• 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!

Judge denies Roger Stone's motion to disqualify her

Tanngrisnir said:
Exactly! Sorry you yet again couldn't back up your fantasy scenarios, but relying strictly on your imagination to make a case is never a good way to go.
Click to expand...

The good ole boys club won't tamper with one of their own.
 
prometeus said:
Oh no, nobody has a monopoly on utter stupidity and partisanship. It is just that in this case it is yours.
Click to expand...

Yes. I know When a liberal judge convicts and demeans a conservative, she wasn't biased. But if a conservative judge convicts a liberal, he/she was a partisan. I get it. I get it.
 
Paradoxical said:
Yes. I know When a liberal judge convicts and demeans a conservative, she wasn't biased. But if a conservative judge convicts a liberal, he/she was a partisan. I get it. I get it.
Click to expand...
Actually you do not, that is why you spout moronic talking points.
 
Visbek said:
So I guess you lost the debate when you called the judge a "bitch" earlier in this thread. Good to know.
Click to expand...

Another one who doesn't understand a simple sig line. I am calling the fearless the leaders, left wing judges and your Pravda press a "bitch". <sigh>
 
JasperL said:
That's pathetic. Here's one link for those interested.

I didn't know and couldn't easily find out of the defense got a list of the names. I assumed not since it would seem perfectly obvious that for a trial like this the defense team would look for them on Twitter and Facebook. Of course they knew her name and of course they didn't examine her past.

So the argument is, effectively, Roger Stone's defense counsel are a bunch of lazy incompetents, so, he should get a new trial. It's an almost perfect illustration of the Trump era where incompetence is actually celebrated by the lemmings.
Click to expand...

Somehow it doesn't seem to be extremely cost efficient to run a sloppy defence on the off chance that some appeal court might grant you an appeal (on the grounds of "inadequate defence") after you have been convicted.

On the other hand, if what you are actually attempting to do is delay a final resolution until after some known date (at which time you can expect to receive a pardon) and don't think that you are likely to be successful in delaying matters that long if you actually run the best and most competent defence that you can, it does seem to make some tactical sense. And, in that case, it would appear that the best course of action would be to deliberately commit an egregious error (such as failing to do your homework with respect to jury selection) - doesn't it?
 
JasperL said:
I didn't know and couldn't easily find out of the defense got a list of the names. I assumed not since it would seem perfectly obvious that for a trial like this the defense team would look for them on Twitter and Facebook....
Click to expand...
Stone's attorneys should have hired a jury consultant to do that kind of research; that's pretty typical these days.

More to the point is that they don't have a leg to stand on. She said she had heard about the case in the news; they asked directly if she could put that aside; other jurors have indicated that she was fair and focused on the process; and they aren't likely to get any favors from a judge that they just accused of bias.

Yet again, it kind of looks like one of Trump's criminal cronies have hired counsel from the clown car posse.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
On the other hand, if what you are actually attempting to do is delay a final resolution until after some known date (at which time you can expect to receive a pardon) and don't think that you are likely to be successful in delaying matters that long if you actually run the best and most competent defence that you can, it does seem to make some tactical sense.
Click to expand...
I don't think asking for a new trial will drag this process out by months.

More likely is that they are playing to Trump, by trying to undermine the credibility of the court.

I don't think that works very well, though, since numerous Trump criminal cronies are still rotting in jail, or headed in that direction, or are already out.
 
Stone is proud to be a criminal. He thinks it was cool that he was a bit player in watergate. What kind of dystopian perspective would view his verdict as unjust? Lord. He’s going to prison for what? 18 months and then he’ll get some house arrest time? Screw that guy. He’s literally a traitor
 
Visbek said:
Stone's attorneys should have hired a jury consultant to do that kind of research; that's pretty typical these days.

More to the point is that they don't have a leg to stand on. She said she had heard about the case in the news; they asked directly if she could put that aside; other jurors have indicated that she was fair and focused on the process; and they aren't likely to get any favors from a judge that they just accused of bias.

Yet again, it kind of looks like one of Trump's criminal cronies have hired counsel from the clown car posse.
Click to expand...

"I hired incompetent counsel and so didn't get a proper trial and because of that I want the "Guilty" verdict set aside and a new trial ordered." is an acknowledged way of ensuring that the defendant actually gets TWO chances at getting acquitted.

Can you imagine what the court's reaction would be to a PROSECUTION appeal based on "We assigned incompetent counsel to prosecute so we want the "Not Guilty" verdict set aside and a new trial ordered."?
 
apdst said:
Now you do...

Roger Stone jury foreperson'''s anti-Trump social media posts surface after she defends DOJ prosecutors | Fox News
Click to expand...

Welcome to America 2020.... 50-60% of the people hate Trump; 40% love him. You can not seat a jury without it reflecting that demographic. That said, Trump was not on trial; Roger Stone was. What conservatives can't seem to wrap their little heads around is the idea that people can actually do their jobs divorced of their political feelings (see also FBI). Not everything in life is a reflection of how people feel about Trump.
 
Last edited:
upsideguy said:
... What conservatives can't seem to wrap their little heads around is the idea that people can actually do their jobs divorced of their political feelings (see also FBI).
Click to expand...

You don't suppose that that is because those "(American) conservatives" actually realize (but won't even admit to themselves) that they would NOT be able to "do their jobs" (in the limited context of administration of the law) WITHOUT letting their political feelings dictate how they did them?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom