Obama judge denies Roger Stone request's for retrial amid increasing evidence of jury bias

[NightHawkeye]

If what were the case (that we achieve BR status?) and which opinion? The question as it stands is too vague to be answered accurately.

Not sure why you can't answer your own question. Maybe I didn't understand your question.

 

[DaisyDay]

Not sure why you can't answer your own question.

The first post you quoted had none and the second asked "if what were the case?" and "which opinion?" - of course, I can't answer that because I don't know what you were referring to which is why I asked. I don't know why you can't clarify your own statement.

Maybe I didn't understand your question.

Which one - when I asked "what question" and "which opinion"? How is that not clear? Why don't you just say what question and which opinion you yourself were referring to instead of playing this weird game - it is tiresome.

 

[Belk]

You don't think that's what happens when they know the writing is on the wall? Resign or quit before you get fired?

No. I'm fairly certain they actually leave the department, not simply resign from the case such as three of them did. You know, in protest of the justice department showing blatant favoritism to someone close to the president. Or do you not believe that this is what favoritism looks like?

 

[TLK Valentine]

They withdrew from the case after Attorney General Barr meddled in it.

Sounds like they quit because they refused to participate in misconduct.

 

[Tom 1]

Does that include Roger Stone, Michael Flynn and Donald John?
No, but there should be a credible basis for investigating, prosecuting and judging - not simply that someone opposed or criticized the president. People should not be investigated, prosecuted and judged for telling the truth and doing their jobs according to the laws and statutes. They should not be hounded out of office for belonging to the wrong party.

Clinton was subjected to countless investigations, the last one that was announced, contrary to policy, two weeks before the election probably cost her the election as that was the point where her poll numbers crashed. Donald observed that and has sought to repeat it with Biden, even though there is no credible basis to investigate let alone prejudge him guilty.

This judge is not the first one that Donald has disparaged for trying to do their job without favoritism. Who says she has not been "held accountable" for her actions? What does that even mean when her actions have been reasonable and above board, but not in Donald's favor?

I see that Barr has had the temerity to point out how Trump’s childish tweets make his job difficult. Perhaps he’ll be the next candidate for tarring and feathering, with a good dose of slander thrown in.

 

[Bobber]

I see that Barr has had the temerity to point out how Trump’s childish tweets make his job difficult.

Just for the record Barr didn't say they were childish. You did.

"To have public statements and tweets made about the department, about people in the department, our men and women here, about cases pending in the department and about judges before whom we have cases, make it impossible for me to do my job," Barr said, "and to assure the courts and the prosecutors in the department that we're doing our work with integrity."

He also said,

"The fact that the tweets are out there and correspond to things we're doing at the department sort of give grist to the mill and that's why I think it's time to stop the tweeting about the Department of Justice criminal cases," Barr said.

William Barr says Trump's tweets about DOJ cases make it 'impossible to do my job - CNNPolitics

As for the substance of how Trump feels Barr apparently already felt the same way and has documents to prove it long before the tweet so....It's not to say he thinks the President's way of thinking about it is wrong.

Perhaps he’ll be the next candidate for tarring and feathering, with a good dose of slander thrown in.

Well we'll see. Or maybe we might be surprised to see that Trump might come around to agree with him. That is if he wants to have conversation about things they can do it privately.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Just for the record Barr didn't say they were childish. You did.

"To have public statements and tweets made about the department, about people in the department, our men and women here, about cases pending in the department and about judges before whom we have cases, make it impossible for me to do my job," Barr said,

If Barr is finding it difficult to do his job and appease Donald, Donald can always alleviate the burden by firing him.

"and to assure the courts and the prosecutors in the department that we're doing our work with integrity."

Especially if they aren't.

Well we'll see. Or maybe we might be surprised to see that Trump might come around to agree with him. That is if he wants to have conversion about things they can do it privately.

That would be amazing, not surprising. Donald doesn't take criticism well.

 

[Tom 1]

Just for the record Barr didn't say they were childish. You did.

"To have public statements and tweets made about the department, about people in the department, our men and women here, about cases pending in the department and about judges before whom we have cases, make it impossible for me to do my job," Barr said, "and to assure the courts and the prosecutors in the department that we're doing our work with integrity."

He also said,

"The fact that the tweets are out there and correspond to things we're doing at the department sort of give grist to the mill and that's why I think it's time to stop the tweeting about the Department of Justice criminal cases," Barr said.

William Barr says Trump's tweets about DOJ cases make it 'impossible to do my job - CNNPolitics

As for the substance of how Trump feels Barr apparently already felt the same way and has documents to prove it long before the tweet so....It's not to say he thinks the President's way of thinking about it is wrong.



Well we'll see. Or maybe we might be surprised to see that Trump might come around to agree with him. That is if he wants to have conversion about things they can do it privately.

