• 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.

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

What...??

:inandout:
 
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

So pre-trial services and the US Attorney’s Office colluded to go after The CONVICTED FELON STONE. Doesn’t it get old having to always play the victim(s)?
 
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.

I hope you do not get angry when Stone is released due to perjury by 3 of the jury.
 
So pre-trial services and the US Attorney’s Office colluded to go after The CONVICTED FELON STONE. Doesn’t it get old having to always play the victim(s)?

The fact Stone is a “convicted felon” (by the way, in the English language one does not typically capitalize every letter of a word) is evidence of a conspiracy against him. It’s clear jurors were not struck who should’ve been, likely some jurors lied to get on the jury, the judge rejected every motion Stone’s lawyers followed, she’s a political appointee of the previous administration which illegally spies on the Trump campaign. A lot of dirty stuff here.
 
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.
...
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.

First, when a Republican frequent guess on Trump-Fox TV makes comments in opposition of Trump, it does not mean he is "fair and impartial". It just means Trump is off his deep end again, so much so that even this person can't defend him any longer.

Second, the argument is silly. A lot of people have strong pro- or anti-Trump opinions. I am sure you'd love a Trumpkin to head that jury. Or are you pretending there is a way to find 12 people in DC that have no opinion about Trump? Plus, if she is an attorney as you claim, it should be easier for her than anyone else to set aside her bias in the setting of a court of law.

Finally, I love how Napolitano reasoning goes like this... 'I've known Roger Stone for 40 years, but now I will set this aside and .... argue that the juror who may have opinion about Trump cannot set aside her bias in case of one of his associates'.
 
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.


When it comes to civil libertarian and constitutional issues I've never trusted Nap. However, when it comes to a criminal trial and criminal law, his experience seems to truly inform his views - he's more sense on this issue than just about any other I've heard from him..

His plain common sense shined .
 
Trump hasn't lied under oath, I don't think he has even been under oath at all.

giphy.gif
 
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.


She is a member of the public and as far as I know there are no restrictions on attorney's being called for jury service. Additionally her experience would be of great assistance in explaining the finer points of law to her fellow members. Why is this a bad thing? Everyone holds political views; or would you prefer a jury were always pro-Trump and his buddies?
 
As we can see there is two sets of laws, one for the elite and wealthy and one for the rest of the population.

True, but part of that is the defense a person can afford.

Did you listen to the video?
 
Trump should go ahead and pardon him. Its always conservatives who end up getting in trouble, never the democrats.

I wonder if that might have something to do with the fact that they're all crooks. How many of Trump's former associates are now either in jail or facing jail time? I lost count...
 
This is nonsense. It's the phony Republican claim that Democrats can't be trusted to do anything honestly regarding a Republican - not a juror, not an FBI agent, not anything - I guess we should stop letting Police Officers who are Democrats give speeding tickets to Republicans.

There is a jury selection process where Stone's lawyers are allowed to ask questions to search for bias and remove jurors not only 'for cause', but just because they want to.

That happened to me once; as a potential juror, I 'hit it off' with the defense attorney in that we had a friendly exchange with a joke or two. I would have been fair, but the prosecutor simply said 'excused', which I wasn't surprised by, suspecting I was a bit too friendly with the other side's attorney.

The FBI agents who did not like trump, as the FBI Inspector General confirmed, were not biased in their investigation because of that. Unless the juror lied in the selection process, her having political opinions isn't enough to prevent a fair trial. Yes, it'd probably be better for the lawyers to exclude people who were both very anti or pro trump.

By the way, there were 11 other jurors who agreed that Stone was guilty on all counts.
 
I wonder if that might have something to do with the fact that they're all crooks.

It's hilarious, isn't it? 'Why are men charged with sexual assault so much more often than women? It's Bias against men!!'
 
Last edited:
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.

Someone being praised for one thing they say doesn't mean they deserve praise for something else they say. Hell, I can find things trump has said I agree with. Not many, but some.
 
I say that Stone should get a walk because justice demands that all of Muellers work should be cancelled.

This idea is not that.
 
She is a member of the public and as far as I know there are no restrictions on attorney's being called for jury service.

It is not an issue of her being an attorney. It is an issue of her being both an activist and one who has been shown to be actively biased against the person for the issue being tried.

Those concerns, when coupled with the facts she IS an attorney AND somehow ended up being the jury Foreman are the problem.

Additionally her experience would be of great assistance in explaining the finer points of law to her fellow members. Why is this a bad thing?

This would be true if there was no clear and preexisting BIAS on the part of said attorney. Such bias would reflect on the kinds of "assistance" such a juror would provide, especially if they ended up serving as the jury Foreman.

Everyone holds political views;...

Not necessarily true about any particular case at bar. There were over 90 million eligible American's who did not vote in 2016 at all.

or would you prefer a jury were always pro-Trump and his buddies?

No, I am not arguing that any member of the jury should be biased FOR the defendant.

The desire is for a juror to be as impartial as possible, i.e. one who has not previously demonstrated extremely partisan views one way of the other.

For example, let's say you were being tried for a crime. Would you want to see a juror selected, and then chosen to be Foreman, who was subsequently shown to be not only outspoken against you, but also photographed leading a lynch mob demanding your head on a stick when you had been arrested?
 
