Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
OMG! This again!!!!!!!! Mueller could not pursue charges on the obstruction he proved because of the OLC prohibition against indicting a sitting prez. Did you just crawl out from under a rock?
Good luck with that.The juror was biased. He gets a new trial.
Then the ruling and trial will be thrown out on appeal, presuming the pardon doesn't come through by then.Good luck with that.The juror was biased. He gets a new trial.
Judge denies Roger Stone's request for a new trial
Judge denies Roger Stone's request for a new trial - CNNPolitics
Well he will be Exonerated who caresGood luck with that.The juror was biased. He gets a new trial.
Judge denies Roger Stone's request for a new trial
Judge denies Roger Stone's request for a new trial - CNNPolitics
The accusations are the truth...Something you wouldn't know if it walked up and kicked you in your tiny little beanbag.Let's be clear about something. All the baseless accusations of bias against both the judge and the jury ARE DESIGNED TO ESTABLISH A PRETEXT TO PARDON STONE despite a shred of credible evidence a new trial is merited.
IOW, it's a PR stunt for the benefit of the drooling, gullible, Trump cult members.
The judge took his 1st amendment rights away,, she had a closed door meeting with the bus juror.. it’s over little manLet's be clear about something. All the baseless accusations of bias against both the judge and the jury ARE DESIGNED TO ESTABLISH A PRETEXT TO PARDON STONE despite a shred of credible evidence a new trial is merited.
IOW, it's a PR stunt for the benefit of the drooling, gullible, Trump cult members.
Guess what, Corky...Stone is going to get pardoned....Deal with it, buttpipe.https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...d48758-5729-11ea-9000-f3cffee23036_story.html
President Trump on Tuesday injected new political drama into the legal debate over whether Roger Stone deserves a new trial, tweeting during a hearing in the matter that the jury forewoman who voted to convict his longtime friend and confidant was “totally biased” and seeming to suggest the judge was, as well.
Trump’s comments came just as U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson had rebuked him and others over their attacks on the juror, and they seemed to put the president at odds with his own Justice Department, which argued against Stone’s bid for new legal proceedings.
BwahahahaAttacking our foreperson undermines our service.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...rial-attacking-jurors-undermines-our-service/
Exerpts from his op-ed.
"Lost amid the avalanche of allegations about the trial and sentencing of Roger Stone are some critical facts and a striking irony: The jury foreperson, who has been the subject recently of numerous ad hominem attacks, was actually one of the strongest advocates for the rights of the defendant and for a rigorous process. She expressed skepticism at some of the government’s claims and was one of the last people to vote to convict on the charge that took most of our deliberation time.
Stone received a fair trial. But events since his trial threaten to undermine the equal administration of justice.
Our foreperson wrote in support of the prosecutors on her personal Facebook page, revealing that she had been on the jury and was its foreperson. Since then, she has been attacked, including by the president, as though she was personally responsible that Stone had been found guilty and that the verdict was thus unfair. The president and others have called the trial and sentencing decision a “miscarriage of justice.” Amid the onslaught of criticism of a U.S. citizen who fulfilled her civic duty as a juror and exercised her First Amendment right to free expression, Stone has used the manufactured controversy to demand a mistrial on the basis of jury misconduct and even to demand that the judge recuse herself for bias in favor of the jury.
There is no factual basis to say that the Stone jury was tainted or otherwise biased against the defendant. We conducted ourselves exactly as juries are supposed to. We looked at each element of every charge in isolation. We examined the evidence. We attempted to construct alternative explanations. We discussed each charge and conducted secret ballots and voice polls. We went around the room to ensure that quieter jurors were heard. As individuals, we did not vote guilty until we were convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. As a group, we did not return a verdict until we had reached a unanimous decision.
These events raise serious concerns for me not merely as a juror in the trial but also for the threat to our bedrock principles.
Elected officials have no business attacking citizens for performing their civic duty. The jury system is rooted in English common law and enshrined in both Article III and the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution; it is fundamental to the American system of justice. All of us need to be concerned when this process is attacked. More than 1.5 million Americans are impaneled on juries every year, according to the National Center for State Courts. Federal service is more rare than state-level service, but a 2007 center report found that more than a third of Americans will serve on a jury at some point in their lifetimes. Jurors are not merely expected but required to judge facts fairly. We are required to disclose any potential bias and are asked whether that potential bias would prevent us from rendering an impartial verdict.
Our foreperson oversaw a rigorous process, slowing us down on several occasions and advocating for the rights of the defendant.
Roger Stone received a fair trial. He was found guilty based on the evidence by a jury that respected his rights and viewed the government’s claims skeptically. Our jury valued truth, plain and simple. U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson echoed this sentiment last week while sentencing Stone: “The truth still exists; the truth still matters.”
................................................................................................................................
The Adulterer-in-Chief didn't like the outcome of the trial. Because Stone, a friend who lied and withheld testimony to protect Individual 1 from exposure to accountability for his criminality, was fairly convicted, unanimously, by a jury.
Every American should be able to put partisanship aside and recognize what a threat to our system of justice Don's despicable behavior really is. If this was any other person but the prez he would be held in contempt of court.
Do you not believe in a fair trial?https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...d48758-5729-11ea-9000-f3cffee23036_story.html
President Trump on Tuesday injected new political drama into the legal debate over whether Roger Stone deserves a new trial, tweeting during a hearing in the matter that the jury forewoman who voted to convict his longtime friend and confidant was “totally biased” and seeming to suggest the judge was, as well.
Trump’s comments came just as U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson had rebuked him and others over their attacks on the juror, and they seemed to put the president at odds with his own Justice Department, which argued against Stone’s bid for new legal proceedings.
Jackson is a fucking hack, just like you.A judge on Tuesday said that she would be placing limitations on public access to the proceedings surrounding Roger Stone’s efforts to secure a new trial. The limitations were in order to protect the identity of a juror who is apparently central to Stone’s claims of juror misconduct that he said warranted a new trial.
In explaining the restrictions, U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson brought up recent public statements by President Trump about the juror, as well as the “false” and “incendiary” claims about the jury selection process that were made by conservative media figures earlier in the proceedings.
“This is a highly publicized case, and in a highly polarized political climate in which the President himself has shone a spotlight on the jury through his Twitter platform,” the judge said, adding that “the risk of harassment and intimidation” was “extremely high” for the juror.
Citing Trump’s Tweets, Judge Restricts Access To Stone Proceedings To Protect Juror
....................................................................................................................................
Judge rejects Roger Stone’s bid to disqualify her, sets Tuesday hearing for motion for new trial
https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...669f1c-571c-11ea-9000-f3cffee23036_story.html
"The federal judge who oversaw Roger Stone’s trial and sentenced him last week to 40 months in prison has scheduled a closed-door hearing for Tuesday afternoon regarding his request for a new trial based on allegations of juror misconduct, preceded by a public hearing about his motion to make the matter public.
The one-sentence scheduling order filed Monday morning by U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the District of Columbia indicates that she is moving swiftly to address the motion, filed days before Stone’s sentencing.
The order came one day after Jackson dismissed Stone’s demand that she be taken off the case as a baseless smear.
“Given the absence of any factual or legal support for the motion for disqualification, the pleading appears to be nothing more than an attempt to use the Court’s docket to disseminate a statement for public consumption that has the words ‘judge’ and ‘biased’ in it,” Jackson wrote in a rare Sunday opinion."
.....................................................................................................
So.............Trump once again smears his shyte on the judicial process without reason to do so. In so doing threatening the safety of a juror. Is there any point at which Trumpette's say "this is completely unacceptable."
Thank you for providing the kind of fact free, emotionally driven hackery we've all come to expect from Trumpette's and their Dear Leader.Jackson is a fucking hack, just like you.
And Stone will still get pardoned, so you can both suck it.
This is an interesting post. I question its veracity, however. You sound more like an attorney, perhaps a jury foreperson rather than a peer off the street. How many people know about Article III, 6th Amendment, 1.5 impaneled jurors, etc....Actually everyone knows about that. I was just talking about that Article and Amendment the other day. LOLAttacking our foreperson undermines our service.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...rial-attacking-jurors-undermines-our-service/
Exerpts from his op-ed.
"Lost amid the avalanche of allegations about the trial and sentencing of Roger Stone are some critical facts and a striking irony: The jury foreperson, who has been the subject recently of numerous ad hominem attacks, was actually one of the strongest advocates for the rights of the defendant and for a rigorous process. She expressed skepticism at some of the government’s claims and was one of the last people to vote to convict on the charge that took most of our deliberation time.
Stone received a fair trial. But events since his trial threaten to undermine the equal administration of justice.
Our foreperson wrote in support of the prosecutors on her personal Facebook page, revealing that she had been on the jury and was its foreperson. Since then, she has been attacked, including by the president, as though she was personally responsible that Stone had been found guilty and that the verdict was thus unfair. The president and others have called the trial and sentencing decision a “miscarriage of justice.” Amid the onslaught of criticism of a U.S. citizen who fulfilled her civic duty as a juror and exercised her First Amendment right to free expression, Stone has used the manufactured controversy to demand a mistrial on the basis of jury misconduct and even to demand that the judge recuse herself for bias in favor of the jury.
There is no factual basis to say that the Stone jury was tainted or otherwise biased against the defendant. We conducted ourselves exactly as juries are supposed to. We looked at each element of every charge in isolation. We examined the evidence. We attempted to construct alternative explanations. We discussed each charge and conducted secret ballots and voice polls. We went around the room to ensure that quieter jurors were heard. As individuals, we did not vote guilty until we were convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. As a group, we did not return a verdict until we had reached a unanimous decision.
These events raise serious concerns for me not merely as a juror in the trial but also for the threat to our bedrock principles.
Elected officials have no business attacking citizens for performing their civic duty. The jury system is rooted in English common law and enshrined in both Article III and the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution; it is fundamental to the American system of justice. All of us need to be concerned when this process is attacked. More than 1.5 million Americans are impaneled on juries every year, according to the National Center for State Courts. Federal service is more rare than state-level service, but a 2007 center report found that more than a third of Americans will serve on a jury at some point in their lifetimes. Jurors are not merely expected but required to judge facts fairly. We are required to disclose any potential bias and are asked whether that potential bias would prevent us from rendering an impartial verdict.
Our foreperson oversaw a rigorous process, slowing us down on several occasions and advocating for the rights of the defendant.
Roger Stone received a fair trial. He was found guilty based on the evidence by a jury that respected his rights and viewed the government’s claims skeptically. Our jury valued truth, plain and simple. U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson echoed this sentiment last week while sentencing Stone: “The truth still exists; the truth still matters.”
................................................................................................................................
The Adulterer-in-Chief didn't like the outcome of the trial. Because Stone, a friend who lied and withheld testimony to protect Individual 1 from exposure to accountability for his criminality, was fairly convicted, unanimously, by a jury.
Every American should be able to put partisanship aside and recognize what a threat to our system of justice Don's despicable behavior really is. If this was any other person but the prez he would be held in contempt of court.
Google "self-awareness", Gomer....You're in short supply.Thank you for providing the kind of fact free, emotionally driven hackery we've all come to expect from Trumpette's and their Dear Leader.Jackson is a fucking hack, just like you.
And Stone will still get pardoned, so you can both suck it.
YOU are the best EVAH!!!!!!! Thanks so much for being our steller Mod all these years. It takes a giant to endure it all and no one does it better.So berg80 -- don't be shy if you DONT KNOW WHY Roger Stone was investigated in the 1st place.. I'm here to help those DEPRIVED of facts and evidence from their consumption of tainted sushi from the fake news media...
I'll help ya out here if you need it.....
Attacking our foreperson undermines our service.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...rial-attacking-jurors-undermines-our-service/
Exerpts from his op-ed.
"Lost amid the avalanche of allegations about the trial and sentencing of Roger Stone are some critical facts and a striking irony: The jury foreperson, who has been the subject recently of numerous ad hominem attacks, was actually one of the strongest advocates for the rights of the defendant and for a rigorous process. She expressed skepticism at some of the government’s claims and was one of the last people to vote to convict on the charge that took most of our deliberation time.
Stone received a fair trial. But events since his trial threaten to undermine the equal administration of justice.
Our foreperson wrote in support of the prosecutors on her personal Facebook page, revealing that she had been on the jury and was its foreperson. Since then, she has been attacked, including by the president, as though she was personally responsible that Stone had been found guilty and that the verdict was thus unfair. The president and others have called the trial and sentencing decision a “miscarriage of justice.” Amid the onslaught of criticism of a U.S. citizen who fulfilled her civic duty as a juror and exercised her First Amendment right to free expression, Stone has used the manufactured controversy to demand a mistrial on the basis of jury misconduct and even to demand that the judge recuse herself for bias in favor of the jury.
There is no factual basis to say that the Stone jury was tainted or otherwise biased against the defendant. We conducted ourselves exactly as juries are supposed to. We looked at each element of every charge in isolation. We examined the evidence. We attempted to construct alternative explanations. We discussed each charge and conducted secret ballots and voice polls. We went around the room to ensure that quieter jurors were heard. As individuals, we did not vote guilty until we were convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. As a group, we did not return a verdict until we had reached a unanimous decision.
These events raise serious concerns for me not merely as a juror in the trial but also for the threat to our bedrock principles.
Elected officials have no business attacking citizens for performing their civic duty. The jury system is rooted in English common law and enshrined in both Article III and the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution; it is fundamental to the American system of justice. All of us need to be concerned when this process is attacked. More than 1.5 million Americans are impaneled on juries every year, according to the National Center for State Courts. Federal service is more rare than state-level service, but a 2007 center report found that more than a third of Americans will serve on a jury at some point in their lifetimes. Jurors are not merely expected but required to judge facts fairly. We are required to disclose any potential bias and are asked whether that potential bias would prevent us from rendering an impartial verdict.
Our foreperson oversaw a rigorous process, slowing us down on several occasions and advocating for the rights of the defendant.
Roger Stone received a fair trial. He was found guilty based on the evidence by a jury that respected his rights and viewed the government’s claims skeptically. Our jury valued truth, plain and simple. U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson echoed this sentiment last week while sentencing Stone: “The truth still exists; the truth still matters.”
................................................................................................................................
The Adulterer-in-Chief didn't like the outcome of the trial. Because Stone, a friend who lied and withheld testimony to protect Individual 1 from exposure to accountability for his criminality, was fairly convicted, unanimously, by a jury.
Every American should be able to put partisanship aside and recognize what a threat to our system of justice Don's despicable behavior really is. If this was any other person but the prez he would be held in contempt of court.
