Follow us on Twitter  

Poll

Where do you currently stand on the impeachment/removal from office of President Trump?

Against impeachment, and furthermore this is a witch hunt.
15 (16.7%)
Against impeachment, evidence evidence of wrongdoing is lacking
2 (2.2%)
Against impeachment, the wrongdoing is not worthy of impeachment
3 (3.3%)
For impeachment, but against removal (a rebuke of the presdients actions)
5 (5.6%)
For impeachment, for removal
59 (65.6%)
I can't decide. I will wait and see as inquiry proceeds.
5 (5.6%)
I haven't followed this closely enough to have an opinion.
1 (1.1%)

Total Members Voted: 90

Author Topic: This Ukraine thing (aka, the impeachment thing, Trump acquitted)  (Read 142724 times)

Roy H. and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: This Ukraine thing (aka, the impeachment thing, Trump acquitted)
« Reply #2745 on: February 21, 2020, 12:05:11 PM »

Offline SDceltGuy

  • NCE
  • Marcus Smart
  • Posts: 186
  • Tommy Points: 19
  At most, if the Dems get their act together on the campaign this year by focussing on the issues that matter to most people, they could take the White House, keep the House while gaining some seats and take the Senate with a slim margin.  That's the absolutely most optimistic outcome for Dems and those who want this national mess to end.  What's more likely is a dog fight for the presidency where Dem candidate wins (but with a very likely contentious transition of power from Trump), Senate stays Rep controlled by slimmest margin possible and House move slightly more Dam-controlled.

Dems have no coherent issues that matter to most people.  We hate Trump isn't going to do it.  Healthcare is about the only issue there is some traction and that's even borderline.  The rest is a turnoff to all but the fringe left.  Victim politics, open boarders, free college, transgender glorification.  Normal people don't want that. 

Re: This Ukraine thing (aka, the impeachment thing, Trump acquitted)
« Reply #2746 on: February 21, 2020, 12:06:15 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 40645
  • Tommy Points: -27201
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Why the hell is trump pardoning and talking about pardoning all these sleaze bags before November? Donít most presidents wait until their second term to make controversial pardons? Or at least until the lame duck session?

His acquittal has led him to believe there are no real checks on his power and his voters are indifferent or favorable to him abusing it, and he's probably right. Of course he was also doing some of this before impeachment, but it's all ramped up since.

Speaking of which, the President of the United States is now personally attacking jurors in the trial of his associate for lying to Congress and intimidating witnesses to cover for him.

Trump should stay off of Twitter. That said, from what I read about one of the Stone jurors, I would be p---ed if she was on my jury. 
I donít know if she lied on her juror materials, whether Stoneís attorneys did due diligence, or whether the judge overruled a challenge to her being on the jury, etc.  Her social media certainly gives her the appearance of being biased and partisan, however.

I think that that taints the verdict to some degree, but the 11 other jurors were still unanimous in their verdict, and the judge saw it as a reasonable outcome supported by the evidence.

Weird that your focus here is also on attacking the juror rather than the fact that the most powerful man on Earth is publicly targeting a private citizen fulfilling a civic duty to defend yet another of his cronies being convicted of multiple felonies.

Why do you think that focus is weird?

Iím an attorney, mostly a defense attorney at this point.  Fair trials and due process are important to me.  An obviously biased juror in a high profile case is notable.  If she hid her bias, or went into court with an agenda, she wasnít doing her ďcivic dutyĒ, but rather perverting justice.  Isnít that something we should all care about?  Or do we only wring our hands about corrupt acts when they harm our political allies?

Based on reports, the person's occupation and interests were identified and reviewed during jury selection.  Defense tried to exclude but the judge overruled them because they couldn't establish why that should exclude a person.

and, as someone else mentioned, you're trying to negate what everyone else determined on that jury.  If this person was running contrary to everyone else, you might have a point.  when they reach the same conclusion as everyone else, I'm having a hard time buying they didn't reach their conclusion based on the merits of the case.

The ďsomebody elseĒ who mentioned that was me.

But, itís obviously unfair to have a highly partisan juror *who has publicly criticized Stone on social media before the trial*.  We can all agree on that basic premise of due process?  Whether or not that should overturn a verdict is a different issue.

