Judge denies Roger Stone's motion to disqualify her

[OpportunityCost]

The term "reasonable doubt" can NOT be stretched to include "a doubt based on a potential possibility that is so wildly unlikely that no rational person could or would act on it" - which is what you are attempting to stretch it out into.

For example, when doing a "DNA match" it is POSSIBLE that a person MIGHT match the evidentiary DNA but NOT be the source of the evidentiary DNA, but the odds (if you accept a 9 of 13 match as being a "match") would be roughly 1 in 13,000,000,000 that that would happen.

Using your model, the fact that there were 12,999,999,999 chances that the evidentiary DNA did come from the person supplying the DNA sample and only 1 chance that it did NOT, would not amount to "proof beyond a reasonable doubt".

The chances she lied during her comments to the court are closer to 1 to 1.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

He won't pardon him, because if he does, Stone can be subpoenaed and he won't be able to plead the 5th, and know that his advisors have told him this.

Since Mr. Stone is 100% innocent of even the slightest bit or wrongdoing and was not even the slightest bit connected with anything that Mr. Trump did (and I know this because both Mr. Stone and Mr. Trump have said that it is true), then any "pleading the 5th" would be a clear case of "obstruction of justice" since there would not have been any actions which could even potentially have been illegal that Mr. Stone either did or knew about.

Right?

PS - Once convicted, there is no further possibility of being "incriminated" is there?

 

[MTAtech]

Trump barely knows Roger Stone so there is nothing for him to lie about Trump for.

Like he barely knew Michael Cohen.
Like he didn't know Len Parnas.
Like he didn't know Jeffrey Epstein.
...
People Trump knows and then claimed he didn't: Photos - Business Insider

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Ethical considerations start with the appearance of impropiety. You would have us make repeated assumptions about what she did or didn't, well it's irrelevant if it even looks like she wasn't straight on even one question....well, you know the rest.

Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk

Indeed, the most important things in American politics today are "gET HIm re-eleCted Somehow" and "MOre Retirement And financiaL benefitS for me".

 

[Visbek]

Lie. She didn't mention the story she read and retweeted.

:roll:

There was no lie. You accused her of "denial about knowing any details of the case," and she made no such denial.

Knowing about the case is not, in any way shape or form, any sort of problem. It certainly doesn't indicate any sort of bias. She openly stated that she pays attention to the news. Nor does Tweeting something mean that months later, you're going to have total and absolute recall of every detail of the case.

You're just clutching at straws, and in doing so exhibiting your own bias. Nice.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Indeed, the most important things in American politics today are "gET HIm re-eleCted Somehow" and "MOre Retirement And financiaL benefitS for me".

Deflection noted and dismissed.

 

[OpportunityCost]

:roll:

There was no lie. You accused her of "denial about knowing any details of the case," and she made no such denial.

Knowing about the case is not, in any way shape or form, any sort of problem. It certainly doesn't indicate any sort of bias. She openly stated that she pays attention to the news. Nor does Tweeting something mean that months later, you're going to have total and absolute recall of every detail of the case.

You're just clutching at straws, and in doing so exhibiting your own bias. Nice.

So nothing that I can recall specifically. I do watch sometimes paying attention but sometimes in the background CNN. So I recall just hearing about him being part of the campaign and some belief or reporting around interaction with the Russian probe and interaction with him and people in the country, but I don't have a whole lot of details. I don't pay that close attention or watch C-SPAN.

If a Trump associate were saying "not that I recall" about something they read about, tweeted about, and commented on again, you would have no problem whatsoever saying they were lying. What was that about bias?

Before anyone goes after the bias issue again, I don't care a farthing about Stone, but jurors who aren't being honest and forthright during the selection process cuts the heart out of due process. That, I care about.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

OMG, LOL
We will see shortly whether a new trial will be granted.

I have no doubt that a new trial will be granted IF the matter cannot be otherwise dragged out until AFTER the November 2020 elections. AFTER the 2020 elections there will no longer be any need for a new trial.

In a criminal case if there was one juror that voted to acquit and the other 11 voted to convict, that is a hung jury. The judge would order the jurors to continue deliberations until an anonymous decision can be made (of course an agreement between all 12 jurors is not always the case). If there is no agreement between the 12, yes the government has the right to re-try the case.

Let me preface this with an apology for posting (previously) without a sufficient caffeine and nicotine blood level.

In federal trials that is, indeed, the case.

Your position appears to be that because 1 of the 12 persons who voted to convict might have been "biased against the Defendant" then the votes from the other 11 jurors (who might have been "biased for the defendant" but simply did their sworn duty and voted to convict based solely on the facts) simply do not count.

By extension, that would mean in the case of an acquittal, where 1 of the 12 persons who voted to acquit might have been "biased for the Defendant" then the votes from the other 11 jurors (who might have been "biased against the Defendant" but simply did their sworn duty and voted to acquit based solely on the facts) simply should not count and the Prosecution should be entitled - as of right - to a new trial.

 

[Visbek]

If a Trump associate were saying "not that I recall" about something they read about, tweeted about, and commented on again, you would have no problem whatsoever saying they were lying. What was that about bias?

:roll:

Before anyone goes after the bias issue again, I don't care a farthing about Stone, but jurors who aren't being honest and forthright during the selection process cuts the heart out of due process. That, I care about.

:lamo

No, dude, just no. If you cared about due process, you'd hammer on Stone for his repeated violations of the court's instructions, for his attempts to silence a witness in a federal investigation, his attempts to intimidate the federal judge presiding over his case, not to mention an entire career spent subverting our nation's legal and electoral systems.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

To answer your question, yea really. These are rights guaranteed in the Sixth Amendment, the right to a trial by an impartial jury.

Firstly - "Impartial" and "ignorant" do NOT mean the same thing.

Secondly - since the usual process that you see in a real trial is

1. indictment/impeachment;
2. Prosecution opening statement that summarizes what the Prosecution evidence will be (when it is presented) and what the Prosecution evidence will prove (once it has been presented);
3. Defence opening statement that summarizes what the Defence evidence will be (when it is presented) and what the Defence evidence will prove (once it has been presented);
4. Presentation of evidence by the Prosecution;
5. Cross-examination of Prosecution evidence by the Defence;
6. Presentation of evidence by the Defence;
7. Cross-examination of Defence evidence by the Prosecution;
8. Prosecution closing statement that summarizes what the evidence was (or was not) and what the evidence proved (or didn't prove);
9. Defence closing statement that summarizes what the evidence was (or was not) and what the evidence proved (or didn't prove);
10. Court instructions to the Trier of Fact as to what the law is and what the duties of the Trier of Fact are;
11. Impartial Trier of Fact deliberation on what the evidence was (or was not) and what the evidence proved (or didn't prove);
12. NON-predetermined decision of guilt or innocence.

and what happened in Mr. Trump’s impeachment trial was

1. indictment/impeachment;
2. Prosecution opening statement that summarizes what the Prosecution evidence will be (when it is presented) and what the Prosecution evidence will prove (once it has been presented);
3. Defence opening statement that summarizes what the Defence evidence will be (when it is presented) and what the Defence evidence will prove (once it has been presented);
4. -Presentation of evidence by the Prosecution-;
5. -Cross-examination of Prosecution evidence by the Defence-;
6. -Presentation of evidence by the Defence-;
7. -Cross-examination of Defence evidence by the Prosecution-;
8. Prosecution closing statement that summarizes what the evidence -was (or was not)- would have been and what the evidence would have proved (or didn't prove) had there been any;
9. Defence closing statement that summarizes what the evidence -was (or was not)- would have been and what the evidence would have proved (or didn't prove) had there been any;
10. -Court instructions to the Trier of Fact as to what the law is and what the duties of the Trier of Fact are-;
11. -Impartial Trier of Fact deliberation on what the evidence was (or was not) and what the evidence proved (or didn't prove)-;
12. -NON--predetermined decision of -guilt or- innocence.

and since the MAJORITY of the "Triers of Fact" in Mr. Trump's impeachment trial made it perfectly clear that they were going to acquit BEFORE any evidence was actually presented, does that mean that the Senate of the United States of America violated Mr. Trump's Sixth Amendment Rights by NOT providing an "impartial jury"?

Or is that simply another case of "But, but - but ... That's DIFFERENT!!!"?

 

[OpportunityCost]

:roll:



:lamo

No, dude, just no. If you cared about due process, you'd hammer on Stone for his repeated violations of the court's instructions, for his attempts to silence a witness in a federal investigation, his attempts to intimidate the federal judge presiding over his case, not to mention an entire career spent subverting our nation's legal and electoral systems.

