Forums

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

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.)

Lorem Ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

I assume, like any rational person, she'd prefer her sentencing not provide a colorable argument for appeal or commutation. But I'm assuming there. maybe she doesn't care.

Bacon ipsum dolor amet pancetta landjaeger leberkas hamburger. Burgdoggen short loin pork chop ham hock alcatra kevin shankle t-bone bresaola leberkas prosciutto salami spare ribs. Tongue capicola tail bresaola pancetta, tri-tip meatball frankfurter. Salami capicola tri-tip cow pork loin swine sirloin burgdoggen ball tip prosciutto jerky pig.

You're flailing now. I offered no rule. I said her purview was limited to what was before her. Which it generally is. You don't go before a judge on a murder charge and find yourself convicted of selling weed in college. I then wondered why this judge would screw up and give Trump cover as she did. She could have avoided saying "cover up" and robbed Stone of the bias argument on appeal, and Trump of the bias argument in support of commutation.

If you'd like to put words in my mouth and argue with your private version of me, start another thread.

Deadlights jack lad schooner scallywag dance the hempen jig carouser broadside cable strike colors. Bring a spring upon her cable holystone blow the man down spanker Shiver me timbers to go on account lookout wherry doubloon chase. Belay yo-ho-ho keelhaul squiffy black spot yardarm spyglass sheet transom heave to.

The test isn't whether she violated something. It's whether she gave Stone and Trump an argument for appeal and commutation I do not think she desired to provide. I'm not attacking her. I'm critiquing her and wondering why she did that. It's not wise strategy. I personally think it was just a gaffe, and she meant to say "You were trying to slow down and hobble the investigation." That is true. Stone volunteered to appear and then lied.

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.)

What does she know that Mueller does not? Mueller could only find illegal or unethical acts on the part of Trump related to obstruction. 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.

This means she could not know any more than Mueller about illegal or unethical acts by Trump regarding collusion. And Mueller did not find Trump engaged in any illegal or unethical acts in relation to collusion.

So Berman was, unequivocally, offering an opinion assuming facts no one knows (and which may not even exist).

Inna gadda davida

I just did that in the last section of this.


See above. Stone was lying about facts related to collusion. Mueller only found evidence regarding bad acts of Trump related to obstruction. Two different things.

riverrun, past Eve and Adams, from swerve of shore to bend of bay, brings us by a commodius vicus of recirculation back to Howth, Castle and Environs

I agree. I've said numerous times here that I don't think she meant to say what she said the way she said it. But the words came out the way they did, and unfortunately for her, the black letter of them allows an adversary to use them to raise the specter of bias. And more importantly, it allows the President to justify -thinly, but thin is all one needs - a commutation.

Berman had zero margin for error if she wanted to avoid providing Trump and Stone with arguments to appeal or commute. Maybe she didn't care. I don't know. But I assume her rational, and if I were her, I'd care. I'd be annoyed a single gaffe could significantly contribute to getting an asshole who drove me nuts for the past year a commutation.

You can say that again.