Objectively intelligent.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Judge Berman Jackson during the Stone sentencing:

“He was not prosecuted, as some have claimed, for standing up for the president," she said. "He was prosecuted for covering up for the president."

Okay, so to say this, there must have been something to cover up (no underlying act that needed to be covered up, no cover-up). And Trump was not found to have engaged in anything that needed to be covered-up.

So how is this not demonstration of bias?

I'm not an appellate lawyer, particularly regarding sentencing issues, but I've filed a few here and there and even won a couple. It seems to me that a judge assuming there was something to cover-up has a bit of bias in favor of the proposition Trump was engaged in something Stone covered up. Okay. What was it? Oh, that's right... we don't know. So then how can anyone, including Judge Berman, know that there was something to cover up?

She goofed in stating her point the way she did. I think what she really meant to say was "You were running interference for the President, muddying the waters to make it more difficult to find out if there was something to cover-up."

He lied to Congress. There doesn't have to be an underlying crime for that to have been a crime.