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: 46,912
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 2599
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: 63,880
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 1593
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 literally none.

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: Yesterday 11:51 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 Online

Posts: 38,154
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 1259
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Post: #83
RE: Stone Case - DOJ Stepping in (Draining of the swamp underway)

"...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...."
Yesterday 10:35 AM
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.