Quote:
|
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.)
|
I'm repeating myself because it is effective. You keep attacking my simple point and failing. Why would I adjust?
She's "supposed to," or "ought to," or "would be wise to" limit her comments in a sentencing in a politically charged case where the tiniest error will be exploited like mad by the other side. She committed an unforced error.
Quote:
|
A colorable argument for appeal? What law gives Stone a "colorable argument for appeal" based on what the judge said?
|
It's a basis to assert he wasn't given a fair sentence. Is it weak? Yes. But again, it needn't be there at all.
Quote:
|
And Trump doesn't need a colorable anything to commute a sentence. We've already seen that.
|
But it sure as hell helps, doesn't it? Why give him anything? Why make it easier for him?
Quote:
|
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"?
|
Berman didn't say Stone covered up for the campaign. She said he covered up for the President.
Her exact words: “He was not prosecuted, as some have claimed, for standing up for the president... He was prosecuted for covering up for the president."
Quote:
|
The idea that she has given Stone colorable grounds to appeal is silly. Who told you that?
|
It's more than enough to throw into a brief along with that moron juror.
Quote:
|
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?
|
Now your slip is showing. You're all about process, and the adversarial system (as it works both judicially and politically) until it benefits someone you don't like.
And once more, I am not blaming the judge for anything. I am critiquing her strange decision to do something that aids Stone.
Perhaps like you, she's just damn certain someone is "manifestly corrupt," and you've both got inner Elliot Nesses that you keep keep under control at all times. That's unfair to her. I think she was just irritated by Stone.
This is baseball. This is inside baseball talk. If you want to talk about who's manifestly corrupt, we can start the list today. And, working relentlessly, finish it around next summer. Trump's a buffoon but is somehow hacking the system despite seeming incompetence. This Stone prosecution is fascinating. I can't help but think he's an idiot, but if one is more generous, this and Manafort's behavior could be explained as planned. It seems crazy to me... but then, These People Are Crazy.
So yeah, I'm calling an error on Berman. Unforced.