Fair or not, blame the judge.   The juror did nothing more than their civic duty and reached a conclusion identical to the rest of the jurors.  Suggesting that the verdict is "tainted" makes no logical sense given that it was unanimous.   

Anybody who has paid any attention to this case knows that Stone was guilty and the correct verdict was delivered.

Making public, personal attacks on the juror now is not justifiable and pointless other than to try to somehow raise sympathy for Stone by demonizing someone, anyone, who was involved in the delivery of justice upon him.

I'm not sure who to blame, because I don't know who committed the wrong-doing regarding the juror.

It could have been the juror herself, if she didn't answer the questionnaires honestly and fully.  It could have been the defense attorneys, if they overlooked information that was provided to them.  It could be the judge, if the juror honestly answered that she had talked about the case on social media, defense counsel objected, and the judge allowed her to be seated anyway (although in these circumstances I might still blame defense counsel, if they didn't use one of their challenges to strike her from the pool.)

The most obvious fact pattern is that the juror did not in fact disclose that she had spoken about the case (harshly) on social media, but we don't know that that's true.  However, there's a clear appearance of bias and partiality when a Stone critic and partisan serves on his jury.

It's up to the judge, and ultimately the various levels of appellate courts, to determine whether the verdict should stand.  I tend to agree with you that it should, absent any proof of further juror misconduct.  Certainly, he appears guilty.  However, it does taint the verdict to me, essentially putting an asterisk next to it.  Stone has the right to a trial by 12 impartial jurors, and he only got 11. 

Assume for purposes of discussion that the juror did in fact lie on her jury questionnaire and knowingly hid her bias.   Under those circumstances, shouldn't she be criticized?
C: Mourning / Bogut / B. Miller
F: K. Malone / Ibaka
F: Giannis / Tatum / C. Butler
G: Ginobili / Redick/ E. Gordon
G: M. Conley / D. Rose

Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat. CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012.

Re: This Ukraine thing (aka, the impeachment thing, Trump acquitted)
« Reply #2747 on: February 21, 2020, 12:07:58 PM »

Offline mobilija

  • Tacko Fall
  • Posts: 632
  • Tommy Points: 163
Why the hell is trump pardoning and talking about pardoning all these sleaze bags before November? Donít most presidents wait until their second term to make controversial pardons? Or at least until the lame duck session?

His acquittal has led him to believe there are no real checks on his power and his voters are indifferent or favorable to him abusing it, and he's probably right. Of course he was also doing some of this before impeachment, but it's all ramped up since.

Speaking of which, the President of the United States is now personally attacking jurors in the trial of his associate for lying to Congress and intimidating witnesses to cover for him.

Trump should stay off of Twitter. That said, from what I read about one of the Stone jurors, I would be p---ed if she was on my jury. 
I donít know if she lied on her juror materials, whether Stoneís attorneys did due diligence, or whether the judge overruled a challenge to her being on the jury, etc.  Her social media certainly gives her the appearance of being biased and partisan, however.

I think that that taints the verdict to some degree, but the 11 other jurors were still unanimous in their verdict, and the judge saw it as a reasonable outcome supported by the evidence.

Weird that your focus here is also on attacking the juror rather than the fact that the most powerful man on Earth is publicly targeting a private citizen fulfilling a civic duty to defend yet another of his cronies being convicted of multiple felonies.

Why do you think that focus is weird?

Iím an attorney, mostly a defense attorney at this point.  Fair trials and due process are important to me.  An obviously biased juror in a high profile case is notable.  If she hid her bias, or went into court with an agenda, she wasnít doing her ďcivic dutyĒ, but rather perverting justice.  Isnít that something we should all care about?  Or do we only wring our hands about corrupt acts when they harm our political allies?

Based on reports, the person's occupation and interests were identified and reviewed during jury selection.  Defense tried to exclude but the judge overruled them because they couldn't establish why that should exclude a person.

and, as someone else mentioned, you're trying to negate what everyone else determined on that jury.  If this person was running contrary to everyone else, you might have a point.  when they reach the same conclusion as everyone else, I'm having a hard time buying they didn't reach their conclusion based on the merits of the case.

The ďsomebody elseĒ who mentioned that was me.

But, itís obviously unfair to have a highly partisan juror *who has publicly criticized Stone on social media before the trial*.  We can all agree on that basic premise of due process?  Whether or not that should overturn a verdict is a different issue.

Isnít this just crying over spilled milk tho? The juror went thru the selection process, that was the time to get rid of them. Blame the defense attorney.

Re: This Ukraine thing (aka, the impeachment thing, Trump acquitted)
« Reply #2748 on: February 21, 2020, 12:19:48 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 40645
  • Tommy Points: -27201
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Why the hell is trump pardoning and talking about pardoning all these sleaze bags before November? Donít most presidents wait until their second term to make controversial pardons? Or at least until the lame duck session?

His acquittal has led him to believe there are no real checks on his power and his voters are indifferent or favorable to him abusing it, and he's probably right. Of course he was also doing some of this before impeachment, but it's all ramped up since.

Speaking of which, the President of the United States is now personally attacking jurors in the trial of his associate for lying to Congress and intimidating witnesses to cover for him.

Trump should stay off of Twitter. That said, from what I read about one of the Stone jurors, I would be p---ed if she was on my jury. 
I donít know if she lied on her juror materials, whether Stoneís attorneys did due diligence, or whether the judge overruled a challenge to her being on the jury, etc.  Her social media certainly gives her the appearance of being biased and partisan, however.

I think that that taints the verdict to some degree, but the 11 other jurors were still unanimous in their verdict, and the judge saw it as a reasonable outcome supported by the evidence.

Weird that your focus here is also on attacking the juror rather than the fact that the most powerful man on Earth is publicly targeting a private citizen fulfilling a civic duty to defend yet another of his cronies being convicted of multiple felonies.

Why do you think that focus is weird?

Iím an attorney, mostly a defense attorney at this point.  Fair trials and due process are important to me.  An obviously biased juror in a high profile case is notable.  If she hid her bias, or went into court with an agenda, she wasnít doing her ďcivic dutyĒ, but rather perverting justice.  Isnít that something we should all care about?  Or do we only wring our hands about corrupt acts when they harm our political allies?

Based on reports, the person's occupation and interests were identified and reviewed during jury selection.  Defense tried to exclude but the judge overruled them because they couldn't establish why that should exclude a person.

and, as someone else mentioned, you're trying to negate what everyone else determined on that jury.  If this person was running contrary to everyone else, you might have a point.  when they reach the same conclusion as everyone else, I'm having a hard time buying they didn't reach their conclusion based on the merits of the case.

The ďsomebody elseĒ who mentioned that was me.

But, itís obviously unfair to have a highly partisan juror *who has publicly criticized Stone on social media before the trial*.  We can all agree on that basic premise of due process?  Whether or not that should overturn a verdict is a different issue.

Isnít this just crying over spilled milk tho? The juror went thru the selection process, that was the time to get rid of them. Blame the defense attorney.

Unless she lied.
C: Mourning / Bogut / B. Miller
F: K. Malone / Ibaka
F: Giannis / Tatum / C. Butler
G: Ginobili / Redick/ E. Gordon
G: M. Conley / D. Rose

Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat. CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012.

Re: This Ukraine thing (aka, the impeachment thing, Trump acquitted)
« Reply #2749 on: February 21, 2020, 12:52:38 PM »

Offline Vermont Green

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4717
  • Tommy Points: 397
Unless she lied.

I am not sure how it works  If a juror lied as part of the jury selection process, is that an automatic mistrial automatically or just a consideration?

Any one juror could have decided not guilty and Stone would have walked.  Does the judge have the discretion to talk to the individual jurors and ask them if they feel they were influenced or pressured by this one juror?  If some or even one say yes, then a mistrial may be appropriate.

I suspect all of the jurors ruled guilty on all of the, what was it, 7 charges because the evidence was overwhelming.  Stone does deserve a fair trial though so if this one juror did lie AND there is evidence that this impacted how the jury ruled, then he should get  another trial.

He should be careful though, another judge may give him a longer sentence.

