Roger Stone's Time in the Barrel

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not a fan of Roger Stone. Given what is coming out about the jury, particularly the jury foreperson who actually posted derogatory information on social media regarding Roger Stone BEFORE the trial, the verdict should be thrown out. This is egregious. This person should have never been accepted as a juror.

Stone already petitioned the judge to do that and the judge said no.

And, now that evidence of a lack of impartiality on the part of the foreperson has been revealed along with the fact that one juror was a member of the Obama admin, this decision should be revisited.

Are you arguing the same for Mitch McConnell, Lindsay Graham, Jim Jordan, and all of the other dirty republicans who proclaimed loudly on every outlet that they would acquit him before hearing ANY evidence?

If you aren’t, not only are you hypocritical, but you’re a threat to the stability of our country by willfully bending the constitution to support ONE GUILTY MAN.

Him = Trump

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not a fan of Roger Stone. Given what is coming out about the jury, particularly the jury foreperson who actually posted derogatory information on social media regarding Roger Stone BEFORE the trial, the verdict should be thrown out. This is egregious. This person should have never been accepted as a juror.

Stone already petitioned the judge to do that and the judge said no.

And, now that evidence of a lack of impartiality on the part of the foreperson has been revealed along with the fact that one juror was a member of the Obama admin, this decision should be revisited.

Why?

Half the senate repos were co-conspirators with donald. Several said they had already made up their minds before it even started. That didn’t bother you any. So cut it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not a fan of Roger Stone. Given what is coming out about the jury, particularly the jury foreperson who actually posted derogatory information on social media regarding Roger Stone BEFORE the trial, the verdict should be thrown out. This is egregious. This person should have never been accepted as a juror.

Stone already petitioned the judge to do that and the judge said no.

And, now that evidence of a lack of impartiality on the part of the foreperson has been revealed along with the fact that one juror was a member of the Obama admin, this decision should be revisited.

You think the judge didn’t know that?

Neither someone being a member of the Obama administration or donating to a random Democratic candidate (that the latter has even been mentioned as disqualifying is farcical) is even remotely disqualifying unless they lied about it. For marginal cases like the former, Stone had strikes that he could have used and didn't. There's no way the juror's former occupation didn't come up on the jury questionnaire in this kind of trial. In terms of the foreperson, if she actually made statements on FB indicating that she thought Stone was guilty (and I have no idea if she did or not), that could be a problem if she was asked questions that should have elicited that information and she didn't provide it OR she lied about it. If she was not asked any questions related to the postings, it will not be deemed relevant (otherwise it would incentivize lawyers not to ask questions and then to sandbag after the fact). If she did mention the postings or the information the postings conveyed, no problem if defense didn't object at the time. IF they did object and she was seated over their objection, some chance of an issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not a fan of Roger Stone. Given what is coming out about the jury, particularly the jury foreperson who actually posted derogatory information on social media regarding Roger Stone BEFORE the trial, the verdict should be thrown out. This is egregious. This person should have never been accepted as a juror.

Stone already petitioned the judge to do that and the judge said no.

And, now that evidence of a lack of impartiality on the part of the foreperson has been revealed along with the fact that one juror was a member of the Obama admin, this decision should be revisited.

You think the judge didn’t know that?

This was the foreperson's testimony about her knowledge of Roger Stone. In actuality, she posted on social media about the Russia investigation and mocked the arrest of Stone. She lied.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not a fan of Roger Stone. Given what is coming out about the jury, particularly the jury foreperson who actually posted derogatory information on social media regarding Roger Stone BEFORE the trial, the verdict should be thrown out. This is egregious. This person should have never been accepted as a juror.

Stone already petitioned the judge to do that and the judge said no.

And, now that evidence of a lack of impartiality on the part of the foreperson has been revealed along with the fact that one juror was a member of the Obama admin, this decision should be revisited.

You think the judge didn’t know that?

This was the foreperson's testimony about her knowledge of Roger Stone. In actuality, she posted on social media about the Russia investigation and mocked the arrest of Stone. She lied.

Everybody heard about the arrest of Stone. That doesn't mean a lot of knowledge. It means they own a TV.

[Anonymous]

Double Standard much?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not a fan of Roger Stone. Given what is coming out about the jury, particularly the jury foreperson who actually posted derogatory information on social media regarding Roger Stone BEFORE the trial, the verdict should be thrown out. This is egregious. This person should have never been accepted as a juror.

Stone already petitioned the judge to do that and the judge said no.

And, now that evidence of a lack of impartiality on the part of the foreperson has been revealed along with the fact that one juror was a member of the Obama admin, this decision should be revisited.

