• 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.

US&THEM said:
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.
Click to expand...

Why would anyone listen to Don Jr?

Besides, it’s an obvious lie.
 
The federal sentencing guidelines only allow for this kind of thing, which is called a "downward departure" when the defendant has provided substantial assistance to the prosecution AND accepted responsibility for what they have done.

Otherwise, they get what the sentencing tables dictate, complete with enhancements for prior criminal history.

I know. I did federal time, eleven months of which was for being on probation for failing to appear on a dog ticket aat the time of my offense. Wasn't even my dog, but I had to accept responsibiligy to avoid his execution.

So at this time, Barr is calling for a downward departure for a defendant who did not provide any assistance to the state nor plead guilty and accept responsibility for their actions.

In direct opposition to the trump government's policy in regards to the sentencing guidelines, which now require the harshest sentence possible.

Under the Guidelines.

Once again, trumpco is blowing smoke up America's asses, counting on their target audiences ignorance.
 
Captain Adverse said:
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."
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure most juror's are "biased" against the defendants in their case

Pretty hard to find a pro-rapist or pro-murderer juror.

This is the same crap as the deep state nonsense which presumes one must not be biased against criminals before being allowed to investigate them.
 
Captain Adverse said:
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."
Click to expand...

Sorry, the attorneys for the defense are fully aware of a juror’s record, and does not challenge that juror during the selection process, there is no case for retrial other than incompetent defense. None.

“ 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.”

This is simply (and very obviously) false.

Stone’s lawyers knew all these facts before the trial even started. So did Trump. The idea that the juror is at fault for posting a remark on FB after the trial is preposterous. It’s knee jerk “victim” playing by Trump and his allies.

Oh, and you assertion that this juror “combing out publicly on major network news” is also obviously false.

She posted a remark on FB.

The source of this latest Trump campaign are obviously Trump, Stone, and (almost certainly) Barr. Who else knew who she was? And, since the answer to that is Stone’s lawyers, that’s who was watching her FB page. No one else knew to.

You fell for it, hook, like, and sinker.

The Trump team spooled this one up to push all your hot buttons.

And you went for it, just like Trump knew you would.
 
Last edited:
What if...? said:
The federal sentencing guidelines only allow for this kind of thing, which is called a "downward departure" when the defendant has provided substantial assistance to the prosecution AND accepted responsibility for what they have done.

Otherwise, they get what the sentencing tables dictate, complete with enhancements for prior criminal history.

I know. I did federal time, eleven months of which was for being on probation for failing to appear on a dog ticket aat the time of my offense. Wasn't even my dog, but I had to accept responsibiligy to avoid his execution.

So at this time, Barr is calling for a downward departure for a defendant who did not provide any assistance to the state nor plead guilty and accept responsibility for their actions.

In direct opposition to the trump government's policy in regards to the sentencing guidelines, which now require the harshest sentence possible.

Under the Guidelines.

Once again, trumpco is blowing smoke up America's asses, counting on their target audiences ignorance.
Click to expand...

Counting on the ignorance of Trumpsters is a can’t miss proposition. Even when they know better, they loudly proclaim that they don’t.
 
Sure. Give him a new trial. And once he is again, convicted on all accounts, lets find something else to cry about.
Then try him again, and convict him on all counts.
Whatevas.
 
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...

There are two basic assumptions with these fiercely partisan democrat radicals: throw the book at republicans and throw flowers at democrats.
 
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...


Nappy is anti Trump and occasionally has some good opinions but too occasionally for me to put much stock in what he has to say. Even an idiot is right some times.
 
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...


If this was a democrat the left would be going nuts and it's all we would hear about from the opposite direction.
 
Craig234 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Stone's lawyers knew who she was from day one. Now it is a problem?
This is all smokescreen, Trump is going to pardon him regardless.
 
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...


Doesn't matter who you are there is always the appeals process, everyone who is found guilty in court can apply for an appeal. If there is merit in that appeal they get a second trial.
 
The 800 pound Gorilla of irony and hypocrisy is that others like Clapper and Brennan also lied to Congress and the American people on TV and under oath, but their perjury went unpunished by the system.

I agree with Napolitano--they lady should not have been on the jury because of her stated prejudice. Stone should get a new trial.
 
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...


this is insanity.... you cant weigh facts if you are not of the exact same political views of those on trial?

Trump is causing mass insanity.

This is all so ridiculous.

I guess a cop can't pull me over for speeding unless he is a never TRumper republican.

Morons.
 
Thoreau72 said:
The 800 pound Gorilla of irony and hypocrisy is that others like Clapper and Brennan also lied to Congress and the American people on TV and under oath, but their perjury went unpunished by the system.

I agree with Napolitano--they lady should not have been on the jury because of her stated prejudice. Stone should get a new trial.
Click to expand...

you sound very enlightened.

god bless
 
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...


Retrial is one thing, Trump interfering with the DOJ is another.
 
Integrityrespec said:
If this was a democrat the left would be going nuts and it's all we would hear about from the opposite direction.
Click to expand...

Isn't that exactly what we are seeing from the right? Them going nuts and following Fearless Leader in attacking the DOJ?


Frankly, after being glued to Trump's ass since for a year, I'm truly surprised Bill Barr spoke out against Trump's interference. Is this Barr's way of signaling he's tired of Trump's BS and ready to resign just like the dozens of "the best people" Trump hired then fired or forced to resign over the past 3 years?


Barr says Trump tweets '''make it impossible to do my job''' amid Roger Stone drama | Fox News
The White House says President Trump isn't "bothered" or deterred after Attorney General Bill Barr told ABC News on Thursday that the president's tweets "make it impossible for me to do my job," in an unusual swipe at the president -- although Barr emphasized that Trump "has never asked me to do anything in a criminal case."