Re: This Ukraine thing (aka, the impeachment thing, Trump acquitted)
« Reply #2750 on: February 21, 2020, 01:14:26 PM »

Online nickagneta

  • Global Moderator
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 41115
  • Tommy Points: 7996
Jurors lie in this country every day. White collar criminals get undersentenced while blue collar crime gets oversentenced in this country every day. I feel no sympathy for a scumbag like Roger Stone possibly having a compromised juror or getting 3+ years for his crime. If society was going to hold up a case of a miscarriage of Justice somehow to show we need reform, this certainly would be near the bottom of that list of cases.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2020, 01:22:41 PM by nickagneta »

Re: This Ukraine thing (aka, the impeachment thing, Trump acquitted)
« Reply #2751 on: February 21, 2020, 01:21:36 PM »

Offline indeedproceed

  • In The Rafters
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 42460
  • Tommy Points: 2731
  • You ain't the boss of the freakin' bedclothes.
Jurors lie in this country every day. White collar criminals get undersentenced while blue collar crime gets oversentenced in this country every day. I feel no sympathy for a scumbag like Roger Stone possibly having a compromised juror or getting 3+ years for his crime. If society was going to hold up a case of a miscarriage of Justice somehow to show we need reform, this certainly would be near the bottom of that list of cases.

Yes, but we're talking politics, and we're talking lawyers. Common sense isn't going to be making an appearance. They're booked full on through 2021.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2020, 01:22:57 PM by nickagneta »

"You've gotta respect a 15-percent 3-point shooter. A guy
like that is always lethal." - Evan 'The God' Turner

Re: This Ukraine thing (aka, the impeachment thing, Trump acquitted)
« Reply #2752 on: February 21, 2020, 01:25:37 PM »

Offline fairweatherfan

  • Johnny Most
  • ********************
  • Posts: 20697
  • Tommy Points: 2364
  • Be the posts you wish to see in the world.
Why the hell is trump pardoning and talking about pardoning all these sleaze bags before November? Donít most presidents wait until their second term to make controversial pardons? Or at least until the lame duck session?

His acquittal has led him to believe there are no real checks on his power and his voters are indifferent or favorable to him abusing it, and he's probably right. Of course he was also doing some of this before impeachment, but it's all ramped up since.

Speaking of which, the President of the United States is now personally attacking jurors in the trial of his associate for lying to Congress and intimidating witnesses to cover for him.

Trump should stay off of Twitter. That said, from what I read about one of the Stone jurors, I would be p---ed if she was on my jury. 
I donít know if she lied on her juror materials, whether Stoneís attorneys did due diligence, or whether the judge overruled a challenge to her being on the jury, etc.  Her social media certainly gives her the appearance of being biased and partisan, however.

I think that that taints the verdict to some degree, but the 11 other jurors were still unanimous in their verdict, and the judge saw it as a reasonable outcome supported by the evidence.

Weird that your focus here is also on attacking the juror rather than the fact that the most powerful man on Earth is publicly targeting a private citizen fulfilling a civic duty to defend yet another of his cronies being convicted of multiple felonies.

Why do you think that focus is weird?

Iím an attorney, mostly a defense attorney at this point.  Fair trials and due process are important to me.  An obviously biased juror in a high profile case is notable.  If she hid her bias, or went into court with an agenda, she wasnít doing her ďcivic dutyĒ, but rather perverting justice.  Isnít that something we should all care about?  Or do we only wring our hands about corrupt acts when they harm our political allies?

Someone sincerely concerned with fair trials and due process should have far, far more concern with the President of the United States showing a willingness to personally attack federal judges and jurors on behalf of his many criminal associates. That is orders of magnitude more threatening to the integrity of the process than vague innuendo based on a juror being a staunch Democrat. That this even needs to be pointed out is mindboggling.

But after the disgusting apologia I just read for not only ignoring but covering up another foreign attack on our elections for partisan advantage, it's pretty obvious what's motivating the thinking here.

Re: This Ukraine thing (aka, the impeachment thing, Trump acquitted)
« Reply #2753 on: February 21, 2020, 04:29:16 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 40645
  • Tommy Points: -27201
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Why the hell is trump pardoning and talking about pardoning all these sleaze bags before November? Donít most presidents wait until their second term to make controversial pardons? Or at least until the lame duck session?

His acquittal has led him to believe there are no real checks on his power and his voters are indifferent or favorable to him abusing it, and he's probably right. Of course he was also doing some of this before impeachment, but it's all ramped up since.

Speaking of which, the President of the United States is now personally attacking jurors in the trial of his associate for lying to Congress and intimidating witnesses to cover for him.

