Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
She's supposed to stick to that which is proven in front of her and not opine about what third parties did or didn't do. But she is free to do or say whatever the hell she likes. If it violates an ethics rule, that's one concerns for her. If it provides Trump cover to commute, that's another result. (Maybe she doesn't care either way... I don't know. In any case, caveat emptor.)
|
You're just repeating yourself. She's "supposed to" according to whom? Some law? Some rule? Or just stuff you're making up? Can you think of anything other time in the history of jurisprudence in which a judge who presided over a trial said stuff about the conduct leading to the charges and was told they were "supposed to" keep those thoughts to themselves. Like, if the Harvey Weinstein judge were to say at the sentencing, Mr. Weinstein, you've behaved poorly and lied to people used your wealth to pay people to cover up for you. Presumably you would say, the judge isn't "supposed to" say that, yes? (Of course you wouldn't, because you're not motivated to side with Weinstein's nonsense, but that aside.)
Quote:
|
I assume, like any rational person, she'd prefer her sentencing not provide a colorable argument for appeal or commutation.
|
A colorable argument for appeal? What law gives Stone a "colorable argument for appeal" based on what the judge said?
And Trump doesn't need a colorable anything to commute a sentence. We've already seen that.
Quote:
|
The Stone trial did not involve allegations Stone lied about Trump's efforts at obstruction. It involved Stone lying about connections to Wikileaks and efforts to get Russian dirt on Clinton.
|
The Trump campaign did not acknowledge that it had a connection to Wikileaks. Stone lied to keep this hidden. Why is that not a "cover up"?
Quote:
This means she could not know any more than Mueller about illegal or unethical acts by Trump regarding collusion. ...
So Berman was, unequivocally, offering an opinion assuming facts no one knows (and which may not even exist).
|
As a friend used to say, are you stupid or both?
Quote:
|
Berman had zero margin for error if she wanted to avoid providing Trump and Stone with arguments to appeal or commute.
|
The idea that she has given Stone colorable grounds to appeal is silly. Who told you that?
Trump is manifestly corrupt. You are essentially blaming a federal judge doing her job for giving him an excuse to be more corrupt. What is wrong with you?
