Trump found guilty on all 34 counts

[ozso]

The letter isn't that long. Seven pages. The rest is the questionnaire prepared by both parties that the jury had to fill out.

The defense had a say in voie dire, as is the case for every jury trial. Any claim that they didn't has been proven false.

Unless you have something else that backs up Dershowitz' claim?

-- A2SG, you don't even have to look at the transcript website, I did that for you....

I have no doubt that you looked at it, sans actually reading it.

 

[A2SG]

I have no doubt that you looked at it, sans actually reading it.

I didn't read the entire transcript, true enough. I did read the letter, though. And it proves that the defense had a say in jury selection.

As is always the case with voie dire in jury trials.

So...you gonna dispense with that lie, or are you just going to hint that there's something wrong with the proof I offered (though not actually saying anything of the sort), so as to dismiss it without even considering it?

-- A2SG, what's it gonna be?

 

[Bradskii]

Anything I post will be rejected.

Anything that you post will be examined. If it has no worth, then yes. It will be rejected. But you've posted nothing, so there's nothing to reject. So your complaints about jury selection are summarily rejected. They are worthless.

If you want that position to change then post some evidence.

 

[ozso]

I didn't read the entire transcript, true enough. I did read the letter, though. And it proves that the defense had a say in jury selection.

As is always the case with voie dire in jury trials.

So...you gonna dispense with that lie, or are you just going to hint that there's something wrong with the proof I offered (though not actually saying anything of the sort), so as to dismiss it without even considering it?

-- A2SG, what's it gonna be?

Well let's see I have your opinion vs a Harvard law professor who was there the whole time... eeny, meeny, miny, moe.

I don't think anyone has offered up someone to dispute Dershowitz except for themselves.

 

[7thKeeper]

I have no doubt that you looked at it, sans actually reading it.

See? You've made up your mind to believe the lie because it fits your chosen narrative. Even direct evidence to the contrary is immediately dismissed.

 

[Bradskii]

The hour long video I posted must be invisible to some.

I've now checked every single post you've made. You've not posted an hour long video about jury selection in this thread. Why are you continually saying that you have presented evidence when all your posts can be seen and it is now painfully obvious that you are playing fast and loose with the truth.

 

[ozso]

Anything that you post will be examined. If it has no worth, then yes. It will be rejected. But you've posted nothing, so there's nothing to reject. So your complaints about jury selection are summarily rejected. They are worthless.

I have no trust in you whatsoever in doing anything else other than taking me 'round the mulberry bush.

If you want that position to change then post some evidence.

I did. Yet you keep asking for it over and over and over again. It's like the movie Groundhog Day where the guy keeps living the same day over and over and over again. It's like that Stephen Bishop song "on and on, on and on, on and on, on and ooonnnnn...".

 

[A2SG]

Well let's see I have your opinion vs a Harvard law professor who was there the whole time... eeny, meeny, miny, moe.

I offered no opinion. I offered documented proof that Trump's legal team had a say in jury selection.

I don't think anyone has offered up someone to dispute Dershowitz except for themselves.

Todd Blanche himself isn't good enough for you?

Dershowitz' claim that the judge and prosecution "hand-picked" the jury with no input from the defense has been incontrovertibly and undeniably proven false.

-- A2SG, but you now have the full trial transcript, feel free to find anything in there that proves Todd Blanche lied in his letter regarding jury selection....

 

[Bradskii]

Well let's see I have your opinion vs a Harvard law professor who was there the whole time... eeny, meeny, miny, moe.

Good grief. You have just been given actual proof that the defence had the same amount of input into jury selection as the prosecution. Direct evidence. Undeniably so. You have not been arguing in good faith. This is the icing on the cake.

 

[Bradskii]

I did.

You haven't and I've now checked every single post. I'm not putting up with this bulldust any more. I don't mind people disagreeing with me. I don't mind them bending the truth a little to make a point. But what you are doing is simply not acceptable.

Don't bother responding. I have no interest in reading anything you post so I won't be seeing anything that you do for a while.

 

[ozso]

See? You've made up your mind to believe the lie because it fits your chosen narrative. Even direct evidence to the contrary is immediately dismissed.

He already admitted that he didn't read it. Personally I'm not too sure how well I'll understand it all once I get around to reading it. And if I do find any issue with it, it will just be my novice critique. That's why in a situation like this it's best to appeal to authority, like someone who went to Harvard law school and passed the bar exam, or a Harvard law professor who was there during the entire trial.

 

[ozso]

Good grief. You have just been given actual proof that the defence had the same amount of input into jury selection as the prosecution. Direct evidence. Undeniably so. You have not been arguing in good faith. This is the icing on the cake.

Oh really. Then tell us in your own words what the PDF says that establishes proof. Even though you probably have no expertise in US law aside from the armchair variety. Come on Bradskii, knock my socks off with your armature acumen.

 

[ozso]

You haven't and I've now checked every single post. I'm not putting up with this bulldust any more. I don't mind people disagreeing with me. I don't mind them bending the truth a little to make a point. But what you are doing is simply not acceptable.

Don't bother responding. I have no interest in reading anything you post so I won't be seeing anything that you do for a while.

On and on, on and on, on and on, on and ooonnnnn... Rinse, wash, repeat. Here we go 'round the mulberry bush, the mulberry bush, the mulberry bush, here we go 'round the mulberry bush... It's the song that never ends, it goes on and on my friends... The never ending storyyyy...

