Page 26 of 35 FirstFirst ... 162425262728 ... LastLast
Results 251 to 260 of 341

Thread: Judge denies Roger Stone's motion to disqualify her

  1. #251
    Sage
    OpportunityCost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    29,345

    Re: Judge denies Roger Stone's motion to disqualify her

    Quote Originally Posted by TU Curmudgeon View Post
    The term "reasonable doubt" can NOT be stretched to include "a doubt based on a potential possibility that is so wildly unlikely that no rational person could or would act on it" - which is what you are attempting to stretch it out into.

    For example, when doing a "DNA match" it is POSSIBLE that a person MIGHT match the evidentiary DNA but NOT be the source of the evidentiary DNA, but the odds (if you accept a 9 of 13 match as being a "match") would be roughly 1 in 13,000,000,000 that that would happen.

    Using your model, the fact that there were 12,999,999,999 chances that the evidentiary DNA did come from the person supplying the DNA sample and only 1 chance that it did NOT, would not amount to "proof beyond a reasonable doubt".
    The chances she lied during her comments to the court are closer to 1 to 1.

  2. #252
    Sage
    TU Curmudgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Lower Mainland of BC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    23,460

    Re: Judge denies Roger Stone's motion to disqualify her

    Quote Originally Posted by OscarLevant View Post
    He won't pardon him, because if he does, Stone can be subpoenaed and he won't be able to plead the 5th, and know that his advisors have told him this.
    Since Mr. Stone is 100% innocent of even the slightest bit or wrongdoing and was not even the slightest bit connected with anything that Mr. Trump did (and I know this because both Mr. Stone and Mr. Trump have said that it is true), then any "pleading the 5th" would be a clear case of "obstruction of justice" since there would not have been any actions which could even potentially have been illegal that Mr. Stone either did or knew about.

    Right?

    PS - Once convicted, there is no further possibility of being "incriminated" is there?
    Summary of 20/06/04 COVID-19 (Deaths/Cases) Mortality Statistics
    World (388,502/6,60.,144) 5.88% / USA (109,159/1,902,779) 5.74% / Canada (7,498/93,085) 8.06%
    Running update of the COVID-19 data at Daily Statistical Summary of COVID-19

  3. #253
    Sage


    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,973

    Re: Judge denies Roger Stone's motion to disqualify her

    Quote Originally Posted by Paradoxical View Post
    Trump barely knows Roger Stone so there is nothing for him to lie about Trump for.
    Like he barely knew Michael Cohen.
    Like he didn't know Len Parnas.
    Like he didn't know Jeffrey Epstein.
    ...
    People Trump knows and then claimed he didn't: Photos - Business Insider
    Last edited by MTAtech; 02-25-20 at 01:34 PM.
    "The ship of democracy, which has weathered all storms, may sink through the mutiny of those on board." -- Grover Cleveland

  4. #254
    Sage
    TU Curmudgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Lower Mainland of BC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    23,460

    Re: Judge denies Roger Stone's motion to disqualify her

    Quote Originally Posted by OpportunityCost View Post
    Ethical considerations start with the appearance of impropiety. You would have us make repeated assumptions about what she did or didn't, well it's irrelevant if it even looks like she wasn't straight on even one question....well, you know the rest.

    Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk
    Indeed, the most important things in American politics today are "gET HIm re-eleCted Somehow" and "MOre Retirement And financiaL benefitS for me".
    Summary of 20/06/04 COVID-19 (Deaths/Cases) Mortality Statistics
    World (388,502/6,60.,144) 5.88% / USA (109,159/1,902,779) 5.74% / Canada (7,498/93,085) 8.06%
    Running update of the COVID-19 data at Daily Statistical Summary of COVID-19

  5. #255
    Stuck In The Circle
    Visbek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:16 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    15,883

    Re: Judge denies Roger Stone's motion to disqualify her

    Quote Originally Posted by OpportunityCost View Post
    Lie. She didn't mention the story she read and retweeted.


    There was no lie. You accused her of "denial about knowing any details of the case," and she made no such denial.

