Judge Judy slams hush money case against Trump as ‘nonsense’

[A2SG]

It's what the voters who heard her think that matters.

I guess that would depend on how highly they value her opinion when voting come November. But her opinion on this verdict is no more or less valid than anyone else's uninformed opinion.

What evidence did they see that no one else is privy to?

The evidence the prosecution presented at trial.

-- A2SG, standard operating procedure for criminal trials, don't cha know....

 

[ozso]

I guess that would depend on how highly they value her opinion when voting come November. But her opinion on this verdict is no more or less valid than anyone else's uninformed opinion.

Do you really think someone with around 60 years legal experience, who probably has dozens of connections within the legal system (especially in NY) is uninformed?

The evidence the prosecution presented at trial.

-- A2SG, standard operating procedure for criminal trials, don't cha know....

Which was? What is it the jury saw that someone examining the outcome of the trial can't see?

A huge collection of texts, emails and phone messages from Donald Trump's Stormy Daniels trial have been posted online. NBC uploaded more than 400 prosecution slides shown to the jury in the hush-money case.

Avalanche of Donald Trump trial documents made public

More than 400 slides of texts, emails and phone messages from the Stormy Daniels hush-money trial are now publicly available.

www.newsweek.com

 

[A2SG]

Do you really think someone with around 60 years legal experience, who probably has dozens of connections within the legal system (especially in NY) is uninformed?

Unless she's seen all the evidence the prosecution presented, she's no more informed than anyone else, and considerably less informed than the jury was.

Which was? What is it the jury saw that someone examining the outcome of the trial can't see?

A huge collection of texts, emails and phone messages from Donald Trump's Stormy Daniels trial have been posted online. NBC uploaded more than 400 prosecution slides shown to the jury in the hush-money case.

Avalanche of Donald Trump trial documents made public

More than 400 slides of texts, emails and phone messages from the Stormy Daniels hush-money trial are now publicly available.

www.newsweek.com

I have no idea if that's the full extent of the evidence shown to the jury. But if you'd like a transcript of the trial, one is available.

So, with this information now available to you, why don't you tell me, exactly which piece of evidence proves the jury's conclusion to be incorrect. Feel free to be as specific as necessary.

-- A2SG, and take all the time you need.....

 

[Larniavc]

“I, as a taxpayer in this country, resent using the system for your own personal self-aggrandizement,” the Amazon Freevee “Judy Justice” personality said of Bragg.

Judge Judy slams hush money case against Trump as ‘nonsense’

“Judge Judy” Sheindlin is calling Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s (D) hush money case against former President Trump “nonsense.” “You gotta twist yourself into a pretzel to figure out what the crime was. [Bragg] doesn’t like him — New York City didn’t like him for a while,” Sheindlin...

www.yahoo.com

She doesn't think Trump should have been president, but is honest enough to speak about the case objectively. In my opinion the witch hunt against Trump is election interference. Trump won't be able to speak about most of his case during the debates, and that's a violation of my right to hear what both candidates have to say--that's more election interference.

Are you serious?

 

[Valletta]

Are you serious?

Alan Dershowitz too said it was the weakest case he had ever seen in practicing law for over sixty years. It is nonsense accept it is so serious, and it bodes poorly for our country that so many people think it's fine to violate the Constitution in order to get Trump.

 

[ozso]

Unless she's seen all the evidence the prosecution presented, she's no more informed than anyone else, and considerably less informed than the jury was.


I have no idea if that's the full extent of the evidence shown to the jury. But if you'd like a transcript of the trial, one is available.

So, with this information now available to you, why don't you tell me, exactly which piece of evidence proves the jury's conclusion to be incorrect. Feel free to be as specific as necessary.

-- A2SG, and take all the time you need.....

You don't have a valid argument against Sheindlin's expert evaluation of the trial.

 

[A2SG]

Alan Dershowitz too said it was the weakest case he had ever seen in practicing law for over sixty years. It is nonsense accept it is so serious, and it bodes poorly for our country that so many people think it's fine to violate the Constitution in order to get Trump.

If you can prove the Constitution was violated, or that the verdict was incorrect in some valid, legal way, feel free to provide the evidence for that.

If all you have is your opinion, then join the club. You and everyone else are equally as entitled to hold any opinion you like.

-- A2SG, Dershowitz, Judge Judy and everyone else no more or less so.....

 

[A2SG]

You don't have a valid argument against Sheindlin's expert evaluation of the trial.

I never claimed to have one.

-- A2SG, you didn't see me offer one, did you?

 

[ozso]

Alan Dershowitz too said it was the weakest case he had ever seen in practicing law for over sixty years. It is nonsense accept it is so serious, and it bodes poorly for our country that so many people think it's fine to violate the Constitution in order to get Trump.

No one seems to have an argument against the legal expertise of Dershowitz, or Cuomo, or Sheindlin etc.

 

[ozso]

I never claimed to have one.

-- A2SG, you didn't see me offer one, did you?

Good then, we're finished here.

 

[A2SG]

Good then, we're finished here.

So you're not going to prove the jury was wrong with the evidence available?

I'm surprised. Shocked, I say.

-- A2SG, and you seemed so sure of yourself for a minute there....

 

[ozso]

If you can prove the Constitution was violated, or that the verdict was incorrect in some valid, legal way, feel free to provide the evidence for that.

If all you have is your opinion, then join the club. You and everyone else are equally as entitled to hold any opinion you like.

-- A2SG, Dershowitz, Judge Judy and everyone else no more or less so.....

What you're saying is completely pointless. Expressing opinions is what discussion threads consist of. You might as well be at a dog show and say "all you have is a dog". Or at a craft show and say "all you have is the stuff you made".

 

[A2SG]

No one seems to have an argument against the legal expertise of Dershowitz, or Cuomo, or Sheindlin etc.

Why should we? They has as much right to their opinion as anyone else has.

-- A2SG, and let no one tell you different....

 

[A2SG]

What you're saying is completely pointless. Expressing opinions is what discussion threads consist of. You might as well be at a dog show and say "all you have is a dog". Or at a craft show and say "all you have is the stuff you made".

Sure. But you're presenting Judge Judy's opinion as if she's an expert on this trial. Except that she wasn't there, nor was she on the jury, so she has no idea what the jury saw, nor why they voted the way they did. Her opinion is no more, or less, valid than yours. Or mine.

-- A2SG, or Jeff Probst's....

 

[ozso]

So you're not going to prove the jury was wrong with the evidence available?

I'm surprised. Shocked, I say.

-- A2SG, and you seemed so sure of yourself for a minute there....

What's the title and topic of this thread? Here's a hint; it's not "Ceallaigh proves the jury was wrong".

 

[ozso]

Sure. But you're presenting Judge Judy's opinion as if she's an expert on this trial. Except that she wasn't there, nor was she on the jury, so she has no idea what the jury saw, nor why they voted the way they did. Her opinion is no more, or less, valid than yours. Or mine.

-- A2SG, or Jeff Probst's....

I've already demonstrated why that's not a valid argument. No matter how many more times you repeat it. By your resoning the evaluation of experts in trials shouldn't exist. That asking a cardiologist about heart ayrthmia is the same as asking Jeff Probst. Your argument makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[A2SG]

What's the title and topic of this thread? Here's a hint; it's not "Ceallaigh proves the jury was wrong".

Right. So Judge Judy offered an opinion. Good for her.

I've already demonstrated why that's not a valid argument. No matter how many more times you repeat it. By your resoning the evaluation of experts in trials shouldn't exist.

Does Judge Judy have any special expertise as related to this specific trial, and the specific evidence provided to the jury?

If not, then her opinion carries no more, or less, weight than anyone else's.

That asking a cardiologist about heart ayrthmia is the same as asking Jeff Probst. Your argument makes no sense whatsoever.

If a cardiologist has never met you, nor has he ever treated you for your specific heart condition, would you rely on his diagnosis without question? Or would you prefer he examine you first?

-- A2SG, sometimes, specific information matters.....

 

[ozso]

Right. So Judge Judy offered an opinion. Good for her.