Are you arguing the same for Mitch McConnell, Lindsay Graham, Jim Jordan, and all of the other dirty republicans who proclaimed loudly on every outlet that they would acquit him before hearing ANY evidence?

If you aren’t, not only are you hypocritical, but you’re a threat to the stability of our country by willfully bending the constitution to support ONE GUILTY MAN.

Tell you what.... I will entertain your whataboutism by saying that if we are going to argue that the folks you have listed above were not impartial, then we must argue that the 90+ democrats who voted for impeachment back in July, 2019 (the third time this was attempted) could not have possibly been impartial. Nor could the Democratic Senators who were actually running for the president's job - Warren, Sanders, Klobuchar, Booker, or Harris.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not a fan of Roger Stone. Given what is coming out about the jury, particularly the jury foreperson who actually posted derogatory information on social media regarding Roger Stone BEFORE the trial, the verdict should be thrown out. This is egregious. This person should have never been accepted as a juror.

Stone already petitioned the judge to do that and the judge said no.

And, now that evidence of a lack of impartiality on the part of the foreperson has been revealed along with the fact that one juror was a member of the Obama admin, this decision should be revisited.

You think the judge didn’t know that?

Neither someone being a member of the Obama administration or donating to a random Democratic candidate (that the latter has even been mentioned as disqualifying is farcical) is even remotely disqualifying unless they lied about it. For marginal cases like the former, Stone had strikes that he could have used and didn't. There's no way the juror's former occupation didn't come up on the jury questionnaire in this kind of trial. In terms of the foreperson, if she actually made statements on FB indicating that she thought Stone was guilty (and I have no idea if she did or not), that could be a problem if she was asked questions that should have elicited that information and she didn't provide it OR she lied about it. If she was not asked any questions related to the postings, it will not be deemed relevant (otherwise it would incentivize lawyers not to ask questions and then to sandbag after the fact). If she did mention the postings or the information the postings conveyed, no problem if defense didn't object at the time. IF they did object and she was seated over their objection, some chance of an issue.

The defense tried to have her stricken as a juror, but the judge allowed her. Speaks volumes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not a fan of Roger Stone. Given what is coming out about the jury, particularly the jury foreperson who actually posted derogatory information on social media regarding Roger Stone BEFORE the trial, the verdict should be thrown out. This is egregious. This person should have never been accepted as a juror.

Stone already petitioned the judge to do that and the judge said no.

And, now that evidence of a lack of impartiality on the part of the foreperson has been revealed along with the fact that one juror was a member of the Obama admin, this decision should be revisited.

You think the judge didn’t know that?

Neither someone being a member of the Obama administration or donating to a random Democratic candidate (that the latter has even been mentioned as disqualifying is farcical) is even remotely disqualifying unless they lied about it. For marginal cases like the former, Stone had strikes that he could have used and didn't. There's no way the juror's former occupation didn't come up on the jury questionnaire in this kind of trial. In terms of the foreperson, if she actually made statements on FB indicating that she thought Stone was guilty (and I have no idea if she did or not), that could be a problem if she was asked questions that should have elicited that information and she didn't provide it OR she lied about it. If she was not asked any questions related to the postings, it will not be deemed relevant (otherwise it would incentivize lawyers not to ask questions and then to sandbag after the fact). If she did mention the postings or the information the postings conveyed, no problem if defense didn't object at the time. IF they did object and she was seated over their objection, some chance of an issue.

The defense tried to have her stricken as a juror, but the judge allowed her. Speaks volumes.

The judge was more than fair to Stone all through his trial. That speaks volumes (but not to you).

He was convicted, now he gets to be sentenced. Even if he's besties with the prez.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not a fan of Roger Stone. Given what is coming out about the jury, particularly the jury foreperson who actually posted derogatory information on social media regarding Roger Stone BEFORE the trial, the verdict should be thrown out. This is egregious. This person should have never been accepted as a juror.

Stone already petitioned the judge to do that and the judge said no.

And, now that evidence of a lack of impartiality on the part of the foreperson has been revealed along with the fact that one juror was a member of the Obama admin, this decision should be revisited.

Are you arguing the same for Mitch McConnell, Lindsay Graham, Jim Jordan, and all of the other dirty republicans who proclaimed loudly on every outlet that they would acquit him before hearing ANY evidence?

If you aren’t, not only are you hypocritical, but you’re a threat to the stability of our country by willfully bending the constitution to support ONE GUILTY MAN.

