By a PAC. Not by Trump. Trump does not pay for things.
A perfectly logically accurate statement. Same as, saying broccoli is either a vegetable or a moon of Saturn.
Yeah, but I’m sure she doesn’t care who pays her.
Here’s the depressing thing - from a certain POV Habba is currently winning at life. As long as she is comfortable not giving a shit what a great many people think of her and her legal skills, she has gotten ahead. Paid $3 million and acquired great notoriety that can be leveraged for more in the MAGAsphere as long as she is shameless. Which, let’s be honest…
Not to belabor this but Trump thinks any money donated (PAC, NFT, trinkets, …) is his personally. He never wants to give anything up - sign of weakness dontcha know.
I think she’s at least outperforming her potential.
Only if we consider financial gain to be the primary measuring stick
Which an unfortunate number of us do
Hi, Alina!!
She cares. When she spoke to the press following the latest Carroll verdict you could tell she was humiliated by the whole affair. She did not enjoy embarrassing herself and losing so badly.
Hmm, is Alina smart enough to not take an appeal that certainly will add a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel to it’s long list of nothingberders?
Again, we’re talking about a lawyer here, and not one of those “I want to make sure the disadvantaged get proper representation” kind of lawyers.
I’m sure she considers financial gain to be the primary measuring stick, as would anyone else she associates with.
This too though. You can’t tell me she has no ego and this kind of thing will roll off her.
As far as I can tell, “ineffective assistance of counsel” is grounds for appeal only in criminal cases (and perhaps quasi criminal civil cases like child dependency actions or involuntary commitments). It isn’t going to be a think in the Carrol v. Trump civil appeal.
Nonetheless, it’s often a good idea to bring in new appellate counsel after a trial loss.
‘Many people come to me and say with tears in there eyes “President Trump what the court did to you is criminal”!’ ~ DJT
Absolutely. If she had ambitions to rake in more millions from the Orange Shitstain from his future legal troubles and have a lucrative career as an “expert” legal analyst at Fox News, well, that ain’t gonna happen.
Legal Eagle skewers Habba. Pretty entertaining.
Of all the things an aspiring young lawyer might want, “being the laughingstock of the internet” probably isn’t one of them. 
Especially as this would simply be a claim of “I hired an idiot, so let me skate”
I’m sure this will pass. The situation is simply this: Trump was always going to lose, big, but Alina was going to get a big payday (before Caroll will) then lucrative TV spots.
So I agree that you could see in her face that she was humiliated by the scale of the loss (as well as the various stompdowns in court). She just needs to lose that last sliver of humanity and she’s golden.
I thought the first. thing they teach you in law school is to not ask a question if you don’t know how it’s going to be answered.
I am not a lawyer but I like to follow them on YouTube and such, and at least as far as a trial goes, that is absolutely true. In a sense, every question is rhetorical, and it’s done in a way to spin a narrative that you are using to influence the jury (or judge if this is a bench trial).
Procedural questions, on the other hand, I’d guess that lawyers have to ask them all the time without knowing the actual answers (because they’re actually trying to get information, not make a point).