Prosecutor withdraws from Roger Stone case

[JasperL]

And now Barr is challenging the appointee's judgment in the Stone case. I like Barr. He is not ashamed to do what is right no matter if by doing so he has to admit he makes mistakes as well.

You were whining about Democrats. Don't post like an ignorant partisan when it's Republicans who are making the decisions you're not happy with. Similarly, those decisions not to prosecute? Trump appointees! Could be they didn't have prosecutable cases? Just a thought.

 

[Mustachio]

So I’ve been out of the loop - is there a consensus yet on whether all of this is funny or terrifying?

 

[Tbird19482]

Democrats see no bias here, but they cannot explain how unbiased officers of the court and jury could have recommended 9 years in prison for Stone who did nothing wrong by comparison to men like McCabe, Comey, Brennan, Clapper and others who openly lied to Congress and obstructed justice on much larger scales, yet remain unindicted.

Why does this all matter?
let the court sentence him and Trump will pardon him anyways
heck they could sentence him to life , it doesn't matter , he will be out in no time
have a nice day

 

[marke]

You were whining about Democrats. Don't post like an ignorant partisan when it's Republicans who are making the decisions you're not happy with. Similarly, those decisions not to prosecute? Trump appointees! Could be they didn't have prosecutable cases? Just a thought.

It seems apparent that republicans are just as prone to making bad decisions and perverted judgments as are democrats.

 

[marke]

Why does this all matter?
let the court sentence him and Trump will pardon him anyways
heck they could sentence him to life , it doesn't matter , he will be out in no time
have a nice day

Sort of like allowing the hateful vengeful democrats impeach Trump in the House to make them feel good before declaring him NOT GUILTY in the Senate to set the record straight again?

 

[SLC]

Anyone who seriously thought that Trump is capable of learning any lessons in the first place is beyond dumb.

Maybe but the people that F***ed with Trump are about to learn lessons for sure. :lol:

 

[Fred C Dobbs II]

Maybe but the people that F***ed with Trump are about to learn lessons for sure. :lol:

That's their history and Einstein's definition of insanity can be applied here. They're going to lose in November, they know it, and yet they continue with the same strategy.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Which ones showed her "bias" against the defendant, Roger Stone? Thanks!

You do realize, I guess, that Trump wasn't actually the defendant, right? And she's a Democrat, and an active one who ran for Congress as a Democrat, so it can be safely assumed by all involved she's not going to be a fan of Trump. If the defense team didn't care about that, why should the court or anyone else?

Jasper it doesn't just prove bias, she was asked by the court about her familiarity with Stone and flat out lied to the court. That's the relevance of her social media posts, they demonstrate she was lying in her voir dire.

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

Jasper it doesn't just prove bias, she was asked by the court about her familiarity with Stone and flat out lied to the court. That's the relevance of her social media posts, they demonstrate she was lying in her voir dire.

Here is the voir dire transcript.

Please point out the "lie".

THE COURT: You've also indicated a fair amount of paying attention to news and social media including about political things?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And when we asked what you read or heard about the defendant, you do understand that he was involved in Mr. Trump's campaign in some way?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Is there anything about that that affects your ability to judge him fairly and impartially sitting here right now in this courtroom?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Absolutely not.
THE COURT: What is it that you have read or heard about him?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: So nothing that I can recall specifically. I do watch sometimes paying attention but sometimes in the background CNN. So I recall just hearing about him being part of the campaign and some belief or reporting around interaction with the Russian probe and interaction with him and people in the country, but I don't have a whole lot of details. I don't pay that close attention or watch C-SPAN.
THE COURT: Can you kind of wipe the slate clean and learn what you need to learn in this case from the evidence presented in the courtroom and no other source?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: You actually have had some interest in Congress yourself?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Does the fact that this case involves allegations of not being truthful to Congress, is that something that you think that the nature of the allegations
alone would make it hard for you to be fair?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: No.
The prosecution declined to ask Hart any questions. Then, defense counsel had its turn:
MR. BUSCHEL: Did you ever work for anyone in Congress?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: No.
MR. BUSCHEL: You've worked on campaigns for Congress people running for Congress?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I ran for Congress.
MR. BUSCHEL: You ran for Congress?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I worked on my own campaign.
MR. BUSCHEL: And you have friends who worked for other congressmen?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes.
MR. BUSCHEL: Do you have any political aspirations now?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I don't know, not federal.
MR. BUSCHEL: What might they be?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: My home state in Tennessee. No local.
MR. BUSCHEL: Just recognize that there might be some media— What are your aspirations?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I served, can I just say I served in political office in Memphis in a local office on the school board. So I, one day I wake up and say I run for, you know, office again in Memphis to impact education. One day I wake up and say no way in the world would I do that. So I don't have an immediate plan to run for office.
MR. BUSCHEL: The fact that you run for an office, you're affiliated with a political party. Roger Stone is affiliated with the Republican party, Donald Trump. You understand what I'm saying and getting at?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I do.
MR. BUSCHEL: How do you feel about that?
MR. KRAVIS: Objection.
THE COURT: Can you make that question a little bit more crisp? Is there anything about his affiliation with the Trump campaign and the Republican party in general that gives you any reason to pause or hesitate or think that you couldn't fairly evaluate the evidence against him?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: No.
MR. BUSCHEL: Thank you, ma'am.
THE COURT: All right, you can step out.
R. BUSCHEL: Thank you, ma'am.
THE COURT: All right, you can step out.
(Prospective juror leaves courtroom.)
THE COURT: Mr. Buschel, you have a motion?
MR. BUSCHEL: No.
THE COURT: Okay, let's bring in the next juror.

Roger Stone jury selection transcript, Nov. 5, 2019 | Courtroom | Judge

 

[NWRatCon]

You know, the partisan slant (what an understatement) of the majority of posts here reveals a cynicism about juries that I think is unwarranted. Jurors are given instructions and admonished to abide by them. By and large they take that quite seriously. Our justice system relies on that, it is what we enshrined in the Constitution and our laws. There is no evidence, whatsoever, that any juror failed to abide by those instructions. Moreover, as I understand it, this juror is or was a lawyer. That means she had significant training in being fair and dispassionate in evaluating evidence.

We all have predispositions in evaluating evidence, which is why a jury is used. The premise is that a group of a dozen individuals is less likely to have a particular viewpoint, but will bring a variety of viewpoints to bear on the process of judgment. It's also why unanimity is required for conviction. Following Occam's razor analysis, isn't it far more likely that the evidence of guilt was just so overwhelming that that unanimity was the result of that, rather than some nefarious conspiracy?

 

[OpportunityCost]

Here is the voir dire transcript.

Please point out the "lie".

THE COURT: You've also indicated a fair amount of paying attention to news and social media including about political things?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And when we asked what you read or heard about the defendant, you do understand that he was involved in Mr. Trump's campaign in some way?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Is there anything about that that affects your ability to judge him fairly and impartially sitting here right now in this courtroom?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Absolutely not.
THE COURT: What is it that you have read or heard about him?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: So nothing that I can recall specifically. I do watch sometimes paying attention but sometimes in the background CNN. So I recall just hearing about him being part of the campaign and some belief or reporting around interaction with the Russian probe and interaction with him and people in the country, but I don't have a whole lot of details. I don't pay that close attention or watch C-SPAN.
THE COURT: Can you kind of wipe the slate clean and learn what you need to learn in this case from the evidence presented in the courtroom and no other source?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: You actually have had some interest in Congress yourself?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Does the fact that this case involves allegations of not being truthful to Congress, is that something that you think that the nature of the allegations
alone would make it hard for you to be fair?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: No.
The prosecution declined to ask Hart any questions. Then, defense counsel had its turn:
MR. BUSCHEL: Did you ever work for anyone in Congress?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: No.
MR. BUSCHEL: You've worked on campaigns for Congress people running for Congress?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I ran for Congress.
MR. BUSCHEL: You ran for Congress?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I worked on my own campaign.
MR. BUSCHEL: And you have friends who worked for other congressmen?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes.
MR. BUSCHEL: Do you have any political aspirations now?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I don't know, not federal.
MR. BUSCHEL: What might they be?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: My home state in Tennessee. No local.
MR. BUSCHEL: Just recognize that there might be some media— What are your aspirations?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I served, can I just say I served in political office in Memphis in a local office on the school board. So I, one day I wake up and say I run for, you know, office again in Memphis to impact education. One day I wake up and say no way in the world would I do that. So I don't have an immediate plan to run for office.
MR. BUSCHEL: The fact that you run for an office, you're affiliated with a political party. Roger Stone is affiliated with the Republican party, Donald Trump. You understand what I'm saying and getting at?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I do.
MR. BUSCHEL: How do you feel about that?
MR. KRAVIS: Objection.
THE COURT: Can you make that question a little bit more crisp? Is there anything about his affiliation with the Trump campaign and the Republican party in general that gives you any reason to pause or hesitate or think that you couldn't fairly evaluate the evidence against him?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: No.
MR. BUSCHEL: Thank you, ma'am.
THE COURT: All right, you can step out.
R. BUSCHEL: Thank you, ma'am.
THE COURT: All right, you can step out.
(Prospective juror leaves courtroom.)
THE COURT: Mr. Buschel, you have a motion?
MR. BUSCHEL: No.
THE COURT: Okay, let's bring in the next juror.

