• 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

It can be enough to disqualify someone.
A juror has to be impartial. Jurors and judges need to keep their political beliefs or other biases against either party to themselves.

If the juror in question hadn’t posted negative statements about Stone prior to her jury selection, it wouldn’t have been an issue. Once that fact came out her actions raised a question of impartiality.

It seems to me that they would have to prove that she wasn't impartial.
 
It can be enough to disqualify someone.
A juror has to be impartial. Jurors and judges need to keep their political beliefs or other biases against either party to themselves.

If the juror in question hadn’t posted negative statements about Stone prior to her jury selection, it wouldn’t have been an issue. Once that fact came out her actions raised a question of impartiality.

She didn't post negative statements about Stone....
 
You say that like anyone cares.

Since I care about truth, I care not to read fiction and bloggers opinion disguised as news. While others here many feel a need to be lead by the nose with daily indoctrination, I do not. But, please....by all means, do carry on.
 
Oh I dunno. If he had disqualified her, the right-wing couldn't complain about here and defend this convicted felon.

Oh yes they could! Another one of Trump's associates was convicted by a jury. As far as they are concerned, that is proof that they hate Trump. No Trump hater is capable of rendering a just verdict based on the evidence, according to them.
 
Oh yes they could! Another one of Trump's associates was convicted by a jury. As far as they are concerned, that is proof that they hate Trump. No Trump hater is capable of rendering a just verdict based on the evidence, according to them.

And, the corollary to that is "Any verdict that does NOT acquit someone associated with Mr. Trump is an unjust verdict." which also means that those rendering the verdict must be "Trump Haters".
 
Oh yes they could! Another one of Trump's associates was convicted by a jury. As far as they are concerned, that is proof that they hate Trump. No Trump hater is capable of rendering a just verdict based on the evidence, according to them.

I stand corrected. :3oops:
 
Since I care about truth, …...

:lamo :lamo :lamo :lamo :lamo Trump supporters care NOTHING about the truth. The fact is the dirt bag Roger Stone deserved a longer sentence.
 
:lamo :lamo :lamo :lamo :lamo Trump supporters care NOTHING about the truth. The fact is the dirt bag Roger Stone deserved a longer sentence.

Longer than McCabe got?
 
This didn't actually happen. You know that, right? The voir dire transcripts have been posted numerous times.



During voir dire, the possibility of impropriety is sufficient reason to disqualify a juror. Each side can even challenge a certain number of jurors without any cause at all.

But the trial is over. The jury returned a verdict. It takes a much higher standard of proof to overturn that verdict than just the "possibility of impropriety".



It came out today in court that Stone's lawyers didn't even bother to Google the juror's names before starting voir dire.

I guess Stone could argue that his counsel was so incompetent that he was denied a fair trial.

That's pathetic. Here's one link for those interested.

Stone’s attorneys also conceded during the hearing that neither they nor his jury consultants ran a Google search on the juror, despite knowing for days she was likely to be among the first selected, citing “cost-slash-strategic” considerations.

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.
 
Longer than McCabe got?

Funny thing is that a grand jury saw the evidence against McCabe and refused to indict him.

Sorry to rain on that false equivalency parade, but one cannot compare apples to oranges.

You're most welcome!
 
Funny thing is that a grand jury saw the evidence against McCabe and refused to indict him.

Sorry to rain on that false equivalency parade, but one cannot compare apples to oranges.

You're most welcome!

Therein lies the problem.
 
Indeed! You passionately hate the rule of law and how our justice system works and I do not.

Yay!

I passionately phonies in power like McCabe, Comey, Clinton, Clapper, the FISA court, Bruce and Nellie Ohr, Podesta and others who manipulate the system for the left wing agenda. McCabe lied 4 times. No penalties. No nothing. Comey leaked classified information and yet Assange has to worry about jail for the same thing. Stone has a jury forewoman who hates him and Trump. No nothing. The judge is blatantly partisan. No nothing.
 
I passionately phonies in power like McCabe, Comey, Clinton, Clapper, the FISA court, Bruce and Nellie Ohr, Podesta and others who manipulate the system for the left wing agenda. McCabe lied 4 times. No penalties. No nothing. Comey leaked classified information and yet Assange has to worry about jail for the same thing. Stone has a jury forewoman who hates him and Trump. No nothing. The judge is blatantly partisan. No nothing.

So, IOW, you hate reality as much as you hate the rule of law and believe on in fantasies, and are compelled into transparent dishonesty when it comes to the jury and judge in the Stone case.

Thanks for clearing that up.
 
So, IOW, you hate reality as much as you hate the rule of law and believe on in fantasies, and are compelled into transparent dishonesty when it comes to the jury and judge in the Stone case.

Thanks for clearing that up.

You're right. i forgot. My bad. Only Democrats are unbiased and non partisan.
 
You're right. i forgot. My bad. Only Democrats are unbiased and non partisan.

Irrelevant to anything I've posted and the fact that you cannot demonstrate that any bias affected either the jury or the judge. The judge went out of her way to help Stone by not remanding him when he violated the gag order.

You lose again.

Yay!
 
Irrelevant to anything I've posted and the fact that you cannot demonstrate that any bias affected either the jury or the judge. The judge went out of her way to help Stone by not remanding him when he violated the gag order.

You lose again.

Yay!

Nothing to see HERE folks. Nothing to SEE here! Move along now.
 
Back
Top Bottom