• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Prosecutor withdraws from Roger Stone case

OpportunityCost said:
If a juror lies about their background and knowledge and bias, it presents more opportunities for appeal. Jurors have to be honest or they shouldn't be jurors.
Click to expand...

Great. Let's spend thousands of more taxpayer dollars to re-try the case and find the lying criminal guilty again.

And then listen to all the conservatives complain how that trial wasn't fair either. Because conservatives are SO concerned with fairness. :roll:
 
TheDoctorWasIn said:
Oooo. "Multiple" social media posts!

I have a question for you - do you believe that your posts here on this message board should (or would) disqualify you from sitting on a jury if the accused was a Democrat?
Click to expand...

It's a valid point. It is evidence that she went into the trial with knowledge of, and an ax to grind with, the accused. Between that, her profession, and her prominent position on the jury there are ample grounds for an appeal that the deliberation was fair and unbiased.

It may not be enough to convict the woman on perjury, but that is a higher bar than declaring a mistrial for evidence of potential bias on the jury.
 
jmotivator said:
It's a valid point. It is evidence that she went into the trial with knowledge of, and an ax to grind with, the accused. Between that, her profession, and her prominent position on the jury there are ample grounds for an appeal that the deliberation was fair and unbiased.

It may not be enough to convict the woman on perjury, but that is a higher bar than declaring a mistrial for evidence of potential bias on the jury.
Click to expand...

Apparently not. Roger Stone sentencing still on for Thursday (Politico).
 
NWRatCon said:
"Hmm. I don't like this goal post here.... let's put it over there..."
Click to expand...

I didn't move a ****in thing. I stated my position from the start. The one trying to move the goal post is you.
 
jpn said:
Great. Let's spend thousands of more taxpayer dollars to re-try the case and find the lying criminal guilty again.

And then listen to all the conservatives complain how that trial wasn't fair either. Because conservatives are SO concerned with fairness. :roll:
Click to expand...

Overarching point, whether the trial is fair or not, dishonest jurors disrupt the process. As far as Stone goes, I don't much care, same as Manafort. But the process MUST be impartial and honest.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Which social media posts? Facebook? Twitter? Instagram? MySpace? AOL messaging service?

Cite your evidence to back up your claim.
Click to expand...

Post 515. Lets not play the game where you don't believe something when if you google her name Tomeka Hart, you get multiple links, sick of that dishonest bull****.
 
TheDoctorWasIn said:
Oooo. "Multiple" social media posts!

I have a question for you - do you believe that your posts here on this message board should (or would) disqualify you from sitting on a jury if the accused was a Democrat?
Click to expand...

Laughable, her social media posts were not anonymous and I didn't testify on impartiality and knowledge. But if I did, I wouldn't be lying about it.
 
OpportunityCost said:
I didn't move a ****in thing. I stated my position from the start. The one trying to move the goal post is you.
Click to expand...
You're really going with "I'm rubber, you're glue" here? Pathetic. Really, and truly, pathetic.
 
XGoogle News - Roger Stone associate defends Justice Department prosecutors who quit following revised sentencing request
"I know these prosecutors, I've been around them maybe 100 hours over the last year and they're good guys. They're decent guys, they're hard working guys, they're civil servants," Randy Credico, who testified against Stone last year, told CNN's Kate Bolduan on "At This Hour."

Credico, a comedian and radio host who was a longtime Stone associate, had testified against Stone at trial and a jury convicted Stone for threatening Credico in an attempt to keep him from speaking to Congress. But since the trial, Credico has come out in support of Stone, writing a letter to the judge in the case that Stone doesn't deserve prison time and that he didn't feel threatened by Stone, even though the former Trump adviser used violent language with him.
Click to expand...
 
OpportunityCost said:
Post 515. Lets not play the game where you don't believe something when if you google her name Tomeka Hart, you get multiple links, sick of that dishonest bull****.
Click to expand...

I asked specifically for the social media post itself.

I am hardly going to trust anything the Federalist publishes without other sources to back up that particular paper.
 
NWRatCon said:
You're really going with "I'm rubber, you're glue" here? Pathetic. Really, and truly, pathetic.
Click to expand...

