• 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!

Donnie Dirtbag Smears a Juror To Get His Criminal Associates Off

JMR said:
I suppose in the days before Trump landed in the White House, most of the population had faith in our justice department and did not rely on Hannity to determine the guilt or innocence of alleged criminals.
Click to expand...

Lying to FISA courts was the good ole days?
 
Excon said:
For a very large portion of the population - Stone has been mistreated. You can not convince them they are wrong becasue the evidence in toto allows for such an interpretation, just as it allows for that interpretation to be ignored.
Click to expand...

Being tried and convicted by a jury of witness tampering and lying to investigators is now being "mistreated"? Of course if you're Stone or a fan of corruption, you would naturally agree. Trump is both, as his woeful record shows.
 
apdst said:
She's a never trumper bitch. She's very prejudiced.
Click to expand...

No, she was not prejudiced in the slightest. She was pro-Trump but said "law must prevail."
 
Excon said:
Your title is as stupid as it is lame. If the President wants to get someone off the hook for a crime all he has to do is pardon them.
Click to expand...

Oh, he will certainly do that but Dirtbag's m.o. is to **** all over the justice system from start to finish in his plan to subjugate all of it to his will and power.
 
apdst said:
She's a never trumper bitch. She's very prejudiced.
Click to expand...

All you have to do is prove she imposed her will on all the other jurors (who took just a couple of hours to reach their verdict) and/or introduced information during deliberations that was not part of the evidence given in the trial. Good luck.
 
Last edited:
Excon said:
For a very large portion of the population - Stone has been mistreated. You can not convince them they are wrong becasue the evidence in toto allows for such an interpretation, just as it allows for that interpretation to be ignored.
Click to expand...

Here's an idea. Instead of making grandiose claims like that why don't you give us a link to where this groundswell of Stone support comes from? We'd all love to see your source(s) for it.
 
Jay59 said:
It might be possible to be more wrong, but this will do til I see something completely clueless.
Click to expand...

It might be possible that some day you could accidentally post something that's factual or true but I won't hold my breath.
 
Excon said:
Stop with the bs. Hannity isn't behind the DOJ losing their credibility, it is more to do with allowing selective prosecution.
Click to expand...

No, but he's certainly the leading Dirtbag accomplice in the the rightwing media pukefunnel in Dirtbag's attempt to destroy our system of justice and make it his personal police force.
 
Paradoxical said:
That's what they claimed.We know the rest of the story. It was the CIA and FBI who were the real criminals. The attempted coup failed bigly.
Click to expand...

Even deeper grunts from the Cult of Filthy Donnie Douchebag.
 
jamesbyoung said:
You have been listening to Trump defenders? Poor you.
Click to expand...

Oh, don't insult him for being merely a "defender." His dedication to the Cult of Dirtbag goes far deeper than mere defending him. He's a true worshipper and unquestioning zealot for that PoS.
 
Paradoxical said:
Do you have Rachel Maddow on save so you don't miss one episode?
Click to expand...

That's abjectly pitiful. You certainly are a fanatical worshipper of Your Dear Dirtbag but you're beyond pathetic at shilling for "It."
 
digitusmedius said:
[

Just waiting to see if Barrfbag stomps into this one, too. .
Click to expand...

Is it disrespectful and wrong to call Democrats Dims?

then why is it OK to call Donald Trump.. what u call him?
 
Cardinal said:
The judge is zero percent likely to declare a mistrial on the grounds of the juror's prior behavior. Some wacky John Grisham "Runaway Jury" scenario would have to take place before the juror's prior behavior became grounds for a mistrial.
Click to expand...

Here's what the Federal Rules of Evidence has to say on this subject:
Rule 606. Juror
Primary tabs
(a) At the Trial. A juror may not testify as a witness before the other jurors at the trial. If a juror is called to testify, the court must give a party an opportunity to object outside the jury’s presence.

(b) During an Inquiry into the Validity of a Verdict or Indictment.

(1) Prohibited Testimony or Other Evidence. During an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment, a juror may not testify about any statement made or incident that occurred during the jury’s deliberations; the effect of anything on that juror’s or another juror’s vote; or any juror’s mental processes concerning the verdict or indictment. The court may not receive a juror’s affidavit or evidence of a juror’s statement on these matters.

(2) Exceptions. A juror may testify about whether:

(A) extraneous prejudicial information was improperly brought to the jury’s attention;

(B) an outside influence was improperly brought to bear on any juror; or

(C) a mistake was made in entering the verdict on the verdict form.
Click to expand...

The total time this jury deliberated was only 8 hours. To try to impugn that verdict would require that the foreperson had done A, B or C above. The Cult of Dirtbag is, as usual, grasping at straws.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom