Roger Stone's Time in the Barrel

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

+1. Federal prosecutors don’t seek sentences below the federal guidelines, which are set by Congress, for defendants who don’t plead guilty and/or provide substantial cooperation. Stone did the opposite. This is basic stuff.

You forget--the "victim" said that he did not take Stone's threat seriously. That was the basis of asking for the higher penalty.

And, this was a first time offender. They usually take that into consideration, as well. No danger to society.

Meanwhile, Comey and Clapper and Brennan are still walking free.

"First time offender" GTFOH. Have you ever read any profiles on Roger Stone? The man is a walking sleazebag of corruption.

No danger to society? He's an absolute menace to our democratic institutions. You're one of those who think it's okay for cops to inflict the death penalty on a man selling cigarettes illegally on the street but say nothing when the white collar crooks who ruined our economy in the great recession walk away without so much as a slap on the wrist.

[Anonymous]

Question--what is this stuff about Stone's "advanced age" and "failing health"?

The guy is 67. I'm 65 and work fulltime. The only thing I've found about him having medical problems is that he had a spell of possible food poisoning during jury selection. He also claimed that the Russians poisoned him with a radioactive substance in 2016. What else is there?

[Anonymous]

Juror 1261: https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/483210-juror-1261-in-roger-stones-case-was-justice-undone

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Juror 1261: https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/483210-juror-1261-in-roger-stones-case-was-justice-undone

Stones lawyers know who she was and still allowed her to be a juror. They didn’t fight to get her off.

[Anonymous]

Excatly. The whole thing was by the book.

[Anonymous]

Explain why his own lawyers would allow juror 1261. I find it shocking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Explain why his own lawyers would allow juror 1261. I find it shocking.

Either because they wanted it in the back pocket to try for a mistrial later or because they were wholly incompetent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Explain why his own lawyers would allow juror 1261. I find it shocking.

Either because they wanted it in the back pocket to try for a mistrial later or because they were wholly incompetent.

Or Roger has always known he's not going to jail. The more reasons they can give Trump to say it was "unfair" the better.

[Anonymous]

Why didn't the prosecutors strike juror 1261, or even the judge? Why didn't the other jurors complain to the judge? Is the foreperson such a tyrant that it sways the verdict? This is an outrage every which way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why didn't the prosecutors strike juror 1261, or even the judge? Why didn't the other jurors complain to the judge? Is the foreperson such a tyrant that it sways the verdict? This is an outrage every which way.

How many cases have you tried?

[Anonymous]

The greatest crisis the USA faces is the jury crisis. Who in his right mind would request a jury trial today with the current crop of potential jurors?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The greatest crisis the USA faces is the jury crisis. Who in his right mind would request a jury trial today with the current crop of potential jurors?

Lol

Good one.

[Anonymous]

So much lack of justice everywhere today, I rate this a 2/10. Yawn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So much lack of justice everywhere today, I rate this a 2/10. Yawn.

I'm not even sure what you're referring to here. Stone being arrested by a SWAT team? Being convicted? The sentencing recommendation of 7-9 years or the unusual revised recommendation of less? The juror?

February 27 will be interesting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why didn't the prosecutors strike juror 1261, or even the judge? Why didn't the other jurors complain to the judge? Is the foreperson such a tyrant that it sways the verdict? This is an outrage every which way.

The foreperson does not sway the vote. Apparently, you have never served on a jury. It isn't up to the judge to strike, what it otherwise a normal process. Both attorneys have the opportunity to strike and remove potential jurors for ANY reason they wish.