OpportunityCost said:
If a juror lies about their background and knowledge and bias, it presents more opportunities for appeal. Jurors have to be honest or they shouldn't be jurors.
Click to expand...

You are wrong. Next time you want to make a bull**** accusation, think about how silly you are going to look when its proven you are dead wrong.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
I asked specifically for the social media post itself.

I am hardly going to trust anything the Federalist publishes without other sources to back up that particular paper.
Click to expand...

They have screen grabs of the social media, and tough ****, its all you are going to get. Play source specificity horse**** games with someone else.
 
OpportunityCost said:
But denying you have them under oath is a problem when you are a juror.

Jury Foreman In Roger Stone Case Was Russia Collusion Hoaxer
Roger Stone asks for new trial | TheHill

Aside from all that, she retweeted an NPR story that detailed the Roger Stone indictment. She claimed to have little knowledge of what going on when she had already tweeted a link with details.
Click to expand...

The Federalist is a ridiculous source.
The article in The Hill doesn't say that Hill denied anything under oath.

Hart didn't volunteer anything, but told no lies that I can see.
 
jpn said:
The Federalist is a ridiculous source.
The article in The Hill doesn't say that Hill denied anything under oath.

Hart didn't volunteer anything, but told no lies that I can see.
Click to expand...

Neither did I, I said she didn't tell the whole truth, as in a lie by omission. As for the Federalist knock, you clearly didn't examine the article, its mostly screen grabs of the social media of Tomeka Hart.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Neither did I, I said she didn't tell the whole truth, as in a lie by omission. As for the Federalist knock, you clearly didn't examine the article, its mostly screen grabs of the social media of Tomeka Hart.
Click to expand...

You're right about not reading the Federalist piece. I try to exercise good mental hygiene.

Lie by omission. That's a good one. I wonder how far the Stone group will be able to take that one.

Anyhoo, I imagine it's all going to be for not. Trump's going to pardon his goon anyway. Another exercise in good government and standing up for the rule of law. What an example he and his goons set for all Americans to witness.
 
jpn said:
You're right about not reading the Federalist piece. I try to exercise good mental hygiene.

Lie by omission. That's a good one. I wonder how far the Stone group will be able to take that one.

Anyhoo, I imagine it's all going to be for not. Trump's going to pardon his goon anyway. Another exercise in good government and standing up for the rule of law. What an example he and his goons set for all Americans to witness.
Click to expand...

Exactly what is the usual court oath administered? Go ahead and say it. She didn't tell the whole truth.

If you visit MSNBC, you are lying to yourself about your mental hygiene.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
He argues....as Orange tells Barr to change sentencing.
Click to expand...
That's why he wanted him to intervene. Because he believed it wasn't honest and fair. If it proves that the sentencing differed from what was presented to the DoJ, it wasn't.


Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk
 
OpportunityCost said:
That's why he wanted him to intervene. Because he believed it wasn't honest and fair. If it proves that the sentencing differed from what was presented to the DoJ, it wasn't.


Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
WTF? Are you arguing Barr was not aware what the sentencing recommendations were BEFORE the prosecutors presented them?
 
Gimmesometruth said:
WTF? Are you arguing Barr was not aware what the sentencing recommendations were BEFORE the prosecutors presented them?
Click to expand...

It was reported that allegedly the DOJ and the judge received different guidelines. Uncorroborated, hence my IF.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Uh, no, the DoJ prosecutors give the judge the DoJ recommendation, they were required to do so on 2-10-2020. Here is the filing: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.203583/gov.uscourts.dcd.203583.279.0_2.pdf

You did not answer me.....was Barr unaware of what the recommendation was?
Click to expand...

I did not answer because its not corroborated yet. If you could quit trying to jump down my throat and read you would already have my answer.

A timeline of the extraordinary turn of events in the Roger Stone case - ABC News

The question is did the prosecutors turn over something different to the DoJ than what they presented to the judge. If that remains uncorroborated, its not true.

Tuesday evening A senior DOJ official tells reporters that they find the withdrawals of the prosecutors "surprising," but said the filing yesterday was "inconsistent with what we were told' the government would be recommending for Stone. The official said "it does" appear the withdrawals of the prosecutors, including at least one who resigned from DOJ, was done in protest of the department's reversal -- but the official declined to speak to the specifics of their circumstances.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom