|
|
Post by ironhammer on Oct 5, 2022 0:14:53 GMT -5
Take a gander at the three female attorneys on Team Trump these days - Habba, Halligan, and Bobb (although Bobb seems to be sidelined, and has lawyered up). They have two things in common: One, they're all woefully inexperienced; Two, they all look good on camera. This illustrates how difficult it's been for Trump to attract experienced, high-profile legal representation (which seems mind-boggling - a former President of the United States can't find lawyers? - until one remembers who exactly we're talking about). But it also goes to Trump's oft-stated obsession with image, particularly when it comes to being on camera. He's apparently very taken with Habba: In private, Trump has repeatedly commented on how much she “loves Trump” and has on many occasions gushed to close associates about her physical appearance—how she’s “a beauty” on TV and at his clubs, according to two sources who’ve talked to him about Habba in recent months.www.thedailybeast.com/alina-habba-the-trump-lawyer-the-rest-of-trumps-legal-team-loathesIt's not just women, either. Trump really loves a man in uniform, particularly one with lots of decorations - remember him gushing about how "his" generals look like they're "out of central casting?" He also used the same phrase to describe Brett Kavanaugh, for some reason. Trump values personal loyalty over any other quality when it comes to hiring people, but personal appearance is way up there as well. Competency is much further down the list. Given Trump's obsession of sorts with personal appearance, fair game to bring it up when trying to understand his personnel decisions. Well, that's why Trump keep losing his cases. He's thinking with his pe...eh...I mean "waist", not with his head.  |
|
|
|
Post by AmeriCanVBfan on Oct 5, 2022 0:22:36 GMT -5
Take a gander at the three female attorneys on Team Trump these days - Habba, Halligan, and Bobb (although Bobb seems to be sidelined, and has lawyered up). They have two things in common: One, they're all woefully inexperienced; Two, they all look good on camera. This illustrates how difficult it's been for Trump to attract experienced, high-profile legal representation (which seems mind-boggling - a former President of the United States can't find lawyers? - until one remembers who exactly we're talking about). But it also goes to Trump's oft-stated obsession with image, particularly when it comes to being on camera. He's apparently very taken with Habba: In private, Trump has repeatedly commented on how much she “loves Trump” and has on many occasions gushed to close associates about her physical appearance—how she’s “a beauty” on TV and at his clubs, according to two sources who’ve talked to him about Habba in recent months.www.thedailybeast.com/alina-habba-the-trump-lawyer-the-rest-of-trumps-legal-team-loathesIt's not just women, either. Trump really loves a man in uniform, particularly one with lots of decorations - remember him gushing about how "his" generals look like they're "out of central casting?" He also used the same phrase to describe Brett Kavanaugh, for some reason. Trump values personal loyalty over any other quality when it comes to hiring people, but personal appearance is way up there as well. Competency is much further down the list. Given Trump's obsession of sorts with personal appearance, fair game to bring it up when trying to understand his personnel decisions. According to candlelight the actual lawyer is James Trusty (A lawyer named Trusty!?!) but I haven't seen anyone on here make much mention of him or his looks. Again, BC displaying the nightclub pics seemed unnecessary. Especially when two of the photos don't include the lawyer in question. |
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Oct 5, 2022 0:28:39 GMT -5
Clearly, Trump’s only requirement for a lawyer is that they be admissible to the bar—any bar.
|
|
|
|
Post by geddyleeridesagain on Oct 5, 2022 0:29:54 GMT -5
Take a gander at the three female attorneys on Team Trump these days - Habba, Halligan, and Bobb (although Bobb seems to be sidelined, and has lawyered up). They have two things in common: One, they're all woefully inexperienced; Two, they all look good on camera. This illustrates how difficult it's been for Trump to attract experienced, high-profile legal representation (which seems mind-boggling - a former President of the United States can't find lawyers? - until one remembers who exactly we're talking about). But it also goes to Trump's oft-stated obsession with image, particularly when it comes to being on camera. He's apparently very taken with Habba: In private, Trump has repeatedly commented on how much she “loves Trump” and has on many occasions gushed to close associates about her physical appearance—how she’s “a beauty” on TV and at his clubs, according to two sources who’ve talked to him about Habba in recent months.www.thedailybeast.com/alina-habba-the-trump-lawyer-the-rest-of-trumps-legal-team-loathesIt's not just women, either. Trump really loves a man in uniform, particularly one with lots of decorations - remember him gushing about how "his" generals look like they're "out of central casting?" He also used the same phrase to describe Brett Kavanaugh, for some reason. Trump values personal loyalty over any other quality when it comes to hiring people, but personal appearance is way up there as well. Competency is much further down the list. Given Trump's obsession of sorts with personal appearance, fair game to bring it up when trying to understand his personnel decisions. According to candlelight the actual lawyer is James Trusty (A lawyer named Trusty!?!) but I haven't seen anyone on here make much mention of him or his looks. Again, BC displaying the nightclub pics seemed unnecessary. Especially when two of the photos don't include the lawyer in question. I’m struggling to see a point here. |
|
|
|
Post by AmeriCanVBfan on Oct 5, 2022 0:53:13 GMT -5
According to candlelight the actual lawyer is James Trusty (A lawyer named Trusty!?!) but I haven't seen anyone on here make much mention of him or his looks. Again, BC displaying the nightclub pics seemed unnecessary. Especially when two of the photos don't include the lawyer in question. I’m struggling to see a point here. You could ask BC, "What was the point of including pictures from ten years ago of a lawyer who Trump hired, who isn't even the main lawyer for the case?" You could also ask BC, "What was the point of including two pictures from the nightclub, that the woman wasn't even in?" How are those pictures important, pertinent, or relevant to the discussion? Or why are we focused on the woman who's not the main lawyer instead of focusing on the actual lawyer? The frumpy looking man. Ah never mind, ignore the frumpy dude. He doesn't fit the narrative. |
|
|
|
Post by BearClause on Oct 5, 2022 1:02:23 GMT -5
I’m struggling to see a point here. You could ask BC, "What was the point of including pictures from ten years ago of a lawyer who Trump hired, who isn't even the main lawyer for the case?" You could also ask BC, "What was the point of including two pictures from the nightclub, that the woman wasn't even in?" How are those pictures important, pertinent, or relevant to the discussion? Or why are we focused on the woman who's not the main lawyer instead of focusing on the actual lawyer? The frumpy looking man. Ah never mind, ignore the frumpy dude. He doesn't fit the narrative. You don't get it? Background for why Trump would hire attorneys who are so utterly out of their league for the magnitude of the job. Even Trusty seems to be more of a Trump lackey. |
|
|
|
Post by geddyleeridesagain on Oct 5, 2022 1:20:02 GMT -5
I’m struggling to see a point here. You could ask BC, "What was the point of including pictures from ten years ago of a lawyer who Trump hired, who isn't even the main lawyer for the case?" You could also ask BC, "What was the point of including two pictures from the nightclub, that the woman wasn't even in?" How are those pictures important, pertinent, or relevant to the discussion? Or why are we focused on the woman who's not the main lawyer instead of focusing on the actual lawyer? The frumpy looking man. Ah never mind, ignore the frumpy dude. He doesn't fit the narrative. Should I feel some responsibility and/or care about what someone else posts on VT? Do those photos (which aren't really salacious or scandalous to begin with. I mean, that's practically basic work attire in Miami) invalidate my OP? The attorney in question - Halligan - is in fact an "actual lawyer," given her name is on the filings, not to mention her multiple appearances on Fox and Newsmax defending Trump. Oh, and the "frumpy looking man?" Trump hired Trusty after seeing him on TV, which is part and parcel of Trump's well-known and well-documented obsession with camera-friendly personalities. None of this is really in dispute. At least, I don't think so. www.businessinsider.com/mar-a-lago-trump-watched-lawyer-tv-hired-2022-8www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/trump-youre-hired/502136/www.latimes.com/projects/la-na-pol-trump-women/www.esquire.com/uk/culture/news/a12183/donald-trump-only-wants-handsome-people-in-cabinet/ |
|
|
|
Post by AmeriCanVBfan on Oct 5, 2022 1:22:03 GMT -5
You could ask BC, "What was the point of including pictures from ten years ago of a lawyer who Trump hired, who isn't even the main lawyer for the case?" You could also ask BC, "What was the point of including two pictures from the nightclub, that the woman wasn't even in?" How are those pictures important, pertinent, or relevant to the discussion? Or why are we focused on the woman who's not the main lawyer instead of focusing on the actual lawyer? The frumpy looking man. Ah never mind, ignore the frumpy dude. He doesn't fit the narrative. You don't get it? Background for why Trump would hire attorneys who are so utterly out of their league for the magnitude of the job. Even Trusty seems to be more of a Trump lackey. I get that maybe the only pics you could find of the lawyer in question were from ten years ago. I don't get why you included two pics that she wasn't in while lamenting that she wasn't in the butt shot. You've always been above board (although a little Trump obsessed) so those seemed odd to me. |
|
moody
Banned
Posts: 18,679
|
Post by moody on Oct 5, 2022 5:22:52 GMT -5
You don't get it? Background for why Trump would hire attorneys who are so utterly out of their league for the magnitude of the job. Even Trusty seems to be more of a Trump lackey. I get that maybe the only pics you could find of the lawyer in question were from ten years ago. I don't get why you included two pics that she wasn't in while lamenting that she wasn't in the butt shot. You've always been above board (although a little Trump obsessed) so those seemed odd to me. Is that anymore odd than posting about this at 2:30 in the morning? That seems a bit obsessive. |
|
|
|
Post by jayj79 on Oct 5, 2022 6:53:30 GMT -5
You don't get it? Background for why Trump would hire attorneys who are so utterly out of their league for the magnitude of the job. Except the pictures don't indicate a single thing (good or bad) about her qualifications or skills of being an attorney |
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Oct 5, 2022 10:20:16 GMT -5
You don't get it? Background for why Trump would hire attorneys who are so utterly out of their league for the magnitude of the job. Except the pictures don't indicate a single thing (good or bad) about her qualifications or skills of being an attorney They’re not supposed to indicate her qualifications. That’s what her experience is supposed to do. She’s a real estate/insurance attorney. The pictures are supposed to lead you to the real reason she was hired. It’s an approach that can be open to criticism, but no need to twist it into something it’s not. |
|
|
|
Post by BearClause on Oct 5, 2022 10:33:35 GMT -5
Except the pictures don't indicate a single thing (good or bad) about her qualifications or skills of being an attorney They’re not supposed to indicate her qualifications. That’s what her experience is supposed to do. She’s a real estate/insurance attorney. The pictures are supposed to lead you to the real reason she was hired. It’s an approach that can be open to criticism, but no need to twist it into something it’s not. I'm just having fun with this. Sometimes I think people take this stuff way too seriously. But still - this case is doomed. |
|
|
|
Post by longboards on Oct 5, 2022 13:54:35 GMT -5
Are you honestly saying no one on Fox news blatantly lied in attempts to hurt Democrat politicians? tucker carlsons lawyer actually argued in court that he does not 'state actual facts' and exaggerates while his viewers are reasonably expected to know what he says is not fact and may be false... He won the lawsuit. Donnie must be in desperate need of money to file this in an attempt to raise donations. Like I said, if the things that Tucker or Hannity say, make them eligible to be sued, then sue them. I'm just asking, "Which Democrat in particular and what lie was said about them?" Also asking if it was something that came from the FOX news division or from their "pundits", but that's more of a different conversation. As for the President's money situation, like Mr. Burns once said about wealth, "I'd trade it all in, for a little more." My point is more IF trump sues CNN for libel, then Fox News should be worried. I didn't find a newscaster who personally and willingly lied to hurt a democrat. I think Fox News is smart enough to let their 'guests' say the outlandish stuff and have their pundits comment on it. I believe trump is in a much worse financial situation than what we believe and he is trying to drum up support (future donations) for when he gets charged and has to hire real lawyers. |
|
|
|
Post by Mocha on Oct 5, 2022 14:12:07 GMT -5
Like I said, if the things that Tucker or Hannity say, make them eligible to be sued, then sue them. I'm just asking, "Which Democrat in particular and what lie was said about them?" Also asking if it was something that came from the FOX news division or from their "pundits", but that's more of a different conversation. As for the President's money situation, like Mr. Burns once said about wealth, "I'd trade it all in, for a little more." My point is more IF trump sues CNN for libel, then Fox News should be worried. I didn't find a newscaster who personally and willingly lied to hurt a democrat. I think Fox News is smart enough to let their 'guests' say the outlandish stuff and have their pundits comment on it. I believe trump is in a much worse financial situation than what we believe and he is trying to drum up support (future donations) for when he gets charged and has to hire real lawyers. Even when he tries to hire real lawyers they reportedly say no to him. |
|
|
|
Post by longboards on Oct 5, 2022 14:18:34 GMT -5
My point is more IF trump sues CNN for libel, then Fox News should be worried. I didn't find a newscaster who personally and willingly lied to hurt a democrat. I think Fox News is smart enough to let their 'guests' say the outlandish stuff and have their pundits comment on it. I believe trump is in a much worse financial situation than what we believe and he is trying to drum up support (future donations) for when he gets charged and has to hire real lawyers. Even when he tries to hire real lawyers they reportedly say no to him. The ONLY two reason lawyers say no to him is that they know he'll ask them to do illegal things or simply not pay them, otherwise he'd have a great team readying a defense. |
|
