Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
News Stone Case - DOJ Stepping in (Draining of the swamp underway)
Author Message
stinkfist Online
laughing at MSM meltdown
*

Posts: 48,121
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 2731
I Root For: StL Blues
Location: who knows?
Post: #81
RE: Stone Case - DOJ Stepping in (Draining of the swamp underway)
(02-14-2020 02:43 PM)Eldonabe Wrote:  
(02-14-2020 01:26 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  So I guess you take issue with the Senate acquittal of trump then, right? 04-cheers

I take issue with HOW they acquitted him - yes. However, I also take issue with HOW congress impeached him.

I think the blame should be shared equally.


It's yet another example of the Swamp doin' Swamp things....

yep....they keep on mastering that 'art' as we sit on the sidelines and continue to laugh and cry at the same time...

I can't figure out why I despise politics...

"you take a mortal man......watch people's heads erode.....just like the pied piper....let rats rule the streets......straight to the symphony....." pure fk'n genius from the 'right' side of the hemisphere...



(This post was last modified: 02-15-2020 09:02 AM by stinkfist.)
02-15-2020 09:01 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 64,982
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 1695
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #82
RE: Stone Case - DOJ Stepping in (Draining of the swamp underway)
(02-14-2020 01:29 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  
(02-14-2020 01:08 PM)bullet Wrote:  "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed,"
From the 6th amendment.
Newsflash, there's likely never been a trial in our history where the jury did not come in with total impartiality.

But there aren't many where they come in with full-blown bias, at least not since the Jim Crow days.

Quote:We're human...and flawed. It's not a perfect system, but it's pretty darn effective in the grand scheme. That's why we have a jury of 12.
Unless you show the jurist lied in her questioning by council, the judge, or in her submitted questionnaire, there's likely nothing you can do. If that's the case, Stone's council blew it by not getting her canned.

The jury questionnaire apparently included a question about social media use. If she lied there, she committed perjury. If she told the truth and Stone's legal team didn't have her struck, then they committed malpractice.

What I'm hearing is that the tweeting came to light during the trial and the defense team asked the judge to remove her and the judge refused. If that is correct, then the judge probably committed illegal judicial misconduct, for which she could and should be removed from the bench and prosecuted.

I look forward to having actual facts come out in this case. I'm fairly sure that if this had happened during Eric Holder's or Loretta Lynch's regimes at DOJ, we would never know the truth of it.
(This post was last modified: 02-18-2020 10:50 AM by Owl 69/70/75.)
02-15-2020 09:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 39,481
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 1323
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #83
RE: Stone Case - DOJ Stepping in (Draining of the swamp underway)
https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-jus...ice-undone
Turley:

"...For example, Question 30 asked whether she had any opinion about figures such Donald Trump. There also was Question 23 that asked whether she had "written or posted anything for public consumption about the defendant, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, or the investigation conducted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller?" Questions 34 and 35 specifically ask about her prior knowledge or opinions of the Stone case, which she referenced on social media. It is hard to believe that she disclosed these public statements in her answer and was not questioned about them.

If this information was withheld by Hart, it raises a question about the veracity of her testimony and, more importantly, the fairness of the trial.

It certainly seems Hart had no place on the Stone jury. The Supreme Court has repeatedly declared that the “minimal standards of due process” demand “a panel of impartial, indifferent jurors.” Hart’s record suggests little that is impartial or indifferent. She was perfectly within her right to engage in such commentary and protests — but she had no right to sit in judgment of an associate of the president after her public declarations. Her participation raises serious arguments for setting aside the verdict, from the possibility of ineffective counsel to the denial of due process...."
02-16-2020 10:35 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Redwingtom Offline
Progressive filth
*

Posts: 36,257
Joined: Dec 2003
Reputation: 623
I Root For: B-G-S-U !!!!
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Post: #84
RE: Stone Case - DOJ Stepping in (Draining of the swamp underway)
(02-15-2020 09:33 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  What I'm hearing is that the tweeting came to light during the trial and the defense team asked the judge to remove her and the judge refused. If that is correct...

Where are you hearing this? I think I cited an article above that said they tried to have another juror dismissed during the trial and were refused by the judge. This juror here was never an issue during the trial from what I've read.
02-18-2020 09:53 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
rath v2.0 Offline
Wartime Consigliere
*

Posts: 35,130
Joined: Jun 2007
Reputation: 953
I Root For: Three Floyds
Location: ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

Donators
Post: #85
RE: Stone Case - DOJ Stepping in (Draining of the swamp underway)
This was the Keystone Cops.
02-18-2020 09:59 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Redwingtom Offline
Progressive filth
*

Posts: 36,257
Joined: Dec 2003
Reputation: 623
I Root For: B-G-S-U !!!!
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Post: #86
RE: Stone Case - DOJ Stepping in (Draining of the swamp underway)
(02-18-2020 09:59 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  This was the Keystone Cops.

