I didn't say he was unbiased. I said his rulings so far have been fair.
BTW, his description of Paul appears right on the money to me. The man is a convicted criminal. Still, the judge ruled the convictions were not admissable until the prosecution indicated they wanted to bring it up.
These hysterics to have him step aside seem ludicrous to me at this point. If he does something that warrants it, I'll join the hue and cry.
You need to read up on Peter Paul if you think the judge's description is accurate. Who's he been discredited by? Yeah, he's had problems in his past, but you believe he's a "con man" ?