Roger Stone jury selection transcript, Nov. 5, 2019 | Courtroom | Judge

THE COURT: Is there anything about that that affects your ability to judge him fairly and impartially sitting here right now in this courtroom?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Absolutely not.
THE COURT: What is it that you have read or heard about him?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: So nothing that I can recall specifically. I do watch sometimes paying attention but sometimes in the background CNN. So I recall just hearing about him being part of the campaign and some belief or reporting around interaction with the Russian probe and interaction with him and people in the country, but I don't have a whole lot of details. I don't pay that close attention or watch C-SPAN.
THE COURT: Can you kind of wipe the slate clean and learn what you need to learn in this case from the evidence presented in the courtroom and no other source?

She is misrepresenting what she has heard and read and what her opinions are because she has already posted some biased remarks on social media. "Doesn't have a whole lot of details" "reporting around interaction with the Russian probe" are both vague responses that do not tell the entire truth. She both knew who he was and many details regarding him as evidenced by the tweets.

A lie by omission is still a lie.

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

THE COURT: Is there anything about that that affects your ability to judge him fairly and impartially sitting here right now in this courtroom?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Absolutely not.
THE COURT: What is it that you have read or heard about him?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: So nothing that I can recall specifically. I do watch sometimes paying attention but sometimes in the background CNN. So I recall just hearing about him being part of the campaign and some belief or reporting around interaction with the Russian probe and interaction with him and people in the country, but I don't have a whole lot of details. I don't pay that close attention or watch C-SPAN.
THE COURT: Can you kind of wipe the slate clean and learn what you need to learn in this case from the evidence presented in the courtroom and no other source?

She is misrepresenting what she has heard and read and what her opinions are because she has already posted some biased remarks on social media. "Doesn't have a whole lot of details" "reporting around interaction with the Russian probe" are both vague responses that do not tell the entire truth. She both knew who he was and many details regarding him as evidenced by the tweets.

A lie by omission is still a lie.

So, you couldn't find a lie.

Stone's legal team had plenty of opportunity to ask her to clarify her statements, if they had found them "vague".

From what I've seen, she made exactly one tweet regarding Roger Stone, which included no "details" that would contradict her answers.

I wouldn't count on getting that retrial. It's a pretty high standard to meet.

 

[OpportunityCost]

So, you couldn't find a lie.

Stone's legal team had plenty of opportunity to ask her to clarify her statements, if they had found them "vague".

From what I've seen, she made exactly one tweet regarding Roger Stone, which included no "details" that would contradict her answers.

I wouldn't count on getting that retrial. It's a pretty high standard to meet.

Apparently you can't read, I detailed her lie, she did not represent what she knew about Stone honestly. She knew many details and was already showing bias prior to the voir dire.

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

Apparently you can't read, I detailed her lie, she did not represent what she knew about Stone honestly. She knew many details and was already showing bias prior to the voir dire.

You didn't "detail" anything - you made a bunch of random accusations with no evidence to support them.

What "details" did she know? What "bias" did she show?

Having political opinions is not, in itself, evidence of "bias".

 

[OpportunityCost]

You didn't "detail" anything - you made a bunch of random accusations with no evidence to support them.

What "details" did she know? What "bias" did she show?

Having political opinions is not, in itself, evidence of "bias".

But denying you have them under oath is a problem when you are a juror.

Jury Foreman In Roger Stone Case Was Russia Collusion Hoaxer
Roger Stone asks for new trial | TheHill

Aside from all that, she retweeted an NPR story that detailed the Roger Stone indictment. She claimed to have little knowledge of what going on when she had already tweeted a link with details.

 

[jpn]

Trump and his allies’ claim that the foreperson suffered from bias also mistakes a key pillar of the jury system: it accepts that people enter the process with independent backgrounds and political views.
The process, rather, is designed to remove those who cannot fairly judge evidence and make decisions on the law before them.

