BREAKING: Mueller’s Prosecutor Abruptly Resigns From Roger Stone Case After DOJ Backs Down From Exce

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Gatewood, Feb 11, 2020.

  1. struth

    struth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2018
    Messages:
    33,519
    Likes Received:
    17,956
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why? He wrote the letter to the House...why didn't they call him to testify and takes his deposition to give to the Senate, like they did with the 17 other witnesses?
     
    Thought Criminal likes this.
  2. Thought Criminal

    Thought Criminal Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    18,135
    Likes Received:
    13,224
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "The NYT article is irrelevant. I neither believe it or disbelieve it."

    It's relevant to my curiousity. I was wondering if your posts supported a consistent approach across the political spectrum.



    "I do believe Bolton's attorney and what he wrote in his letter to the House regarding his claim that Bolton held relevant material regarding the impeachment charges. IMO, that should have been sufficient to justify his subpoena by the Senate."

    What would Bolton's testimony have been?
     
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2020
  3. struth

    struth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2018
    Messages:
    33,519
    Likes Received:
    17,956
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I believe the accusations is jury misconduct, because a juror wasn't honest about their bias, and potentially used her bias to get on the jury to impact the outcome.

    I don't blame the Judge for kicking this hot potato out of the trial court, and to the DC Circuit will it likely will be overturned.
     
  4. stone6

    stone6 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2019
    Messages:
    9,281
    Likes Received:
    2,780
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Do you mean "what would Bolton's testimony have been?"
     
  5. Ddyad

    Ddyad Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2015
    Messages:
    53,268
    Likes Received:
    25,271
    Trophy Points:
    113
    BuckyBadger likes this.
  6. Thought Criminal

    Thought Criminal Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    18,135
    Likes Received:
    13,224
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes.

    Thanks.
     
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2020
    Ddyad likes this.
  7. stone6

    stone6 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2019
    Messages:
    9,281
    Likes Received:
    2,780
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I doubt it. The juror completed the forms honestly. And, of course she took the prosecution's side (as did the other eleven jurors who all found Stone guilty as charged). That's the way it works...the jurors determine the facts of the case. The prosecution presents their case and the defense either denies the facts or explains them away.
     
  8. struth

    struth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2018
    Messages:
    33,519
    Likes Received:
    17,956
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How do you know she did? Have you seen the juror questions?

    The problem might very well be, as it appears....juror misconduct. Jurors are not allowed to bring their outside bias in the Courtroom
     
    Ddyad likes this.
  9. stone6

    stone6 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2019
    Messages:
    9,281
    Likes Received:
    2,780
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    My opinion is that Bolton would have said that Trump personally told him that he wanted to withhold aid to Ukraine until they agreed to the investigations he was seeking...the 2016 Crowdstrike Conspiracy theory and the Biden involvement with Burisma. Less probable, in my opinion, would have been Bolton testifying on behalf of the President - i.e. he thought it was a quirk but legal, and that had it been illegal, the WH lawyers would have objected.
     
  10. stone6

    stone6 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2019
    Messages:
    9,281
    Likes Received:
    2,780
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The burden is not on the juror, but on the adversarial system between prosecutor and defendant. That's why both sides have challenges...usually some for cause, some not for cause. You're still telling me that Stone was misrepresented by his own attorneys and I serious doubt that will fly with either the judge or on appeal.
     
  11. struth

    struth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2018
    Messages:
    33,519
    Likes Received:
    17,956
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sorry...Jury Misconduct is a thing in our system....folks can't lie, or use outside bias to impact a jury.

    I am saying there potentially jury misconduct. That's something different then ineffective assistance of counsel
     
    Talon likes this.
  12. stone6

    stone6 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2019
    Messages:
    9,281
    Likes Received:
    2,780
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No...but the attorneys have, as well as the judge. If there was knowledge of her supposed "bias" before trial, she would have been dismissed. What proof of bias before trial do you have?
     
  13. stone6

    stone6 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2019
    Messages:
    9,281
    Likes Received:
    2,780
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Misrepresentation is also "a thing in our system." Just ask Michael Avenatti.
     
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2020
  14. struth

    struth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2018
    Messages:
    33,519
    Likes Received:
    17,956
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Only if the attorneys and judge were aware of it. Of number of her tweets and comments have come to light. So you have no idea if she was actually honest or not? Gotcha.

    Former US Attorney General respond to the new information about the corrupt and bias Juror: https://www.foxnews.com/media/roger-stone-juror-controversy-matt-whitaker-responds:v "Once a juror is corrupt or has a bias, the whole system falls apart," Whitaker said. "Really, I think we should be concerned about jurors -- especially here, unfortunately, in the District of Columbia [where Stone's trial was heard] where they kind of game the system and have biases that they aren't willing to admit."

    Here's a comment from here back in March 2019, speaking specifically about the Mueller investigation, the very investigation she was a juror on: On March 24, 2019, Hart shared a Facebook post saying that Republicans who complained about then-Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation were deliberately "ignoring the numerous indictments, guilty pleas, and convictions of people in 45’s inner-circle," referring to Trump.
     
  15. struth

    struth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2018
    Messages:
    33,519
    Likes Received:
    17,956
    Trophy Points:
    113
    it's referred to an ineffective asst of counsel...right now it seems his lawyers are fighting very hard for him...exposing this jury misconduct was huge
     
  16. stone6

    stone6 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2019
    Messages:
    9,281
    Likes Received:
    2,780
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    A reasonable opinion. Juror's are allowed opinions as long as they leave them at the Court House door. The burden will be on Stone to "proof bias affected her jury decisions." IMO, he will fail. But, it's another delaying tactic if the appellate courts allow it.
     
  17. Thought Criminal

    Thought Criminal Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    18,135
    Likes Received:
    13,224
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm not seeing any substantive difference between that and what I posted earlier.

    "The Democrats were not seeking to present new evidence. The most generous thing that can be said, is that the Democrats were seeking new evidence."

    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...down-from-exce.568014/page-28#post-1071435783
     
    Ddyad likes this.
  18. struth

    struth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2018
    Messages:
    33,519
    Likes Received:
    17,956
    Trophy Points:
    113
    When did Dems start thinking exercising Constitution rights was a "delay" tactic? Odd.....
     
    Ddyad likes this.
  19. stone6

    stone6 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2019
    Messages:
    9,281
    Likes Received:
    2,780
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What jury misconduct? There is no "jury misconduct." Only the accusation of such. And, it's TBD on whether or not the appellate courts will even hear the accusations.
     
  20. struth

    struth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2018
    Messages:
    33,519
    Likes Received:
    17,956
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's jury misconduct to bring outside bias in the the jury box.

    Oh the DC CIrcuit will certainly hear an appeal
     
    Ddyad likes this.
  21. Ddyad

    Ddyad Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2015
    Messages:
    53,268
    Likes Received:
    25,271
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I wonder how many other "progressive" extremist haters sat on the jury that "convicted" Roger Stone?

    "— Tomeka Hart (@hartformemphis) July 14, 2017
    “In case you’re wondering if President Trump inspires neo-nazis–this is from their publication The Daily Stormer:” https://t.co/lH5GJYK77E

    — Tomeka Hart (@hartformemphis) August 13, 2017
    “Protestors troll Trump with “Welcome to Kenya” signs during Hawaii visit https://t.co/4sfrNeNgLW” https://t.co/S6AKTRdDF3

    — Tomeka Hart (@hartformemphis) November 5, 2017
    Gotta love it!

    “The word “shithole” is being projected onto Trump’s DC hotel.” https://t.co/9h7neiNVTd

    — Tomeka Hart (@hartformemphis) January 14, 2018
    Opinion | What’s so extremely, uniquely wrong about Trump’s presidency https://t.co/ArBYeDMlmQ

    — Tomeka Hart (@hartformemphis) January 21, 2018

    “”Why do they stick with Trump?” Wong asked during the panel. “Because Trump’s immigration agenda is the white evangelical immigration agenda. I think that has become very clear.””#ChuckDTriedToTellUs#FearOfABlackPlanet#FightThePower https://t.co/qCY21gTwF5

    — Tomeka Hart (@hartformemphis) November 2, 2018
    Hart publicly revealed her identity this week as the jury’s foreperson in private social media posts which were originally shared with CNN."
    BizPacReview, Roger Stone jury reportedly stacked with leftist activists; Obama-appointed judge allegedly ignored,By Vivek Saxena,
    February 13, 2020.
    https://www.bizpacreview.com/2020/0...bama-appointed-judge-allegedly-ignored-886509
     
  22. stone6

    stone6 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2019
    Messages:
    9,281
    Likes Received:
    2,780
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    We seem to be going around in circles. The 17 witnesses who testified in the House investigations (save Sondland) were indirect witnesses. Direct witnesses, who may have corroborated their testimony would be "new evidence" and almost assuredly would have been allowed to be summoned to testify at trial as such. Virtually ALL legal jurisdictions have provisions to allow for the introduction at trial of relevant new evidence. Perhaps the sole exception would be the Senate trial on impeachment, wherein the Senate itself (by majority vote) may establish its own rules based on their constitutional responsibility as the having the "sole power to try impeachments." More specifically...the letter from Bolton's attorney to the House Counsel, states that Bolton has relevant information to the impeachment charges. That's not a "leak" from an anonymous source, found in the media. It's a letter from the attorney of a potential direct witness stating that his client has new information relevant to the impeachment charges. The Republican majority (less 2 or 3), who voted the presentation of such new evidence down, betrayed their oaths to ensure a fair trial.
     
  23. stone6

    stone6 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2019
    Messages:
    9,281
    Likes Received:
    2,780
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    My personal opinion. I didn't say he had no right to appeal.
     
  24. struth

    struth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2018
    Messages:
    33,519
    Likes Received:
    17,956
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They aren't "new" evidence....Bolton etc IDs were known....you could have called them in the House but decided not to. If he told the House that he had revelvant information, and the House ignored it...it's on them. One can only speculate, but my guess is Shifty got word Bolton's testimony wasn't going benefit their case, hence why he never tried to get his testimony
     
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2020
  25. stone6

    stone6 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2019
    Messages:
    9,281
    Likes Received:
    2,780
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Only if you can proof it. As for the actions of the appellate court, we'll see. It's TBD.
     

Share This Page