[AndyJackson]

I guess what amuses me in this is that "they" were one step ahead of the blowback from the four corrupt now disgraced prosecutors resigning. The whining about a superior interfering with the sound discretion of subordinates just trying to do their job without interference from their boss was knocked off the front page by the revelations about the juror and the fact that a corrupt judge let her sit on the jury anyway despite an already known bias.

Poor judge - how did she break lose from the moral moorings of a fine upper middle class upbringing. Now she has to decide whether to confirm her corrupt ways and maintain the deep state Pyrrhic victory over Stone or does she hide her corruption from the bright glare of public scrutiny on a case where everyone is watching, and just this once do the right thing, where there is a large danger that this will get overturned on appeal.

Decisions, decisions, decisions ....

I guess it's really easy. Do whatever you can to poke a stick at that horrible orange man who never should have been president and just fooled the ignoramuses about what kind of a person he really was.

[Cboldt]

She’s a district court judge. They all abuse their discretion on purpose, knowing that the harmed person has a “right to appeal.” A fairly common remark by a trial judge confronted with obvious error is “you know how to take an appeal.”

Trial courts are outcome-oriented (so are the appeals courts), with enough discretion and precedent available - not to mention the use of rank intellectual dishonesty - with the result being that law is effectively the whim of the trial judge. The whim is couched in legal mumbo-jumbo, of course.

She suffers no harm in doubling down. Deny the motion for retrial, sentence Stone to 9 years, and let the appeals court sort it out.

[Ancesthntr]

That judge needs to be impeached. We will need a Republican House, with a majority of at least 20 (to account for RINOs) to make that happen, even in theory.