Objectively intelligent.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

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

What I have determined from conversations with people like you, and conversations with Trump operatives, is you're equally matched.

You're not a high information person. You're a person who's convinced himself he's a high information person.

I'll borrow Ty's favorite line to categorize your side and Trump's side:

"Are my methods unsound?"

"I see... no method at all."

Both sides are certain, and blindered. Blundering and largely clueless. Trump only succeeds because he has demographics in the electoral college on his side and a tailwind of anger and resentment from 2008 and the succeeding inequality. Same reason Bernie succeeds. (And if I get into attacking the clueless shit you've written about how and why Bernie has done well, my god... we'd be here all day. You profess to have a knowledge of politics, but your insights on Bernie are baffling. You still don't get it... you seem astonished your voters had the temerity to refuse Hillary, and reject the establishment again this year. Ya think it's misogynist "Bernie Bros"? Keep eating that narrative. And keep feeding it to your sincerely deluded fellow travelers.)

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Who is that, exactly?

Everybody who's been flogging the Russia conspiracy story since 2016? We don't have bandwidth adequate to list the names.

But I will insist that it's likely that Manafort was coordinating with the Russian, because why else is he there?

Because he's always there? It's where he made and hid his money? (My pet suspicion is Manafort was taking Trump for a ride. He's as pathetic as Stone.)

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.

So what? Who cares? Once Wikileaks got the info, it was adequately washed, effectively public.

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.

I can see some of that. But Tony knew to shut his mouth. Any good crook knows to shut his mouth. Trump's mouth puts a basking shark's to shame.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

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.

When a judge hears a case and forms a view, it's not bias. It is judging. She is literally doing her job.

The real question here is, why are you such a sucker for some of the stupid pro-Tump talking points?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

When a judge hears a case and forms a view, it's not bias. It is judging. She is literally doing her job.

The real question here is, why are you such a sucker for some of the stupid pro-Tump talking points?

A judge issues decisions and opinions on that which is proven before her. Saying Stone was protecting his boss, lying to obfuscate or inhibit prosecution? Totally proven things.

Saying Stone was covering up for Trump? Them's loaded words, and they assert something that has not been proven. She should have been more cautious.

These aren't talking points. They're views which differ from yours. You think this judge is beyond reproach. I think she said something she shouldn't have said.

Very often, you will find the one thing someone is wrong about in a post where the person has been right about 99 other things, and you will hammer them on that sole flaw. The judge faces similar scrutiny here. She offered what appeared a completely normal sentencing, until she made that one mistake. And that one mistake will be what Trump seizes upon when he commutes Stone's sentence.

(Why do I take this side? I always take the Defendant's side. Except in things like Weinstein. I don't carry water for violent criminals or criminals who've punched downward.)

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Saying Stone was covering up for Trump? Them's loaded words, and they assert something that has not been proven.

Since she presided over the trial and was present for every minute of it, I think she is a better source than you are as to what was proven.

I always take the Defendant's side.

Maybe this is a wake-up call for a little healthy introspection on your part. I'm a fan of mass transit, but if I were walking down the street and a bus came along, I wouldn't necessarily get on it.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Saying Stone was protecting his boss... Totally proven things.

...

Saying Stone was covering up for Trump?

Ask yourself who his boss was.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Trying to find the silver lining for Harvey Weinstein -- now that the trial is over, he can stop using the walker, yes?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Trying to find the silver lining for Harvey Weinstein -- now that the trial is over, he can stop using the walker, yes?

He and Stone won't get to share a cell, right, because one is state and one is federal?

That's a silver lining for both of them.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Ask yourself who is boss was.

The emphasis was on the difference between protecting and covering up. Stone argued that he was protecting his boss (his words accordingly to Berman). Therefore, that he was protecting is stipulated by Stone. Berman disagreed and said he was actually covering something up for his boss. Stone did not say he was covering something up, nor was that proven. That was all Berman.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The emphasis was on the difference between protecting and covering up. Stone argued that he was protecting his boss (his words accordingly to Berman). Therefore, that he was protecting is stipulated by Stone. Berman disagreed and said he was actually covering something up for his boss. Stone did not say he was covering something up, nor was that proven. That was all Berman.

I like to remind young lawyers that many older lawyers have reached the point where the passage of times means they remember law that used to be or never was and have forgotten or not learned the law that is, and that the youngun's often have to watch out for them.

I hope you have some younguns in your office.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The emphasis was on the difference between protecting and covering up. Stone argued that he was protecting his boss (his words accordingly to Berman). Therefore, that he was protecting is stipulated by Stone. Berman disagreed and said he was actually covering something up for his boss. Stone did not say he was covering something up, nor was that proven. That was all Berman.

With crimes like Stone's (if not Weinstein's), is there ever a point at which you believe it's appropriate to reject a defendant's version of what they did, or do you believe that one must continue to accept their characterizations of what they did, however self-serving, even if a jury of their peers and others have considered the evidence and determined otherwise? Stone is a known liar, has just been convicted of lying, is clearly playing the victim to try to get a pardon, and yet you insist that everyone should pretend that we should ignore all that.

It reminds me of the time that Trump was lying, CNN said as much, and you claimed CNN was biased because it reported what was obviously true instead of carrying water for the President. Obviously, that was due to your general sympathy for defendants, or something.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

It reminds me of the time that Trump was lying, CNN said as much, and you claimed CNN was biased because it reported what was obviously true instead of carrying water for the President. Obviously, that was due to your general sympathy for defendants, or something.

This is really my favorite. "You must consider both sides, that is, the right one and the wrong one."

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

With crimes like Stone's (if not Weinstein's), is there ever a point at which you believe it's appropriate to reject a defendant's version of what they did, or do you believe that one must continue to accept their characterizations of what they did, however self-serving, even if a jury of their peers and others have considered the evidence and determined otherwise? Stone is a known liar, has just been convicted of lying, is clearly playing the victim to try to get a pardon, and yet you insist that everyone should pretend that we should ignore all that.

It reminds me of the time that Trump was lying, CNN said as much, and you claimed CNN was biased because it reported what was obviously true instead of carrying water for the President. Obviously, that was due to your general sympathy for defendants, or something.

Stone is guilty. Period. There is no dispute. He lied to Congress and it doesn’t matter why or on what subject. I would not believe anything the man said as he is a congenital liar.

The questions at hand and the only ones I referenced are whether the process of finding him guilty was flawed such that it should be redone and whether the Judge (and that idiot juror) needlessly opened a door justifying, politically and optically, Trump’s commutation.

I do not think he deserves a retrial. I see no basis for that. They compared his words before Congress to other statements he made at the time and they did not meet. Game, set, match.

(I cited Turley not for the proposition that I agree Stone should be granted retrial on appeal but to support the argument that he has a technically valid basis to appeal. (He possibly shouldn’t if it risks a decision further damning to him could be given before the election.))

But the Judge needn’t have gone beyond the issue of whether he lied, and that juror was just an idiot to open her mouth and draw attention.

So no, I don’t believe Stone, and I never have. But that’s immaterial to whether he now has a basis to appeal and Trump has cover to commute which had the process been run more professionally neither would enjoy.

My personal inclination to defend accrues from having worked within and therefore necessarily having lost respect for the system. And I have absolutely no respect for politics. But also, as said Mencken, no decent man fails to desire, somewhere in his heart, to hoist the black flag. (I omit the slitting throats part as I’m not violent.) It is the pirates, the disruptors, those without respect for the system, who innovate it (often accidentally in ways contrary to what they’d sought).

It’s a deep rot of soul to root for the Pinkertons or Elliot Ness.*

ETA: Stone’s an idiot, but he did punch upward. Weinstein’s a predator. The world would be better off if he’d gotten bail and used the opportunity to jump from his penthouse. He’s worse than a downward puncher. He’s despicable.

I’ll defend Trump against the establishment aligned against him. Where he acts as the establishment and punches down, you’ll see no defense. His treatment of Vindman is petty, weak. Despot-like. His battle with Jeff Zucker or Bezos? Gimme the underdog.

*ETA2: And make no mistake... The enforcement arm of our system, which cares most about property rights of the powerful and maintenance of the status quo, is the Pinkertons.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Stone is guilty. Period. There is no dispute. He lied to Congress and it doesn’t matter why or on what subject. I would not believe anything the man said as he is a congenital liar.

The questions at hand and the only ones I referenced are whether the process of finding him guilty was flawed such that it should be redone and whether the Judge (and that idiot juror) needlessly opened a door justifying, politically and optically, Trump’s commutation.

I do not think he deserves a retrial. I see no basis for that. They compared his words before Congress to other statements he made at the time and they did not meet. Game, set, match.

(I cited Turley not for the proposition that I agree Stone should be granted retrial on appeal but to support the argument that he has a technically valid basis to appeal. (He possibly shouldn’t if it risks a decision further damning to him could be given before the election.))

But the Judge needn’t have gone beyond the issue of whether he lied, and that juror was just an idiot to open her mouth and draw attention.

So no, I don’t believe Stone, and I never have. But that’s immaterial to whether he now has a basis to appeal and Trump has cover to commute which had the process been run more professionally neither would enjoy.

My personal inclination to defend accrues from having worked within and therefore necessarily having lost respect for the system. And I have absolutely no respect for politics. But also, as said Mencken, no decent man fails to desire, somewhere in his heart, to hoist the black flag. (I omit the slitting throats part as I’m not violent.) It is the pirates, the disruptors, those without respect for the system, who innovate it (often accidentally in ways contrary to what they’d sought).

It’s a deep rot of soul to root for the Pinkertons or Elliot Ness.*

ETA: Stone’s an idiot, but he did punch upward. Weinstein’s a predator. The world would be better off if he’d gotten bail and used the opportunity to jump from his penthouse. He’s worse than a downward puncher. He’s despicable.

I’ll defend Trump against the establishment aligned against him. Where he acts as the establishment and punches down, you’ll see no defense. His treatment of Vindman is petty, weak. Despot-like. His battle with Jeff Zucker or Bezos? Gimme the underdog.

*ETA2: And make no mistake... The enforcement arm of our system, which cares most about property rights of the powerful and maintenance of the status quo, is the Pinkertons.

I do not understand why you think the judge needs to continue to pretend to credit Stone's story after the jury has rendered a verdict that he lied. That's not bias.

eta: Stone punched upward? You poor, deluded dope.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I do not understand why you think the judge needs to continue to pretend to credit Stone's story after the jury has rendered a verdict that he lied. That's not bias.

eta: Stone punched upward? You poor, deluded dope.

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.”

ETA Reply: Yes, Stone punched upward. And he’s a moron for doing it. Any sane person would avoid taking on the system. Are you suggesting he always knew he’d get pardoned? Bullshit. No sane person would ever trust Trump. He’s a loon to do so. And you even said as much a few months ago, opining there was no good reason for Trump to pardon anyone (in re Manafort) because he’d have then spent his leverage over such people.