[Bush2000]

Harr, do you believe that Jackson was (a) happy or (b) angry when his injunction against Microsoft resulting from its so-called violation of the original consent decree was slammed back in his face by the Appeals Court? Was Jackson just being helpful when he routinely napped during the presentation of Microsoft witnesses? Was Jackson being fair when it denied Microsoft a remedy hearing, a clear violation of its rights? Why did Jackson routinely refuse to permit Microsoft to enter evidence which bolstered its case into the record? And why did Jackson feel that he had the right to talk to reporters in secret when ethics rules clearly showed that he shouldn't be doing so?

The bottom line is that a pattern of conduct emerges which, although not meeting the Appeals Court's legal standard for bias (in other words, there was no smoking gun), would convince the average person that Jackson had a grudge against Microsoft from the very start.

[Bush2000]

What I'm suggesting to you is that the only evidence which would have convinced this Appeals Court would have been an outright admission on the part of Jackson. And, since Jackson denied it, the legal standard was too tough a standard for MS to climb. I'm sure that Jackson got a pretty good laugh after he issued his ruling. But it probably stings, now that he's been rebuked by the Appeals Court for breaking ethics rules. The guy deserves to be impeached, in my opinion.