I'll ask again, why? I went through most of your points a couple of pages ago,
here, and you never responded. You never showed that any jurors did not judge the case fairly. No one in the DoJ (that I've seen), or Pres. Trump, ever claimed the trial wasn't a fair one. Instead, we have Right wing media claiming all these various people had bias, based on political positions they have (and maybe do) support, but not one single shred of evidence that the trial was not conducted fairly and impartially. The most some in the DoJ didn't like, and that the President didn't like, was the prosecutors' sentencing recommendation; and the Judge didn't use their recommendation.
So, exactly how was the trial not fair? Exactly what evidence is there that the trial was unfair -- not biases of people participating -- but actual events that occurred during the trial that may have changed the verdict? The even stranger thing to me, it seems most here don't dispute that Stone would be found guilty, in a trial that you would believe is fair, and that he received a fair sentence. So exactly what would this new trial do, how would it make any difference other than waste time and money?
