Also, the “simple” explanation for the ex parte invitation made very public by the judge on the very day that the defendant’s case was being considered is only “simple” on the most merely physical level.
It’s sort of like the “simple” explanation for a man eating another man’s face being that he just got hungry. Isn’t that the reasonable thing that everybody concludes when they see one man eating another man’s face? It’s simple so it must be true...
“It’s sort of like the “simple” explanation for a man eating another man’s face being that he just got hungry.”
Are you serious?
99.9999% of people DON’T eat someone’s face when they are hungry. So this is a RIDICULOUSLY NON-SIMPLE explanation. “Simple” precludes HIGHLY IMPROBABLE.