Maggie Haberman has a whole bunch of new journalism scoops about Donald Trump’s private thoughts and fears, the things that give him the jitters and make him poop the bed. And his lawyer Alina Habba is confirming those thoughts and fears on live TV, because that’s what lawyers are supposed to do with their clients’ private thoughts and fears, and she is a lawyer, yes? No? Yes?
The other day, Habes said on CNN that Trump is scared the Supreme Court is going to rule against him.
“They believe, generally speaking, he and his advisors, that they will have success at the Supreme Court, but he has also voiced some concern that a court that has — he appointed three of the justices at the Supreme Court and gave the conservatives a supermajority — he is concerned that they are going to look as if they’re trying not to rule in his favor and might rule against him,” Haberman said.
Because that’s definitely how Supreme Court justices make decisions. (Maybe if you’re a conservative, shruggie emoticon.)
Trump has been kicked off the ballot in Colorado and Maine, two states he was highly unlikely to win in November anyway. Of course, the Supreme Court will also surely very soon hear arguments over whether he has total immunity for all crimes committed, past, present, and future, or whether he is in fact a mortal man who is subject to the law.
Habes told Anderson Cooper last night that Trump is “very angry” that the justices of the Supreme Court have ruled against him (HIS justices, he believes, obviously). Moreover, he’s not “particularly optimistic” they’re going to rule that he is the infallible king of everything. That would be some very RIGGED and STOLLEN behavior from HIS Supreme Court justices!
Long transcript, we’ll try to cut out the boring parts and the farts:
COOPER: Maggie, how much do you think the former president is betting on favorable Supreme Court intervention? Whether it’s the issue of ballot qualification or immunity from prosecution.
HABERMAN: I think those are different cases. I don’t think that his folks are — or he are particularly optimistic that they’re going to win on the presidential immunity. […]
On this question, which is a separate one, his team feels more confident that the Supreme Court is going to go with him. He has said that himself, but he has also said to other people, and one of his lawyers confirmed this reporting earlier today. He has said to some people he’s concerned that the justices, who he appointed, are going to be afraid of looking like they’re taking his side politically and not doing that.
And some of that is because he has been very angry, as you know, at the justices he appointed that they haven’t gone his way. They’ve gone his way on policy matters on a number of cases. They have not on his election-related cases.
Like we said, very RIGGED and STOLLEN of HIS JUDGES not to rubber-stamp his dementia syphilis hallucinations about election fraud. How is that fair, Brett and Amy and Neil? Donald Trump made you! (Guaran-damn-tee that is what Trump thinks.)
Habes further told Anderson that Trump is going to show up in court to defend himself, even during arguments where he’s not actually even allowed to talk, because “he sees himself as his own best defender and communicator right now.” Glad to hear he’s still clinging on to that particular delusion.
Also he will show up so he can use it for grifting. Obviously.
You’ll note there that Haberman said “one of his lawyers” had confirmed her earlier reporting about Trump’s inner dread. She said he’s worried the Supreme Court might “shy away from being pro-Trump.”
Yep, she did indeed do that:
Responding to New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman’s recent comments about Trump’s concerns, Habba during an interview on Fox News said, “That’s a concern he’s voiced to me, he’s voiced to everybody publicly, not privately. And I can tell you that his concern is a valid one.”
Dear God, we would not hire Alina Habba to get us out of a speeding ticket, she is such a blithering moron and shitty lawyer.
“You know, Republicans are conservative, they get nervous. They unfortunately … sometimes shy away from being pro-Trump because they feel that even if the law is on our side, they are swayed much like the Democratic side, right?” Habba told Fox News anchor Martha MacCallum. “So they’re trying so hard to look neutral that sometimes, they make the wrong call.”
Again, she’s talking about judges. On the Supreme Court. Poor babies just get nervous about loving Trump too much, even if the law is totally on his side.
Habba on Wednesday said she encourages the justices to “really look at the law in the Constitution.”
Love it when Alina Habba tells SCOTUS to “really look at the law in the Constitution.” They might not have thought of that prior to her saying that.
“It’s a very clean cut,” she said. “There’s no … politics that should be involved in this. It’s just simply American, and if the justices read the law, as I do, as most Americans and attorneys do, even [Alan Dershowitz] — who’s a known liberal — it’s just a simple decision, and it should have nothing to do with if you’re Republican or Democrat.”
Even KNOWN LIBERAL Alan Dershowitz.
What a shameless clownfucking hack.
We look forward to watching this dipshit lose and lose and lose all year long, and then probably quit lawyering altogether once her service to Trump is done, after which point she will inevitably become an OAN anchor. (Either because nobody will hire her for her legal services, or because she fucks around and gets disbarred, or maybe because anybody willing to represent Trump in a court of law is just a grifter anyway.)
Here is a video of Melania’s Understudy Habba saying all this on Fox News, if you have zero better things to do with your life:
[The Hill / The Hill / Mediaite]
Evan Hurst on Twitter right here.
@evanjosephhurst on Threads!
I have profiles those other places but I think I forgot how to log on.
If you're shopping on Amazon anyway, this portal gives us a small commission.
Well, looky-here. Evan's not sticking with mere cats.
As some of you know, I’ve been reading all the filings in TFG’s criminal cases and cross-posting my comments in Notes. I *think* you can click on my profile to read my prior Notes.
My take as a lawyer? TFG is fucked, at least insofar as his bullshit claims of “absolute Presidential immunity” and “double jeopardy,” which he has asserted as defenses in the election interference charges brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith in DC, before District Judge Chutkan. The only issue is how quickly the 3-judge panel of the DC Court of Appeals will rule (I think it will be within a week of oral arguments on 1/9), followed by how quickly the full DC COA will deny his petition for en banc review, followed by how quickly SCOTUS denies his petition for writ of certiorari.
While TFG is entitled to his current appeal on his API and DJ defenses, he is NOT entitled to en banc review by the entire DC COA, or a cert petition with SCOTUS. And frankly, I don’t think SCOTUS wants to touch the DC election interference cases with a 10-foot pole. So, it likely all rests on the 3-judge panel, and whether they lift the stay of trial court proceedings after issuing its ruling, while TFG pursues his strategy of “delay, delay, delay.”
The ballot cases may be a different story, but TFG should be shitting his pants right now, and rightly so.
Stay tuned!