Examples of how biased political opinions directly affect Americans' lives..

[healthmyths]

The following is an example of how BIASED news presentation directly affect Americans' lives.
In the case of directly affecting Roger Stone's future, The foreperson on the jury that convicted Roger Stone has come forward, and is revealed to be a failed Democrat candidate for Congress and activist vehemently opposed to President Donald Trump. Tomeka Hart, a former Memphis City Schools Board President, came forward as the Stone jury foreperson in a Facebook post on Wednesday, voicing support for prosecutors in the case.
But how many people know this from the MSM?

Another example regarding Roger Stone is the judge in the case (Amy Berman Jackson) is a Democrat appointed by Obama.
BIAS: Roger Stone Jury Forewoman Is Partisan Anti-Trump Democrat

An even more biased and DIRECT example of how the biased MSM presents the news is as follows:
ABC News called the group that put forth the 2,000 former DOJs ...
The nonpartisan, nonprofit group said that the attorney general has "flouted" that fundamental principal.
More than 2,000 former DOJ officials call on Attorney General William Barr to resign

BUT the group they called "nonpartisan, nonprofit group"... "Protect Democracy" was behind this project.
The Protect Democracy Project (PDP) is a left-of-center litigation organization created to oppose the policies of President Donald Trump.
Protect Democracy Project (PDP)

Now if others of you that are interested in fair and balanced information please feel free to add and maybe a few people can be honest!

 

[OldLady]

Same old whining that was used about the Mueller Investigation, the impeachment proceedings, about the main stream media, blah blah blah blah blah.

People have opinions besides you, you know. If the forewoman of the jury was that biased, do you think it would have escaped the notice of Stone's attorney? Leave the prosecuting to the attorneys and the judges and the INFORMED jury.

 

[healthmyths]

Same old whining that was used about the Mueller Investigation, the impeachment proceedings, about the main stream media, blah blah blah blah blah.

People have opinions besides you, you know. If the forewoman of the jury was that biased, do you think it would have escaped the notice of Stone's attorney? Leave the prosecuting to the attorneys and the judges and the INFORMED jury.

People a lot smarter than me for sure and I'm guessing smarter than you are raising that question!


U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson refused to bar witnesses due to their past political associations or viewpoints.
This included a former Obama-era press secretary for the Office of Management and Budget who admitted to having negative views of Trump and whose husband worked at the Justice Department division.
However, she maintained the stand that she did not have strong views about Stone.
That was enough for Jackson and one can understand the reluctance to striking jurors in a city filled with politically active people.

However, the social media postings of Hart raise troubling questions as to whether these views were known or disclosed. What is clear is that no defendant associated with Trump would want such a juror sitting in judgment. This included a posting about the Stone case where she retweeted mocking dismissals of objections to Stone’s treatment in a dawn raid. I was one of those raising such concerns. There is of course nothing wrong with holding the opposing view of that issue and Hart did nothing wrong in sitting on the jury absent some allegations of hiding or misrepresenting information.

Hart is a democratic activist who ran for Congress and referred to the President with a hashtag as “klanpresident.” More worrisome is her references directly to Stone, including a retweeted post, in January 2019, Bakari Sellers again raising racist associations and stating “Roger Stone has y’all talking about reviewing use of force guidelines.” She also called Trump supporters like Stone racists and Putin cronies. When profanities were projected on the Trump hotel, she exclaimed on Jan. 13, 2018, “Gotta love it.”

She also, on March 24, 2019, shared a Facebook post calling attention to “the numerous indictments, guilty pleas, and convictions of people in 45’s inner-circle.”

These and other postings have thus far been noted by Fox and more conservative sites but not many in the mainstream media. The question is why.
What would be the response if an Obama associate was convicted on a jury with a foreperson who was a Republican activist with a long social media record criticizing not just Obama but supporting the prosecution of that associate?
“Gotta love it!”: Major Controversy Erupts Over Undisclosed Alleged Bias Of Foreperson In Stone Trial [Updated]

 

[WillowTree]

Same old whining that was used about the Mueller Investigation, the impeachment proceedings, about the main stream media, blah blah blah blah blah.

People have opinions besides you, you know. If the forewoman of the jury was that biased, do you think it would have escaped the notice of Stone's attorney? Leave the prosecuting to the attorneys and the judges and the INFORMED jury.[/QUOTE



This is a message board. He gets to not only have opinions, he gets to voice them too.