The Alina Habba Pit thread

The BBQ Pit
381

This is what I meant about a person’s mannerisms and common facial expressions often reflecting their inner character.

Well, since we’re on the subject, I’m going to express some disagreement with this. I’m not seeing why discussing someone’s appearance – either critically or approvingly – should make anyone “uncomfortable”, unless they themselves were the target. At worst, it might be considered superficial or perhaps even juvenile, but this is the Pit, after all. In any case, the point I was making is that I find her unattractive because of what I know of her character, and I have difficulty disentangling the two.

But what I more seriously have a problem with is the suggestion by some that this is somehow misogynistic, or at least misogyny-adjacent. That’s just simply not what the word means. Here are two different definitions:

  1. Hatred or prejudice against women, typically exhibited by men (from Britannica)
  2. Feelings of hating women, or the belief that men are much better than women (from the Cambridge dictionary)

I haven’t seen anything in this thread that could even remotely be described by those definitions, IMHO.

382

I don’t think anything in this thread has gotten there YET (but see how many other Pit and other threads of the past have), but I’d say it’s adjacent. Oh, not to the textbook definitions of misogynistic, no. But it is, as other posters who ARE mentioning some discomfort have mentioned, that her worth to Herself apparently, as well as those who support her is ONLY for that one value.

Let’s put it this way, if I repeatedly mention how she and Trump value her for her pretty head (fully playing into the stupid blonde Trope) while those same persons ignore what an unmitigated failure she is as a lawyer, it’s accurate. But, it reinforces said trope that women can and should be judged (and to be fair, not IMHO by any of US in the thread) by their appearance alone. And that’s just the people reading the thread and responding, not the lurkers, blow-ins, or hopeful future posters.

It is a part of a whole ecosystem of tropes, snickers, put-downs, and assumptions that are not explicit, almost certainly not intentional for the most part, but keep reinforcing the almost subconscious evaluations in society. The same way that decades of other, older tropes might have me look at someone of color, have that slightest, briefest flash of insecurity about safety, before my conscious mind slaps it down as utterly unfair.

Better to NOT reinforce it, even if unintentionally, if I can avoid it.

ONE MORE TIME - I am not ascribing misogyny to other posters IN THIS THREAD, just pointing out that these sort of discussions, and the assumptions inherent in them, can continue to have an effect on our outlook on others, cause the momentary discomfort (even if it’s only self guilt), and reflect certain trends of thought that while not against the rules, are against the spirit of the board EVEN FOR THE PIT.

383

It’s clear that if trump thought he had a case, he would have had someone else up there doing the talking. Chris Kise, the guy with the giant forehead and permasmirk was right there. AIUI, he was (is) a real lawyer. Instead, Habba is strutting around making a fool of herself and, if he was capable of looking any more foolish, trump. He won’t be able to mount any kind of “shitty lawyer” defense, will he?

384

Thank you for explaining your perspective. I can see your point but I’m not convinced that I fully agree with it. Part of it is that I have a problem with what I see as hyper-sensitivity to social mores regarding subjects like misogyny that have (quite properly) risen to the forefront of our cultural consciousness. The pedant in me also objects to the use of much stronger words than necessary to show our disapproval of even minor transgressions against those social mores. This is an undesirable kind of language creep that devalues the expressive power of words. When we face a genuine example of real transgressions, we’re left somewhat empty-handed when we try to describe it.

He probably thinks he can. But no, AIUI that doesn’t work in civil cases.

385

I don’t think it works when you yourself hire a shitty lawyer when you have the resources and contacts to hire a better one.

386

Could Trump ever bring himself to claim that no decent lawyer was willing to take his case? :grin:

387

There are those who believe that the screening process for competent counsel should have extended beyond Trump and his people simply asking the attorney:

Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Deep State?

388

That’s fair enough. And I can argue both sides of the conversation. I think it’s best we’re all aware of it, but different people are going to deal with it in different ways, because, of course. Otherwise, no more need to continue the hijack.

So, keeping in mind it’s the Pit, I’m happy to say that Alina Habba is a useless, mindless sack of crap and hope that she pays for the misery she’s given others and amplified across the nation by losing her ability to practice law, all her assets, and is forced to do some useful work as a sanitation engineer for the rest of her life.

