• 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:
No, no juror has found to be tainted, nor can you demonstrate that one has.

Total failure.
Click to expand...

Being disloyal to Trump is a taint, apparently, and should disqualify you from jury service. Remember when Trump said the judge in the Trump University fraud case couldn't make an unbiased decision because he had a Hispanic name? Same principle.
Wasn't the US government separated into 3 branches to prevent dictatorship? Good thing the President isn't allowed to interfere in the Judicial and Legislative branches.
 
JasperL said:
Show the bias against Stone. Thanks.

Although we know you cannot. It's frightening how the right wing puke funnel gets this stuff out there, and it's accepted as gospel, although there is no basis for it. Stone's lawyers knew she was a Democratic activist, former candidate for Congress, and didn't care - never requested she be removed for cause or as one of their peremptory challenges. But somehow the views she alerted the defense team to, and which the defense didn't care about, are proof of a bias and the conviction must be thrown out!!
Click to expand...

You should get out from under that rock you are living under. I'm sure you can find all the news about that juror, all by yourself.
 
apdst said:
Stone's 6th Amendment rights were blatantly violated. A big time supporter of The Constitution like yourself should recognoze that and agree he should get a new trial, at least. I guess The Constitution isn't as important to you as you like to claim.
Click to expand...

I agree with you that "impartial" means that if it's a republican on trial they MUST support Donald J. Trump. MAGA!! KAG!! Q FOREVER!! If that's not in their Twitter profile, sorry, you cannot serve on the jury.
 
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...

So it is clear that only MAGA Hat wearing Trump supporters should have been on the jury. Anyone else, especially those with political views should have been immediately disqualified. That is clearly a failure on the part of the defense. It was they who were supposed to make sure that anyone who had an anti-Trump opinion was thrown off the jury. Because they didn't do their job, the jury had no choice but to convict, right?

Therefore, the basis for any appeal must be inadequate counsel, not jury bias.
 
Anthony60 said:
You should get out from under that rock you are living under. I'm sure you can find all the news about that juror, all by yourself.
Click to expand...

I've read it and we had a thread on it, and the sum total of her comments about Stone, the defendant, was two tweets. That's it. You can look them up since you're so informed and tell us how those two tweets are legal proof of a bias against Stone, the defendant.

And of course you ignored that the defense KNEW she was a Democratic activist, former Congressional candidate, and didn't care. Well, if bias against Trump disqualifies someone in a trial where the defendant is Roger Stone, then every Democrat is disqualified, almost by definition. If not the defense has about a 90% chance of disqualifying - just ask the question. Do you favor or oppose DJT? Oppose is apparently enough for getting them kicked off for cause. And only MAGAs can sit on a jury if Stone gets a new trial, right? Can you cite precedent for this position? No...
 
Stealers Wheel said:
So it is clear that only MAGA Hat wearing Trump supporters should have been on the jury. Anyone else, especially those with political views should have been immediately disqualified. That is clearly a failure on the part of the defense. It was they who were supposed to make sure that anyone who had an anti-Trump opinion was thrown off the jury. Because they didn't do their job, the jury had no choice but to convict, right?

Therefore, the basis for any appeal must be inadequate counsel, not jury bias.
Click to expand...

It's clear that you support rigged juries.
 
JasperL said:
I agree with you that "impartial" means that if it's a republican on trial they MUST support Donald J. Trump. MAGA!! KAG!! Q FOREVER!! If that's not in their Twitter profile, sorry, you cannot serve on the jury.
Click to expand...

You are tiggered like hell. :lamo
 
The following excerpt from the judge's ruling is rather illuminating...

The record dating back to January of 2019 reflects that the Court took each issue raised by this defendant seriously; that on each occasion, it ruled with care and impartiality, laying out its reasoning in detail; and that it was scrupulous about ensuring his right to a fair trial. It granted important evidentiary motions in his favor; it proposed utilizing a written questionnaire to ensure that the parties could receive more information than is usually available for jury selection; it struck 58 potential jurors for cause based on the defendant’s motions or on its own motion; and it repeatedly resolved bond issues in his favor, even after he took to social media to intimidate the Court, after he violated conditions imposed by the Court, after he was convicted at trial, and after he was sentenced to a term of incarceration.

....There is no rule and no case law that would justify the recusal of a judge for bias simply because he or she says something about an issue on the docket, on the record, at some point before a reply has been filed, or before a hearing – which may or may not be required in the Court’s discretion – has concluded. If parties could move to disqualify every judge who furrows his brow at one side or the other before ruling, the entire court system would come to a standstill. At bottom, given the absence of any factual or legal support for the motion for disqualification, the pleading appears to be nothing more than an attempt to use the Court’s docket to disseminate a statement for public consumption that has the words “judge” and “biased” in it.
Order on Motion to Disqualify Judge
 
ludin said:
one of the jurors in the case in fact the head juror was tainted.
the judge refused to dismiss the case. which is 100% unprecedented when
juror taint is found.
Click to expand...

Jurors can be dismissed for cause. There are alternate jurors who sit in. They don't vote unless they are selected to replace another juror. The judge did not find cause to replace the one juror. Further the jury foreman is selected by the jury themselves, not the judge or prosecution. And the foreman is simply one who speaks for the jury as a whole. More often than not, the entire jury is asked to confirm what the foreman has presented as the unanimous verdict.

And if this verdict is appealed on grounds that the judge somehow behaved poorly, the defense had better have their ducks in a row. Appellate courts are notorious for referring for sanctions against lawyers who appeal frivolously, especially when it is based on a false narrative regarding the judge.
 
apdst said:
It's clear that you support rigged juries.
Click to expand...

It is clear that you think anyone who has a poor opinion of Trump is incapable of doing their civic duty.
 
apdst said:
You are tiggered like hell.
Click to expand...

I don't know why you won't accept that I'm agreeing with you. Your argument makes perfect sense. If it's any Republican on trial, no one opposed to Trump can sit on the jury, PERIOD! That's just legal FACT and there's surely lots of precedent you can cite to back this up, because you always can back up your opinions with evidence. Obviously!
 
JasperL said:
I don't know why you won't accept that I'm agreeing with you. Your argument makes perfect sense. If it's any Republican on trial, no one opposed to Trump can sit on the jury, PERIOD! That's just legal FACT and there's surely lots of precedent you can cite to back this up, because you always can back up your opinions with evidence. Obviously!
Click to expand...

At least no one opposed to Trump who writes scathing twitter posts about him and shtigs her shoulders over a swat team raiding the home of Roger Stone along with a CNN film crew that just "happened" to be there. They were so surprised they had coffee and donuts and thank you cards for the men carrying AK47s
 
Paradoxical said:
At least no one opposed to Trump who writes scathing twitter posts about him and shtigs her shoulders over a swat team raiding the home of Roger Stone along with a CNN film crew that just "happened" to be there. They were so surprised they had coffee and donuts and thank you cards for the men carrying AK47s
Click to expand...

Please demonstrate any bias on any jury members' part in deliberating about Stone.

I know you can't, but thanks in advance anyway.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Please demonstrate any bias on any jury members' part in deliberating about Stone.

I know you can't, but thanks in advance anyway.
Click to expand...

This is like saying to prove there is no God and to prove the OJ jury was biased.

Nothing to see HERE folks. Move along now. Nothing to see here.
 
Anthony60 said:
You should get out from under that rock you are living under. I'm sure you can find all the news about that juror, all by yourself.
Click to expand...

I've read about the juror and I've also seen why Stone is crying foul on the judge. Both instances are nonsense. The whole "mean girls" tantrum would be laughable if it weren't so sad. Maybe Stone should take some ownership in his actions?

And of course we should end the human jury system and replace them with robots who simply vote guilty/not guilty. But then people would be complaining what company designed them and that the programmer had an Obama sticker on their car one time.

In short, when you break the law, you start the process of a gamble. Sometimes the odds don't go favorable and sometimes they do. Stone has no one to blame for his choice of actions.
 
Outlook said:
Stone should get a new trial.
First of all, the jury foreperson was biased. That should be enough for a new trial.
Stone’s attorney should request a new venue.
Secondly when the judge said Stone was involved in a cover up, doesn’t sound like she is nonpartisan.
Click to expand...

Why? His lawyers knew who the juror was and approved her to sit in judgement.
Now its an issue?
Nah.
 
