Tiberius Posted February 12, 2020 Posted February 12, 2020 1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said: And Roger Stone is still guilty. Gang of criminals in charge right now. They will not go unpunished.
Deranged Rhino Posted February 12, 2020 Posted February 12, 2020 Van Grack is sweating today. Filing: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592.169.0.pdf 2 2
Foxx Posted February 12, 2020 Posted February 12, 2020 2 hours ago, Tiberius said: ... Gang of criminals were in charge. They will not go unpunished. FIFY 1
B-Man Posted February 13, 2020 Posted February 13, 2020 So much of the Resistance-created drama of the last three years, whether Russiagate, impeachment, DOJ revolt, etc....... is about them pushing their strongly held view that political oversight of the administrative state is evil. It is in fact a Constitutional imperative in our Republic. 3
B-Man Posted February 13, 2020 Posted February 13, 2020 (edited) . Edited February 13, 2020 by B-Man 1 5
Deranged Rhino Posted February 13, 2020 Posted February 13, 2020 (edited) Edited February 13, 2020 by Deranged Rhino 4 1
CoudyBills Posted February 13, 2020 Posted February 13, 2020 Poor Rodg...if only Mifsud had never offered dirt to Papadopoulos. Oh wait, what's that? He didn't offer dirt, you say? 2
Buffalo_Gal Posted February 13, 2020 Posted February 13, 2020 I cannot believe Roger Stone would not have cause for a mistrial. This seems a little crazy. I guess an appeal is in order? 3
Koko78 Posted February 13, 2020 Posted February 13, 2020 2 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said: <br /> Holy schiff. That's pretty egregious misconduct, if true. 1
Buffalo_Gal Posted February 13, 2020 Posted February 13, 2020 Politico article from November: </snip>And that first juror was an only-in-Washington character, a former Obama-era press secretary for the Office of Management and Budget whose husband still works at the Justice Department division that played a role in the Russia probe that ultimately snagged Stone. She acknowledged having negative views of President Donald Trump and said she had followed the media coverage of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. Still, the woman said she did not have strong views about Stone, and Jackson denied a request from Stone’s lawyers to strike the woman as a potential juror. </snip>
whatdrought Posted February 13, 2020 Posted February 13, 2020 35 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said: Politico article from November: </snip>And that first juror was an only-in-Washington character, a former Obama-era press secretary for the Office of Management and Budget whose husband still works at the Justice Department division that played a role in the Russia probe that ultimately snagged Stone. She acknowledged having negative views of President Donald Trump and said she had followed the media coverage of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. Still, the woman said she did not have strong views about Stone, and Jackson denied a request from Stone’s lawyers to strike the woman as a potential juror. </snip> Oof. If that's accurate, how do you even begin to call that a "fair and impartial jury of peers" The problem with this development is that people are inevitably going to wrap it in partisanship (see our wonderful resident idiot in his thread based on this) when in reality, it doesn't matter whether stone was guilty or not. If the trail wasn't fair, there either has to be a reversal of the ruling, or a re-trial.
IDBillzFan Posted February 13, 2020 Posted February 13, 2020 5 minutes ago, whatdrought said: The problem with this development is that people are inevitably going to wrap it in partisanship (see our wonderful resident idiot in his thread based on this) when in reality, it doesn't matter whether stone was guilty or not. If the trail wasn't fair, there either has to be a reversal of the ruling, or a re-trial. I just hope that juror doesn't commit Arkancide! Meanwhile, I have to appreciate the pace at which the Dems are destroying their party. Imagine how much work it took get that person as the jury foreperson. 1
CoudyBills Posted February 13, 2020 Posted February 13, 2020 1 hour ago, Buffalo_Gal said: I cannot believe Roger Stone would not have cause for a mistrial. This seems a little crazy. I guess an appeal is in order? Screw that, just pardon him today.
Deranged Rhino Posted February 13, 2020 Posted February 13, 2020 39 minutes ago, CoudyBills said: Screw that, just pardon him today. Pardon Flynn, commute Stone's sentence (imo) 1
Recommended Posts