I'm pretty sure Shapiro talks about jury selection and orders in there somewhere:

 

[A2SG]

He already admitted that he didn't read it.

I admit I didn't read every word of the full transcript.

I also admitted that I DID read the jury selection letter I posted.

Did you?

Personally I'm not too sure how well I'll understand it all once I get around to reading it.

It isn't that hard to understand.

For instance:

The Court has closely scrutinized all of the proposed questions submitted by both parties, including those which the parties have agreed to. Guided by settled legal authority and the requirements of the CPL, the Court has modified some questions and excluded others. The resulting questionnaire is broad and exhaustive. It consists of 42 numbered questions, many of which contain multiple sub-questions, covering all relevant areas of inquiry.​

Emphasis added.

Todd Blanche's own words, clearly showing his team's direct involvement in jury selection.

And if I do find any issue with it, it will just be my novice critique. That's why in a situation like this it's best to appeal to authority, like someone who went to Harvard law school and passed the bar exam, or a Harvard professor who was there during the entire trial.

Or the lead counsel for the defense himself.

-- A2SG, can't do better than that....

 

[A2SG]

On and on, on and on, on and on, on and ooonnnnn...

Puts on Sinatra and starts to cry....

-- A2SG, smilin' when I feel like dyin'....

 

[ozso]

I admit I didn't read every word of the full transcript.

I also admitted that I DID read the jury selection letter I posted.

Did you?


It isn't that hard to understand.

For instance:

The Court has closely scrutinized all of the proposed questions submitted by both parties, including those which the parties have agreed to. Guided by settled legal authority and the requirements of the CPL, the Court has modified some questions and excluded others. The resulting questionnaire is broad and exhaustive. It consists of 42 numbered questions, many of which contain multiple sub-questions, covering all relevant areas of inquiry.​

Emphasis added.

Todd Blanche's own words, clearly showing his team's direct involvement in jury selection.

Or the lead counsel for the defense himself.

-- A2SG, can't do better than that....

LOL that excerpt doesn't say the judge didn't pick the jury. And were you there during the trial to authenticate everything in that document is 100% accurate and forthcoming covering every aspect and detail? Go find a Harvard law professor who was there during the entire trial to tell us how it went down.

 

[A2SG]

LOL that excerpt doesn't say the judge didn't pick the jury. And were you there during the trial to authenticate everything in that document is 100% accurate and forthcoming covering every aspect and detail? Go find a Harvard law professor who was there during the entire trial to tell us how it went down.

Todd Blanche was there every day during the trial, and was directly involved in every part of the proceedings.

Alan Dershowitz doesn't know more than Todd Blanche regarding this trial. BLANCHE WAS THE LEAD COUNSEL.

I don't have to authenticate anything Todd Blanche said...he does it himself. HE WROTE THE LETTER.

-- A2SG, sheesh....

 

[Pommer]

If it's too much for that rapidly aging man, the current rapidly aging man doesn't stand a chance.

As usual you speak in riddles. Do you ever ask yourself, "will they understand what I'm about to write"?

Joe isn’t tasked with “saving the republic” though, all he need do is hold the office and faithfully fulfill his Oath of Office.

When you said,

“Trump's going to save the republic the dems and libs are taking down the drain.“,

it sounded to me as if you think that instead of having slightly differing public policies, the Democratic Party is dismantling our system of governance.
It’s just the usual politics that we’ve had for about 18 years (but ginned up to 11 for far too long), and I understand your further comments

“For some reason everything being unaffordable, rampant crime, rampant homelessness, rampant drug addiction, and all the weird stuff aimed at little kids etc just isn't appealing to us any longer.”,

as being evidence that you’re tired of it all, but the Presidency doesn’t have King-like powers to affect affordability, the economy is chugging along at a nice pace, if things ”cost too much” then maybe we’re not paying ourselves enough?

As for the three “rampants”, yeah they were problems under Trump I too, what did he do to combat these ?
Oh yeah, he put Jared in charge of “the opioid problem“. Pfft.

The “weird stuff aimed at little kids” probably isn’t addressable from the Oval Office, the government can affect the society but it is not in control of the society…and should not be unless you’d like to live in a country where the government dictates what is “acceptable (or not)”?

 

[ozso]

Todd Blanche was there every day during the trial, and was directly involved in every part of the proceedings.

Alan Dershowitz doesn't know more than Todd Blanche regarding this trial. BLANCHE WAS THE LEAD COUNSEL.

Show where in that PDF jury selection didn't happen the way Dershowitz said it did.

I don't have to authenticate anything Todd Blanche said...he does it himself. HE WROTE THE LETTER.
-- A2SG, sheesh....

What letter? You posted an NY courts dot gov cover page with an extensive menu.

How about we listen to what Todd Blanche has to say about the trial:

 

[A2SG]

Show where in that PDF jury selection didn't happen the way Dershowitz said it did.

I did. I even posted an excerpt where Todd Blanche himself specifically writes about how he, along with the court and the prosecution, conferred on a questionnaire that was used to select the jury, a questionnaire that Blanche himself says was "broad and exhaustive." The letter itself goes into more detail, including the questionnaire itself.

What letter? You posted an NY courts dot gov cover page with an extensive menu.

Once again, a direct link to the letter itself:

https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/PDFs/Letter-re-jury-selection-4-8-24.pdf

I posted the link. If you can't be bothered to read it, I can't help you.

-- A2SG, gotta meet me partway, dude.....