• 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.

ecofarm said:
7 felonies. You think a convict should serve less than a year for each of 7 felonies?
Click to expand...

What felonies? Murder? Stone got a longer sentence recommendation than some actually murders got.
 
Robertinfremont said:
What felonies? Murder? Stone got a longer sentence recommendation than some actually murders got.
Click to expand...

A felony is supposed to carry a year. He was convicted of 7. Generally, being convicted of many crimes increases the sentence for each.

7 years should be the minimum for 7 felonies, right?
 
ecofarm said:
A felony is supposed to carry a year. He was convicted of 7. Generally, being convicted of many crimes increases the sentence for each.

7 years should be the minimum for 7 felonies, right?
Click to expand...

No. Ken Starr found Bill Clinton to have committed 11 felonies. How many was he tried on? How many years did he serve? The average rapist gets a little over 4 years. Those found guilty of assault even less. Burglary less still. But Stone gets 7-9 years for victimless crimes including perjury? This is nothing but political vengeance plain and simple starting with the absurd SWAT raid on his house. Hell, Jeffrey Epstein didn't even get that.
 
veritas1 said:
No. Ken Starr found Bill Clinton to have committed 11 felonies. How many was he tried on?
Click to expand...

You missed a big part of my post. Convicted for a felony means a year. Not suspected. Convicted. One year for a felony, at least. If one is convicted of several felonies, generally the sentence for each will be increased.

How can 7 felony convictions result in less than 7 years?
 
ecofarm said:
You missed a big part of my post. Convicted for a felony means a year. Not suspected. Convicted. One year for a felony, at least. If one is convicted of several felonies, generally the sentence for each will be increased.

How can 7 felony convictions result in less than 7 years?
Click to expand...

The same way that rape results in 4.3 years. Or are you suggesting that anything Stone did is remotely comparable to rape?
 
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.
Click to expand...

I've seen Trump supporters cite Judge Napolitano as an authority, right up until he said things that against Trump, at which point they spoke against him.

I did NOT see you criticize those Trump supporters for engaging in hypocrisy.




Why do you think you get to skip past that and attack "opponents of Trump" for their alleged hypocrisy on Napolitano, Adverse?
 
veritas1 said:
The same way that rape results in 4.3 years. Or are you suggesting that anything Stone did is remotely comparable to rape?
Click to expand...

That's one felony conviction. Stone has 7 felony convictions. 7 rape convictions will garner more than 4.3 years.
 
ecofarm said:
That's one felony conviction. Stone has 7 felony convictions. 7 rape convictions will garner more than 4.3 years.
Click to expand...

So, you equate all felonies as equal? Perjury and witness tampering are the equal of murder, rape and assault?
 
veritas1 said:
So, you equate all felonies as equal?
Click to expand...

Of course not. Your proposing something so stupid demonstrates the weakness of your bs.

Perjury and witness tampering are the equal of murder, rape and assault?
Click to expand...

Again, moronic bs.


Explain how 7 felonies should receive less than 7 years when a felony carries a year minimum.
 
veritas1 said:
No. Ken Starr found Bill Clinton to have committed 11 felonies. How many was he tried on? How many years did he serve? The average rapist gets a little over 4 years. Those found guilty of assault even less. Burglary less still. But Stone gets 7-9 years for victimless crimes including perjury? This is nothing but political vengeance plain and simple starting with the absurd SWAT raid on his house. Hell, Jeffrey Epstein didn't even get that.
Click to expand...

Stone hasn't been sentenced.

You'd think the DoJ was run by a Democrat, instead of Republican Bill Barr. I can't imagine the wailing if Hillary had won. It's one thing I'm thankful for, because if you guys are convinced with a GOP President and a GOP DoJ with Trump appointees running everything that the system is against poor old Republicans, who knows what would have happened with your victim complexes if all those were HILLARY!!! appointees? :eek:
 
veritas1 said:
No. Ken Starr found Bill Clinton to have committed 11 felonies. How many was he tried on? How many years did he serve? The average rapist gets a little over 4 years. Those found guilty of assault even less. Burglary less still. But Stone gets 7-9 years for victimless crimes including perjury? This is nothing but political vengeance plain and simple starting with the absurd SWAT raid on his house. Hell, Jeffrey Epstein didn't even get that.
Click to expand...

for sure

but Ds seem to have this ability to turn their backs on the facts they don't like

They think focusing on the non-facts they do like makes up for that....
 
