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

bradt99 said:

Trump should go ahead and pardon him. Its always conservatives who end up getting in trouble, never the democrats.

Click to expand...

Two possible reasons for this. 1. Democrats are smarter than Republicans and way better at covering their tracks. 2. Democrats are generally innocent and Republicans are not.

Pound4abrown said:

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.

Click to expand...

That’s almost a worthwhile undertaking.

Of course, it’s the last thing Trump or Stone want.

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...

There is no 800 pound gorilla. Your claims are nothing more than baseless whataboutism.

Stone’s lawyers knew all about this before the trial even started.

This is a right wing noise campaign designed to set Trumpster sheep up to begin braying their “victim”card when Trump pardons Stone.

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...

And the right would be crying "law and order" and demanding that the federal sentencing guidelines be adhered to.

TomFitz said:

Why would anyone listen to Don Jr?

Besides, it’s an obvious lie.

Click to expand...

That’s the point all the Trumpers are running around crying foul and making up their own facts, all one has to do is listen to them and see they will say anything in an attempt to rationalize their nonsense.

Captain Adverse said:

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.

Click to expand...

The point is, the chief magistrate of the Union should not be using his high Office to merely help his friends.

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...

More like, "we have a President of the U.S. and his minions" pointing out that Stone sentencing recommendation was absurd and that public information shows at least one of the jurors, the foreperson, to have been inappropriately partisan and biased. If truth is an insult, so be it.

All snakes would rather slither and strike unnoticed, and all snake hunters will lift the underbrush and rocks to expose them to the light of public scrutiny. And while many (including myself) are repulsed by Trump's obsessive and excessive opinionating by twitter, he happens to be entirely correct on this subject.

Stone is guilty of inconsequential lying to Congress in a hearing over an inconsequential fact, who expressed puerile rantings to a friend of 20 years who did not take him seriously. There is no way on God's green earth that anyone, including those guilty of being a friend of Trump, is going to deserve 7-9 years for that.

And now that it seems the Jury foreperson (and perhaps others) hid their partisan background to get on the jury it behooves the judge to at least interview the jury, if not declare a mistrial.

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

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...

I knew there would be some partisan jousting on this thread but didn’t think I would read such over the top posts. The above post is one example.

Keep in mind that every American has the right to a fair trial if accused of crimes. In this case it was the responsibility of the sitting judge during the interview of possible jurors to exclude any with preconceived bias. The juror in question was not only openly anti-Trump but also had very negative comments on her twitter page regarding Stone.

It’s now being reported that the juror didn’t disclose this bias, I don’t know if that is fact but if so she committed perjury. One would think the court would have checked the jurors social media accounts with such a high profile case but obviously not.

This clearly brings into question if Stone got a fair trial, I think what needs to be done is bring these jurors in and question them about any overreaching influence the jury Foreperson had with the deliberations. If it is discovered there was, the conviction needs to be vacated.

This case is so muddied with political partisanship, hypocrisy and levels of irony it’s become ridiculous. When it’s shown that the highest players in our law enforcement and intelligence agencies with Brennan, Clapper, Comey and McCabe all committing perjury under oath in front of congress along with falsifying FISA warrants and that goes excused?

I never thought I would witness this type of blatant injustice with our law and intelligence agencies. I would have never thought that our court and trial system would fall prey to this type of parasitic partisanship were the outcome is predetermined because of who you support as president.

Moonglow said:

Hardly have I seen a more corrupt form of justice than the wealthy influence upon a case.

Click to expand...

Wealth or not, American justice should not be refusing to prosecute democrats for their major crimes while attempting to bury under the jail those republicans who commit minor crimes.

Moonglow said:

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..

Click to expand...

So, the fact that the foreperson lied under oath about her preconceived bias doesn’t give you pause about the trial outcome? Our very foundation of a trial by our peers is in question. Our sixth amendment guarantees the right to an (impartial jury) and clearly that didn’t happen. To now blame the messengers for the corrupted trial after the fact and blaming those that do so is an extremely weak defense for the deflection attempted with your statement.

woodsman said:

So, the fact that the foreperson lied under oath about her preconceived bias doesn’t give you pause about the trial outcome? Our very foundation of a trial by our peers is in question. Our sixth amendment guarantees the right to an (impartial jury) and clearly that didn’t happen. To now blame the messengers for the corrupted trial after the fact and blaming those that do so is an extremely weak defense for the deflection attempted with your statement.

Click to expand...

The trial is already over...the sentencing phase is in process. Stone may appeal if they so desire.
P.S. There is no such animal as an impartial jury, unless you don't use humans in the jury.

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...