Tell you what.... I will entertain your whataboutism by saying that if we are going to argue that the folks you have listed above were not impartial, then we must argue that the 90+ democrats who voted for impeachment back in July, 2019 (the third time this was attempted) could not have possibly been impartial. Nor could the Democratic Senators who were actually running for the president's job - Warren, Sanders, Klobuchar, Booker, or Harris.

The Republican Party position is that only Republicans can judge Republicans and only Republicans can judge Democrats.
Most Republicans also believe that only whites can judge whites and only whites can judge blacks and Latinos.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not a fan of Roger Stone. Given what is coming out about the jury, particularly the jury foreperson who actually posted derogatory information on social media regarding Roger Stone BEFORE the trial, the verdict should be thrown out. This is egregious. This person should have never been accepted as a juror.

Stone already petitioned the judge to do that and the judge said no.

And, now that evidence of a lack of impartiality on the part of the foreperson has been revealed along with the fact that one juror was a member of the Obama admin, this decision should be revisited.

Are you arguing the same for Mitch McConnell, Lindsay Graham, Jim Jordan, and all of the other dirty republicans who proclaimed loudly on every outlet that they would acquit him before hearing ANY evidence?

If you aren’t, not only are you hypocritical, but you’re a threat to the stability of our country by willfully bending the constitution to support ONE GUILTY MAN.

Tell you what.... I will entertain your whataboutism by saying that if we are going to argue that the folks you have listed above were not impartial, then we must argue that the 90+ democrats who voted for impeachment back in July, 2019 (the third time this was attempted) could not have possibly been impartial. Nor could the Democratic Senators who were actually running for the president's job - Warren, Sanders, Klobuchar, Booker, or Harris.

The Republican Party position is that only Republicans can judge Republicans and only Republicans can judge Democrats.
Most Republicans also believe that only whites can judge whites and only whites can judge blacks and Latinos.

And only some guilty people are actually guilty. The others should have their guilty pleas/convictions overturned and their cases thrown out...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not a fan of Roger Stone. Given what is coming out about the jury, particularly the jury foreperson who actually posted derogatory information on social media regarding Roger Stone BEFORE the trial, the verdict should be thrown out. This is egregious. This person should have never been accepted as a juror.

Stone already petitioned the judge to do that and the judge said no.

And, now that evidence of a lack of impartiality on the part of the foreperson has been revealed along with the fact that one juror was a member of the Obama admin, this decision should be revisited.

No, the attorneys at the time had the opportunity to knock the jurors our during the selection process. Apparently none of these people hid their employment or views. Having sat as a juror and potential juror a number of times, I know the questions the judge and attorneys ask, it all would have been disclosed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not a fan of Roger Stone. Given what is coming out about the jury, particularly the jury foreperson who actually posted derogatory information on social media regarding Roger Stone BEFORE the trial, the verdict should be thrown out. This is egregious. This person should have never been accepted as a juror.

Stone already petitioned the judge to do that and the judge said no.

And, now that evidence of a lack of impartiality on the part of the foreperson has been revealed along with the fact that one juror was a member of the Obama admin, this decision should be revisited.

Are you arguing the same for Mitch McConnell, Lindsay Graham, Jim Jordan, and all of the other dirty republicans who proclaimed loudly on every outlet that they would acquit him before hearing ANY evidence?

If you aren’t, not only are you hypocritical, but you’re a threat to the stability of our country by willfully bending the constitution to support ONE GUILTY MAN.

Tell you what.... I will entertain your whataboutism by saying that if we are going to argue that the folks you have listed above were not impartial, then we must argue that the 90+ democrats who voted for impeachment back in July, 2019 (the third time this was attempted) could not have possibly been impartial. Nor could the Democratic Senators who were actually running for the president's job - Warren, Sanders, Klobuchar, Booker, or Harris.

PP here. You don’t have to entertain anything. That’s not your job. Facts aren’t entertainment.

You’re saying it was impartial to declare innocent before a hearing? Just wanna be clear. For the record.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not a fan of Roger Stone. Given what is coming out about the jury, particularly the jury foreperson who actually posted derogatory information on social media regarding Roger Stone BEFORE the trial, the verdict should be thrown out. This is egregious. This person should have never been accepted as a juror.

Stone already petitioned the judge to do that and the judge said no.

And, now that evidence of a lack of impartiality on the part of the foreperson has been revealed along with the fact that one juror was a member of the Obama admin, this decision should be revisited.

No, the attorneys at the time had the opportunity to knock the jurors our during the selection process. Apparently none of these people hid their employment or views. Having sat as a juror and potential juror a number of times, I know the questions the judge and attorneys ask, it all would have been disclosed.

Dirty dice GOP is just throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks. They’re desperate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Double Standard much?

Always.