I agree entirely. Stone did violate court instructions. He did attempt to silence a witness. That doesn't excuse a juror from not being completely honest with the court.

 

[JasperL]

Lie. She didn't mention the story she read and retweeted.

You mean she didn't specifically recall and then highlight reading an NPR article 10 months prior to voir dire!!!

LIAR!!!

 

[OpportunityCost]

You mean she didn't specifically recall and then highlight reading an NPR article 10 months prior to voir dire!!!

LIAR!!!

No. She says she didn't. It challenges her suitability as an impartial juror.

 

[Anthony60]

LOL! In order to assert that, you have to lie. I love irony like that.

You cannot cite anywhere that I've lied and you cannot cite any credible evidence that suggests any juror misconduct.

NICE fail.

Yeah, sure. Your fail.


Sent from my iPhone XX Turbo using Tapacrap

 

[Anthony60]

Seems to be the end game with the mobster bunch.

Lighten up, Francis.


Sent from my iPhone XX Turbo using Tapacrap

 

[JasperL]

No. She says she didn't. It challenges her suitability as an impartial juror.

Yes, clearly, because I'm sure you can cite all the articles you read 10 months ago, and remember all the details that if you're like me might be 1000-1500 articles over the past year or so, that I've read all or part of though links here, Twitter, and browsing other news sites! And obviously like me you can recall all your thousands of posts in the last 10 months. Of course everyone can and this juror "forgetting" reading an article that had nothing more than the summary of the indictment of Roger Stone means she's a damned LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR!!

Makes perfect sense and I'm quite sure the courts will make a similar assumption.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Yeah, sure. Your fail.


Sent from my iPhone XX Turbo using Tapacrap

It's OK you couldn't back up your claim yet again.

Hope you're enjoying your fail.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Yes, clearly, because I'm sure you can cite all the articles you read 10 months ago, and remember all the details that if you're like me might be 1000-1500 articles over the past year or so, that I've read all or part of though links here, Twitter, and browsing other news sites! And obviously like me you can recall all your thousands of posts in the last 10 months. Of course everyone can and this juror "forgetting" reading an article that had nothing more than the summary of the indictment of Roger Stone means she's a damned LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR!!

Makes perfect sense and I'm quite sure the courts will make a similar assumption.

I'm sure I couldn't recall anything at all about a subject of a political nature where I was being asked to decide a man's life. Don't you think that would jog the memory a bit?

Stop being asinine about my position and I will think about taking yours seriously.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

He won't pardon him, because if he does, Stone can be subpoenaed and he won't be able to plead the 5th, and know that his advisors have told him this.

Excellent point! I had forgotten that. Someone who is pardoned no longer has 5th amendment protections.

 

[JasperL]

I'm sure I couldn't recall anything at all about a subject of a political nature where I was being asked to decide a man's life. Don't you think that would jog the memory a bit?

It might, or it might be one of 1,500 articles you read, and you tell the court you know a little about Stone, and the allegations, he was part of the Trump campaign, him dealing with Russia or something, but not a lot, and, here's the key part, IT IS THE TRUTH.

It's not even a little bit interesting she didn't mention AN article she might have read or not 10 months before voir dire, because who the hell cares? If she'd admitted to it, it changes nothing at all, zero, because reading an article does not in any way show bias, pro or con. His friends read about the case, his enemies, those indifferent to him, 10s of millions of us read AN article about Stone's arrest. It shows nothing of interest to anyone at all.

You've connected these dots:

1) She probably read some part of an article she tweeted a link to in January 2019. That's all the knowledge she's indicated in an extensive social media history, thousands of tweets.
2) In Nov. 2019 she didn't mention that article, and said she didn't know much about the case.
=======================> LIAR!!!!!@!

Stop being asinine about my position and I will think about taking yours seriously.

I'm being sarcastic because your position assumes she's a liar, based on no facts. Seriously - being exposed to or even reading AN article at some point about a case simply doesn't indicate anything more than.....she read AN article at some point about the case. That's it. All the rest is your imagination.

 

[OpportunityCost]

It might, or it might be one of 1,500 articles you read, and you tell the court you know a little about Stone, and the allegations, he was part of the Trump campaign, him dealing with Russia or something, but not a lot, and, here's the key part, IT IS THE TRUTH.