All of this was known to Stone's lawyers at the time they interviewed th jurors. They left her on to try and be able to ask for a retrial and the judge realized what they did and said NO.

woodsman said:

So, the fact that the foreperson lied under oath about her preconceived bias doesn’t give you pause about the trial outcome? Our very foundation of a trial by our peers is in question. Our sixth amendment guarantees the right to an (impartial jury) and clearly that didn’t happen. To now blame the messengers for the corrupted trial after the fact and blaming those that do so is an extremely weak defense for the deflection attempted with your statement.

Click to expand...

It is amazing how quickly your automatic assumptions about the jury etc about wrongdoing. Take a step back and observe, wait for the actual facts.

Moonglow said:

The trial is already over...the sentencing phase is in process. Stone may appeal if they so desire.
P.S. There is no such animal as an impartial jury, unless you don't use humans in the jury.

Click to expand...

The Judge can opt to delay the sentencing phase with the revelation the jury pool was corrupted. As for the statement of “There is no such animal as an impartial jury”. As an abstract you may be correct, all humans are flawed. But it was the obligation and duty of the judge to sit those in judgment be as impartial as possible and that didn’t happen by a long shot.

US&THEM said:

It is amazing how quickly your automatic assumptions about the jury etc about wrongdoing. Take a step back and observe, wait for the actual facts.

Click to expand...

You do realize the forepersons twitter feed, and Facebook postings are now available? The posts, opinions and bias predated her sitting on the jury. Two things are possible but one fact won’t change. All jurors are asked if they have preconceived opinions about the case they are about to sit on, she clearly did and ether lied about it or the Judge didn’t care. I believe that Stone and representation is under a gage order but I’m sure they have the transships of the jury interviews.

When those facts along with the already known facts come out it will make for great political theater.

maxparrish said:

More like, "we have a President of the U.S. and his minions" pointing out that Stone sentencing recommendation was absurd and that public information shows at least one of the jurors, the foreperson, to have been inappropriately partisan and biased. If truth is an insult, so be it.

All snakes would rather slither and strike unnoticed, and all snake hunters will lift the underbrush and rocks to expose them to the light of public scrutiny. And while many (including myself) are repulsed by Trump's obsessive and excessive opinionating by twitter, he happens to be entirely correct on this subject.

Stone is guilty of inconsequential lying to Congress in a hearing over an inconsequential fact, who expressed puerile rantings to a friend of 20 years who did not take him seriously. There is no way on God's green earth that anyone, including those guilty of being a friend of Trump, is going to deserve 7-9 years for that.

And now that it seems the Jury foreperson (and perhaps others) hid their partisan background to get on the jury it behooves the judge to at least interview the jury, if not declare a mistrial.

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

Click to expand...

The sentencing "reccomendation" was to apply the maximum guideline sentence, as is the case in every other case where the defendant does not plead guilty, accept responsibility, noe provide substantial assistance to the prosecution.

This is how the Federal Sentencing Guidelines work. Worse, the trump administration specifiacally overrode the Obama era policy giving leeway to judges to "depart" from the Guidelines, requiring prosecutors to recommend the maximum Guideline sentence. So they are being specifically dishonest when they pretend that there is some kind of leniency built into the system that can be applied if someone didn't "feel" particularly "threatened". Feelings are not part of the Sentencing Guidelines.

independentusa said:

All of this was known to Stone's lawyers at the time they interviewed th jurors. They left her on to try and be able to ask for a retrial and the judge realized what they did and said NO.

Click to expand...

Don't confuse them with facts.

They don't need no stinking facts.

Craig234 said:

In other words:

Stone was found guilty, so he should get a new trial, over and over, until he's acquitted.

Click to expand...

No, in other words high government officials routinely perjure themselves on TV with no consequences, but unpopular civilians end up in Kangaroo Courts for petty charges.

TomFitz said:

There is no 800 pound gorilla. Your claims are nothing more than baseless whataboutism.

Stone’s lawyers knew all about this before the trial even started.

This is a right wing noise campaign designed to set Trumpster sheep up to begin braying their “victim”card when Trump pardons Stone.

Click to expand...

Interesting. Were you on Stone's legal team? Can you demonstrate or prove that his lawyers "knew all about this" before the trial started? Or am I supposed to believe your assertion without any sort of proof?

Convince me your assertion is true.

What if...? said:

The sentencing "reccomendation" was to apply the maximum guideline sentence, as is the case in every other case where the defendant does not plead guilty, accept responsibility, noe provide substantial assistance to the prosecution.

