• 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!

Napolitano explains why Roger Stone is 'absolutely entitled' to a new trial.

Captain Adverse

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
20,268
Reaction score
28,069
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Well, I've seen some opponents of Trump cite Judge Napolitano as being "fair and impartial" when he's made comments in opposition to Trump.

Now this:



For those of you wondering who this jury member is, and what they are talking about, here is a story about her:

Tomeka Hart was the foreperson on the Roger Stone jury. She is also a former Memphis school board member who has written a slew of political posts on social media, some of them negative to President Donald Trump...She wasn’t the only juror harboring such views. Another Stone juror was an “Obama-era press official with admitted anti-Trump views,”...
Click to expand...
Tomeka Hart: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know | Heavy.com

Then here is a source for her "tweets":

https://twitter.com/search?q=from:hartformemphis trump&src=typed_query

Clearly a history of anti-Trump "opinion."

Now she served as the jury Foreman during Stone's trial, and she is also an attorney. That means she had a lot of influence on the direction that jury would take, with additional "credibility" when commenting on legal opinion/interpretation.

I agree that Stone has a good case for a retrial.
 
Last edited:
If Judge Nap thinks so, then there are some legit questions about the trial itself.
 
Beats me. Having a corrupt leader gets so complicated! If he'd just follow the law, we wouldn't have these quandaries.
 
As we can see there is two sets of laws, one for the elite and wealthy and one for the rest of the population.
 
Now we have the President of the U.S. and his minions insulting jury members who convicted one of his buddies. Now she, like the Whistleblower, will have to be escorted to and from work by two armed guards.

Why stop there? Why not put the entire jury's personal info on the front page of the Washington Examiner? They can headline it with "Do Your Civic Duty, And We'll Do YOU!"

This is disgraceful, utterly disgraceful. Next thing we know, every registered voter with have Dem, GOP, Ind tatooed on the back of their hand, and when called for jury duty, the defense counsel can just walk down the row and pick the jurors they want.

Roger Stone is a felonious pig, who tried to intimidate a witness against him, then threatened him: "You're dead, mother****er!"

New trial my ass. That judge is going to throw Stone's sorry ass in jail first chance she gets (after having a hearing to find out WTF the damned DOJ is doing to her judicial district in the first place).
 
Moonglow said:
As we can see there is two sets of laws, one for the elite and wealthy and one for the rest of the population.
Click to expand...

No. :no:

If YOU were tried and I found out the jury was "tainted," then I'd support your right to a retrial as well.

You shouldn't advocate for denying a person a fair trial by an impartial jury, just because you don't personally like them and presume guilt.
 
Captain Adverse said:
No. :no:

If YOU were on trial, and I found out the jury was "tainted," then I'd fight for your retrial as well.

You shouldn't advocate for denying a person a fair trial by an impartial jury, just because you don't personally like them.
Click to expand...

I shall wait for the judge to decide whether it was fair or not. Yet the mere fact that a higher power is trying to force the outcome is reason enough to see extreme favoritism from the norm.
 
Moonglow said:
I shall wait for the judge to decide whether it was fair or not. Yet the mere fact that a high power is trying to force the outcome is reason enough to see extreme favoritism from the norm.
Click to expand...

:roll:

Apparently you chose NOT to watch the video.

Judge Napolitano also comments on the unfairness of the recommendations made by the prosecution team based on the facts presented in the case.

The point of my thread is not only to show Napolitano's opinion on this issue, but also remind you that he has consistently been cited as "balanced" by the anti-Administration partisans due to his other "legal opinions" in opposition to Trump.
 
Last edited:
DiAnna said:
Now we have the President of the U.S. and his minions insulting jury members who convicted one of his buddies. Now she, like the Whistleblower, will have to be escorted to and from work by two armed guards.

Why stop there? Why not put the entire jury's personal info on the front page of the Washington Examiner? They can headline it with "Do Your Civic Duty, And We'll Do YOU!"

This is disgraceful, utterly disgraceful. Next thing we know, every registered voter with have Dem, GOP, Ind tatooed on the back of their hand, and when called for jury duty, the defense counsel can just walk down the row and pick the jurors they want.

Roger Stone is a felonious pig, who tried to intimidate a witness against him, then threatened him: "You're dead, mother****er!"

New trial my ass. That judge is going to throw Stone's sorry ass in jail first chance she gets (after having a hearing to find out WTF the damned DOJ is doing to her judicial district in the first place).
Click to expand...

Stone didn’t intimidate any witnesses. Making vieled statements about a dog (which is a dumb animal and mere property) is not intimidation.

It’s clear the only reason he was prosecuted was because of Trump. And this jury shows extreme bias. I think there’s a good case to be made that any Republican should get an automatic change of venue out of Washington DC on request
 
Moonglow said:
As we can see there is two sets of laws, one for the elite and wealthy and one for the rest of the population.
Click to expand...

and republican.

under this New York City Mafia Boss.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
Stone didn’t intimidate any witnesses. Making vieled statements about a dog (which is a dumb animal and mere property) is not intimidation.

It’s clear the only reason he was prosecuted was because of Trump. And this jury shows extreme bias. I think there’s a good case to be made that any Republican should get an automatic change of venue out of Washington DC on request
Click to expand...

This was an email directly to the witness, and had nothing to do with his other threats. The judge saw all the threats, the jury saw all the threats, and both saw all the evidence; Stone is a convicted felon. Period.
 
Trump should go ahead and pardon him. Its always conservatives who end up getting in trouble, never the democrats.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
Stone didn’t intimidate any witnesses. Making vieled statements about a dog (which is a dumb animal and mere property) is not intimidation.

It’s clear the only reason he was prosecuted was because of Trump. And this jury shows extreme bias. I think there’s a good case to be made that any Republican should get an automatic change of venue out of Washington DC on request
Click to expand...

Stones own lawyer said Stone's words about the judge could incite violence towards her.
 
j brown's body said:
Beats me. Having a corrupt leader gets so complicated! If he'd just follow the law, we wouldn't have these quandaries.
Click to expand...

This doesn't have anything to do with Trump and all of Stone's crimes were procedural. He wasn't convicted of a single crime not literally connected to the investigation process.
 
bradt99 said:
Trump should go ahead and pardon him. Its always conservatives who end up getting in trouble, never the democrats.
Click to expand...

He needs to pardon Stone to keep his mouth shut.
 
Fishking said:
This doesn't have anything to do with Trump and all of Stone's crimes were procedural. He wasn't convicted of a single crime not literally connected to the investigation process.
Click to expand...

Last I heard, lying under oath is corrupt.
 
DiAnna said:
Now we have the President of the U.S. and his minions insulting jury members who convicted one of his buddies. Now she, like the Whistleblower, will have to be escorted to and from work by two armed guards.

Why stop there? Why not put the entire jury's personal info on the front page of the Washington Examiner? They can headline it with "Do Your Civic Duty, And We'll Do YOU!"

This is disgraceful, utterly disgraceful. Next thing we know, every registered voter with have Dem, GOP, Ind tatooed on the back of their hand, and when called for jury duty, the defense counsel can just walk down the row and pick the jurors they want.

Roger Stone is a felonious pig, who tried to intimidate a witness against him, then threatened him: "You're dead, mother****er!"

New trial my ass. That judge is going to throw Stone's sorry ass in jail first chance she gets (after having a hearing to find out WTF the damned DOJ is doing to her judicial district in the first place).
Click to expand...

Yeah, its amazing to see people hear argue that he didn't really intimidate anyone while his supporters are now intimidating the juror.
 
j brown's body said:
He needs to pardon Stone to keep his mouth shut.
Click to expand...

‘Things might happen’ to Stone if he goes to jail, like Epstein.

This is the same hypocritical trump cult that trashed Napolitano when he called for trump’s impeachment.
 
Convicted of 7 felonies and they say let him go. So culty.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Well, I've seen some opponents of Trump cite Judge Napolitano as being "fair and impartial" when he's made comments in opposition to Trump.

Now this:



For those of you wondering who this jury member is, and what they are talking about, here is a story about her:

Tomeka Hart: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know | Heavy.com

Then here is a source for her "tweets":

https://twitter.com/search?q=from:hartformemphis trump&src=typed_query

Clearly a history of anti-Trump "opinion."

Now she served as the jury Foreman during Stone's trial, and she is also an attorney. That means she had a lot of influence on the direction that jury would take, with additional "credibility" when commenting on legal opinion/interpretation.

I agree that Stone has a good case for a retrial.
Click to expand...


There is a good documentary on Roger stone called Get Me Roger Stone. You can get it on Netflix.Get Me Roger Stone (2017) - IMDb
 
Linc said:
Why do you support and make excuses for trump lying?
Click to expand...

That's not what happened. I'm sorry you read words that you didn't understand.
 
DiAnna said:
This was an email directly to the witness, and had nothing to do with his other threats. The judge saw all the threats, the jury saw all the threats, and both saw all the evidence; Stone is a convicted felon. Period.
Click to expand...

Yeah and this is what you fail to realize. Applying the law correctly to Republicans only in kangaroo courts with no similar consequences for democrats is only further dividing the country
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom