Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
If she does not want to incur a claim of bias, it is prudent for her to avoid opining beyond the scope of her case. Particularly where her use of the term "cover up," in the context of a case involving a confidante of a President recently investigated for a suspected cover up, is both unnecessary and counterproductive.
But is she free to say whatever she likes? Of course. Just as Stone was free to say whatever he liked to Congress. Caveat emptor.
|
Hold on there, Sparky. You just said she was not "supposed" to say anything. Now you're just talking about what is "prudent" to avoid have Trump supporters attack her. (By that standard, she should have called the charges against Stone a Ukrainian plot.) So you did just make up a new rule about what judges are "supposed" to say, one that applies only when political allies of the President are on trial.
She is not "free to say whatever she wants." There are laws and canons of judicial ethics that govern how she runs her court. But she didn't actually do anything that violated those. The people attacking her for trumped-up political reasons are full of shit.
Why you are falling for it is a different but related question.
Quote:
|
Point me to the part of the trial where it was disclosed that Trump had engaged in something illegal or unethical which required a cover-up by Stone.
|
Thanks, you are the one who said that she referred to the cover up without having any evidence, so presumably you are already familiar with the evidence in Stone's trial and the several other trials that she has presided over connecting to Mueller's probe. Before I repeat your presumably extensive efforts to learn those facts before you accused a federal judge of bias, why don't you tell me what you've done to satisfy yourself that the judge didn't know what she was talking about.
Quote:
|
He suggested Trump may have engaged in obstruction, which is illegal, but stated that deciding whether it should be prosecuted was both beyond his scope and contrary to DOJ policy. He left it up to Barr, who decided not to do anything.
|
Oh, so there is an evidentiary basis for Jackson to say that Stone was covering up for the President? That'll be news to, uh, you.
Quote:
|
But when she opines that Trump was involved in illegal or unethical conduct which required Stone's covering-up, she's ruling on assumptions about behavior of a party not in the room and facts not before her.
|
When she turns on her afterburners, she's a fighter plane. But saying that Stone was covering up for Trump doesn't necessarily mean that Trump was doing something illegal or unethical. It could just be that he was doing something he didn't want public. Which is how reasonable people understood, people who weren't working hard to manufacture a grievance against her.
