• 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.

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...

Stone texted the witness "prepare to die ********er".

I don't understand why you guys feel the need to defend this. Are you lying or do you just not know the facts? It's absolutely disgusting that people talk with such certainty but then get nearly every basic fact regarding the case so incredibly wrong.
 
Fletch said:
Nice deflection. I was asking about you, not trump.
Click to expand...

Your question is a deflection. I asked a simple question in order to verify if what is being said about the forewoman is accurate. If the current judge calls for a new trial I will respect her decision.

Maybe Stone will be smart enough to plead guilty because he is guilty.
 
NWRatCon said:
How about the expense? Justice was done. Let's see how the sentence shakes out.
Click to expand...

Justice might not have been done. With a strongly prejudiced jury foreperson, Stone did not receive a fair trial.

With $23Trillion national debt, the expense is beyond petty.
 
NWRatCon said:
Except. of course, he was proven guilty. I suppose that is an important detail.

Moreover, I will note here that, unlike McCabe, a Grand Jury found sufficient evidence to hand up an indictment, and the judge found sufficient evidence to allow the case to proceed. We shouldn't ignore the other steps that brought us to this juncture.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you've heard the old saw about indicting a ham sandwich?.....
 
Thoreau72 said:
I'm sure you've heard the old saw about indicting a ham sandwich?.....
Click to expand...

And yet, the case against McCabe demonstrates the fatuous nature of that assertion. There and in a multitude of other cases, Grand Jurors have taken their role quite seriously, refusing to hand up indictments where the evidence simply does not constitute an offense. In short, that claim simply doesn't hold water. Moreover, it strikes at the heart of our system of justice. Do you know who said it, and why? The Grand Jury system is intended to ensure that the prosecutorial system does not run amok. It may fail, occasionally, but it has worked for hundreds of years to protect the citizenry from prosecutorial overreach. What would you rather have, prosecution by fiat? (I sure know Trump and Barr would.)
 
Thoreau72 said:
Justice might not have been done. With a strongly prejudiced jury foreperson, Stone did not receive a fair trial.

With $23Trillion national debt, the expense is beyond petty.
Click to expand...

There has been nothing produced in Judge Jackson's court that suggests Stone did not receive a fair trial. The Right wing silo is not a courtroom, nor is it a Judge's chambers.
 
NWRatCon said:
And yet, the case against McCabe demonstrates the fatuous nature of that assertion. There and in a multitude of other cases, Grand Jurors have taken their role quite seriously, refusing to hand up indictments where the evidence simply does not constitute an offense. In short, that claim simply doesn't hold water. Moreover, it strikes at the heart of our system of justice. Do you know who said it, and why? The Grand Jury system is intended to ensure that the prosecutorial system does not run amok. It may fail, occasionally, but it has worked for hundreds of years to protect the citizenry from prosecutorial overreach. What would you rather have, prosecution by fiat? (I sure know Trump and Barr would.)
Click to expand...

I would love to find out some of those multitude of cases in which a GJ has refused to indict. Is there any source for that?

Full disclosure: because of my association with FIJA, I am aware of one such case in Arizona in the last few years. Otherwise, given the great secrecy in our system, I am not aware of others. Prime examples are the situations with Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning.
 
jnug said:
There has been nothing produced in Judge Jackson's court that suggests Stone did not receive a fair trial. The Right wing silo is not a courtroom, nor is it a Judge's chambers.
Click to expand...

There has been a fair number of disclosures as to the prejudices of the jury foreperson. Napolitano and Turley have both commented on that matter.
 
Thoreau72 said:
There has been a fair number of disclosures as to the prejudices of the jury foreperson. Napolitano and Turley have both commented on that matter.
Click to expand...

No viable case has been made in the Court that she would effect the jury in any way and Stone's attorney's could have knocked her out in jury selection and didn't. Stone will not get a new trial and does not deserve one. He can appeal the decision in the Appellate if he wants to do so.
 
jnug said:
No viable case has been made in the Court that she would effect the jury in any way and Stone's attorney's could have knocked her out in jury selection and didn't. Stone will not get a new trial and does not deserve one. He can appeal the decision in the Appellate if he wants to do so.
Click to expand...

Neither has a viable case been made that she would NOT allow her strong emotional feelings sway her vote. She was a lawyer and is therefore persuasive with laymen.

With Trump in the WH, Stone won't need to appeal his case.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Neither has a viable case been made that she would NOT allow her strong emotional feelings sway her vote. She was a lawyer and is therefore persuasive with laymen.

With Trump in the WH, Stone won't need to appeal his case.
Click to expand...

SHE DOES NOT HAVE TO. Since your fallback is that Trumpkin will pardon him, what are you worried about...that Trumpkins pardon will end up having political consequences for him?
 
jnug said:
SHE DOES NOT HAVE TO. Since your fallback is that Trumpkin will pardon him, what are you worried about...that Trumpkins pardon will end up having political consequences for him?
Click to expand...

I'm not worried about anything. I have no dog in the fight sir. I couldn't care less what happens to Stone.

I am merely discussing the case, specifically the admitted bias of the foreperson.
 
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...


But wouldn't just having all pro-Trump jury also be considered biased? Did anyone check to see if anyone on the jury had pro-Trump views?
 
Thoreau72 said:
I would love to find out some of those multitude of cases in which a GJ has refused to indict. Is there any source for that?

Full disclosure: because of my association with FIJA, I am aware of one such case in Arizona in the last few years. Otherwise, given the great secrecy in our system, I am not aware of others. Prime examples are the situations with Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning.
Click to expand...

Because of the secrecy of the grand jury processes, a generalized collection is precluded. We mostly learn anecdotally about it from leaks to the press. It would be an interesting study. I think there was a recent Supreme Court case that touched on that, but I can't recall the details off the top of my head.
 
NWRatCon said:
Because of the secrecy of the grand jury processes, a generalized collection is precluded. We mostly learn anecdotally about it from leaks to the press. It would be an interesting study. I think there was a recent Supreme Court case that touched on that, but I can't recall the details off the top of my head.
Click to expand...

Yes, it would be a most interesting study.

The case from Arizona mentioned by FIJA was something like "The Rebellious ____" with the blank being the number assigned to the GJ. The 269th or something like that.

It turned out an actual attorney was called for the duty, and showed up for the duration. Much to the frustration of the prosecutor, the GJ refused to indict on a number of petty drug cases, literally minute amounts.
 
Well, I was thinking that Stone had been screwed and deserved a fair trial. With Napolitano saying it is so, Maybe I was wrong.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Neither has a viable case been made that she would NOT allow her strong emotional feelings sway her vote. She was a lawyer and is therefore persuasive with laymen.

With Trump in the WH, Stone won't need to appeal his case.
Click to expand...

While your last point is clearly true, I think we're allowing the creation of a tempest in a teapot. As several of us have pointed out, there is a process for adjudicating this issue, and it will play out there.

In general, I agree with the sentiment that a fair trial mandates an unbiased jury. A single juror can taint a jury. But, that is what judges and processes are for. 40 of the 120 potential jurors were excused, some for cause, some peremptorily. That indicates the process was working. If, for strategic or other reasons, Stone's attorneys didn't object, that issue is waived. I suspect that it's ultimately how it comes out in the wash (before the pardon).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom