One of the invariable features of a high-profile criminal trial is the “here’s who’s on the jury” story: eight men, four women; six white jurors, four Asians, two Latinos; four government employees, two corporate marketing executives, a plumber from Smallville, and five disheveled Substack writers. American courts are open, and the American press is almost entirely free to describe what happens in the courtroom.
I rushed to get this one in ahead of an appointment, so I forgot to link to the post in which I first called RBG an "inversion blender" -- a person who mixes facts together senselessly, then flips their meaning upside-down. Longtime readers will remember, I hope, but here:
On another note, there’s good-and-darn-well a reason they’re hosting this in NYC: it’s one of the only places (the other is D.C.) where they’re guaranteed to get a conviction.
In voir dire, the prosecution is doubly making sure they 'pick to convict' by using JuryQuest, JurySync, iJury, Jury Solutions, and JuryStar; the prosecution has an unlimited budget after all. They have every juror--and alternates--nailed down so tight they know their favorite toothpaste, how they vote (<~~key) heck, even the color shoe laces they’d pick if given the choice. In other words, they know more about the jury pool than Zuckerberg.
Don’t listen to the BS the media is telling you about jurors being neutral, there’s no such thing in this case.
She's probably been injected multiple times and the prions have made it to her brains. She has Mad Cow Disease. Just kidding. But I've noticed, and read about others who seen this behavior elsewhere, in people who have been injected exhibiting bizarre and odd, violent behavior. Or just very noticeable changes in behavior. Over course, the entire Democrat Party and large swaths of the Republican Party too, show this behavior. I'm glad you and I, as well as most all your readers, are not injected, and are still rational.
It would appear that modern "journalism" is no longer tied in any discernable way to events, or facts. WHAT is said, whether true, or entirely imaginary, is of little consequence.
The only thing that matters, is WHO said, or is purported to have uttered the triggering word, phrase, or story.
So if a reporter from a "properly credentialed, pedophilia supporting, or a totalitarian boosting, semi literate 'news' organization chooses to list, (for example), jurors demographic and biographical data, voting history, and shoe size, that's an example of a public spirited organization responding to the public's right to know.
If, on the other hand, a "non-credentialed", vaccine hesitant, climate skeptic, Trump supporting independent internet journalist ventures to mention the race or occupations of jurors, that's obviously a a crime. An example of mis, dis, and mal information. Which should be , (and sadly, IS being), prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
One does not have to know what was said - simply who said, or attempted to say, something, anything, to trigger predictable responses.
Can I just extend heartfelt thanks to all the commenters today for providing much needed lols, oh and as ever to you Chris. Tough time for my family rn as my beloved mum has cancer, and it's hitting my kids hardest of all. Thanks folks x
The top NYT articles right now are all about the makeup of the jury. One headline is “Meet the 12 Manhattan Jurors Who Will Decide Donald J. Trump’s Fate”. It’s hard to overstate how awful a person Ruth is, and how moronic her followers are.
Her newsletter was featured on Substack when she first came over. Because I too am deeply concerned about rising authoritarianism, I initially signed up. But then I saw that what she was really doing was advocating for authoritarianism, and the threat she was concerned about was democracy. I registered my disappointment in the comments section. The response from her fan club was… disturbing. Something along the lines of “REEEEEE!” over and over.
I rushed to get this one in ahead of an appointment, so I forgot to link to the post in which I first called RBG an "inversion blender" -- a person who mixes facts together senselessly, then flips their meaning upside-down. Longtime readers will remember, I hope, but here:
https://chrisbray.substack.com/p/inversion-blender
Are we sure Ruth isn’t Tatania McGrath or maybe Katherine Maher? Creepy, how much they look and sound alike.
🤮
On another note, there’s good-and-darn-well a reason they’re hosting this in NYC: it’s one of the only places (the other is D.C.) where they’re guaranteed to get a conviction.
In voir dire, the prosecution is doubly making sure they 'pick to convict' by using JuryQuest, JurySync, iJury, Jury Solutions, and JuryStar; the prosecution has an unlimited budget after all. They have every juror--and alternates--nailed down so tight they know their favorite toothpaste, how they vote (<~~key) heck, even the color shoe laces they’d pick if given the choice. In other words, they know more about the jury pool than Zuckerberg.
Don’t listen to the BS the media is telling you about jurors being neutral, there’s no such thing in this case.
She's probably been injected multiple times and the prions have made it to her brains. She has Mad Cow Disease. Just kidding. But I've noticed, and read about others who seen this behavior elsewhere, in people who have been injected exhibiting bizarre and odd, violent behavior. Or just very noticeable changes in behavior. Over course, the entire Democrat Party and large swaths of the Republican Party too, show this behavior. I'm glad you and I, as well as most all your readers, are not injected, and are still rational.
Danny Huckabee
Thanks Chris! Just signed up for her newsletter. I’m new at this. Is $10,000 a year for a subscription reasonable?
Get Chris Rufo to see if she plagiarized anything. Low hanging fruit.
Ah yes. George Zimmerman. The world's first 'White Hispanic'.
It would appear that modern "journalism" is no longer tied in any discernable way to events, or facts. WHAT is said, whether true, or entirely imaginary, is of little consequence.
The only thing that matters, is WHO said, or is purported to have uttered the triggering word, phrase, or story.
So if a reporter from a "properly credentialed, pedophilia supporting, or a totalitarian boosting, semi literate 'news' organization chooses to list, (for example), jurors demographic and biographical data, voting history, and shoe size, that's an example of a public spirited organization responding to the public's right to know.
If, on the other hand, a "non-credentialed", vaccine hesitant, climate skeptic, Trump supporting independent internet journalist ventures to mention the race or occupations of jurors, that's obviously a a crime. An example of mis, dis, and mal information. Which should be , (and sadly, IS being), prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
One does not have to know what was said - simply who said, or attempted to say, something, anything, to trigger predictable responses.
How dare you malign Cult Leader Ruth!
This is the white female version of a race hustler.
everyone needs to call her out on this on her twitter acct.
They’ve lost their minds. This is priceless. https://open.substack.com/pub/jennamccarthy/p/did-i-offend?r=nl3ud&utm_medium=ios
Can I just extend heartfelt thanks to all the commenters today for providing much needed lols, oh and as ever to you Chris. Tough time for my family rn as my beloved mum has cancer, and it's hitting my kids hardest of all. Thanks folks x
The top NYT articles right now are all about the makeup of the jury. One headline is “Meet the 12 Manhattan Jurors Who Will Decide Donald J. Trump’s Fate”. It’s hard to overstate how awful a person Ruth is, and how moronic her followers are.
Her newsletter was featured on Substack when she first came over. Because I too am deeply concerned about rising authoritarianism, I initially signed up. But then I saw that what she was really doing was advocating for authoritarianism, and the threat she was concerned about was democracy. I registered my disappointment in the comments section. The response from her fan club was… disturbing. Something along the lines of “REEEEEE!” over and over.
Thank you for making me laugh and giggle for 5 minutes when I wanted to rip my hair out. I appreciate your work
My response to this female is: HUH?