Does Judge Judy have any special expertise as related to this specific trial, and the specific evidence provided to the jury?

If not, then her opinion carries no more, or less, weight than anyone else's.

Okay so you don't understand the difference between an expert evaluation and the opinion of Jeff Probst. I suppose in future trials instead of the defense and prosecution calling upon the evaluation of experts, they might as well just put Jeff Probst on the stand.

If a cardiologist has never met you, nor has he ever treated you for your specific heart condition, would you rely on his diagnosis without question? Or would you prefer he examine you first?

-- A2SG, sometimes, specific information matters.....

I'm not talking about a diagnosis, I'm talking about an evaluation. According to you the evaluation of an expert is the same as the evaluation of a novice.

 

[A2SG]

Okay so you don't understand the difference between an expert evaluation and the opinion of Jeff Probst. I suppose in future trials instead of the defense and prosecution calling upon the evaluation of experts, they might as well just put Jeff Probst on the stand.

If the attorneys can prove the experts have relevant, specific expertise in the exact matter before the court, their testimony will be heard...and the opposing side's attorneys will be able to cross examine and show any lapses in their expertise. That's how expert testimony is handled in court.

Now, can you demonstrate that Judge Judy has relevant, specific expertise in the exact case at hand, including the evidence the prosecution provided that proved, to a jury, that Trump was guilty of the crimes he was indicted for? If you can't, then her opinion is no more, or less, valid than anyone else's.

As I've said.

I'm not talking about a diagnosis, I'm talking about an evaluation. According to you the evaluation of an expert is the same as the evaluation of a novice.

You'll have to point out where I said that. What I did say was that the opinions of people who lack relevant, specific expertise in the exact matter before the court, including the full evidence shown to the jury, are no more, or less, valid than anyone else's.

Now, if you want to claim Judge Judy has specific expertise in this specific case, including direct knowledge of the specific evidence involved, then maybe you could have a point. But you haven't shown she has any such expertise, so....

What I said stands.

Now, I'm sure Judge Judy has a very good knowledge of general court procedures, and even specifics of NY law, but that doesn't mean she can know whether or not the jury was correct in their evaluation of the evidence provided by the prosecution. If she wants to contend that there were irregularities or legal issues with the ruling, well, the appeals court will be reviewing the case, and they'll make their decision in due time. Judge Judy, I'm guessing, won't be consulted.

-- A2SG, but you are, of course, free to weigh her opinion as much, or as little, as you like....

 

[ozso]

If the attorneys can prove the experts have relevant, specific expertise in the exact matter before the court, their testimony will be heard...and the opposing side's attorneys will be able to cross examine and show any lapses in their expertise. That's how expert testimony is handled in court.

Now, can you demonstrate that Judge Judy has relevant, specific expertise in the exact case at hand, including the evidence the prosecution provided that proved, to a jury, that Trump was guilty of the crimes he was indicted for? If you can't, then her opinion is no more, or less, valid than anyone else's.

As I've said.


You'll have to point out where I said that. What I did say was that the opinions of people who lack relevant, specific expertise in the exact matter before the court, including the full evidence shown to the jury, are no more, or less, valid than anyone else's.

Now, if you want to claim Judge Judy has specific expertise in this specific case, including direct knowledge of the specific evidence involved, then maybe you could have a point. But you haven't shown she has any such expertise, so....

What I said stands.

Now, I'm sure Judge Judy has a very good knowledge of general court procedures, and even specifics of NY law, but that doesn't mean she can know whether or not the jury was correct in their evaluation of the evidence provided by the prosecution. If she wants to contend that there were irregularities or legal issues with the ruling, well, the appeals court will be reviewing the case, and they'll make their decision in due time. Judge Judy, I'm guessing, won't be consulted.

-- A2SG, but you are, of course, free to weigh her opinion as much, or as little, as you like....

She didn't say anything about the evidence or the jury or the verdict. She evaluated procedure. Which as you say, she has very good knowledge of.

This whole time you've been putting out red herrings regarding what she did not comment on.

How about adressing what she actually said and talked about?