Objectively intelligent.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

She doesn’t! That’s the whole point. When he says “I’m protecting the President,” her response - her only smart response - is:

“That’s immaterial. And I don’t care. You lied to Congress, and that was proven. Go to jail now.”

So do you actually believe her comments show her bias, or are you just saying it was unwise for her to say something true because it left her open to criticism from scoundrels?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

So do you actually believe her comments show her bias, or are you just saying it was unwise for her to say something true because it left her open to criticism from scoundrels?

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.])

[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.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

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 don't seem to understand what bias is. If you hear all the evidence and then announce what you make of it -- you "judge" the evidence, in other words -- that's not bias.

Anyway, I asked what you believed, and you aren't willing to say that you believe she's biased. And you think he's guilty, and you don't really dispute that he was covering for the President.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

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

It’s actually the reverse. I’m tolerating people acting in extremely rational manners that serve themselves. You and Ty are calling people “scoundrels” and making moral judgments.

(Stone is a strange case. In going to Congress, he was entirely irrational. In making a mess of the case against him and angling to give Trump cover to commute his sentence, he was incredibly rational. But on balance, for putting himself in this situation, he’s an idiot. Unless, of course, the most important thing to him is attention. In that case, I guess you could make the argument that he’s rational.)

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

You don't seem to understand what bias is. If you hear all the evidence and then announce what you make of it -- you "judge" the evidence, in other words -- that's not bias.

Anyway, I asked what you believed, and you aren't willing to say that you believe she's biased. And you think he's guilty, and you don't really dispute that he was covering for the President.

If you hear all the evidence and opine about something beyond the scope of that on which you were supposed to rule, you raise an inquiry as to why you’ve done so.

To use the word “cover-up,“ you necessarily suggest there was some illegal or unethical act being concealed. The person Berman suggests was engaged in that act is the president. However, she does not know that there was any unethical or illegal activity which was covered up. She could not know that, as Mueller was not even able to conclusively state that.

When you use a loaded phrase that you didn’t need to use, and offer an opinion on an issue that was not before you, you can’t help but raise the suggestion that you are biased. But do I know she was biased? No. I can’t know what’s in her head. As I noted, she may have just been infuriated with stone and Trump and Barr.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

If you hear all the evidence and opine about something beyond the scope of that on which you were supposed to rule....

So now a federal judge is not "supposed" to discuss the facts of a trial in her courtroom? That's a novel legal principle. Did you just pull it out of your ass, or is that something that anyone has every said about another judge in a similar circumstance, ever?

To use the word “cover-up,“ you necessarily suggest there was some illegal or unethical act being concealed. The person Berman suggests was engaged in that act is the president. However, she does not know that there was any unethical or illegal activity which was covered up.

To the contrary, she just presided over a trial where there was extensive evidence about Stone's lying to Congress, so she is quite familiar with the evidence about his lying.

And how do you know what she knows? What have you done to familiarize yourself with the evidence in the trial?

She could not know that, as Mueller was not even able to conclusively state that.

To the contrary, whether the President acted unethically or illegally was outside the scope of Mueller's report, since DOJ guidance held that he could not indict the President. You would know this if you had been paying attention or were otherwise temperamentally inclined to take the view that Trump should not have to obey the law.

When you use a loaded phrase that you didn’t need to use, and offer an opinion on an issue that was not before you, you can’t help but raise the suggestion that you are biased.

You keep using that word, but you don't understand what it means. If you are to perform an interpretive dance for me, and I announce before you start that you are going to suck, it could well be bias, for I have not seen you dance. But if I watch you dance and then tell you that you suck, that's my judgment, not bias. Your comments about the judge make sense if you completely ignore that she is a judge and that she just spent many months presiding over a case, culminating in a full trial, in which Stone was convicted for lying, something that put her in the position to judge his lying.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

So now a federal judge is not "supposed" to discuss the facts of a trial in her courtroom? That's a novel legal principle. Did you just pull it out of your ass, or is that something that anyone has every said about another judge in a similar circumstance, ever?

If she does not want to incur a claim of bias, it is prudent for her to avoid opining beyond the scope of her case. Particularly where her use of the term "cover up," in the context of a case involving a confidante of a President recently investigated for a suspected cover up, is both unnecessary and counterproductive.

But is she free to say whatever she likes? Of course. Just as Stone was free to say whatever he liked to Congress. Caveat emptor.

To the contrary, she just presided over a trial where there was extensive evidence about Stone's lying to Congress, so she is quite familiar with the evidence about his lying.

Point me to the part of the trial where it was disclosed that Trump had engaged in something illegal or unethical which required a cover-up by Stone. Point me to where we learned in the trial that which Mueller did not learn.

And how do you know what she knows? What have you done to familiarize yourself with the evidence in the trial?

If Berman learned what Mueller could not, we'd know it.

To the contrary, whether the President acted unethically or illegally was outside the scope of Mueller's report, since DOJ guidance held that he could not indict the President.

Wrong. It was within his report. He suggested Trump may have engaged in obstruction, which is illegal, but stated that deciding whether it should be prosecuted was both beyond his scope and contrary to DOJ policy. He left it up to Barr, who decided not to do anything.

You would know this if you had been paying attention or were otherwise temperamentally inclined to take the view that Trump should not have to obey the law.

See above.

You keep using that word, but you don't understand what it means. If you are to perform an interpretive dance for me, and I announce before you start that you are going to suck, it could well be bias, for I have not seen you dance. But if I watch you dance and then tell you that you suck, that's my judgment, not bias.

If you watch me dance and say, "You suck, and it's probably genetic because I've heard your mom was a lousy dancer, too, even though I've never danced with her, but based on what others have told me," you're opening up the question of whether your judgment is based on what you saw or assumptions based on things outside what you saw.

Your comments about the judge make sense if you completely ignore that she is a judge and that she just spent many months presiding over a case, culminating in a full trial, in which Stone was convicted for lying, something that put her in the position to judge his lying.

She has every right to rule that he lied, which he did. He's guilty, bias or no bias of any judge hearing the case. She's also free to opine why Stone lied. She can opine about why Stone dresses as he does, and whether he has hair plugs, if she likes. She can recite poetry from the bench during the sentencing, or to use your analogy above, she could deliver the sentencing via interpretive dance.

But when she opines that Trump was involved in illegal or unethical conduct which required Stone's covering-up, she's ruling on assumptions about behavior of a party not in the room and facts not before her. And we both know, if Stone coughed up a stitch of conclusive proof that he was covering up illegal or unethical acts of Trump, if those suspected acts were even partially divulged, we'd have read about it in WaPo ten minutes later. But he didn't. He said, his words, that he was "Protecting the President." Berman replied, "No, you were covering up for the President." That's her opinion. That's your opinion. That's my opinion. And that suggests possible bias. If you don't see how this kicks the door open to an argument that she made conclusions about Stone and Trump beyond what were reasonable based on the facts before her, I can only conclude you're fucking with me. Or you're just refusing to concede because it bugs you.

Berman fucked up here. You know it, I know it... It's obvious. She should have played it safer, more vanilla, more conservative.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

If she does not want to incur a claim of bias, it is prudent for her to avoid opining beyond the scope of her case. Particularly where her use of the term "cover up," in the context of a case involving a confidante of a President recently investigated for a suspected cover up, is both unnecessary and counterproductive.

But is she free to say whatever she likes? Of course. Just as Stone was free to say whatever he liked to Congress. Caveat emptor.

Hold on there, Sparky. You just said she was not "supposed" to say anything. Now you're just talking about what is "prudent" to avoid have Trump supporters attack her. (By that standard, she should have called the charges against Stone a Ukrainian plot.) So you did just make up a new rule about what judges are "supposed" to say, one that applies only when political allies of the President are on trial.

She is not "free to say whatever she wants." There are laws and canons of judicial ethics that govern how she runs her court. But she didn't actually do anything that violated those. The people attacking her for trumped-up political reasons are full of shit.

Why you are falling for it is a different but related question.

Point me to the part of the trial where it was disclosed that Trump had engaged in something illegal or unethical which required a cover-up by Stone.

Thanks, you are the one who said that she referred to the cover up without having any evidence, so presumably you are already familiar with the evidence in Stone's trial and the several other trials that she has presided over connecting to Mueller's probe. Before I repeat your presumably extensive efforts to learn those facts before you accused a federal judge of bias, why don't you tell me what you've done to satisfy yourself that the judge didn't know what she was talking about.

He suggested Trump may have engaged in obstruction, which is illegal, but stated that deciding whether it should be prosecuted was both beyond his scope and contrary to DOJ policy. He left it up to Barr, who decided not to do anything.

Oh, so there is an evidentiary basis for Jackson to say that Stone was covering up for the President? That'll be news to, uh, you.

But when she opines that Trump was involved in illegal or unethical conduct which required Stone's covering-up, she's ruling on assumptions about behavior of a party not in the room and facts not before her.

When she turns on her afterburners, she's a fighter plane. But saying that Stone was covering up for Trump doesn't necessarily mean that Trump was doing something illegal or unethical. It could just be that he was doing something he didn't want public. Which is how reasonable people understood, people who weren't working hard to manufacture a grievance against her.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Hold on there, Sparky. You just said she was not "supposed" to say anything.

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.)

Now you're just talking about what is "prudent" to avoid have Trump supporters attack her. (By that standard, she should have called the charges against Stone a Ukrainian plot.)

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.

So you did just make up a new rule about what judges are "supposed" to say, one that applies only when political allies of the President are on trial.

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.

She is not "free to say whatever she wants." There are laws and canons of judicial ethics that govern how she runs her court. But she didn't actually do anything that violated those. The people attacking her for trumped-up political reasons are full of shit.

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.

Thanks, you are the one who said that she referred to the cover up without having any evidence, so presumably you are already familiar with the evidence in Stone's trial and the several other trials that she has presided over connecting to Mueller's probe.

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).

Before I repeat your presumably extensive efforts to learn those facts before you accused a federal judge of bias, why don't you tell me what you've done to satisfy yourself that the judge didn't know what she was talking about.

I just did that in the last section of this.

Oh, so there is an evidentiary basis for Jackson to say that Stone was covering up for the President? That'll be news to, uh, you.

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.

When she turns on her afterburners, she's a fighter plane. But saying that Stone was covering up for Trump doesn't necessarily mean that Trump was doing something illegal or unethical. It could just be that he was doing something he didn't want public. Which is how reasonable people understood, people who weren't working hard to manufacture a grievance against her.

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.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

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.)

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 assume, like any rational person, she'd prefer her sentencing not provide a colorable argument for appeal or commutation.

A colorable argument for appeal? What law gives Stone a "colorable argument for appeal" based on what the judge said?

And Trump doesn't need a colorable anything to commute a sentence. We've already seen that.

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.

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"?

This means she could not know any more than Mueller about illegal or unethical acts by Trump regarding collusion. ...

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

As a friend used to say, are you stupid or both?

Berman had zero margin for error if she wanted to avoid providing Trump and Stone with arguments to appeal or commute.

The idea that she has given Stone colorable grounds to appeal is silly. Who told you that?

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?

[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.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

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.

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.

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?

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."

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.

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.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

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.

She's a federal judge. There is no "other side," you clown.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

She's a federal judge. There is no "other side," you clown.

Have you watched any of the news since, say, January 2017?

There most certainly is an “other side.“

You can be a very narrow thinker at times.

ETA: Stop thinking like a lawyer. Imagine yourself as a political or PR strategist. One of the main reasons Trump succeeds is because the people, many of them lawyers, in the institutions think the rule books and policies and precedent are all controlling. When someone challenges them, they don’t know how to react. They just keep fighting within the same old set of rules. Stop thinking like that.