🚨🚨🚨

Some rando summarizing data? No. Either he is an expert or not. https://t.co/qDVMeEALWN

— Bradley P. Moss (@BradMossEsq) February 25, 2024

What I know of this is part of a tweeted article from AJC (Atlanta paper), where they quoted this guy (I assume; who else?) that he used the “gold standard” of some program/app law enforcement uses to make this kind of analysis. Well, okay, I thought; if that’s true….

Maybe it isn’t. 

You can say what you want to reporters or on Twitter or in columns for The Hill (which really should have pulled Turley’s turd down by now); but you can’t say anything you want in an evidentiary hearing. 

As Trump is going to find out.

If this guy can’t be qualified as an expert (and Trump says he can’t), he can’t testify to the results of his analysis. That’s opinion testimony, and only experts can offer that. He can’t even opine on the qualities of the program/whatever he used. And if he can’t testify about this evidence, it can’t be evidence. His credentials and expertise would make it admissible. No credentials, no grounds to treat him as an expert: no testimony.

EOD.

I’m only this certain because I don’t understand why you argue your witness can give expert testimony (i.e., opinion) without being an expert. If you have an expert, you just show up. If you don’t, and have to argue it doesn’t matter; you’ve already lost.😞 

EOD.

(Why don’t they get somebody else? Dunno 🤷🏻‍♂️. Time crunch; nobody else is willing; these results are only seen by this non-expert expert (BINGO! IMHO).

Anyway, I think the breathless expectation that Willis and Wade were stupid enough to perjure themselves over a non-issue is proven, once again, stupid. 

If really is amazing the dumb things people will think. And Trump’s lawyers suck. Put money in your purse.