Last edited:
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.



You do realize that this is the latest Trump gaslighting campaign, don’t you?

When your “sources” are Fox Noise, a clickbait blog, and a Twitter thread that was obviously fed to you, you may want to ask a few questions before swallowing this at face value.

The STone conviction came in the middle of the House Impeachment hearings, which Largely blew news of Stone’s conviction off the front page.

Obscured in the noise was the revelation that Stone was indeed the cutout between the Trump campaign and the Russians run disinformation campaign to aid Trump.

Just as Trump revealed in a Tweet today that he was indeed guilty of instructing Guliani to specifically ask for the “quid pro quo” that he furiously denied for three months and has the entire Trumpster noise machine chanting that lie in chorus.

What neither Fox or “Heavy” bothered to tell you, was that Stone’s lawyers were fully aware of Tameka Hart’s record, the fact that she had run for Congress as a Democrat, and her social media posts........and approved her for a seat on the jury.

So, there is no a case for a retrial. None.

But, now that Trump is trying every sleazy trick short of pardoning Stone personally, the gaslighting campaign is in full swing.

I fully expect all the Trumpsters to be braying this fake meme full throat in three...two.....one......
 
So, there is no a case for a retrial. None.

Eliminated all the false premises and hyperbole and we are left with this assertion. Which is false, because bias is an important issue in a criminal trial.

I would point out that the trial Judge had issued instructions to protect the identities of the jurors.

If this individual had simply kept her mouth shut, instead of coming out publicly on a major news network "in support of the prosecution team" this would not have been an issue.

The mere fact she felt "compelled" to do so when there was no need to at all does not help your "case."
 
Eliminated all the false premises and hyperbole and we are left with this assertion. Which is false, because bias is an important issue in a criminal trial.

I would point out that the trial Judge had issued instructions to protect the identities of the jurors.

If this individual had simply kept her mouth shut, instead of coming out publicly on a major news network "in support of the prosecution team" this would not have been an issue.

The mere fact she felt "compelled" to do so when there was no need to at all does not help your "case."

Frankly I find the entire idea of bias to be ironic and laughable when judges get hand picked by a president according to how sympathetic they are perceived to be to his agenda.
 
The fact Stone is a “convicted felon” (by the way, in the English language one does not typically capitalize every letter of a word) is evidence of a conspiracy against him. It’s clear jurors were not struck who should’ve been, likely some jurors lied to get on the jury, the judge rejected every motion Stone’s lawyers followed, she’s a political appointee of the previous administration which illegally spies on the Trump campaign. A lot of dirty stuff here.

If you listen to Don Jr., Stone had nothing to do with his dad, also Stone had a defense team and they are apart of the jury selection.

Here we go another conspiracy. Trump and you both sound like crooked defense attorneys.
 
I say that Stone should get a walk because justice demands that all of Muellers work should be cancelled.

This idea is not that.

That makes zero sense, but then again why would facts do no matter to all the Trump victims and their followers.
 
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.

You don't like the jury because they found stone guilty. Now the right wants a 'fair' trial that finds him not guilty. Sorta' like trump and the impeachment process.
 
The fact Stone is a “convicted felon” (by the way, in the English language one does not typically capitalize every letter of a word) is evidence of a conspiracy against him. It’s clear jurors were not struck who should’ve been, likely some jurors lied to get on the jury, the judge rejected every motion Stone’s lawyers followed, she’s a political appointee of the previous administration which illegally spies on the Trump campaign. A lot of dirty stuff here.

Yes, there is.

Stone’s lawyers were fully aware of Ms. Hart’s comments and records, and passed on the opportunity to challenge her.

So the only argument Stone has for a retrial is an incompetent defense. Which, under the circumstances, seems like the sort of thing that Stone and his lawyers would concoct for future use in a feigned outrage media campaign like this. It is vintage Stone.

That play won’t work. He won’t get a new trial.

But that’s not the real play here.

This is a noise campaign designed to get the Trumpsters to attack the process (again), and believe that Stone is “victim” of an imaginary “deep state” conspiracy. This is the kind of idiotic garbage that Trump’s supporters lap up like catnip.

This is all an orchestrated campaign.

First, Trump bellows out loud to his base that he wants his “Roy Cohn” off the hook.

Then Barr plays innocent by making pubic statements that suggest that he is at odds with Trump, and Trump’s openly unconstitutional behavior.

Almost immediately, the Trump team launched this campaign against the jury, and thus the integrity of the Stone trial.

The Trumpster audience is already primed to reject ANY sentence that Amy Berman Jackson hands down. Trump has attacked the judge, attacked the jury, and claimed, without any evidence at all, that the whole process is unfair that that Stone, one of the sleaziest operatives in US history, should get a get out of jail free card.

Much of this is Trump trying his new super constitutional authority on for size. Now that the Republican Senate has essentially blessed his absolute power, he’s going to use it.

This clears the way (in the Trumpsters’ empty heads) for Trump to be “justified” in pardoning a man so obviously and openly guilty.

Don’t be under the illusion that the Trump team, or Stone’s lawyers didn’t have this juror’s record and her social media posts before the trial even started.

This is a campaign that they’ve obviously had in the hopper for a long time.
 
Back
Top Bottom