[rayiner]

> "Skip the narrative and go straight to".. the opinion of a single judge whom evidence suggests is biased in favor of Chevron.

There is zero evidence suggesting he is "biased in favor of Chevron." Donzinger's self-serving assertions are not evidence. Donzinger has repeatedly petitioned the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, the appellate court that oversees the trial court here, to have the judge recused. The Second Circuit has repeatedly rejected those requests. And the Second Circuit, through a panel of three judges, affirmed the order I linked to: https://fcpablog.com/2016/08/11/second-circuit-upholds-rico-...

[34679]

>"Kaplan has a soft spot for Chevron, which the judge once described as “a company of considerable importance to our economy that employs thousands all over the world, that supplies a group of commodities, gasoline, heating oil, other fuels, and lubricants on which every one of us depends every single day.”

[rayiner]

That's literally just a factual description of what Chevron is.

[34679]

Chevron is not the only producer of petroleum products in the world and not every person in the world relies on Chevron's products every single day. It's absurd to call that statement factual.

[rayiner]

As a simple matter of grammar, that's not what he's saying. He says that Chevron is a manufacturer of a "group of commodities" that "on which every one of us depends every single day." The sentence means that people rely on the group of commodities, of which Chevron is one producer.