'I can fake being smart': Trump lawyer Alina Habba says she'd rather be pretty – Raw Story
Kathleen Culliton is Raw Story's assistant managing editor. She's been covering local and national news for more than a decade for outlets that include the New York Post, Al Jazeera, DNAinfo New York, Bustle, the New York Daily News, WNYC, NY1, City Limits and the New York City Patch. Kathleen is a proud alumna of the CUNY Graduate School of Journalism. Here's a shocker; she is from New York City.
Donald Trump's attorney wants the public to know her good looks are more important than her intelligence, because she can "fake being smart."
“I don’t think I’d be on T.V. or sitting here if I didn’t look the way I look,” Alina Habba said Thursday. “It doesn’t hurt to be good looking.”
Habba was asked to discuss her physical appearance on the PBD Podcast by co-host Bryan Callen, who questioned why an “alpha male” like Trump would pick her for his $250 million fraud case defense.
“He picks a smart, feminine, capable woman,” Callen said.
“Right,” Habba agreed.
ALSO READ: ‘Official’ Trump calendar omits a critical detail
“How much of you being an attractive, smart, do you think played into that?” Callen asked.
Habba then launched into a long answer during which she declared she is not a feminist and would rather be pretty than smart (“I can fake being smart.")
“When you’re good looking, that’s great,” Habba said. “People think that President Trump hired me because I’m good looking. That is absolutely not the case.”
This exchange quickly made its way to X where users professed themselves delighted, charmed and impressed.
“Legally Bland,” replied Anthony LoPresti.
“Sound legal strategy from Trump,” replied @PatriotTakes.
Clay Moser had advice: “She should start at least faking she’s smart.”
Chris Herbst paraphrased: “Basically, ‘I’m not a good lawyer, but I play one on tv.’”
Watch the interview below or click here.
One of Donald Trump's biographers sees the profits he scored through his hotels while president as cause for concern about blackmail or other forms of national security threats.
Speaking to MSNBC on Thursday, Tim O'Brien explained that from the very beginning there were concerns about how Trump would conduct his business while also serving as president. While he claimed to be prepared to put his companies into a blind trust, he never did, and the profits rolled in.
When doing business in Washington, foreign leaders stayed at the Trump Hotel, according to a House Oversight and Reform Committee report by Democrats who sifted through at least $8 million he made in a few years. When asked to conduct more investigations, Democrats said that chairman James Comer (R-KY) obstructed the investigation.
"I think we've known since Trump came into the White House that he offered an unprecedented set of problems because no other president had entered the Oval Office with this huge yarn of business dealings at home and abroad like Trump had, and that was clearly beyond the initial expectations," said O'Brien.
ALSO READ: ‘Official’ Trump calendar omits a critical detail
He noted that the framers of the Constitution were well aware at the time that presidents could be bribed. It's the reason they added the Emoluments Clause to the Constitution.
"It precludes presidents from accepting money, gifts or any other financially rewarding material from a foreign power without consulting Congress first," he explained. Trump never consulted with Congress.
"And that made him a national security threat and while the report is backward-looking in terms of pegging dollar amounts to Trump and his activities while he was in the White House, this remains a problem for him if he goes to the White House for a second time," said O'Brien. "He's a national security threat and he's also a threat to the foundations of good government because it's a non-partisan issue and we shouldn't have any public official who is beholden to a foreign power in any way financially because inevitably that will shape their decisions against public policy."
Trump, he said, is the example of why it's a problem, but also why the laws aren't strong enough to accommodate someone like Trump who is willing to challenge the law.
See the clip of the conversation below or click here.
Ex-House Republican aide not shocked to see Trump proffiting off presidencyyoutu.be
Massachusetts voters Thursday joined the fight to bump Donald Trump from 2024 presidential ballots under the 14th Amendment's insurrectionist ban.
The group Free Speech for People — which pursued similar action in Minnesota and Michigan — announced in a press release that they've filed a new challenge with the Massachusetts Ballot Law Commission.
Among the challengers are Republicans, Independents, and former Boston Mayor Kim Janey, the group says.
“Donald Trump violated his oath of office and incited a violent insurrection that attacked the U.S. Capitol, threatened the assassination of the Vice President and congressional leaders, and disrupted the peaceful transfer of power for the first time in our nation’s history,” said Ron Fein, Legal Director at Free Speech For People.
ALSO READ: ‘Official’ Trump calendar omits a critical detail
“Trump is legally barred from the ballot and election officials must follow this constitutional mandate.”
Massachusetts law empowers the state's governor-appointed Ballot Law Commission to render decisions on the constitutional qualifications of political nominees in presidential primaries, the group argues.
Last month, Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth William F. Galvin, a Democrat, told the Boston Globe he would include Trump’s name on the presidential primary ballot because state Republicans submitted his name.
“There a lot of good reasons not to like Trump," Galvin told the Globe. "But this isn’t about Trump’s personality."
Their challenge comes as Trump battles two similar ballot-blocking rulings in Maine and Colorado, the latter of which is likely to reach the Supreme Court.
Labor Attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan said she joins the challengers in Massachusetts to protect the rule of law across the nation.
“Today’s legal action is not about partisan politics but about upholding our Constitution," Liss-Riordan said. "That is why Massachusetts voters across the political spectrum have joined together to challenge Donald Trump’s wrongful placement on the Massachusetts ballot.”
A former Texas judge serving time on death row for gunning down a prosecutor in front of a courthouse and also slaying a district attorney and wife months later is seeking a new capital punishment trial.
Nearly a decade after the one-time Kaufman County justice of the peace Eric Williams was convicted of going on a killing spree that killed Kaufman County District Attorney Mike McLelland, his wife Cynthia, and Assistant District Attorney Mark Hasse — he wants another crack in the court, according to WFAA.
In his 169-page filing, Williams claims his defense was hastily prepared for the state's case, argued that the judge was biased, and that moving the trial venue from Kaufman County to Rockwall County was insufficient in toning down the trial's high media profile.
On Jan. 31, 2013, Williams, wearing a Halloween mask and a bulletproof vest, gunned down assistant prosecutor Hasse, according to The Texan.
ALSO READ: ‘Official’ Trump calendar omits a critical detail
Hasse had been the prosecutor who helped convict Williams of a 2011 theft of computer monitors from a local county building.
Cops initially suspected the assassination was the handiwork of the Aryan Brotherhood prison gang but then centered on Williams, who had been disbarred and let go from his position as justice of the peace after his being found guilty in 2012 of theft.
He struck again on the early morning of March 30, 2013.
Williams broke into the home of Mike and Cynthia McLelland and emptied at least 20 .223 caliber rounds from his AR-15 before bolting away in a white Crown Victoria driven by his wife Kim Williams, according to a court papers.
Less than a month into the manhunt, Eric and his wife were arrested for the murders of Michael McLelland, Cynthia Woodward McLelland, and Mark Hasse.
Eric was found guilty of capital murder and sentenced to death by lethal injection. Meanwhile his wife took a plea deal and testified against her husband at trial before being sentenced to 40 years.
She confirmed that she was a willing accomplice for all three murders and revealed that Eric kept a hit list.
The couple divorced behind bars in 2018.
According to multiple news outlets, Williams has attempted to appeal his sentencing in the past but so far has been unsuccessful.
Copyright © 2023 Raw Story Media, Inc. PO Box 21050, Washington, D.C. 20009 | Masthead | Privacy Policy | Manage Preferences | Debug Logs
For corrections contact corrections@rawstory.com, for support contact support@rawstory.com.