Subject: Re: Dersh on the verdict, albaby
Thanks for being so generous with your time. Can you comment to Dersh and explain the law to him? Thank you.

Sure! Here's the highlights:

In fact, the prosecution didn't tell the court what Trump's other 'crimes' were until their closing arguments on Wednesday – by which point the defense had no opportunity to respond.

This is categorically false. The prosecution outlined the "other crimes" to the court back in the pre-trial motion phase. They're discussed at length in the Court's order on the motion to dismiss! Three and a half months ago! The judge listed them all, and even threw one of the predicate crimes out! Dersh is either flat-out lying here, or he never bothered to read the pleadings in the case.

https://s3.documentcloud.org/d...

In his closing instructions, Judge Juan Merchan exposed his already apparent bias once more – telling the jurors that they didn't actually have to agree on the specifics of Trump's unlawful behavior.

How could someone defend themselves against such vague allegations?

Very easily! The allegations aren't vague, and Trump's defense counsel knew what they were! Merchan just told the jurors that they didn't have to all agree on each of the predicate crimes - which is true! That's what the law is. Why is that showing bias? Dersh doesn't have to like the law, but that's what the law is.