Yup!

[Image: roger-stone-trump-inauguration.jpg]
[Image: roger-stone-james-bond-facebook.jpg]
[Image: 5e4522452dae5c6ebb243352?width=1100&...;auto=webp]
02-18-2020 10:03 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
stinkfist Online
laughing at MSM meltdown
*

Posts: 48,121
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 2731
I Root For: StL Blues
Location: who knows?
Post: #87
RE: Stone Case - DOJ Stepping in (Draining of the swamp underway)
(02-18-2020 10:03 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  
(02-18-2020 09:59 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  This was the Keystone Cops.

Yup!

[Image: roger-stone-trump-inauguration.jpg]
[Image: roger-stone-james-bond-facebook.jpg]
[Image: 5e4522452dae5c6ebb243352?width=1100&...;auto=webp]

lookie who showed after prez day...

#notIronic
02-18-2020 10:09 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SoMs Eagle Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,872
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 585
I Root For: Mighty Mustard
Location:
Post: #88
RE: Stone Case - DOJ Stepping in (Draining of the swamp underway)
(02-18-2020 10:09 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  
(02-18-2020 10:03 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  
(02-18-2020 09:59 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  This was the Keystone Cops.

Yup!

[Image: roger-stone-trump-inauguration.jpg]
[Image: roger-stone-james-bond-facebook.jpg]
[Image: 5e4522452dae5c6ebb243352?width=1100&...;auto=webp]

lookie who showed after prez day...

#notIronic


03-lmfao 03-lmfao 04-cheers I guess he’s the best they got for a little ole sports politics board.
#minimumwage
02-18-2020 10:15 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
rath v2.0 Offline
Wartime Consigliere
*

Posts: 35,130
Joined: Jun 2007
Reputation: 953
I Root For: Three Floyds
Location: ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

Donators
Post: #89
RE: Stone Case - DOJ Stepping in (Draining of the swamp underway)
What I love is the Pom Pom brigade with a rooting interest in not having it come to light that the trial and sentencing was a judicial cess pool.

The judge who allowed that nut case to be empaneled could have issues on the horizon.

I could literally not give a flying fuq if Roger Stone goes to jail. If there was judicial, juror or prosecutorial misconduct in the trial or sentencing, I’d like to see that exposed and corrected. Same as I would for anyone.
(This post was last modified: 02-18-2020 10:21 AM by rath v2.0.)
02-18-2020 10:20 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 39,481
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 1323
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #90
RE: Stone Case - DOJ Stepping in (Draining of the swamp underway)
https://thefederalist.com/2020/02/19/cam...ipartisan/

"...Not once in the 800-word article did the Times address the overwhelming evidence that the thousand-plus signatories were politically motivated critics of President Donald Trump. In fact, to the contrary, the Times claimed “the former Justice Department lawyers” “came from across the political spectrum....”

They spun themselves as apolitical, by stressing they worked for both Democratic and Republican administrations, but a quick visit to the Federal Elections Commission website to search for political contributions, aided by some amazing crowdsourcing, revealed extensive contributions to Democrats and liberal organizations by many of the signatories—so many, in fact, I called off the troops....

The “bipartisan” bull in the “buttoned-up and wary of calling attention to themselves” line is laughable given that Rocah signed the earlier letter concerning Mueller’s report, as did hundreds of her straight-laced, limelight-avoiding compatriots.

Likewise laughable is that The New York Times continues to hold any cachet in this country when the Old Grey Lady has proven time and again a prostitute will part with her reputation for petty politics. And that is exactly what the attacks on Barr are."
02-19-2020 04:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
stinkfist Online
laughing at MSM meltdown
*

Posts: 48,121
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 2731
I Root For: StL Blues
Location: who knows?
Post: #91
RE: Stone Case - DOJ Stepping in (Draining of the swamp underway)
(02-18-2020 10:20 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  What I love is the Pom Pom brigade with a rooting interest in not having it come to light that the trial and sentencing was a judicial cess pool.

The judge who allowed that nut case to be empaneled could have issues on the horizon.

I could literally not give a flying fuq if Roger Stone goes to jail. If there was judicial, juror or prosecutorial misconduct in the trial or sentencing, I’d like to see that exposed and corrected. Same as I would for anyone.

XACLY!

I'm gonna share a quick story/parable about two brothers....

both fought tooth and nail for 'stature' in the eye of either/both beholder/parent....both always protected li'l sis...

li'l bubba always got his arse whooped until they began to work in tandem AND when his balls fell to whip ol' big bubba's arse....big bubba then decided that lesson was mission accomplished on both sides of the equation...

both political parties as they exist today are devoid of understanding such...that's what's so fk'd the fk up in the stream o' conscientiousness terms...

#loveYaLi'lBubba

"the best design is the simplest one that works." - Albert Einstein
02-19-2020 05:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 64,982
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 1695
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #92
RE: Stone Case - DOJ Stepping in (Draining of the swamp underway)
(02-18-2020 09:53 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  
(02-15-2020 09:33 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  What I'm hearing is that the tweeting came to light during the trial and the defense team asked the judge to remove her and the judge refused. If that is correct...
Where are you hearing this? I think I cited an article above that said they tried to have another juror dismissed during the trial and were refused by the judge. This juror here was never an issue during the trial from what I've read.

The situation with the other juror was bad enough.

As I understand it, the juror who ended up as foreman had previously tweeted a significant amount of anti-Trump propaganda, but on the jury form stated that she had not. That's perjury, and therefore it apparently did not come up in voir dire, but did come up later. Arguably, a totally thorough job on voir dire would have picked this up, so I don't really know what happened. I think either of them paints a picture of serious jury misconduct, if the allegations are true. And having two like that in one jury pool causes me to wonder if the pool wasn't somehow stacked. I realize that is a very serious proposition, but I'm having a hard time figuring out how this could have happened otherwise.

The fact that these jurors both got through voir dire can only be explained by total incompetence on the part of Stone's defense team, or else a jury pool that was so stacked that these were the least objectionable ones.
(This post was last modified: 02-19-2020 05:15 PM by Owl 69/70/75.)
02-19-2020 05:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Redwingtom Offline
Progressive filth
*

Posts: 36,257
Joined: Dec 2003
Reputation: 623
I Root For: B-G-S-U !!!!
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Post: #93
RE: Stone Case - DOJ Stepping in (Draining of the swamp underway)
(02-19-2020 05:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(02-18-2020 09:53 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  
(02-15-2020 09:33 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  What I'm hearing is that the tweeting came to light during the trial and the defense team asked the judge to remove her and the judge refused. If that is correct...
Where are you hearing this? I think I cited an article above that said they tried to have another juror dismissed during the trial and were refused by the judge. This juror here was never an issue during the trial from what I've read.

The situation with the other juror was bad enough.

As I understand it, the juror who ended up as foreman had previously tweeted a significant amount of anti-Trump propaganda, but on the jury form stated that she had not. That's perjury, and therefore it apparently did not come up in voir dire, but did come up later. Arguably, a totally thorough job on voir dire would have picked this up, so I don't really know what happened. I think either of them paints a picture of serious jury misconduct, if the allegations are true. And having two like that in one jury pool causes me to wonder if the pool wasn't somehow stacked. I realize that is a very serious proposition, but I'm having a hard time figuring out how this could have happened otherwise.

The fact that these jurors both got through voir dire can only be explained by total incompetence on the part of Stone's defense team, or else a jury pool that was so stacked that these were the least objectionable ones.

You need to cite this, as I've seen nothing to prove this!
02-20-2020 09:16 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
stinkfist Online
laughing at MSM meltdown
*

Posts: 48,121
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 2731
I Root For: StL Blues
Location: who knows?
Post: #94
RE: Stone Case - DOJ Stepping in (Draining of the swamp underway)
(02-20-2020 09:16 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  
(02-19-2020 05:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(02-18-2020 09:53 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  
(02-15-2020 09:33 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  What I'm hearing is that the tweeting came to light during the trial and the defense team asked the judge to remove her and the judge refused. If that is correct...
Where are you hearing this? I think I cited an article above that said they tried to have another juror dismissed during the trial and were refused by the judge. This juror here was never an issue during the trial from what I've read.

The situation with the other juror was bad enough.

As I understand it, the juror who ended up as foreman had previously tweeted a significant amount of anti-Trump propaganda, but on the jury form stated that she had not. That's perjury, and therefore it apparently did not come up in voir dire, but did come up later. Arguably, a totally thorough job on voir dire would have picked this up, so I don't really know what happened. I think either of them paints a picture of serious jury misconduct, if the allegations are true. And having two like that in one jury pool causes me to wonder if the pool wasn't somehow stacked. I realize that is a very serious proposition, but I'm having a hard time figuring out how this could have happened otherwise.