Paradoxical said:
At least no one opposed to Trump who writes scathing twitter posts about him and shtigs her shoulders over a swat team raiding the home of Roger Stone along with a CNN film crew that just "happened" to be there. They were so surprised they had coffee and donuts and thank you cards for the men carrying AK47s
Click to expand...

Funny thing is, Stone is a screaming attention whore and likely loved every second.
 
SkyFox76 said:
Funny thing is, Stone is a screaming attention whore and likely loved every second.
Click to expand...

That doesn't change the vendetta the jury and judge has and had for him. The foreman controls the jury and she hated Trump and Stone more than Schiff did. Then again, I suppose people here imaging Schiff would vote to acquit.
 
Paradoxical said:
That doesn't change the vendetta the jury and judge has and had for him. The foreman controls the jury and she hated Trump and Stone more than Schiff did. Then again, I suppose people here imaging Schiff would vote to acquit.
Click to expand...

That is complete utter nonsense. The motion will be denied and Mr Stone will be heading directly to jail.
 
Paradoxical said:
This is like saying to prove there is no God and to prove the OJ jury was biased.

Nothing to see HERE folks. Move along now. Nothing to see here.
Click to expand...

No, it's not even remotely like that.

Thanks for backing away from your asinine claim.
 
Paradoxical said:
That doesn't change the vendetta the jury and judge has and had for him. The foreman controls the jury and she hated Trump and Stone more than Schiff did. Then again, I suppose people here imaging Schiff would vote to acquit.
Click to expand...

Fun to see someone sputter and yell about things they cannot credibly demonstrate exist in reality.
 
Paradoxical said:
That doesn't change the vendetta the jury and judge has and had for him. The foreman controls the jury and she hated Trump and Stone more than Schiff did.
Click to expand...
:roll:

Please. The judge was more than fair, including letting the defense refuse 58 potential jurors, gave them latitude on the jury questionnaire, and often ruling in his favor -- even after he violated the media gag rule on the case, and tried to intimidate the court. The foreman also doesn't "control the jury," that's just straight-up bull****.

By the way, what is your evidence that she "hated Trump?" be specific.
 
JasperL said:
I've read it and we had a thread on it, and the sum total of her comments about Stone, the defendant, was two tweets. That's it. You can look them up since you're so informed and tell us how those two tweets are legal proof of a bias against Stone, the defendant.

And of course you ignored that the defense KNEW she was a Democratic activist, former Congressional candidate, and didn't care. Well, if bias against Trump disqualifies someone in a trial where the defendant is Roger Stone, then every Democrat is disqualified, almost by definition. If not the defense has about a 90% chance of disqualifying - just ask the question. Do you favor or oppose DJT? Oppose is apparently enough for getting them kicked off for cause. And only MAGAs can sit on a jury if Stone gets a new trial, right? Can you cite precedent for this position? No...
Click to expand...

She failed to disclose this, she is an attorney and is held to a higher standard. She only disclosed it, through a tweet, after the conviction. Begs the question, why did she wait?

Even if it is deemed that she was not biased (fat chance) it should have been looked into before the trial. The judge needs to make sure that things are done fairly in her courtroom, and she should investigate the matter, she owes that to Stone to make sure he was granted a fair and impartial trial and jury. So far, not so much.
 
SkyFox76 said:
I've read about the juror and I've also seen why Stone is crying foul on the judge. Both instances are nonsense. The whole "mean girls" tantrum would be laughable if it weren't so sad. Maybe Stone should take some ownership in his actions?

And of course we should end the human jury system and replace them with robots who simply vote guilty/not guilty. But then people would be complaining what company designed them and that the programmer had an Obama sticker on their car one time.

In short, when you break the law, you start the process of a gamble. Sometimes the odds don't go favorable and sometimes they do. Stone has no one to blame for his choice of actions.
Click to expand...

By saying "when you brake the law", you are already assuming guilt. The entire point of the trial is to decide if he did break the law. We don't know that it was a fair trial, at this point.
 
apdst said:
Trump should just pardon him and be done with it. Stone didn't receive judgement by a fair and impartial jury. It violated the 6th Amendment.
Click to expand...

I'm sure most convicted felons think they didn't get a fair trial and the jury wasn't impartial. Give him something to whine about as he ahhh bonds with his fellow cons in the showers... :peace
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom