Objectively intelligent.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

He recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, which endeared him to 40 million fundamentalists because it is a step towards armageddon and the end days.

I believe you may be referencing the Cyrus Defense: https://www.vox.com/identities/2018/...cal-propaganda

"Brought to you by Religion. Seriously, You Have to be Insane."

[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.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

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

Agreed. You missed my point.

Berman is saying Stone covered something up for Trump. That assumes there was something to cover up. She doesn't know that. What she does know is that Stone lied in a manner that delayed and compromised Congress's investigation of whether Trump did something wrong. She jumped ahead and assumed the investigation would have found something that needed to be covered up, and that Stone knew what that something was.

In assuming Trump was guilty of doing something that needed to be covered up, and that Stone knew something that needed to be covered up, Berman betrays bias.

All that was proven at trial was that Stone lied to Congress. Why he did it and what he knew beyond the limited facts he misrepresented weren't part of the case against him. You correctly assessed that all that needed to be proven was that he lied. Yet she assumed he was covering something up. Why leave her slip showing like that? To send a message to Trump and Barr?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

She doesn't know that.

Where the fuck have you been, Siberia?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Where the fuck have you been, Siberia?

She doesn't know that Stone covered anything up. She can assume he was. Like you assume he was, and I assume he was. But she's a judge, and her purview here was limited to whether Stone lied about the limited facts about which Mueller was able to establish thru outside evidence Stone had lied.

Stone lied about certain contacts he had. That was proven. The case didn't get to whether Stone was engaged in covering up for Trump. Yet she assumed he was. And that's totally fine for you or me to do. But she's a judge. She's supposed to rule on the limited stuff in front of her. If she thinks Stone was involved in some bigger plot to do something much worse than what he was charged with and convicted of, but which can't be proven, she's supposed to remove such an unproven suspicion from the considerations in which she engages when deciding issues in the case and sentencing.

BUT, as we are now in a world where it's all a naked game of power, and Berman knows Trump is going to commute Stone's sentence anyway, maybe she was just following the rule, "when in Rome." If the President and head of DOJ are going to throw their power around, why should Berman not be allowed to give them the finger in her ruling? Certainly, from a caveat emptor standpoint, Stone deserves all he's getting for being such an overt and proud shitball.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The Rapture has good and bad elements. The good? Everyone in Heaven is nude. The bad? Everyone in Heaven is nude.

The in-laws, when I met them, lived in an building at 611 or 911 or whatever that horrid road is that goes past the Turnpike Willow Grove exit. We stayed at the George Washington motor Inn! Once. Opened a dresser drawer and saw a porn mag and a bottle of Nyquil- my infant daughter found a large toenail clipping. But the most fun part was walking past the pool when we got home around ten. There was a convention of 50 year old horse riding enthusiasts SKINNY DIPPING, urging me to join them! It was bad naked. And bonus points, you're fucked liquor laws made it impossible to get a bottle of booze to correct the impact.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Agreed. You missed my point.

Berman is saying Stone covered something up for Trump. That assumes there was something to cover up. She doesn't know that. What she does know is that Stone lied in a manner that delayed and compromised Congress's investigation of whether Trump did something wrong. She jumped ahead and assumed the investigation would have found something that needed to be covered up, and that Stone knew what that something was.

In assuming Trump was guilty of doing something that needed to be covered up, and that Stone knew something that needed to be covered up, Berman betrays bias.

All that was proven at trial was that Stone lied to Congress. Why he did it and what he knew beyond the limited facts he misrepresented weren't part of the case against him. You correctly assessed that all that needed to be proven was that he lied. Yet she assumed he was covering something up. Why leave her slip showing like that? To send a message to Trump and Barr?

She didn't jump ahead and assume anything. Amazing that you would suggest she is biased for describing the evidence (even if not part of the prima facie elements of the time) in a case that she presided over.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

She didn't jump ahead and assume anything. Amazing that you would suggest she is biased for describing the evidence (even if not part of the prima facie elements of the time) in a case that she presided over.

You know that's not true. She is not describing evidence. She is characterizing evidence.

We knew he lied. Why he lied? Well, you and I can assume it was to cover up something illegal. (And when a judge says "cover up" in a sentencing decision, it's read as "cover up of something illegal." But even I cannot say that conclusively. He might've just lied to create confusion, to screw up the investigation.

A lot of what looks like Trump covering up criminal collusion is akin to Hillary scrubbing her server with a program that made recovery of much of the data impossible. It looks like a crime, but in actuality, it was mere avoidance of aggressive investigation by enemies. If you have a ton of documents and a pack of Javerts on your heels at every turn, trying to sink you, limiting your paper trail only makes sense. (They're sure to find something at least embarrassing, and use it.)

Trump is driven by ego, and the suggestion Russians gifted him an election he'd have otherwise lost clearly drives the man insane. Stone is a fool who loves media attention and willingly went before Congress. And many of Trump's people are first timers in politics.

It's every bit as plausible that there was nothing to criminal cover up here... that Trump was stonewalling to protect his fragile belief he won "hugely" and fairly, the same way he stonewalls on his finances to protect the idea he's worth $10 billion. And Stone wants the spotlight, to play Trump's much lesser skilled Roy Cohn in the moment.

Berman said Stone was covering something up. Maybe she is right. But it's probably something that was not a criminal conspiracy but instead a fragile President. If she were more careful, more accurate, she'd have said "You were basking in the spotlight and playing protector for a political neophyte who feared an investigation because, being so unskilled in this arena, he couldn't be sure whether there had or hadn't been criminal activity."

Again, covering up a known crime and avoiding the discovery of facts that will make one look bad or perhaps turn out to be acts which could be prosecuted, are two very different things.

If the Trump people at the top resemble the Trump people one is seeing at the state levels in the run up to the 2020 election, this I can say without any caveats: These folks are not organized or savvy enough to pull off any type of criminal conspiracy.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You know that's not true. She is not describing evidence. She is characterizing evidence.

We knew he lied. Why he lied? Well, you and I can assume it was to cover up something illegal. (And when a judge says "cover up" in a sentencing decision, it's read as "cover up of something illegal." But even I cannot say that conclusively. He might've just lied to create confusion, to screw up the investigation.

A lot of what looks like Trump covering up criminal collusion is akin to Hillary scrubbing her server with a program that made recovery of much of the data impossible. It looks like a crime, but in actuality, it was mere avoidance of aggressive investigation by enemies. If you have a ton of documents and a pack of Javerts on your heels at every turn, trying to sink you, limiting your paper trail only makes sense. (They're sure to find something at least embarrassing, and use it.)

Trump is driven by ego, and the suggestion Russians gifted him an election he'd have otherwise lost clearly drives the man insane. Stone is a fool who loves media attention and willingly went before Congress. And many of Trump's people are first timers in politics.

It's every bit as plausible that there was nothing to criminal cover up here... that Trump was stonewalling to protect his fragile belief he won "hugely" and fairly, the same way he stonewalls on his finances to protect the idea he's worth $10 billion. And Stone wants the spotlight, to play Trump's much lesser skilled Roy Cohn in the moment.

Berman said Stone was covering something up. Maybe she is right. But it's probably something that was not a criminal conspiracy but instead a fragile President. If she were more careful, more accurate, she'd have said "You were basking in the spotlight and playing protector for a political neophyte who feared an investigation because, being so unskilled in this arena, he couldn't be sure whether there had or hadn't been criminal activity."

Again, covering up a known crime and avoiding the discovery of facts that will make one look bad or perhaps turn out to be acts which could be prosecuted, are two very different things.

If the Trump people at the top resemble the Trump people one is seeing at the state levels in the run up to the 2020 election, this I can say without any caveats: These folks are not organized or savvy enough to pull off any type of criminal conspiracy.

Dude. Stop.

What you are saying does not hold water.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Dude. Stop.

What you are saying does not hold water.

The people who insist there's a deep rooted conspiracy between Trump and Russians look frivolous for a number of reasons, but most notable is their relentless confusion of a Keystone Kops organization of misfits with a competent criminal organization.

I hold firmly to the assessment that Trump is Chauncey Gardiner. Having seen his "organization" up close (they're all over this state), I see no reason to conclude there's a cabal of evil geniuses at any level anywhere within it.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

The in-laws, when I met them, lived in an building at 611 or 911 or whatever that horrid road is that goes past the Turnpike Willow Grove exit. We stayed at the George Washington motor Inn! Once. Opened a dresser drawer and saw a porn mag and a bottle of Nyquil- my infant daughter found a large toenail clipping. But the most fun part was walking past the pool when we got home around ten. There was a convention of 50 year old horse riding enthusiasts SKINNY DIPPING, urging me to join them! It was bad naked. And bonus points, you're fucked liquor laws made it impossible to get a bottle of booze to correct the impact.