Robertinfremont said:
What felonies? Murder? Stone got a longer sentence recommendation than some actually murders got.
Click to expand...

Will you be upset with the sentence Avanetti will be getting in the near future too?
 
JasperL said:
Stone hasn't been sentenced.

You'd think the DoJ was run by a Democrat, instead of Republican Bill Barr. I can't imagine the wailing if Hillary had won. It's one thing I'm thankful for, because if you guys are convinced with a GOP President and a GOP DoJ with Trump appointees running everything that the system is against poor old Republicans, who knows what would have happened with your victim complexes if all those were HILLARY!!! appointees? :eek:
Click to expand...

No, the prosecutors in this case are all tied at the hip to Mueller. They are no friends of Trump. Also, nobody has said that Stone was sentenced. It was the recommended sentence that is the problem. This is just the more anti-Trumpers venting their spleen simply because they can.
 
Mr Person said:
I've seen Trump supporters cite Judge Napolitano as an authority, right up until he said things that against Trump, at which point they spoke against him.

I did NOT see you criticize those Trump supporters for engaging in hypocrisy.

Why do you think you get to skip past that and attack "opponents of Trump" for their alleged hypocrisy on Napolitano, Adverse?
Click to expand...

That's correct. The proper way to evaluate anyone's comments is on the content of them. I questioned the merits of them, starting with the idea that if one shows "bias" against Trump (and that's pretty obvious and was known to the defense, since she admits to being a former Democratic candidate for Congress) that's not a showing of "bias" against Stone, i.e. the defendant.

Further, if the defense knew of this anti-Trump alleged bias, and again, being a partisan Democrat and candidate for office makes this a high likelihood, and the defense didn't challenge her on that, or ask that she be stricken for cause or not, then I don't see the problem. Napolitano doesn't allege this woman tried to hide her Democratic party allegiances, and Stone's defense team apparently didn't care enough about it to strike her or even really question her about this 'bias' so why does the defense get a do-over?

You're a lawyer who knows the system - what am I missing?
 
ecofarm said:
Of course not. Your proposing something so stupid demonstrates the weakness of your bs.



Again, moronic bs.


Explain how 7 felonies should receive less than 7 years when a felony carries a year minimum.
Click to expand...

The only thing moronic is thinking that Stone should be getting a longer sentence than a murderer, rapist or armed robber.
 
veritas1 said:
No, the prosecutors in this case are all tied at the hip to Mueller. They are no friends of Trump. Also, nobody has said that Stone was sentenced. It was the recommended sentence that is the problem. This is just the more anti-Trumpers venting their spleen simply because they can.
Click to expand...

The US Attorney who signed off on the sentencing memo was just appointed by Barr and was his asst. any other lies you have for this thread?
 
veritas1 said:
The only thing moronic is thinking that Stone should be getting a longer sentence than a murderer, rapist or armed robber.
Click to expand...

If you or DonDon don't like the sentencing guidelines there is a remedy for that. Aiming insults at the Judge and the prosecutors IS NOT IT!
 
veritas1 said:
No, the prosecutors in this case are all tied at the hip to Mueller.
Click to expand...

That's not actually true, but facts don't appear to matter to you. Here's a quick bio of those who resigned. Two were part of the Mueller team, two were not. These Are the Roger Stone Prosecutors Who Quit the Case - The New York Times

They are no friends of Trump. Also, nobody has said that Stone was sentenced. It was the recommended sentence that is the problem. This is just the more anti-Trumpers venting their spleen simply because they can.
Click to expand...

Quoting you: "But Stone gets 7-9 years for victimless crimes including perjury?"

If you meant, the prosecution team originally recommended a sentence of 7-9 years, but that recommendation was withdrawn by DOJ prior to his upcoming sentencing" you should have said so, and we'd have all agreed!

BTW, I'll just restate what was pointed out above - the acting U.S. Attorney for D.C. who signed and submitted the 7-9 year sentencing recommendation was appointed by AG Barr.
 
veritas1 said:
The only thing moronic is thinking that Stone should be getting a longer sentence than a murderer, rapist or armed robber.
Click to expand...

7 felony convictions. Not 1 conviction. 7.
 
JasperL said:
That's correct. The proper way to evaluate anyone's comments is on the content of them. I questioned the merits of them, starting with the idea that if one shows "bias" against Trump (and that's pretty obvious and was known to the defense, since she admits to being a former Democratic candidate for Congress) that's not a showing of "bias" against Stone, i.e. the defendant.

Further, if the defense knew of this anti-Trump alleged bias, and again, being a partisan Democrat and candidate for office makes this a high likelihood, and the defense didn't challenge her on that, or ask that she be stricken for cause or not, then I don't see the problem. Napolitano doesn't allege this woman tried to hide her Democratic party allegiances, and Stone's defense team apparently didn't care enough about it to strike her or even really question her about this 'bias' so why does the defense get a do-over?

You're a lawyer who knows the system - what am I missing?
Click to expand...

I honestly didn't go that deeply into it because Adverse says whatever Trump or his defenders say. Trump attacks foreperson (I assume because Fox dug it up), Adverse starts this thread. But right off the bat he was doing what he accused others of from the opposite direction.

He quotes: "The 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,”... "

I have no idea if the source is legit, but it sounds suspect (heavy dot com). I'm not sure I'm recalling a federal appeal about seating biased jurors that I've dealt with. State-side in MA, you have to ask the judge to excuse the juror for cause. You still cannot raise the claim on appeal unless you exercise a peremptory challenge (you get 12 for a felony case in MA, generally, but can request more) AND you use up all of your peremptories. (A peremptory is the lawyer getting to boot a juror during jury selection for no stated reason. Exercise of a peremptory can be objected to by the other attorney, but you only win the objection and keep the juror if the judge finds the peremptory was aimed at the person because of an "ism", ie, kicking off black jurors. it is extremely hard to win this. Federally, a Batson challenge; MA, a Soares challenge)

Your claim is then about jurors who should have been excused, weren't excused, and whom you had to exercise peremptories on to kick off the jury. Edit: you have to use up ALL your peremptories to make the claim, since the argument is "Defendant had to accept these people as jurors because the judge's error left him with no more peremptories". Federally, the test may be different. One only really knows the issues one has had to research in one's own cases. The rest....generalities.

That's the first thing I'd wonder about. The second is whether or not defense counsel actually moved to excuse the juror. If the defense didn't, the argument would have to be ineffective assistance of counsel for not moving to excuse. Legal mumbo-jumbo aside, that means it's even harder to win (almost always even harder).




It's hard to say anything meaningful without reading the transcript of jury selection at the least. I doubt this is going anywhere, but I'm certain Adverse doesn't have a clue. I'm not sure what the latest fed stats are, but the last time it was looked into, something like 8% of appeals concerning preserved issues won. 92% lost. But a preserved issue is one the defendant objected to adequately at trial. There are plenty of cases without preserved issues, which makes it even harder to win. The total percentage of criminal appeals that win is even smaller. Probably smaller federally, for other reasons. But even if it's the same... one never has a good chance of getting a new trial.

Which is why I often find myself wondering why I went into appeals.
 
Last edited:
veritas1 said:
No, the prosecutors in this case are all tied at the hip to Mueller.
Click to expand...

Mr Person said:
Call Alex Jones. He'll listen. Probably have you on as guest.
Click to expand...

veritas1 said:
Right, because of course the Trump hating partisans attached to Mueller would never exact any political vengeance.:lamo
Click to expand...

Because you and Trump's other tireless defenders/deflecters/deniers explain everything bad that happens to Trump or people around him with "DEEP STATE" QAnon idiocy, while you praise everything that happens that is good while Trump happens to be in office as his good work.

If your only goal is to virtue-signal hatred of librulz to other Trumpists, continue.

If your goal is to actually make a case, do not pass go and do not collect $200.
 
Mr Person said:
Because you and Trump's other tireless defenders/deflecters/deniers explain everything bad that happens to Trump or people around him with "DEEP STATE" QAnon idiocy, while you praise everything that happens that is good while Trump happens to be in office as his good work.
Click to expand...

Of course. Stone should get 9 years while demonstrated perjurer Brennan gets rich on CNN. Yea, equal justice and all that.:roll:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom