Objectively intelligent.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

It's hard to refute the suggestion there is possible bias. Hence, I said she betrayed bias. And "betray" probably isn't the right word. The right phrasing would be, "Possibly betrayed bias." Betray means she actually had bias, and there, I'm making the same mistake she did in stating something that includes an assumption I don't know to be fact.

I think she also may just be infuriated with Stone. He fought the case in the media and attacked her. I'm sure she's taken some threats from lunatics because of that. I could see her wanting to vent on the guy.

But it's all immaterial, really. He was guilty no matter what bias any judge hearing the case may have had. This is why I'm baffled as to why she'd take the bait and even utter the words, "the President" in her sentencing.

I disagree with any characterization of Stone as a scoundrel for setting up this sort of thing. He's an idiot for going to Congress at all. And a sociopath. BUT, using any dirty trick you can to avoid jail is totally fine. When a man is facing the pen, he's gifted the right to do anything and everything under the sun to avoid it. So yes, Stone is a scoundrel generally, but if you're suggesting he's a scoundrel for creating a media event of the case brought against him such that it created cover for Trump to commute him, well, in that instance, I'd say he's just a guy playing out the adversarial process. (And probably the strangest and most demented man alive for having put himself through all of this for mere attention and possible historical remembrance as Trump's G. Gordon Liddy. [Liddy was actually a serious badass, however, who rotted in a bad DC jail for Nixon for years. Stone isn't qualified to shine his shoes in terms of omerta observation and criminal bona fides.])

You are obviously biased against anyone rational. Do something about that.