Rittenhouse Trial

[Jedi Guy]

57. You know what's really amusing about you clinging to Paul Butler's "expert" opinion?

I just read his opinion article in the Washington Post. You know, the one you're saying Schroeder complained about? And well he might, because your "expert" authority either A) deliberately distorted things by omitting information, or B) didn't bother to do any research whatsoever.

He presented the bit about the word "victim" being disallowed by the judge as if it were a rule that was created just for this trial. That is not true. The word "victim" being banned is a longstanding practice in Schroeder's courtroom, as confirmed by attorneys who have tried cases before him over the years. But Butler didn't deign to mention that in his opinion piece.

So which do you suppose is the case? Was he being deliberately dishonest by omitting information, or did he fail to do any research about this judge's practices before commenting on them? Whichever is the case, perhaps you'll forgive me for not cleaving to your "expert" authority's opinion in this matter.

Lastly, at which point did I say that your opinion has no value? I challenged your assertions, certainly, but that is not the same thing. I presented situations in which the judge sided with the prosecution in very important procedural motions, which undermine your claim of bias. Your response to that was "you are simply wrong," which is a slightly dressed-up version of the playground "nuh uh." So just who is devaluing whose opinion here, exactly?