Trump should stay off of Twitter. That said, from what I read about one of the Stone jurors, I would be p---ed if she was on my jury. 
I donít know if she lied on her juror materials, whether Stoneís attorneys did due diligence, or whether the judge overruled a challenge to her being on the jury, etc.  Her social media certainly gives her the appearance of being biased and partisan, however.

I think that that taints the verdict to some degree, but the 11 other jurors were still unanimous in their verdict, and the judge saw it as a reasonable outcome supported by the evidence.

Weird that your focus here is also on attacking the juror rather than the fact that the most powerful man on Earth is publicly targeting a private citizen fulfilling a civic duty to defend yet another of his cronies being convicted of multiple felonies.

Why do you think that focus is weird?

Iím an attorney, mostly a defense attorney at this point.  Fair trials and due process are important to me.  An obviously biased juror in a high profile case is notable.  If she hid her bias, or went into court with an agenda, she wasnít doing her ďcivic dutyĒ, but rather perverting justice.  Isnít that something we should all care about?  Or do we only wring our hands about corrupt acts when they harm our political allies?

Someone sincerely concerned with fair trials and due process should have far, far more concern with the President of the United States showing a willingness to personally attack federal judges and jurors on behalf of his many criminal associates. That is orders of magnitude more threatening to the integrity of the process than vague innuendo based on a juror being a staunch Democrat. That this even needs to be pointed out is mindboggling.

But after the disgusting apologia I just read for not only ignoring but covering up another foreign attack on our elections for partisan advantage, it's pretty obvious what's motivating the thinking here.

Lol.  You crack me up.
C: Mourning / Bogut / B. Miller
F: K. Malone / Ibaka
F: Giannis / Tatum / C. Butler
G: Ginobili / Redick/ E. Gordon
G: M. Conley / D. Rose

Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat. CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012.

Re: This Ukraine thing (aka, the impeachment thing, Trump acquitted)
« Reply #2754 on: February 21, 2020, 04:34:54 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 40645
  • Tommy Points: -27201
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Jurors lie in this country every day. White collar criminals get undersentenced while blue collar crime gets oversentenced in this country every day. I feel no sympathy for a scumbag like Roger Stone possibly having a compromised juror or getting 3+ years for his crime. If society was going to hold up a case of a miscarriage of Justice somehow to show we need reform, this certainly would be near the bottom of that list of cases.

You and a lot of other Democrats seem willing to look the other way when civil rights are violated. Whether it is the FBI falsifying warrants, spying on American citizens, or violating due process, your reaction has been itís fine so long as it is aimed at Trump. 

Itís this ďparty over valuesĒ thinking that divides the country, and which gave rise to Trump in the first place.  Due Process and civil rights apply to everyone.
C: Mourning / Bogut / B. Miller
F: K. Malone / Ibaka
F: Giannis / Tatum / C. Butler
G: Ginobili / Redick/ E. Gordon
G: M. Conley / D. Rose

Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat. CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012.

Re: This Ukraine thing (aka, the impeachment thing, Trump acquitted)
« Reply #2755 on: February 21, 2020, 04:41:16 PM »

Offline liam

  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18316
  • Tommy Points: 1338
Jurors lie in this country every day. White collar criminals get undersentenced while blue collar crime gets oversentenced in this country every day. I feel no sympathy for a scumbag like Roger Stone possibly having a compromised juror or getting 3+ years for his crime. If society was going to hold up a case of a miscarriage of Justice somehow to show we need reform, this certainly would be near the bottom of that list of cases.

You and a lot of other Democrats seem willing to look the other way when civil rights are violated. Whether it is the FBI falsifying warrants, spying on American citizens, or violating due process, your reaction has been itís fine so long as it is aimed at Trump. 

Itís this ďparty over valuesĒ thinking that divides the country, and which gave rise to Trump in the first place.  Due Process and civil rights apply to everyone.

This is beautiful. Blame people who are against Trump for the rise of Trump. Just a beautiful piece of logic.

Re: This Ukraine thing (aka, the impeachment thing, Trump acquitted)
« Reply #2756 on: February 21, 2020, 05:02:48 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 40645
  • Tommy Points: -27201
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Unless she lied.

I am not sure how it works  If a juror lied as part of the jury selection process, is that an automatic mistrial automatically or just a consideration?

Any one juror could have decided not guilty and Stone would have walked.  Does the judge have the discretion to talk to the individual jurors and ask them if they feel they were influenced or pressured by this one juror?  If some or even one say yes, then a mistrial may be appropriate.

I suspect all of the jurors ruled guilty on all of the, what was it, 7 charges because the evidence was overwhelming.  Stone does deserve a fair trial though so if this one juror did lie AND there is evidence that this impacted how the jury ruled, then he should get  another trial.

He should be careful though, another judge may give him a longer sentence.

I appreciate this perspective.

I am not sure of the specifics related to federal law.  When I was a clerk in state court, one of our judges called the the in after several weeks because he heard that one of the jurors considered outside evidence. He polled them and ultimately let the verdict stand.
C: Mourning / Bogut / B. Miller
F: K. Malone / Ibaka
F: Giannis / Tatum / C. Butler
G: Ginobili / Redick/ E. Gordon
G: M. Conley / D. Rose

Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat. CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012.

Re: This Ukraine thing (aka, the impeachment thing, Trump acquitted)
« Reply #2757 on: February 21, 2020, 05:07:01 PM »

Offline No Nickname

  • Gordon Hayward
  • Posts: 475
  • Tommy Points: 59
Why the hell is trump pardoning and talking about pardoning all these sleaze bags before November? Donít most presidents wait until their second term to make controversial pardons? Or at least until the lame duck session?

His acquittal has led him to believe there are no real checks on his power and his voters are indifferent or favorable to him abusing it, and he's probably right. Of course he was also doing some of this before impeachment, but it's all ramped up since.

Speaking of which, the President of the United States is now personally attacking jurors in the trial of his associate for lying to Congress and intimidating witnesses to cover for him.

Trump should stay off of Twitter. That said, from what I read about one of the Stone jurors, I would be p---ed if she was on my jury. 
I donít know if she lied on her juror materials, whether Stoneís attorneys did due diligence, or whether the judge overruled a challenge to her being on the jury, etc.  Her social media certainly gives her the appearance of being biased and partisan, however.

I think that that taints the verdict to some degree, but the 11 other jurors were still unanimous in their verdict, and the judge saw it as a reasonable outcome supported by the evidence.

Weird that your focus here is also on attacking the juror rather than the fact that the most powerful man on Earth is publicly targeting a private citizen fulfilling a civic duty to defend yet another of his cronies being convicted of multiple felonies.

Why do you think that focus is weird?

Iím an attorney, mostly a defense attorney at this point.  Fair trials and due process are important to me.  An obviously biased juror in a high profile case is notable.  If she hid her bias, or went into court with an agenda, she wasnít doing her ďcivic dutyĒ, but rather perverting justice.  Isnít that something we should all care about?  Or do we only wring our hands about corrupt acts when they harm our political allies?

Based on reports, the person's occupation and interests were identified and reviewed during jury selection.  Defense tried to exclude but the judge overruled them because they couldn't establish why that should exclude a person.

and, as someone else mentioned, you're trying to negate what everyone else determined on that jury.  If this person was running contrary to everyone else, you might have a point.  when they reach the same conclusion as everyone else, I'm having a hard time buying they didn't reach their conclusion based on the merits of the case.

The ďsomebody elseĒ who mentioned that was me.

But, itís obviously unfair to have a highly partisan juror *who has publicly criticized Stone on social media before the trial*.  We can all agree on that basic premise of due process?  Whether or not that should overturn a verdict is a different issue.

Fair or not, blame the judge.   The juror did nothing more than their civic duty and reached a conclusion identical to the rest of the jurors.  Suggesting that the verdict is "tainted" makes no logical sense given that it was unanimous.   

Anybody who has paid any attention to this case knows that Stone was guilty and the correct verdict was delivered.

Making public, personal attacks on the juror now is not justifiable and pointless other than to try to somehow raise sympathy for Stone by demonizing someone, anyone, who was involved in the delivery of justice upon him.
The most obvious fact pattern is that the juror did not in fact disclose that she had spoken about the case (harshly) on social media...

I'm not saying you're incorrect, but can you show me where she spoke "harshly" about the case on social media?

I see a retweet of someone else's rather tame tweet about the Stone case, but I don't see where she wrote specifically about it.  Again, not saying you're wrong, I just can't find it in my Google search.

Here's a Fox News link that I looked at: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/roger-stone-juror-justice-department-anti-trump-social-media

Or are we saying that retweets count as actually saying what the original tweet was?  If that's the case there are some interesting Trump retweets of white supremacists that we should alert the DOJ to.

Re: This Ukraine thing (aka, the impeachment thing, Trump acquitted)
« Reply #2758 on: February 21, 2020, 05:20:21 PM »

Online nickagneta

  • Global Moderator
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 41115
  • Tommy Points: 7996
Jurors lie in this country every day. White collar criminals get undersentenced while blue collar crime gets oversentenced in this country every day. I feel no sympathy for a scumbag like Roger Stone possibly having a compromised juror or getting 3+ years for his crime. If society was going to hold up a case of a miscarriage of Justice somehow to show we need reform, this certainly would be near the bottom of that list of cases.

You and a lot of other Democrats seem willing to look the other way when civil rights are violated. Whether it is the FBI falsifying warrants, spying on American citizens, or violating due process, your reaction has been itís fine so long as it is aimed at Trump. 

Itís this ďparty over valuesĒ thinking that divides the country, and which gave rise to Trump in the first place.  Due Process and civil rights apply to everyone.
All I am saying is if Stone had a compromised juror, and I do not believe he did, he just had a juror that was a hard line Democrat, that Stone's case is not one I would begin with to start bringing up injustice in the judicial system in America.

The guy has been and always will be a scumbag and a criminal. That he is a Trump Republican matters little to me. If he was a mafia Don or a Midwestern crime boss or a crooked Wall Street lawyer, I would have the same reaction. I throw him in with other white collar scum like Bernie Madoff, Mike Milken, Michael Cohen and Michael Avenatti. Glad they are have or are going to jail. 

As for calling out my stances to be compromised by politics, perhaps a mirror should be in order for you. Was it your moral fiber and consistent stances on subjects regardless of political affiliation that led you to on several occasions to name a whistleblower on a public forum, possibly putting that person and his family in danger or vote for a horribly corrupt(morally and fiscally and legally) individual for President that during his campaign asked for Russian help with his campaign publicly?

Re: This Ukraine thing (aka, the impeachment thing, Trump acquitted)
« Reply #2759 on: February 21, 2020, 05:45:50 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 40645
  • Tommy Points: -27201
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Jurors lie in this country every day. White collar criminals get undersentenced while blue collar crime gets oversentenced in this country every day. I feel no sympathy for a scumbag like Roger Stone possibly having a compromised juror or getting 3+ years for his crime. If society was going to hold up a case of a miscarriage of Justice somehow to show we need reform, this certainly would be near the bottom of that list of cases.

You and a lot of other Democrats seem willing to look the other way when civil rights are violated. Whether it is the FBI falsifying warrants, spying on American citizens, or violating due process, your reaction has been itís fine so long as it is aimed at Trump. 

Itís this ďparty over valuesĒ thinking that divides the country, and which gave rise to Trump in the first place.  Due Process and civil rights apply to everyone.
All I am saying is if Stone had a compromised juror, and I do not believe he did, he just had a juror that was a hard line Democrat, that Stone's case is not one I would begin with to start bringing up injustice in the judicial system in America.

The guy has been and always will be a scumbag and a criminal. That he is a Trump Republican matters little to me. If he was a mafia Don or a Midwestern crime boss or a crooked Wall Street lawyer, I would have the same reaction. I throw him in with other white collar scum like Bernie Madoff, Mike Milken, Michael Cohen and Michael Avenatti. Glad they are have or are going to jail. 

As for calling out my stances to be compromised by politics, perhaps a mirror should be in order for you. Was it your moral fiber and consistent stances on subjects regardless of political affiliation that led you to on several occasions to name a whistleblower on a public forum, possibly putting that person and his family in danger or vote for a horribly corrupt(morally and fiscally and legally) individual for President that during his campaign asked for Russian help with his campaign publicly?

I deeply apologize for naming the whistleblower and putting him at risk to crazed CelticsBloggers, despite whistleblower laws not applying to me or well over 99% of the country.

Interesting that you put that in the same category as FBI corruption, warrantless searches, illegal surveillance and unfair trials, all of which you have condoned.
C: Mourning / Bogut / B. Miller
F: K. Malone / Ibaka
F: Giannis / Tatum / C. Butler
G: Ginobili / Redick/ E. Gordon
G: M. Conley / D. Rose

Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat. CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012.