    Knowing about the case is not, in any way shape or form, any sort of problem. It certainly doesn't indicate any sort of bias. She openly stated that she pays attention to the news. Nor does Tweeting something mean that months later, you're going to have total and absolute recall of every detail of the case.

    You're just clutching at straws, and in doing so exhibiting your own bias. Nice.
    "Everyone should listen to me all the time about everything." - Rosa Diaz

    "I donít take responsibility at all." - Donald Trump

  6. #256
    Sage
    OpportunityCost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    29,345

    Re: Judge denies Roger Stone's motion to disqualify her

    Quote Originally Posted by TU Curmudgeon View Post
    Indeed, the most important things in American politics today are "gET HIm re-eleCted Somehow" and "MOre Retirement And financiaL benefitS for me".
    Deflection noted and dismissed.

  7. #257
    Sage
    OpportunityCost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    29,345

    Re: Judge denies Roger Stone's motion to disqualify her

    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post


    There was no lie. You accused her of "denial about knowing any details of the case," and she made no such denial.

    Knowing about the case is not, in any way shape or form, any sort of problem. It certainly doesn't indicate any sort of bias. She openly stated that she pays attention to the news. Nor does Tweeting something mean that months later, you're going to have total and absolute recall of every detail of the case.

    You're just clutching at straws, and in doing so exhibiting your own bias. Nice.
    So nothing that I can recall specifically. I do watch sometimes paying attention but sometimes in the background CNN. So I recall just hearing about him being part of the campaign and some belief or reporting around interaction with the Russian probe and interaction with him and people in the country, but I don't have a whole lot of details. I don't pay that close attention or watch C-SPAN.
    If a Trump associate were saying "not that I recall" about something they read about, tweeted about, and commented on again, you would have no problem whatsoever saying they were lying. What was that about bias?

    Before anyone goes after the bias issue again, I don't care a farthing about Stone, but jurors who aren't being honest and forthright during the selection process cuts the heart out of due process. That, I care about.

  8. #258
    Sage
    TU Curmudgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Lower Mainland of BC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    23,460

    Re: Judge denies Roger Stone's motion to disqualify her

    Quote Originally Posted by Outlook View Post
    OMG, LOL
    We will see shortly whether a new trial will be granted.
    I have no doubt that a new trial will be granted IF the matter cannot be otherwise dragged out until AFTER the November 2020 elections. AFTER the 2020 elections there will no longer be any need for a new trial.

    Quote Originally Posted by Outlook View Post
    In a criminal case if there was one juror that voted to acquit and the other 11 voted to convict, that is a hung jury. The judge would order the jurors to continue deliberations until an anonymous decision can be made (of course an agreement between all 12 jurors is not always the case). If there is no agreement between the 12, yes the government has the right to re-try the case.
    Let me preface this with an apology for posting (previously) without a sufficient caffeine and nicotine blood level.

    In federal trials that is, indeed, the case.

    Your position appears to be that because 1 of the 12 persons who voted to convict might have been "biased against the Defendant" then the votes from the other 11 jurors (who might have been "biased for the defendant" but simply did their sworn duty and voted to convict based solely on the facts) simply do not count.

    By extension, that would mean in the case of an acquittal, where 1 of the 12 persons who voted to acquit might have been "biased for the Defendant" then the votes from the other 11 jurors (who might have been "biased against the Defendant" but simply did their sworn duty and voted to acquit based solely on the facts) simply should not count and the Prosecution should be entitled - as of right - to a new trial.
    Summary of 20/06/04 COVID-19 (Deaths/Cases) Mortality Statistics
    World (388,502/6,60.,144) 5.88% / USA (109,159/1,902,779) 5.74% / Canada (7,498/93,085) 8.06%
    Running update of the COVID-19 data at Daily Statistical Summary of COVID-19

  9. #259
    Stuck In The Circle
    Visbek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:16 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    15,883

    Re: Judge denies Roger Stone's motion to disqualify her

    Quote Originally Posted by OpportunityCost View Post
    If a Trump associate were saying "not that I recall" about something they read about, tweeted about, and commented on again, you would have no problem whatsoever saying they were lying. What was that about bias?



    Before anyone goes after the bias issue again, I don't care a farthing about Stone, but jurors who aren't being honest and forthright during the selection process cuts the heart out of due process. That, I care about.


    No, dude, just no. If you cared about due process, you'd hammer on Stone for his repeated violations of the court's instructions, for his attempts to silence a witness in a federal investigation, his attempts to intimidate the federal judge presiding over his case, not to mention an entire career spent subverting our nation's legal and electoral systems.
    "Everyone should listen to me all the time about everything." - Rosa Diaz

    "I donít take responsibility at all." - Donald Trump

  10. #260
    Sage
    TU Curmudgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    Lower Mainland of BC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    23,460

    Re: Judge denies Roger Stone's motion to disqualify her

    Quote Originally Posted by Outlook View Post
    To answer your question, yea really. These are rights guaranteed in the Sixth Amendment, the right to a trial by an impartial jury.
    Firstly - "Impartial" and "ignorant" do NOT mean the same thing.

    Secondly - since the usual process that you see in a real trial is

    1. indictment/impeachment;
    2. Prosecution opening statement that summarizes what the Prosecution evidence will be (when it is presented) and what the Prosecution evidence will prove (once it has been presented);
    3. Defence opening statement that summarizes what the Defence evidence will be (when it is presented) and what the Defence evidence will prove (once it has been presented);
    4. Presentation of evidence by the Prosecution;
    5. Cross-examination of Prosecution evidence by the Defence;
    6. Presentation of evidence by the Defence;
    7. Cross-examination of Defence evidence by the Prosecution;
    8. Prosecution closing statement that summarizes what the evidence was (or was not) and what the evidence proved (or didn't prove);
    9. Defence closing statement that summarizes what the evidence was (or was not) and what the evidence proved (or didn't prove);
    10. Court instructions to the Trier of Fact as to what the law is and what the duties of the Trier of Fact are;
    11. Impartial Trier of Fact deliberation on what the evidence was (or was not) and what the evidence proved (or didn't prove);
    12. NON-predetermined decision of guilt or innocence.

    and what happened in Mr. Trump’s impeachment trial was

    1. indictment/impeachment;
    2. Prosecution opening statement that summarizes what the Prosecution evidence will be (when it is presented) and what the Prosecution evidence will prove (once it has been presented);
    3. Defence opening statement that summarizes what the Defence evidence will be (when it is presented) and what the Defence evidence will prove (once it has been presented);
    4. -Presentation of evidence by the Prosecution-;
    5. -Cross-examination of Prosecution evidence by the Defence-;
    6. -Presentation of evidence by the Defence-;
    7. -Cross-examination of Defence evidence by the Prosecution-;
    8. Prosecution closing statement that summarizes what the evidence -was (or was not)- would have been and what the evidence would have proved (or didn't prove) had there been any;
    9. Defence closing statement that summarizes what the evidence -was (or was not)- would have been and what the evidence would have proved (or didn't prove) had there been any;
    10. -Court instructions to the Trier of Fact as to what the law is and what the duties of the Trier of Fact are-;
    11. -Impartial Trier of Fact deliberation on what the evidence was (or was not) and what the evidence proved (or didn't prove)-;
    12. -NON--predetermined decision of -guilt or- innocence.


    and since the MAJORITY of the "Triers of Fact" in Mr. Trump's impeachment trial made it perfectly clear that they were going to acquit BEFORE any evidence was actually presented, does that mean that the Senate of the United States of America violated Mr. Trump's Sixth Amendment Rights by NOT providing an "impartial jury"?

    Or is that simply another case of "But, but - but ... That's DIFFERENT!!!"?
    Summary of 20/06/04 COVID-19 (Deaths/Cases) Mortality Statistics
    World (388,502/6,60.,144) 5.88% / USA (109,159/1,902,779) 5.74% / Canada (7,498/93,085) 8.06%
    Running update of the COVID-19 data at Daily Statistical Summary of COVID-19

Page 26 of 35 FirstFirst ... 162425262728 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •