The Roger Stone Case

[Conager]

Frodo believes anything he can get three people to agree with him on.

Four highly partisan Mueller investigation assholes walk off the case as they planned to do. If they sincerely thought they would ever get 7 and 9 years and have that sentence stick and not be pardoned they would have discussed that with the attorney general..they wouldn't have gone behind his back ignored sentencing guidelines and set up this ridiculous gambit.

The idea was they set up this ridiculous sentence have it signed off on by the same judge that they shopped a lot of their other cases too. I really don't think it's a coincidence to the same judge ends up on all of these various cases. (Absolute judicial corruption just to get that for starters) the plan was to scream cover up when Trump quite reasonably pardoned somebody or commuted sentence when the sentence is ridiculous. This whole thing was nothing but a partisan exercise in trying to box Trump into a corner. It was ridiculous and had nothing to do with Justice.

I'll bet I can find four people that would agree with me that Comey should be in jail for longer than Rodger Stone.

Why the hell would you need four prosecutors for such a ridiculous case?. Why the hell did you need to have a paramilitary raid with CNN standing by to drag him off to jail? The had froggen in the canal, like a 67-year-old was going to swim to freedom.

 

[icanhelp1]

I smell a mistrial!! Where’s the ACLU when it’s a republican?

Poisoned jury

 

[Wrong Element]

NOW THEY'RE DISCOVERING TAINTED JURORS!! Wonder if SWAMP QUEEN and Schumer the DUNG BEETLE will complain about biased jurors. Maybe they'll blame Barr for that too!!

This is so obvious it shouldn't need to be said, but jurors are allowed to have opinions about someone's guilt/innocence or their general level of suck based on what they heard during a trial. It would be pretty unusual for a juror in, say, a capital murder case to come away from the trial with absolutely no opinion about the accused murderer.

 

[phrodeau]

Last year, Mueller was a superhero for sparing Trump's bacon. Did I miss something?

 

[icanhelp1]

This is so obvious it shouldn't need to be said, but jurors are allowed to have opinions about someone's guilt/innocence or their general level of suck based on what they heard during a trial. It would be pretty unusual for a juror in, say, a capital murder case to come away from the trial with absolutely no opinion about the accused murderer.

As a juror, I don’t believe you’re allowed to discuss the trial outside the court while the trial is ongoing, especially with a negative bias towards the defendant. That is grounds for mistrial. Had a extreme bias towards the defendant prior to selection = juror misconduct prejudice.

 

[Rightguide]

NOW THEY'RE DISCOVERING TAINTED JURORS!! Wonder if SWAMP QUEEN and Schumer the DUNG BEETLE will complain about biased jurors. Maybe they'll blame Barr for that too!!

Here's what else their discovering. The prosecutors told Barr one thing got his okay and then went to court and offered a completely different sentence recommendation to the judge, knowing that Barr would object and change it back to the the sentence so they could make their sacrificial resignations seem justified enough to fire up the media and Pelosi into an impeachment frenzy. They set him up. But as Nunes said the other night we're going to find out thoe same people were involved in other questionable conduct with the Mueller investigation.

 

[bellisarius]

Here's what else their discovering. The prosecutors told Barr one thing got his okay and then went to court and offered a completely different sentence recommendation to the judge, knowing that Barr would object and change it back to the the sentence so they could make their sacrificial resignations seem justified enough to fire up the media and Pelosi into an impeachment frenzy. They set him up. But as Nunes said the other night we're going to find out thoe same people were involved in other questionable conduct with the Mueller investigation.

More street theater from the left folks. Instead of resigning in faux outrage they should have let Barr fire them, and he would have and been justified in doing so. But it would have made for even better faux press.

 

[Conager]

I think the point of this was too wound bar. They did not expect Trump to fall into their so-called trap. Trap Trump ended up taking fire away from bar because they went after Trump but then when they went after Trump they find that bar had already made the decision so they were left holding an empty paper bags.

 

[bellisarius]

You may well by right on that. There are more than a few that would like to see Barr gone. Of course the problem is that the meeting they had with Barr re. the sentencing is most certainly a matter of record and that whole show falls apart once the record is brought forth.

 

[icanhelp1]

Here's what else their discovering. The prosecutors told Barr one thing got his okay and then went to court and offered a completely different sentence recommendation to the judge, knowing that Barr would object and change it back to the the sentence so they could make their sacrificial resignations seem justified enough to fire up the media and Pelosi into an impeachment frenzy. They set him up. But as Nunes said the other night we're going to find out thoe same people were involved in other questionable conduct with the Mueller investigation.

I believe these US attorneys knew that they had a tainted juror on their hands and rushed to make the trial political. Say one thing and do another ( I READ THAT ). This smells of Andrew Weissmann, another words it smells like shit. I wish Trump would shut his trap when it comes DOJ and their activities. Just do the executive branch business, work on getting re-elected then the day after his inauguration pardon the fuckers. Trump pisses me off when he does shit like that. For the next six months his legal counsel needs to take his cell phone and close his twitter account. He's going to fuck-up Durham's investigation. Pelosi and her swamp critters will accuse Barr of putting his thumb on the scale. Trump has the world by the balls and does things to put a cloud over his ADMIN.

 

[bellisarius]

I believe these US attorneys knew that they had a tainted juror on their hands and rushed to make the trial political. Say one thing and do another ( I READ THAT ). This smells of Andrew Weissmann, another words it smells like shit. I wish Trump would shut his trap when it comes DOJ and their activities. Just do the executive branch business, work on getting re-elected then the day after his inauguration pardon the fuckers. Trump pisses me off when he does shit like that. For the next six months his legal counsel needs to take his cell phone and close his twitter account. He's going to fuck-up Durham's investigation. Pelosi and her swamp critters will accuse Barr of putting his thumb on the scale. Trump has the world by the balls and does things to put a cloud over his ADMIN.

There is that as well, although I believe that even if Stone were to get a new trial he'd be found guilty on some of the charges.

I don't understand why Weissmann was still around. He should have been gone LONG ago.

Yes, Trumps tweeting can be irritating but it gets the public's attention. I think that you, as I do at times as well, put Trump in the "politics as usual" basket and that's just not Trump. While in the past the shenanigan's of bureaucracy would have gone unnoticed or under reported they are now front page news and good, bad, or indifferent you have to give Trump credit for making it so.

He's a disruptor and he isn't going to change.

 

[Adre]

What Barr really said:

Stop the tweets, Donald, I can’t subvert Justice while everyone watches.

 

[zipman]

Here's what else their discovering. The prosecutors told Barr one thing got his okay and then went to court and offered a completely different sentence recommendation to the judge, knowing that Barr would object and change it back to the the sentence so they could make their sacrificial resignations seem justified enough to fire up the media and Pelosi into an impeachment frenzy. They set him up. But as Nunes said the other night we're going to find out thoe same people were involved in other questionable conduct with the Mueller investigation.

Do you have a link for this alternative narrative?

 

[Aglaopheme]

Just to be clear, the sentencing recommendation, although high, was not at all out of line considering all of the enhancements that elevated the sentencing range.

People have such short memories, and this spin is hysterical fantasy.

Stone actually sent a text reading “You are a rat. A stoolie. You backstab your friends-run your mouth my lawyers are dying Rip you to shreds.”
He added: “I am so ready. Let’s get it on. Prepare to die [expletive].”

And there’s this little gem, and all of the other times Stone broke his gag order, and as mentioned already, his continued obstruction.

https://www.rollingstone.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Screen-Shot-2019-02-18-at-2.51.34-PM.jpeg?w=564

 

[HisArpy]

In the end, the verdict and sentencing will be appealed. The appeals court will find several instances of misconduct by the State and jurors. Defense counsel will be scolded for ineffective assistance of counsel. (They should have known about or discovered the tainted jury forewoman's bias and brought that to the attention of the judge.)

The question will be; does any or all of that rise to the level needed to determine that the trial wasn't "fair" and/or "impartial".

That's a question only the judges on the appeals panel can answer.

 

[Adre]

Another interpretation of Barr’s claim:

Mr. President, your tweets are making it impossible for me to do your bidding.

 

[phrodeau]

In the end, the verdict and sentencing will be appealed. The appeals court will find several instances of misconduct by the State and jurors. Defense counsel will be scolded for ineffective assistance of counsel. (They should have known about or discovered the tainted jury forewoman's bias and brought that to the attention of the judge.)

