Anonymous wrote:Giant banner at the Post right now: BREAKING: Attorney General William P. Barr says Trump's tweets make it ‘impossible for me to do my job’

Anonymous wrote:This thread shows "the rest of the transcript" where Stone's attorney is aware that the juror is a democrat with political aspirations and decides NOT to strike despite the knowledge.

Really, there was nothing opaque or out of the ordinary about this process, other than, perhaps, bad lawyering.

Anonymous wrote:This is going to be an overturned conviction.


He's going to walk.

Anonymous wrote:If this woman had not stepped in to defend the prosecutors, we would likely not have been reading her tweets.

Roger Stone is guilty. The time suggested by the prosecutors was way over the top.

Now, let's do Comey and Clapper for lying to Congress.

Anonymous wrote:Tomeka Hart, the juror in question, said she didn't watch C-Span on her questionnaire..

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EQrOgRcWAAMKCGQ?format=jpg&name=900x900" border="0" class="embeddedImage" />

She said she didn't pay close attention to political news.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EQrTz2_WsA0VueE?format=jpg&name=900x900" border="0" class="embeddedImage" />

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EQrTz3AWkAEx4GV?format=jpg&name=900x900" border="0" class="embeddedImage" />

Anonymous wrote:And then they take an oath of impartiality, just like the Senators did. Are you saying the Senators lied too?

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.

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.

And, the defense objected to accepting these jurors. They TRIED to have them knocked out. The judge allowed them to be jurors. Tell me how this works again........

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.

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.

And, the defense objected to accepting these jurors. They TRIED to have them knocked out. The judge allowed them to be jurors. Tell me how this works again........

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.