The fact that these jurors both got through voir dire can only be explained by total incompetence on the part of Stone's defense team, or else a jury pool that was so stacked that these were the least objectionable ones.

You need to cite this, as I've seen nothing to prove this!

if he does, what's your next move, slick?

I'm pretty certain most are comfortable with his posit w/o linky....

ewe provide linky(s) that are the equivalent of pandering dogshite....

how's that workin' out for the donk-a-donks these days, Ja!

go back to work and earn your pittance....that's all ewe deserve....

man, I love being on 'ignore'....

#Juicy
02-20-2020 09:21 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 39,481
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 1323
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #95
RE: Stone Case - DOJ Stepping in (Draining of the swamp underway)
(02-19-2020 05:10 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  
(02-18-2020 10:20 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  What I love is the Pom Pom brigade with a rooting interest in not having it come to light that the trial and sentencing was a judicial cess pool.

The judge who allowed that nut case to be empaneled could have issues on the horizon.

I could literally not give a flying fuq if Roger Stone goes to jail. If there was judicial, juror or prosecutorial misconduct in the trial or sentencing, I’d like to see that exposed and corrected. Same as I would for anyone.

XACLY!

I'm gonna share a quick story/parable about two brothers....

both fought tooth and nail for 'stature' in the eye of either/both beholder/parent....both always protected li'l sis...

li'l bubba always got his arse whooped until they began to work in tandem AND when his balls fell to whip ol' big bubba's arse....big bubba then decided that lesson was mission accomplished on both sides of the equation...

both political parties as they exist today are devoid of understanding such...that's what's so fk'd the fk up in the stream o' conscientiousness terms...

#loveYaLi'lBubba

"the best design is the simplest one that works." - Albert Einstein

The judge struck me as extremely biased. She put the gag order on Stone when the prosecution and MSM was skewering Stone every day.
02-20-2020 09:47 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 64,982
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 1695
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #96
RE: Stone Case - DOJ Stepping in (Draining of the swamp underway)
(02-20-2020 09:16 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  
(02-19-2020 05:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(02-18-2020 09:53 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  
(02-15-2020 09:33 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  What I'm hearing is that the tweeting came to light during the trial and the defense team asked the judge to remove her and the judge refused. If that is correct...
Where are you hearing this? I think I cited an article above that said they tried to have another juror dismissed during the trial and were refused by the judge. This juror here was never an issue during the trial from what I've read.
The situation with the other juror was bad enough.
As I understand it, the juror who ended up as foreman had previously tweeted a significant amount of anti-Trump propaganda, but on the jury form stated that she had not. That's perjury, and therefore it apparently did not come up in voir dire, but did come up later. Arguably, a totally thorough job on voir dire would have picked this up, so I don't really know what happened. I think either of them paints a picture of serious jury misconduct, if the allegations are true. And having two like that in one jury pool causes me to wonder if the pool wasn't somehow stacked. I realize that is a very serious proposition, but I'm having a hard time figuring out how this could have happened otherwise.
The fact that these jurors both got through voir dire can only be explained by total incompetence on the part of Stone's defense team, or else a jury pool that was so stacked that these were the least objectionable ones.
You need to cite this, as I've seen nothing to prove this!

Hmm, "nothing to prove that," doesn't seem to be much of a barrier to all the allegations that have been made about Donald Trump.

I prefaced the comment with, "As I understand it," and that represents my current understanding. I'm doing a bit of inductive reasoning here. There was a copy of the jury questionnaire posted, I think in another thread on this board. The question was specifically asked. She had to answer either yes or no. If she answered yes and was left in, particularly in the #1 slot, then Stone's lawyer committed malpractice. If she answered no, she committed perjury. Of the two, I think perjury is far more likely. I've seen nothing to prove or disprove either. The questionnaire exists somewhere, and the facts can be fairly easily established.

The other question I have is how did they end up with such an awful panel that she was left in? Surely they struck some jurors, and perhaps got others removed for cause. The obvious implication is that the jurors that were struck must have been worse. How bad were they?
02-20-2020 09:48 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Redwingtom Offline
Progressive filth
*

Posts: 36,257
Joined: Dec 2003
Reputation: 623
I Root For: B-G-S-U !!!!
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Post: #97
RE: Stone Case - DOJ Stepping in (Draining of the swamp underway)
(02-20-2020 09:48 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(02-20-2020 09:16 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  
(02-19-2020 05:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(02-18-2020 09:53 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  
(02-15-2020 09:33 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  What I'm hearing is that the tweeting came to light during the trial and the defense team asked the judge to remove her and the judge refused. If that is correct...
Where are you hearing this? I think I cited an article above that said they tried to have another juror dismissed during the trial and were refused by the judge. This juror here was never an issue during the trial from what I've read.
The situation with the other juror was bad enough.
As I understand it, the juror who ended up as foreman had previously tweeted a significant amount of anti-Trump propaganda, but on the jury form stated that she had not. That's perjury, and therefore it apparently did not come up in voir dire, but did come up later. Arguably, a totally thorough job on voir dire would have picked this up, so I don't really know what happened. I think either of them paints a picture of serious jury misconduct, if the allegations are true. And having two like that in one jury pool causes me to wonder if the pool wasn't somehow stacked. I realize that is a very serious proposition, but I'm having a hard time figuring out how this could have happened otherwise.
The fact that these jurors both got through voir dire can only be explained by total incompetence on the part of Stone's defense team, or else a jury pool that was so stacked that these were the least objectionable ones.
You need to cite this, as I've seen nothing to prove this!

Hmm, "nothing to prove that," doesn't seem to be much of a barrier to all the allegations that have been made about Donald Trump.

I prefaced the comment with, "As I understand it," and that represents my current understanding. I'm doing a bit of inductive reasoning here. There was a copy of the jury questionnaire posted, I think in another thread on this board. The question was specifically asked. She had to answer either yes or no. If she answered yes and was left in, particularly in the #1 slot, then Stone's lawyer committed malpractice. If she answered no, she committed perjury. Of the two, I think perjury is far more likely. I've seen nothing to prove or disprove either. The questionnaire exists somewhere, and the facts can be fairly easily established.

The other question I have is how did they end up with such an awful panel that she was left in? Surely they struck some jurors, and perhaps got others removed for cause. The obvious implication is that the jurors that were struck must have been worse. How bad were they?

IIRC, only the blank questionnaire was posted here. There was nothing shown with any of her answers to the questions.

I took your understand it comment to just be referring to the social media posts.
02-20-2020 11:25 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
UofMstateU Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 26,558
Joined: Dec 2009
Reputation: 2042
I Root For: Memphis
Location:
Post: #98
RE: Stone Case - DOJ Stepping in (Draining of the swamp underway)
The judge on this case was a complete moron. You do not go to sentencing phase when you have found out you have a seriously tainted jury. The gag order was also something straight out of a hrid world communist regime.

So now what happens is that the case will get tossed, and the DOJ will decide not to re-prosecute it.
02-21-2020 04:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 64,982
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 1695
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #99
RE: Stone Case - DOJ Stepping in (Draining of the swamp underway)
(02-20-2020 11:25 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  IIRC, only the blank questionnaire was posted here. There was nothing shown with any of her answers to the questions.

As I said above, I'm doing some inductive reasoning here. She had to answer that question yes or no. If she answered yes, then that should have raised a huge red flag for the defense team, and allowing her into the jury would constitute major malpractice. If she answered no, then she perjured herself. Those are the only two options--massive legal malpractice or perjury.

My money is on perjury as the far more likely option. There are no others. Either way, at some point we should know how she answered.
(This post was last modified: 02-21-2020 06:42 PM by Owl 69/70/75.)
02-21-2020 06:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 31,581
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 1465
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #100
RE: Stone Case - DOJ Stepping in (Draining of the swamp underway)
(02-18-2020 09:53 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  
(02-15-2020 09:33 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  What I'm hearing is that the tweeting came to light during the trial and the defense team asked the judge to remove her and the judge refused. If that is correct...

Where are you hearing this? I think I cited an article above that said they tried to have another juror dismissed during the trial and were refused by the judge. This juror here was never an issue during the trial from what I've read.

Its clear that when they were selecting the jury she flat out lied about her knowledge, attitudes, and preconceived notions regarding the defendant. I think defense counsel could have done a better job---but in the face of bald face lying on the jurors part, most of the fault does not lie with the defense lawyer IMHO. If the tweeting came to light during the trial, I cant find anything on it. Its also obvious she actually tweeted anti-Trump material during the trial. We just dont know if anyone connected to the trial knew about.

https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-jus...ice-undone
(This post was last modified: 02-21-2020 07:58 PM by Attackcoog.)
02-21-2020 07:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2020 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2020 MyBB Group.