The problem with skinny dipping late at night is, its usually pretty cold. John Holmes is rendered George Costanza.

(I've been to a few nude beaches. The problem there is Germans.

You've been to South Beach, correct? Holy fuck. Even there, you've the ancient Germans, but the crazy hot topless chicks more than offset those eyesores.)

You can buy beer and wine in the same place now, and at markets. We've joined the 19th century.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Dude. Stop.

What you are saying does not hold water.

The judge apparently spoke for about an hour about what Stone did, and I would wager that Sebby spent no more than twenty seconds reading a third-account before he decided that he use of the phrase "cover up" is a scandal. Contrarian!

Also, what she said last night: "judges cannot be ‘biased’ and need not be disqualified if the views they express are based on what they learned while doing the job they were appointed to do."

Bonus conclusion: "At bottom, given the absence of any factual or legal support for the motion for disqualification, the pleading appears to be nothing more than an attempt to use the Court’s docket to disseminate a statement for public consumption that has the words 'judge' and 'biased' in it."

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

The judge apparently spoke for about an hour about what Stone did, and I would wager that Sebby spent no more than twenty seconds reading a third-account before he decided that he use of the phrase "cover up" is a scandal. Contrarian!

Also, what she said last night: "judges cannot be ‘biased’ and need not be disqualified if the views they express are based on what they learned while doing the job they were appointed to do."

Bonus conclusion: "At bottom, given the absence of any factual or legal support for the motion for disqualification, the pleading appears to be nothing more than an attempt to use the Court’s docket to disseminate a statement for public consumption that has the words 'judge' and 'biased' in it."

It's flatly absurd for anyone to suggest judges cannot be biased. They can be and often are.

I do not think Berman did anything disqualifying. But I think there's enough to argue she is biased. I don't see how you get around that. She didn't need to get into Trump or a cover-up, but she did. I think it was a mistake and she opened the door for Trump to commute the guy's sentence which could otherwise have been kept shut.

And of course if I were Stone, I'd use her poor judgment in saying "cover up" against her. I also suggested she might've been using it intentionally to send a message to Trump, who she knows is going to commute Stone's sentence, and Barr, who gave her a headache by interfering in the sentencing phase.

But one needn't attack Berman to credibly argue for a new trial. That moron juror who posted support for the prosecutors despite having a closet full of anti-Trump social media posts is the best angle for that:

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciar...es-a-new-trial

https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal...justice-undone

(Call Turley a hack all you like... But when you're done shooting the messenger, consider the facts he's citing. Anyone could make the argument that juror never belonged on the panel. And the only real counter I see to it is, "Well, Stone's lawyers should have done a better job of keeping her off... If he has a gripe here, it's with them. Let him raise it in an ineffectiveness of counsel petition.")

ETA: That "bonus conclusion" you cite is Berman admitting what's coming. She could have done this more cleanly. If you were the judge, you'd know how to do this. You'd say nothing about politics, nothing about the President, nothing about a cover-up. You'd coolly walk through the elements of each misrepresentation, note that each is a crime, and sentence him based on lying, which is all one needs to do. She took the bait. The feds took the bait. The minute they got into why Stone was lying, they were playing his and Trump's game. Dumb.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

The judge apparently spoke for about an hour about what Stone did, and I would wager that Sebby spent no more than twenty seconds reading a third-account before he decided that he use of the phrase "cover up" is a scandal. Contrarian!

Also, what she said last night: "judges cannot be ‘biased’ and need not be disqualified if the views they express are based on what they learned while doing the job they were appointed to do."

Bonus conclusion: "At bottom, given the absence of any factual or legal support for the motion for disqualification, the pleading appears to be nothing more than an attempt to use the Court’s docket to disseminate a statement for public consumption that has the words 'judge' and 'biased' in it."

I am continually amazed at how long-winded low information people can be.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The people who insist there's a deep rooted conspiracy between Trump and Russians ...

Who is that, exactly?

But I will insist that it's likely that Manafort was coordinating with the Russian, because why else is he there? Unless and until Putin wants us to, we will never know for sure.

I will also insist that there is no chance that Stone and Trump did not know that the Russians were the source of the Wikileaks materials, because we all knew it.

I hold firmly to the assessment that Trump is Chauncey Gardiner. Having seen his "organization" up close (they're all over this state), I see no reason to conclude there's a cabal of evil geniuses at any level anywhere within it.

No, he's just Tony Soprano. Those types of crooks aren't geniuses, but they know how to throw their weight around. So does he.