Barr will get it sooner or later, disagreeing is with Trump is not something Trump is able to accept. I see he was in full-on moron mode over Kelly earlier today. There’s no need to try and ponder what Trump might do, unless it makes you feel better; he always does exactly the same thing - he gives in to whatever impulse is current.

 

[Bobber]

There’s no need to try and ponder what Trump might do, unless it makes you feel better; he always does exactly the same thing - he gives in to whatever impulse is current.

Sorry don't think you can be 100% certain of that. Some say there's some he should have fired or reassigned long before he did and he may have had the impulse to do so but held back.

 

[DaisyDay]

Sorry don't think you can be 100% certain of that. Some say there's some he should have fired or reassigned long before he did and he may have had the impulse to do so but held back.

Really, who say that?

 

[rjs330]

How did Roger Stone's lawyers miss finding these social media posts before they agreed to seat her on the jury?

Who knows but apparently they did. It doesn't negate the fact of what this person did and who they are.

 

[BobRyan]

Too bad he wasn’t a drug smuggling murder that entered the country illegally, he would be free as a bird.

There is the rub.

Justice appears to be a bit more political than one would have hoped.

"Former Memphis City Schools Board President Tomeka Hart revealed Wednesday that she was the foreperson of the jury that convicted Stone on obstruction charges last year -- and soon afterward, her history of Democratic activism and a string of her anti-Trump, left-wing social media posts came to light."
Judge Napolitano: Roger Stone should get new trial in light of juror's anti-Trump tweets

Is the Judge in that case not willing to retry the case because it would be admitting that she had made a huge gaff / oversight in jury selection or is it that the harsh sentence was what she was looking for all along and did not want that put "at risk"??

 

[rjs330]

Apparently these prosecutors were anti Trumpers and we're not honest about what they were doing. That doesn't make Stone innocent and I don't think anyone is calling him innocent. But the trial wasn't fair and the prosecutors totally destroyed any semblance of justice with their sentencing demand.

 

[Belk]

There is the rub.

Justice appears to be a bit more political than one would have hoped.

"Former Memphis City Schools Board President Tomeka Hart revealed Wednesday that she was the foreperson of the jury that convicted Stone on obstruction charges last year -- and soon afterward, her history of Democratic activism and a string of her anti-Trump, left-wing social media posts came to light."
Judge Napolitano: Roger Stone should get new trial in light of juror's anti-Trump tweets
[\quote]

Is it your claim that anyone whom has made "anti-Trump, left-wing social media posts" is incapable of being a juror? Is this also true for anyone who makes pro Trump posts? Should you be disqualified from a jury because you are not able to separate your political views enough to be impartial?

Is the Judge in that case not willing to retry the case because it would be admitting that she had made a huge gaff / oversight in jury selection or is it that the harsh sentence was what she was looking for all along and did not want that put "at risk"??

You are aware that it is the job of the prosecutor and the defense to vet jurors correct?

 

[Belk]

Apparently these prosecutors were anti Trumpers and we're not honest about what they were doing. That doesn't make Stone innocent and I don't think anyone is calling him innocent. But the trial wasn't fair and the prosecutors totally destroyed any semblance of justice with their sentencing demand.

How was the trial not fair and how are these sentencing demands outside the norm? Why is the sentencing demand an issue since sentencing is completely up to the desecration of the judge?

 

[rjs330]

How was the trial not fair and how are these sentencing demands outside the norm? Why is the sentencing demand an issue since sentencing is completely up to the desecration of the judge?

They are outside the norm due to a number of factors. A dismissal of the threats accusation, lack of prior Criminal activity, typical sentencing demands of similar cases, and the subjects age. All these things

 

[wing2000]

Apparently these prosecutors were anti Trumpers and we're not honest about what they were doing. That doesn't make Stone innocent and I don't think anyone is calling him innocent. But the trial wasn't fair and the prosecutors totally destroyed any semblance of justice with their sentencing demand.

Evidence?

 

[Belk]

They are outside the norm due to a number of factors. A dismissal of the threats accusation, lack of prior Criminal activity, typical sentencing demands of similar cases, and the subjects age. All these things

Very well. Do you have anything to back up the claims that these are outside the norm?

 

[Tom 1]

They are outside the norm due to a number of factors. A dismissal of the threats accusation, lack of prior Criminal activity, typical sentencing demands of similar cases, and the subjects age. All these things

?
7 convictions, about a year per conviction. What’re the like for like convictions you are comparing these to? Why are you pretending there is something unusual about it - I mean really, for what purpose? Have you lost the ability to think in anything other that propaganda memes?

 

[KCfromNC]

We’re so far past parody at this point that I don’t see any way some people are ever going to salvage even the remnants of their integrity.

I don't know, we do have examples to draw from. Germany in the mid 40s, Iraq de-Baathifcation and so on. Granted those were to restore the integrity of legal and political systems, not of individuals though.