389

To be contrary, she did cause Trump to lose a crap-ton of money due to her incompetence as a lawyer.
So she’s got that going for her as a positive.

390

New insight from Alina: “They try and make attorneys on the [Trump] team look or seem like they don’t know what they’re doing”.

391

“It’s not taking as long as we thought.”

392

I had a good laugh when I heard her say that. As if the judge set her up by not schooling her in the correct way to introduce evidence into a trial.

393

The internet has been scorching her today. Evidently she was helping a friend with the holiday dinner and was supposed to cut the celery.

The pic showed her with a weak grip on the knife, however, and the cutting board half way off of the counter. Not sure who ended up in stitches over it. Still, could you imagine?

“Honey, is the brisket cooked enough?”
“I cooked it the same amount of time I always do. Why?”
“It just seems… very bloody… and this piece here… what is that on it? Nail polish?”

394

I take it the “they” in this sentence refers to Trump attorneys?

395

“I’d rather be pretty than smart, because you can fake being smart.” This is going on her tombstone as a warning to others. As to the sentiment, I mean, I don’t know, maybe? I think it depends on the situation. But I know you can’t fake being smart to someone smarter than you. And that’s the problem she keeps running into.

And yes I saw that “cooking video” too. My first thought was, “Gordon Ramsay would be cursing a blue streak at you right now.”

396

Unfortunately for the Orange Felon, among the people with first-hand experience that Trump’s lawyers don’t know what they’re doing are those serving on juries. I don’t think there’s much doubt that Alina Habba was directly responsible for E Jean Carroll getting a much larger than expected judgment against Trump, the only problem being that Habba was supposed to be working for Trump.

And then there’s our friend Todd:

Todd Blanche’s opening statements in the hush money trial elicited so many objections from the prosecution, with most of them upheld, that it prompted this opinion on CNN:

CNN legal analyst Norm Eisen agreed, writing in an op-ed that there were "repeated objections that were upheld — probably the highest rate of upheld objections to an opening that I have seen in my 30-plus years of practicing law.”

And during the contempt hearing:

When Blanche later insisted that Trump and his legal team “are trying to comply” with the court’s gag order, Merchan couldn’t take it anymore, losing patience with the claim that reposting others’ attacks, even modified ones, doesn’t violate that order.

“I hate to keep coming back to this, but you’re not offering me anything to support your argument,” Merchan said, adding moments later: “You’re losing all credibility with the court.”
https://www.salon.com/2024/04/23/youre-losing-all-credibility-shuts-down-lawyer-at-brutal-contempt-hearing/

And Todd is supposed to be the smart one on the team! I suspect that part of what we’re seeing unfold is a consequence of the fact that Trump has no real defense. And maybe another part is that Trump, suffering as usual under the delusion of genius, is directing the legal strategy and the poor lawyers have to go along with it or get fired.

But I have to give Habba a tiny bit of credit for one thing. She is just barely self-aware enough to know that she’s not very bright (“I’d rather be pretty than smart”). As opposed to Trump, who is so ineffably stupid that he’s fully in the thrall of the Duning-Kruger effect. One could even formulate a principle here – there are two kinds of people who think they’re smart: those who actually are, and those so stupid that they have the self-awareness of a rutabaga.

397

By “they” she means “I”.
(Yes, what DWMarch said.)

398

Sorry for the hijack but I have a serious question about objections ([quote=“wolfpup, post:396, topic:995965”]
CNN legal analyst Norm Eisen agreed, writing in an op-ed that there were "repeated objections that were upheld — probably the highest rate of upheld objections to an opening that I have seen in my 30-plus years of practicing law.
[/quote]).

Do courtroom lawyers deliberately introduce “objectionable” content into trials, knowing that an objection will be sustained, just so that the idea is planted in the minds of the jurors?

399

The constant objections feed into DontheCon’s idea of “strength”. The “overruled” from the judge feed his victimization complex. His lawyers know how to stroke his ego - helps the whole getting paid part of lawyering.

400

They clearly need some stroking tips from Stormy since he seems to skip out on the paying part quite often.