Barr's unexpected comments came days after Trump, in a late-night tweet earlier this week, criticized career Justice Department prosecutors for recommending a nine-year prison sentence for his former advisor Roger Stone. Senior DOJ leaders then intervened and adjusted the sentencing recommendation downward, saying it was clearly excessive given Stone's obstruction-related offenses. All four prosecutors on the case stepped down within hours.


"I think it’s time to stop the tweeting about Department of Justice criminal cases," Barr said. "I'm not going to be bullied or influenced by anybody ... whether it’s Congress, a newspaper editorial board, or the president.”....

Barr says Trump tweets "make it impossible to do my job" amid Roger Stone drama | Fox News
 
Integrityrespec said:
If this was a democrat the left would be going nuts and it's all we would hear about from the opposite direction.
Click to expand...

Could you point me to one true post you have made on the forum? I'd just like to see one.
 
Thoreau72 said:
The 800 pound Gorilla of irony and hypocrisy is that others like Clapper and Brennan also lied to Congress and the American people on TV and under oath, but their perjury went unpunished by the system.

I agree with Napolitano--they lady should not have been on the jury because of her stated prejudice. Stone should get a new trial.
Click to expand...

In other words:

Stone was found guilty, so he should get a new trial, over and over, until he's acquitted.
 
marke said:
There are two basic assumptions with these fiercely partisan democrat radicals: throw the book at republicans and throw flowers at democrats.
Click to expand...

Hardly have I seen a more corrupt form of justice than the wealthy influence upon a case.
 
Captain Adverse said:
: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.
Click to expand...

I chose not to watch it because the information concerned in it is for the appeals process yet that time is not now it is in the future, right now is the sentencing phase which has been corrupted by Trump and Barr..
 
Craig234 said:
Integrityrespec said:
If this was a democrat the left would be going nuts and it's all we would hear about from the opposite direction.
Click to expand...
Could you point me to one true post you have made on the forum? I'd just like to see one.
Click to expand...
Integrityrespec's post is correct and I agree with him. OTOH, he neglected to mention the RWNJs are doing exactly the same thing in regards to Stone. Something I pointed out earlier:
Royal PITA said:
Isn't that exactly what we are seeing from the right? Them going nuts and following Fearless Leader in attacking the DOJ?


Frankly, after being glued to Trump's ass for a year, I'm truly surprised Bill Barr spoke out against Trump's interference. Is this Barr's way of signaling he's tired of Trump's BS and ready to resign just like the dozens of "the best people" Trump hired then fired or forced to resign over the past 3 years?


Barr says Trump tweets '''make it impossible to do my job''' amid Roger Stone drama | Fox News
The White House says President Trump isn't "bothered" or deterred after Attorney General Bill Barr told ABC News on Thursday that the president's tweets "make it impossible for me to do my job," in an unusual swipe at the president -- although Barr emphasized that Trump "has never asked me to do anything in a criminal case."

Barr's unexpected comments came days after Trump, in a late-night tweet earlier this week, criticized career Justice Department prosecutors for recommending a nine-year prison sentence for his former advisor Roger Stone. Senior DOJ leaders then intervened and adjusted the sentencing recommendation downward, saying it was clearly excessive given Stone's obstruction-related offenses. All four prosecutors on the case stepped down within hours.


"I think it’s time to stop the tweeting about Department of Justice criminal cases," Barr said. "I'm not going to be bullied or influenced by anybody ... whether it’s Congress, a newspaper editorial board, or the president.”....

Barr says Trump tweets "make it impossible to do my job" amid Roger Stone drama | Fox News
Click to expand...
 
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...


This would probably be a just thing to do.

It's too bad that his defense to date has left him penniless, homeless and under the threat of imprisonment, unable to care for his handicapped wife.

Tucker Carlson: Trump "Must Pardon Roger Stone Or Commute His Sentence" | Video | RealClearPolitics
<snip>
Roger Stone is facing life in prison because he’s a high-profile Trump supporter. It’s that simple. Want proof? Here it is: John Brennan and James Clapper will sleep at home tonight. Both have been caught lying under oath about matters of national significance. Neither’ s in jail. Neither’ s been indicated, or ever will be.

The Stone case, by contrast, was transparently political from the first day. The lead prosecutor, Andrew Weissman, is literally now an MSNBC contributor. The judge, Amy Berman Jackson, is an out of control Democratic partisan, who, purely out of spite, stripped Stone of his first amendment rights and stopped him from making a living. Stone and his wife, who’s 71 and deaf, lost their home and are now utterly broke. The whole thing is shocking, and disgusting. It’s a farce that discredits the entire Amercian justice system.
<snip>
 
Captain Adverse said:
I agree that Stone has a good case for a retrial.
Click to expand...

In a jury trial the entire jury has to find you guilty in order for the verdict to hold. If even one jury member refuses to convict you end up with a hung jury. In a country this polarized you will inevitably end up with at least one or two people on a jury who don't like the president and one or two that really do. Whether there were two people on the jury that hated Trump or not is irrelevant. The full jury would have had to convict. If everyone else thought he was innocent and 2 people refused to find him innocent it would have been a mistrial not a guilty verdict.
 
Captain Adverse said:
If YOU were tried and I found out the jury was "tainted," then I'd support your right to a retrial as well.
Click to expand...

So I presume you'll support the retrial of every black man in the country who was convicted of a majority white jury if we can show even one member of that jury was a little bit racist?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom