On 4/17/2022 11:23 AM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard who rode
his scooter into a tree while not wearing a helmet, stupidly bawled and lied:

> On 4/17/22 1:08 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>> On 4/17/2022 5:41 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>> On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 11:23:12 -0700, Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article
>>>> <super70s-E0AE8D.11170816042022@reader02.eternal-september.org>,
>>>> super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Trump was not on trial.  It was inappropriate for the judge to make
>>>>>> political commentary as it demonstrates a likely bias.  He's just
>>>>>> given basis for appeal.
>>>>>
>>>>> The defendant ('s lawyer) brought Trump into the picture as his main
>>>>> defense so the judge was justified in making comments about Trump.
>>>>
>>>> Judges are free to state their opinions after the verdicts are
>>>> decided. And sometimes they do. Had he said anything before the
>>>> jury decided a verdict, the appeals would have orderred a new
>>>> trial. But since he did not influence the jury, what he thinks he
>>>> can state openly and freely.
>>>
>>> When they make clear a bias,
>>
>> He didn't.
>
> Does the Judge have proof and

The judge doesn't need "proof" in order to hold an opinion — an opinion he did
*not* share in court before the verdict was reached.

There was no bias on the part of the judge.

On 4/17/2022 11:45 AM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard who rode
his scooter into a tree while not wearing a helmet, stupidly bawled and lied:

> On 4/17/22 2:27 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>> On 4/17/2022 11:23 AM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard who rode his scooter into a tree while not wearing a helmet, stupidly bawled and lied:

>>
>>> On 4/17/22 1:08 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>> On 4/17/2022 5:41 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 11:23:12 -0700, Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article
>>>>>> <super70s-E0AE8D.11170816042022@reader02.eternal-september.org>,
>>>>>> super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Trump was not on trial.  It was inappropriate for the judge to make
>>>>>>>> political commentary as it demonstrates a likely bias.  He's just
>>>>>>>> given basis for appeal.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The defendant ('s lawyer) brought Trump into the picture as his main
>>>>>>> defense so the judge was justified in making comments about Trump.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Judges are free to state their opinions after the verdicts are
>>>>>> decided. And sometimes they do. Had he said anything before the
>>>>>> jury decided a verdict, the appeals would have orderred a new
>>>>>> trial. But since he did not influence the jury, what he thinks he
>>>>>> can state openly and freely.
>>>>>
>>>>> When they make clear a bias,
>>>>
>>>> He didn't.
>>>
>>> Does the Judge have proof and
>>
>> The judge doesn't need "proof" in order to hold an opinion — an opinion
>> he did *not* share in court before the verdict was reached.
>>
>> There was no bias on the part of the judge.
>
> Then the judge is admitting to judicial misconduct

No.

> for allowing TRUMP to be used in the trial, when the judge knows TRUMP is a charlatan.

The defense tried to blame the conduct of the criminal insurrectionist on Trump.
It didn't work. The jury convicted the criminal insurrectionist. There is no
basis for appeal. The defense can't go into appellate court and say, "The judge
never should have 'allowed' us to try to mount a stupid defense that the jury
would reject."

There was no bias by the judge.

On 4/17/2022 12:20 PM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard who rode
his scooter into a tree while not wearing a helmet, stupidly bawled and lied:

> On 4/17/22 2:51 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>> On 4/17/2022 11:45 AM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard who rode his scooter into a tree while not wearing a helmet, stupidly bawled and lied:

>>
>>> On 4/17/22 2:27 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>> On 4/17/2022 11:23 AM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard who rode his scooter into a tree while not wearing a helmet, stupidly bawled and lied:

>>
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/17/22 1:08 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/17/2022 5:41 AM, NoBody wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 16 Apr 2022 11:23:12 -0700, Siri Cruise
>>>>>>> <chine.bleu@yahoo.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>> <super70s-E0AE8D.11170816042022@reader02.eternal-september.org>,
>>>>>>>> super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Trump was not on trial.  It was inappropriate for the judge to
>>>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>>> political commentary as it demonstrates a likely bias.  He's just
>>>>>>>>>> given basis for appeal.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The defendant ('s lawyer) brought Trump into the picture as his
>>>>>>>>> main
>>>>>>>>> defense so the judge was justified in making comments about Trump.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Judges are free to state their opinions after the verdicts are
>>>>>>>> decided. And sometimes they do. Had he said anything before the
>>>>>>>> jury decided a verdict, the appeals would have orderred a new
>>>>>>>> trial. But since he did not influence the jury, what he thinks he
>>>>>>>> can state openly and freely.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When they make clear a bias,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He didn't.
>>>>>
>>>>> Does the Judge have proof and
>>>>
>>>> The judge doesn't need "proof" in order to hold an opinion — an opinion
>>>> he did *not* share in court before the verdict was reached.
>>>>
>>>> There was no bias on the part of the judge.
>>>
>>> Then the judge is admitting to judicial misconduct
>>
>> No.
>>
>>> for allowing TRUMP to be used in the trial, when the judge knows TRUMP
>>> is a charlatan.
>>
>> The defense tried to blame the conduct of the criminal insurrectionist
>> on Trump.  It didn't work.  The jury convicted the criminal
>> insurrectionist.  There is no basis for appeal.  The defense can't go
>> into appellate court and say, "The judge never should have 'allowed' us
>> to try to mount a stupid defense that the jury would reject."
>>
>
> But they can say the judge was sloppy in the way he conducted the trial.

But of course, the judge was *not* sloppy in the way he conducted the trial, and
his comments *after* the trial have no bearing on the conduct of the trial.

>
>> There was no bias by the judge.
>
> The judge committed the offense against the sanctity [sic] of the court and

No, he didn't. There is no such thing as the "sanctity [sic] of the court."

If the defense appeals any of the judge's decisions about the conduct of the
trial, e.g. instructions on the law that the judge made to the jurors, and if an
appeal is upheld, that doesn't constitute "judicial misconduct"; the appeals
court simply says the trial judge made a mistake.

So far, the defense attorney has only said he plans to appeal the judge's
decision not to allow the defense to call Trump and Giuliani as witnesses. He
announced that weeks ago, and I don't know if he ever followed up on it. He
will lose the appeal.

To repeat, it is the *defense* that tried to make Trump part of the trial. It
failed. The jury saw through it and convicted the criminal insurrectionist.
They didn't care that the criminal insurrectionist said he felt Trump "wanted"
him to storm Congress and prevent the certification of the victory by the
legitimate election winner, Joe Biden. Even if the criminal insurrectionist
believed that Trump wanted him to do what he did, Trump didn't *make* him do
what he did — the criminal insurrectionist chose to do it.

The judge committed no errors and did not exhibit any bias. This is settled.