178
submitted 9 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

Legal experts skewered Alina Habba's "comedy of bumbling errors" in Trump defamation trial

Former President Donald Trump's appeal of the $83.3 million verdict in the defamation case brought by E. Jean Carroll is unlikely to succeed, legal experts say.

"Let me ruin the suspense for everyone. Trump doesn't have an appeal," Nashville lawyer Brian Manookian argued Friday. "I know the talking heads on TV who have never tried a case or appealed a jury verdict have to mention it. Here's why it isn't going to fly."

A person must "preserve a reversible error at the trial level" in order to have a case with merit on appeal, Manookian explained, ultimately blaming Trump's lack thereof on his legal team in the case.

"This is why you hire competent counsel. You need someone who actually knows the rules of evidence and procedure," he said. "Alina Habba had no clue what was occurring throughout the trial. She not only failed to preserve any remote grounds for appeal, like a moron, she repeatedly and unintentionally waived them over and over."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] grue@lemmy.world 16 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Stop absolving the media. They absolutely have some culpability here for treating whackjobs with the same credulity they treat scientists, treating existential threats against democracy as if they're a normal part of the political horse race, and otherwise perpetuating habitual and systemic balance fallacies on a massive scale. The "MAGoos" didn't just go off the deep end on their own; the media helped mislead them straight off it.

[-] EatATaco@lemm.ee 21 points 9 months ago

The other poster actually gave examples. You posted something but vague references to a "balance fallacy" (I love how you cited that, but not any examples. lol) . .and have a way better upvote to downvote ration than the other poster.

This is the perfect example of this place using the upvote as the "I agree" button rather than actual, good arguments that add to the discussion. People want to shit on the media, and you gave them an a vague, effectively unchallengeable post to do so. Congrats.

[-] Randomgal@lemmy.ca -1 points 9 months ago

Sounds like you're just mad you're wrong though.

[-] EatATaco@lemm.ee 0 points 9 months ago

What, exactly, an I wrong about here?

[-] PilferJynx@lemmy.world -4 points 9 months ago

I thought the American media has no obligation to the American people and it's reporting, however flawed, is protected under the first amendment.

[-] grue@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)
  1. I never said they didn't.

  2. I equally have a first amendment right to bitch about how irresponsible they're being.

[-] PilferJynx@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

Sure, but you're trying to give them a responsibility they don't have or care to have. Your truth to power doesn't amount to much. And I agree, that's a huge problem.

this post was submitted on 30 Jan 2024
178 points (98.4% liked)

politics

19072 readers
3859 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS