I'm going to spend some time today coming up with adjectives to describe Habba. She is nuts, by first thought after reading the above, is not doing it for me.
I first heard her when she was representing somebody in whatever the 2020 case was that sanctioned a bunch'o lawyers, including an unhappy Dershowitz, for submitting B.S. filings.
At first she impressed me. She's a fluent speaker, with pleasing delivery, and was engaged in the content of the hearing. That lasted about an hour before the gibberish and bullying started. And believe me, it was mild compared to what it is now.
Anyway:
Habba argued Trump should be allowed to testify to “the affirmative questions he was asked by reporters, which propagated his response and denial to Ms. Carroll’s story in New York magazine, and whether he was acting with hatred or ill will when he provided answers.” Habba also said Trump should be allowed to testify to the “circumstances of his comments, as they related to comments in Ms. Carroll’s continuous parade of interviews and publicity.”
W the actual F?
Is "affirmative question" a legal term of art? Someone please enlighten me before I get too sarcastic.
FTR, in English grammar and usage, an affirmative question is simply your basic question structure, like "Are you going to the store?" As opposed to a negative question, which would be "Aren't you going to the store?"
Is La Habba suggesting that if fuckhead had been asked, for example, "Didn't you know Ms. Carroll?" instead of, "Did you know Ms. Carroll?" that would have made a difference?
"Propagated his response." I can see her groping for a word that tries to shift responsibility for the slanderous answer to the questioner. But, propagated? I propagated a coleus recently (and if you haven't propagated your coleuses, you should). My domain name servers propagated last time I changed them. "Instigate" wasn't working for you, Habba? "Provoked?" Or if you wanted to be outrageous as well as stupid, "Forced him kicking and screaming to give responses that he in no way believed but only gave to get those aggressive reporters off his back."
And yes, let's hear how the world's most famous liar never speaks with ill-will or hatred. Let's hear him testify about that. Because that would be useful. As Maybenaut and Realist have pointed out, that would be...interesting.
And how DARE Ms. Carroll tell all those people, and write in her book, that fuckhead had raped her! Perhaps Judge Kaplan didn't know about that; surely if he had, he would have realized that _she_ was the aggressor, and that fuckhead had, as he likes to say, every right to attack her back with as much ill will as he liked! Because she deserved it!
Oh wait, no, that doesn't work.
Which I know, even though IANAL, does not even put a dent in the legal insanity of her words.
Okay, I'm done. Affirmative question.... /muttering
bankruptcy doesn't necessarily protect Trump from having to pay up … as Alex Jones might be discovering.