The question will be; does any or all of that rise to the level needed to determine that the trial wasn't "fair" and/or "impartial".

That's a question only the judges on the appeals panel can answer.

That the head juror once ran for office as a Democrat was brought up in the selection process. If the defense claims not to know that, the judge can say snoozers are losers.

 

[Rightguide]

Do you have a link for this alternative narrative?

You can start here:

https://thefederalist.com/2020/02/1...j-about-stone-prison-sentence-recommendation/

It was discussed by the AG himself yesterday in an interview with either ABC or CBS, reported on Fox News, can't remember which one. Devin Nunes discussed it with Maria Bartiromo last Sunday morning and again a day or so ago.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/do...es-extreme-sentencing-recommendation-official

 

[Rightguide]

Another interpretation of Barr’s claim:

Mr. President, your tweets are making it impossible for me to do your bidding.

Thank you, Adam Schiff.

 

[Rightguide]

Just to be clear, the sentencing recommendation, although high, was not at all out of line considering all of the enhancements that elevated the sentencing range.

That's BS. The sentence would amount to a life sentence for a no violent crime. Of course, it is the intention of the corrupt Mueller prosecutors to kill Stone in prison. Stone was targeted by an illegal investigation that should never have gone forth in the first place.

As an Aside Obama involved himself in several court cases, and nobody on the left bothered to get excited.

 

[Rightguide]

What Barr really said:

Stop the tweets, Donald, I can’t subvert Justice while everyone watches.

Thank you, Adam Schiff.

 

[Rightguide]

That the head juror once ran for office as a Democrat was brought up in the selection process. If the defense claims not to know that, the judge can say snoozers are losers.

That wouldn't be the reaction of a real federal judge:

Check this article out, from The Hill and Judge Napolitano:

“[Stone is] absolutely entitled to a new trial with a member of a jury making these types of revelations about the politics involved in the decisions to prosecute him,” Napolitano said on “Fox & Friends."

“It is the duty of the judge to ensure that both the government and defendant get a fair trial, and if the judge discovers afterward that there was a built-in inherent bias on the part of a member of a jury against the defendant, that is an automatic trigger for a new trial,” he later explained. “[U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson is] going to have to call those jurors back in and interrogate them or make a decision on the spot."

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/...absolutely-entitled-to-new-trial-after-jurors

The article also addresses the comments of the Juror in question.

 

[Adre]

Of course the verdict was unanimous, so I guess all twelve jurors came in with prior disqualifying biases.

 

[Rightguide]

Of course the verdict was unanimous, so I guess all twelve jurors came in with prior disqualifying biases.

Then there is this:

‘She Probably Would Serve Jail Time If She Lied’: Judge Napolitano Says Roger Stone Juror ‘Must Have Hidden’ Bias


The jury foreperson in Roger Stone’s trial probably hid her bias, Judge Andrew Napolitano told Fox News host Tucker Carlson.

Napolitano appeared Thursday on “Tucker Carlson Tonight” to discuss revelations that Tomeka Hart, who led the jury that convicted Stone on seven counts of making false statements, witness tampering and obstruction, may have been biased against Stone from the outset.

Carlson laid out the recent reporting as he introduced Napolitano, saying, “Is it your view a problem that the foreman of the jury in Roger Stone’s trial turned out to be a former Democratic congressional candidate who attacked Trump on Twitter and mocked concern, I think most critically, about the FBI raid on stone’s house? Why was someone like this allowed to remain on the jury?”

Napolitano responded by first acknowledging that Stone was a longtime friend but saying that he would answer the question specifically from the judicial perspective. (RELATED: Roger Stone’s Shock And Awe Arrest Is ‘An American Nightmare,’ Says Judge Napolitano)

“This is information that she must have hidden from the lawyers and the judge who interrogated her before she was put on the jury,” Napolitano began, explaining that because it was a federal case, the judge would have interrogated the jurors.

Rest here:

https://dailycaller.com/2020/02/13/judge-napolitano-roger-stone-juror-jail-time-lied/

 

[Tigersman]

You embarrass yourself with this ignorance you insist on posting. Get an education.

I'm impressed you even know how to read as it's apparent you have not read the Constitution or the Mueller report.