
Maybe it will be like the funeral shown here at 3:15: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1PP1Zf-T1w
That link goes to a 4 minute clip from CSI that begins with David Caruso entering a confessional booth and spilling his heart go a priest. It then segues to an outdoor funeral; a gangster pops out of the coffin and guns down about 20 attendees.
My big caveat is that I’m not advocating violence. I just thought that that scene was so ridiculously over the top that it had to be shared 
I was expecting a coked out Peter Dinklage to pop out of a coffin.
Bolding mine.
Does she mean the judge was banging his gavel? Good god, has she never watched TV before, or been in a courtroom?
How did she ever get through elementary school? About the first thing you learn (if you didn’t already know it) is that sometimes you have to sit down.
And I’d hate to be behind her at a movie theater.
Or, for that matter, to have her show up at a planning board meeting. I don’t suppose we’d tell her to sit down; but if she insisted on talking about irrelevancies, or going on and on at length so nobody else could be heard, she would certainly be told to be quiet.
– plus which, these days yes, damn near every American citizen has a camera and a microphone. Doesn’t guarantee that everybody else has to watch or listen to them, though.
She gives off strong “Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer” vibes here.
“Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I’m just a caveman. I fell in some ice and later got thawed out by your scientists. Your world frightens and confuses me. Sometimes the honking horns of your traffic make me want to get out of my BMW and run off into the hills or whatever. Sometimes when I get a message on my fax machine, did little demons get inside and type it? I don’t know. My primitive mind can’t grasp these concepts.”
Not to mention her hurt feelings about being “yelled at.” I’ve noticed that little kids interpret any criticism, no matter how calmly voiced, as being “yelled at.” Funny how MAGAt types show the same tendency.
So this lawyer does not think that a judge in his courtroom gets to set the rules? That the judge cannot tell her to follow the rules? And if judges yell at her, this means that the judge is a meany poopypants?
No lawyer person, you WILL tolerate being told what to do in court, and how to comport yourself.
What a bunch of whiney little crybabies. I know they are playing the victim for the public (MAGAts) but won’t the MAGAts eventually see them as weak little wimps who cry and pout when they are spoken to harshly? I thought MAGAts liked strength, not crying little babies.
Call me elf one more time!
The Habba/MAGA mindset (for certain values of “mind”): “You’re not the boss of me!”
If you think about it, a lawyer is often the literal mouthpeice of the person who hired them. There’s a reason that nickname is part of US mob slang.
She is putting on exactly the act trump wants. This is not a trial in their minds. This is an opportunity to manufacture a record of them being treated badly, with all the “deservedly” parts edited out. The goal is not to win the case, or to please the judge or jury or create a record for appeal, or anything else conventional.
The only goal here, pure and simple, is to create a propaganda story of persecution by a biased federal judiciary. Which will be a *casus belli cited next Jan to force-retire every federal judge except the a few trumpy ones and immediately replace them with unqualified MAGA toadies. That’s literally about step 4 on their first day of dictatorship checklist.
Now whether Habba is really deep down as unhinged as trump or pillow guy or is merely playing one in court and on TV is an interesting question. But is ultimately an irrelevant question.
My bottom line:
Anyone here who is watching what she’s doing and using the conventional rules and scoring appropriate to a standard federal trial is about like somebody trying to keep score of a bowling tournament using the rules and scoresheets for Major League Baseball.
They (trump & Habba) are not incompetent; the scorekeeper is mistakenly scoring the wrong game.
Wouldn’t that require impeachment by congress, needing 2/3 of the senate?
Yes and no. In terms of her disrespectful behavior in and out of the courtroom, and promotion of dubious legal arguments in favor of Trump I think you have her correctly pegged.
But some of her mistakes like objecting to her own evidence, not understanding what hearsay actually means, and not specifying what she was referring to when she asked Carroll her question about her previous statements about the book title, are just plain dumb and sloppy. If she wanted to get the judge to upset with her, there are ways to do so that don’t make her look like an idiot.