I hate Hillary as much as the next guy, maybe more than most next guys, but couldn’t the judges words have been taken to mean “don’t let your opinion of Hillary influence your verdict because she is not on trial”?
A fair question. There’s more. When Judge Matz began the trial by telling the jury that Peter Paul was a “thoroughly corrupt individual” and a “con man”, beyond any doubt, the Judge effectively confirmed to the jury that Rosen’s defense of being “conned” by Paul was reasonable. Instead of protesting the sabotaging of his case by the Judge, the prosecutor proceeded to tell the jury that the Judge was correct in his assertion that Hillary Clinton had no role in the case (even though the Justice Department was withholding video taped evidence to the contrary) and that Hillary was a victim herself, implying that she was victimized not only by the defendant by also by Paul.