Stone's attorneys could have appealed any ruling made by the judge during jury selection, but they chose not do to so. Once the jury pool was finalized, that was Stone’s last opportunity to contest issues like the composition of those set to judge him.

“Holding political views opposed to the criminal defendant is not an automatic barrier to serving on a jury,” national security attorney Bradley P. Moss told Law&Crime. “If the Stone legal team failed to do basic due diligence during voir dire and didn’t challenge Ms. Hart’s selection at that time, that is on them, not the government.

These social media posts and records of political campaigns are a matter of public record: this was not rocket science.”

The fact the foreperson may have had negative opinions of Trump simply meant she was fairly intelligent and reasonably informed. Having a positive opinion of Trump should disqualify anyone for US Citizenship, much less a juror.

I love watching the "tough on crime" conservatives hunting and pecking for legal technicalities to get Trump's lying criminal goons off the hook.

Roger Stone, conservative poster boy. My god.

 

[NWRatCon]

Federal judges' association calls emergency meeting after DOJ intervenes in case of Trump ally Roger Stone (USA Today)

A national association of federal judges has called an emergency meeting Tuesday to address growing concerns about the intervention of Justice Department officials and President Donald Trump in politically sensitive cases, the group’s president said Monday.

"The Judges of this Court base their sentencing decisions on careful consideration of the actual record in the case before them; the applicable sentencing guidelines and statutory factors; the submissions of the parties, the Probation Office and victims; and their own judgment and experience," [District of Columbia Chief U.S. District Judge Beryl] Howell said in a written statement. "Public criticism or pressure is not a factor.”

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

But denying you have them under oath is a problem when you are a juror.

Jury Foreman In Roger Stone Case Was Russia Collusion Hoaxer
Roger Stone asks for new trial | TheHill

Aside from all that, she retweeted an NPR story that detailed the Roger Stone indictment. She claimed to have little knowledge of what going on when she had already tweeted a link with details.

What did she "deny"?

Is a re-tweet concrete evidence of more than a "little knowledge"?

 

[OpportunityCost]

What did she "deny"?

Is a re-tweet concrete evidence of more than a "little knowledge"?

Devil's advocate will only carry you so far when there are multiple social media posts that she knew exactly who Stone was.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Trump and his allies’ claim that the foreperson suffered from bias also mistakes a key pillar of the jury system: it accepts that people enter the process with independent backgrounds and political views.
The process, rather, is designed to remove those who cannot fairly judge evidence and make decisions on the law before them.



The fact the foreperson may have had negative opinions of Trump simply meant she was fairly intelligent and reasonably informed. Having a positive opinion of Trump should disqualify anyone for US Citizenship, much less a juror.

I love watching the "tough on crime" conservatives hunting and pecking for legal technicalities to get Trump's lying criminal goons off the hook.

Roger Stone, conservative poster boy. My god.

If a juror lies about their background and knowledge and bias, it presents more opportunities for appeal. Jurors have to be honest or they shouldn't be jurors.

 

[NWRatCon]

Devil's advocate will only carry you so far when there are multiple social media posts that she knew exactly who Stone was.

It's not "devil's advocacy"; it's rational discussion of the actual rules and facts, not rampant speculation and specious conjecture. There is NO EVIDENCE the juror was less than honest and forthright. There was NO OBJECTION by the defense in her being seated. There was open discussion of her past and knowledge. She has a public record that was not explored. This is entirely post hoc rationalization. It is not a basis for a retrial. It doesn't meet the standard. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33

 

[OpportunityCost]

It's not "devil's advocacy"; it's rational discussion of the actual rules and facts, not rampant speculation and specious conjecture. There is NO EVIDENCE the juror was less than honest and forthright. There was NO OBJECTION by the defense in her being seated. There was open discussion of her past and knowledge. She has a public record that was not explored. This is entirely post hoc rationalization. It is not a basis for a retrial. It doesn't meet the standard. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33

I said appeal, not retrial.

 

[Jay59]

I said appeal, not retrial.

Retrial would be the point of the appeal.

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

Devil's advocate will only carry you so far when there are multiple social media posts that she knew exactly who Stone was.

Oooo. "Multiple" social media posts!

I have a question for you - do you believe that your posts here on this message board should (or would) disqualify you from sitting on a jury if the accused was a Democrat?

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Devil's advocate will only carry you so far when there are multiple social media posts that she knew exactly who Stone was.

Which social media posts? Facebook? Twitter? Instagram? MySpace? AOL messaging service?

Cite your evidence to back up your claim.