Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Where the fuck have you been, Siberia?
|
She doesn't know that Stone covered anything up. She can assume he was. Like you assume he was, and I assume he was. But she's a judge, and her purview here was limited to whether Stone lied about the limited facts about which Mueller was able to establish thru outside evidence Stone had lied.
Stone lied about certain contacts he had. That was proven. The case didn't get to whether Stone was engaged in covering up for Trump. Yet she assumed he was. And that's totally fine for you or me to do. But she's a judge. She's supposed to rule on the limited stuff in front of her. If she thinks Stone was involved in some bigger plot to do something much worse than what he was charged with and convicted of, but which can't be proven, she's supposed to remove such an unproven suspicion from the considerations in which she engages when deciding issues in the case and sentencing.
BUT, as we are now in a world where it's all a naked game of power, and Berman knows Trump is going to commute Stone's sentence anyway, maybe she was just following the rule, "when in Rome." If the President and head of DOJ are going to throw their power around, why should Berman not be allowed to give them the finger in her ruling? Certainly, from a
caveat emptor standpoint, Stone deserves all he's getting for being such an overt and proud shitball.
