Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
The emphasis was on the difference between protecting and covering up. Stone argued that he was protecting his boss (his words accordingly to Berman). Therefore, that he was protecting is stipulated by Stone. Berman disagreed and said he was actually covering something up for his boss. Stone did not say he was covering something up, nor was that proven. That was all Berman.
|
With crimes like Stone's (if not Weinstein's), is there ever a point at which you believe it's appropriate to reject a defendant's version of what they did, or do you believe that one must continue to accept their characterizations of what they did, however self-serving, even if a jury of their peers and others have considered the evidence and determined otherwise? Stone is a known liar, has just been convicted of lying, is clearly playing the victim to try to get a pardon, and yet you insist that everyone should pretend that we should ignore all that.
It reminds me of the time that Trump was lying, CNN said as much, and you claimed CNN was biased because it reported what was obviously true instead of carrying water for the President. Obviously, that was due to your general sympathy for defendants, or something.
