I already explained the problem with excluding Bradley Smith's testimony, while allowing in evidence of purported FEC violations by Cohen and Pecker. Not sure what else to say. So AI trying to downplay those rulings as just run-of-the-mill decisions is flatly wrong.
You claimed what I posted was all wrong:
This is all wrong. Be careful using that AI stuff. 
What about what the Judge did or what I posted was wrong exactly?
What he did was within the law and a practice that has, sound reasoning, legal precedent, and guidelines.
I never said they were "run-of-the-mill" decisions.
It's also wrong to conclude precisely what the jury found as the underlying crime. I gave you the links to the statute, the indictment, and the jury verdict. All you need to do is read them and believe what you see.
No disrespect intended here, but it's really naïve to believe that jurors cannot make mistakes, or act in a partisan manner, etc. I gave you two examples of how badly jurors and judges can get it wrong. Look at Colorado as another example. And have you heard of jury nullification? OJ is an example of that.
I never said juries are 100% right. I said Trump was found guilty by all 12 jurors and that's fine by me until something else says otherwise. The percentage of verdicts that are successfully appealed are estimated to be less than 5%, so I will stand with this conclusion for now.
It's all right there in front of you. It is actually as bad as it looks.
It's not about what it looks like. It's about what it is. Some one asserts that the Judge restricted testimony and therefore the trial wasn't fair. However the practice of restricting testimony in complex cases does happen and there are guidelines, reasoning, and legal residence for doing it. So unless there was something specific that Brad Smith could have pointed to that would exonerate Trump of these charges, there is nothing to see (looks like) here.
So AI trying to downplay those rulings as just run-of-the-mill decisions is flatly wrong.
This is not how AI works. PLatforms like ChatGPT and Claudia are prompt-based, meaning they respond to the prompt given. Here is an example:
Prompt: How would I argue that Judge Marchen did show bias by limiting Brad Smith testimony?
Answer: To argue that Judge Merchan showed bias by limiting Brad Smith's testimony, you can focus on several key points that suggest the judge's decision might have favored the prosecution and hindered Trump's defense:
Impact on Defense Strategy:
By restricting Brad Smith's testimony, Judge Merchan potentially weakened Trump's defense. Smith, as a former Chairman of the Federal Election Commission (FEC), was a key expert who could have provided critical insights into the interpretation of campaign finance laws. His testimony could have challenged the prosecution's narrative that Trump's actions constituted a violation of these laws (Homepage page - Mon Valley Independent).
Selective Exclusion of Testimony:
The judge allowed Smith to testify only on general facts about the FEC and campaign finance terminology, barring him from discussing how these laws specifically related to Trump's case. This selective exclusion could be seen as limiting the defense's ability to counter the prosecution's claims effectively, thereby creating an imbalance in the presentation of the case (POLITICO) (Homepage page - Mon Valley Independent).
Legal Interpretations Favoring Prosecution:
The restriction prevented Smith from addressing the complexities and nuances of campaign finance law that could have supported Trump's defense. For instance, Smith could have argued that the payments to Stormy Daniels were not made with the intent of influencing an election, a key point in defending against campaign finance violations. By preventing this testimony, the judge might have favored the prosecution's broader interpretation of the law (Homepage page - Mon Valley Independent).
Perception of Fairness:
Judicial decisions should ensure the perception of fairness in the courtroom. Limiting a key defense witness's testimony, especially one with extensive expertise like Smith, might be perceived as creating an unfair trial environment. This perception could be amplified by the fact that Smith's expertise was directly relevant to the central issues in the case (Homepage page - Mon Valley Independent).
Precedents and Judicial Consistency:
Critics might argue that in similar high-profile cases, expert testimonies have been allowed to provide comprehensive legal interpretations. The decision to restrict Smith's testimony could be viewed as inconsistent with such precedents, suggesting a potential bias in this particular case.
By emphasizing these points, you can argue that Judge Merchan's decision to limit Brad Smith's testimony might have shown bias, as it seemingly constrained the defense's ability to present a full and robust argument against the charges.