This is how the Federal Sentencing Guidelines work. Worse, the trump administration specifiacally overrode the Obama era policy giving leeway to judges to "depart" from the Guidelines, requiring prosecutors to recommend the maximum Guideline sentence. So they are being specifically dishonest when they pretend that there is some kind of leniency built into the system that can be applied if someone didn't "feel" particularly "threatened". Feelings are not part of the Sentencing Guidelines.

Click to expand...

Your "explanation" is uninformed because, at worst prosecutors are expected to recommend the maximum within the applicable guideline range. BUT THAT IS NOT EVEN the nature of the dispute. The dispute is over WHICH guideline ranges should be applied, not the sentence within the guideline range.

All parties agree that Stone is at "Level 14", whose range is 15-24 months. Hence the maximum sentence imposable is 24 months. However the prosecutors went full whack-a-doodle by maintaining that Stone also qualified for enhancement points, which would move his guideline range level up to 7 to 9 years. And, for example, if a puerile rant DID NOT serve as a means of intimidation (as proved by the targets blowing it off as just a friends typical theatrics) then it could not be a means, let alone a serious one.

The motive of the prosecutors oozes from their explanations; Stone showed a bad attitude towards the court and to one of the committees so 'the system' must punish him for a bad attitude.

Sad this is considered "justice" - but such is the vengeful authoritarian nature of the modern state.

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...

I was just reading about this. I thought back to my last jury experience and recall a question the judge asked all prospective jurors: "is there anything else I and the attorneys should know about you the could affect your ability to be fair and impartial as a juror on this case". To me it seems like her answer would have to be "do you want them alphabetically or numerically?" This case had to be thrown out.

maxparrish said:

Your "explanation" is uninformed because, at worst prosecutors are expected to recommend the maximum within the applicable guideline range. BUT THAT IS NOT EVEN the nature of the dispute. The dispute is over WHICH guideline ranges should be applied, not the sentence within the guideline range.

All parties agree that Stone is at "Level 14", whose range is 15-24 months. Hence the maximum sentence imposable is 24 months. However the prosecutors went full whack-a-doodle by maintaining that Stone also qualified for enhancement points, which would move his guideline range level up to 7 to 9 years. And, for example, if a puerile rant DID NOT serve as a means of intimidation (as proved by the targets blowing it off as just a friends typical theatrics) then it could not be a means, let alone a serious one.

The motive of the prosecutors oozes from their explanations; Stone showed a bad attitude towards the court and to one of the committees so 'the system' must punish him for a bad attitude.

Sad this is considered "justice" - but such is the vengeful authoritarian nature of the modern state.

Click to expand...

Two years, huh? Whoo boy! That's a life ender.

I wonder if it includes crimes that still allow parole? White collar crimes are the only ones eleigible for parole in the federal system, last time I checked. A more perfect example of two justice systems, one for the wealthy and one for everybody else, cannot be found.

But I'll look it up for myself.

I don't believe anything that comes from a conservative anymore.

You don't even live in the same reality as the rest of the world anymore.

woodsman said:

You do realize the forepersons twitter feed, and Facebook postings are now available? The posts, opinions and bias predated her sitting on the jury. Two things are possible but one fact won’t change. All jurors are asked if they have preconceived opinions about the case they are about to sit on, she clearly did and ether lied about it or the Judge didn’t care. I believe that Stone and representation is under a gage order but I’m sure they have the transships of the jury interviews.

When those facts along with the already known facts come out it will make for great political theater.

Click to expand...

You assume Stone’s attorneys and the gov’t had no idea about this stuff? Assumptions and more assumptions. Stone was not railroaded he was and is his own worse enemy.

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...

What Napolitano doesn't say or even allege in the part I watched is that the woman, who was asked about her political views and about social media posts, lied or misled or otherwise tried to hide her political views. And her "bias" such as it is is alleged to be against Trump, but the person on trial is Roger Stone, not Trump. So it's not clear to me how the judge draws a line between what is allegedly a bias against DJT with being unable to serve as a juror in a trial for someone else. Sure, if she had shown bias against Roger Stone and hid that, OK.

I'm pretty surprised that Napolitano is making this argument. Seems at a minimum the juror in question must have somehow misled Stone's attorneys, who didn't object to her being on the panel. It's absurd to assert as a matter of law that if the "bias" was known to the attorneys for Stone, and they didn't try to remove her, that this bias, against someone NOT their client, but that they knew about is sufficient to get their client a new trial.

Thoreau72 said:

No, in other words high government officials routinely perjure themselves on TV with no consequences, but unpopular civilians end up in Kangaroo Courts for petty charges.

Click to expand...

Perjury means under oath with the government - as Stone was - not TV appearances. There was nothing Kangaroo about his trial; that's you posting something dishonest because words are cheap. You can't prove the falsehood you wrote at all.