It's not even a little bit interesting she didn't mention AN article she might have read or not 10 months before voir dire, because who the hell cares? If she'd admitted to it, it changes nothing at all, zero, because reading an article does not in any way show bias, pro or con. His friends read about the case, his enemies, those indifferent to him, 10s of millions of us read AN article about Stone's arrest. It shows nothing of interest to anyone at all.

You've connected these dots:

1) She probably read some part of an article she tweeted a link to in January 2019. That's all the knowledge she's indicated in an extensive social media history, thousands of tweets.
2) In Nov. 2019 she didn't mention that article, and said she didn't know much about the case.
=======================> LIAR!!!!!@!



I'm being sarcastic because your position assumes she's a liar, based on no facts. Seriously - being exposed to or even reading AN article at some point about a case simply doesn't indicate anything more than.....she read AN article at some point about the case. That's it. All the rest is your imagination.

Nope, all that there has to be is the possibility she is and she withheld information she should have provided. You keep swinging out to the widest possible thing I am saying, deliberately misrepresenting what I am saying and then mocking that far position. In an ethical consideration, just presenting that she talked about this, but didn't reveal it to the court is an ethical lapse.

We don't know for sure she lied about remembering that, but if I were suddenly called to be a juror about a political case, it would cause me to remember things I said or posted online regarding it.

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

Nope, all that there has to be is the possibility she is and she withheld information she should have provided.

She answered all of the questions she was asked. If you (or Stone) think she lied, that's on you to prove.

You keep swinging out to the widest possible thing I am saying, deliberately misrepresenting what I am saying and then mocking that far position. In an ethical consideration, just presenting that she talked about this, but didn't reveal it to the court is an ethical lapse.

No, it's not. For it to be an "ethical lapse", youd have to prove she intended to withhold anything from the court.

We don't know for sure she lied about remembering that, but if I were suddenly called to be a juror about a political case, it would cause me to remember things I said or posted online regarding it.

There is quite a lot of legal precedent regarding the granting of new trials. "Possible" juror bias isn't enough - you have to prove actual bias.

 

[OpportunityCost]

She answered all of the questions she was asked. If you (or Stone) think she lied, that's on you to prove.

She didn't reveal pertinent information then claimed to have not remembered it.

No, it's not. For it to be an "ethical lapse", youd have to prove she intended to withhold anything from the court.

Ethical considerations are largely about the possibility of impropriety. Something can be accidental but will look extremely bad and be considered ethically bad.

There is quite a lot of legal precedent regarding the granting of new trials. "Possible" juror bias isn't enough - you have to prove actual bias.

Again, if her voir dire has some things not revealed for whatever reason, it puts more scrutiny on her impartiality. An appeal of going to happen one way or the other, but this incident could be listed as one of the grounds for appeal. Which is why it serves everyone to be as truthful as possible about their foreknowledge of the case in question. I do not believe she was. I also think if she were biased the other direction you would have zero problems seeing it.

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

She didn't reveal pertinent information then claimed to have not remembered it.

This didn't actually happen. You know that, right? The voir dire transcripts have been posted numerous times.

Ethical considerations are largely about the possibility of impropriety. Something can be accidental but will look extremely bad and be considered ethically bad.

During voir dire, the possibility of impropriety is sufficient reason to disqualify a juror. Each side can even challenge a certain number of jurors without any cause at all.

But the trial is over. The jury returned a verdict. It takes a much higher standard of proof to overturn that verdict than just the "possibility of impropriety".

Again, if her voir dire has some things not revealed for whatever reason, it puts more scrutiny on her impartiality. An appeal of going to happen one way or the other, but this incident could be listed as one of the grounds for appeal. Which is why it serves everyone to be as truthful as possible about their foreknowledge of the case in question. I do not believe she was. I also think if she were biased the other direction you would have zero problems seeing it.

It came out today in court that Stone's lawyers didn't even bother to Google the juror's names before starting voir dire.

I guess Stone could argue that his counsel was so incompetent that he was denied a fair trial.

 

[Paradoxical]

Nah. Reality. You made a claim that you can't back up. By not doing so, you're running away from it. Fun!

Enjoy your fantasy!

Projection reigns supreme in your world.