Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
News Stone Case - DOJ Stepping in (Draining of the swamp underway)
Author Message
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 64,051
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 1611
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #101
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.

Here's what we know. The question was included in the jury questionnaire. If she answered "yes" she would almost certainly have been struck. If she answered "no" then she committed perjury. She was not struck.

Which one of those do you think actually happened?
02-21-2020 07:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 38,364
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 1270
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #102
RE: Stone Case - DOJ Stepping in (Draining of the swamp underway)
Judge Jackson skewered in this article: https://amgreatness.com/2020/02/20/lady-...ssociates/

"...In a statement by email, Jack Langer, a spokesman for Nunes, told me: “Our 240-page report has precisely one sentence that may be inaccurate information provided by Stone. That line had no impact on any of the report’s findings whatsoever. For the judge to use that to characterize our report as inaccurate and incomplete is absurd. Then again, a lot of the judge’s sentencing speech seemed to be regurgitating the Democrats’ debunked talking points about Russian collusion.”

That was not Jackson’s only impersonation of Adam Schiff; she went full drama queen mode warning that Stone poses an insidious danger to the very foundation of our nation...."
02-21-2020 09:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Redwingtom Offline
Progressive trash
*

Posts: 35,922
Joined: Dec 2003
Reputation: 615
I Root For: B-G-S-U !!!!
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Post: #103
RE: Stone Case - DOJ Stepping in (Draining of the swamp underway)
(02-21-2020 07:50 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.

Here's what we know. The question was included in the jury questionnaire. If she answered "yes" she would almost certainly have been struck. If she answered "no" then she committed perjury. She was not struck.

Which one of those do you think actually happened?

I think we should wait before jumping to any conclusions. The jury questionnaire cited in this thread was posted by a less than dubious source IMO, so was that even the actual questionnaire?

If she lied, she deserves to be punished to the fullest extent.
02-24-2020 09:49 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
UofMstateU Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 26,315
Joined: Dec 2009
Reputation: 2011
I Root For: Memphis
Location:
Post: #104
RE: Stone Case - DOJ Stepping in (Draining of the swamp underway)
(02-24-2020 09:49 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  
(02-21-2020 07:50 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.

Here's what we know. The question was included in the jury questionnaire. If she answered "yes" she would almost certainly have been struck. If she answered "no" then she committed perjury. She was not struck.

Which one of those do you think actually happened?

I think we should wait before jumping to any conclusions.

Says the guy who never waits to jump to any conclusions.
02-24-2020 10:58 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.