Roger Stone jury foreperson's anti-Trump social media posts surface after she defends DOJ prosecutors

Lunchboxxy

Moderator
Apr 2010
21,412
26,225
Oregon
Trump is apparently entitled to his first amendment rights according to the GOP, but this juror is not? Hypocrisy much?

That’s on Stone’s lawyers. If they didn’t vet the jurors, that is their fault.

This single juror isn’t the entire jury. The evidence was overwhelming. Stone did everything he was found guilty of. The facts aren’t in dispute.
 

Babba

Former Staff
Jul 2007
79,586
72,416
So. Md.
Part of being on a jury is to be objective peers who will be guided by presented evidence to a conclusion on guilt or innocence.

So, equally a Trump supporter, alex Jones fan, or others who may have opinions on the guy should not have been part of the jury.

Just like if you were ever facing a trial, you would hope to have an unbiased jury hear the case, as opposed to people with preconceptions that might harm your case.

If this all proves true, he could argue for a mistrial. Particularly suspicious with the timing of that team of prosecutors who resigned.
This is just stupid. Everyone has opinions. That doesn't mean they can't impartial.

What's suspicious about the prosecutors resigning? They followed DOJ guidelines to a T and resigned because the president pressured the department to lessen the sentence recommendation for a friend.

You haven't been on here very long but in your short time you've proven to have a habit of pulling stuff out of your ass with absolutely no evidence to back up your silly conspiracy theories.
 

Singularity

Moderator
Oct 2009
35,333
30,690
Kansas
Appeal any decision. Fight it all the way to SCOTUS. This is clearly a political hit job anyway.
That's fine. I hope the appeals process is allowed to occur and Stone gets a fair hearing each step of the way.

I'm afraid that what will actually happen is a pardon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dangermouse

Rev. Hellh0und

Former Staff
Jul 2011
76,495
15,775
Somewhere below 14th and East.
Still shilling for Trump by trying to attack all the "activism" of others, while totally ignoring Trump's?


Are you trying to suggest it's bad for people to do as you seem to be suggesting is bad or it's only bad if Democrats appear to be doing what Trump does every day of the week?

You might have some more credibility if you simply said the woman did not belong on the jury if this was proven to be the case, in the same way all those who voted to acquit Trump without hearing any evidence in what was supposed to be a trial and Mitch McConnell so much as stating their coordination with the White House (and the person impeached) and how they intended to and then worked to scuttle any hearing of evidence. Then they acquitted Trump without hearing any evidence under their duty to not only hold a trial, but be impartial.

Where were/are all your posts regarding that "activism", bias and impartiality?

go away troll.
 

Singularity

Moderator
Oct 2009
35,333
30,690
Kansas
This is just stupid. Everyone has opinions. That doesn't mean they can't impartial.

What's suspicious about the prosecutors resigning? They followed DOJ guidelines to a T and resigned because the president pressured the department to lessen the sentence recommendation for a friend.

You haven't been on here very long but in your short time you've proven to have a habit of pulling stuff out of your ass with absolutely no evidence to back up your silly conspiracy theories.
At this point the ideology is that if you're a liberal and have expressed related opinions, you must fall under suspicion.

If you are a federal government employee and you refuse to do exactly as you are told in the way you are told to do it, you are a criminal.

Even if you do the right thing and QUIT YOUR JOB rather than comply with bad orders, you're still a traitor and a fiend.

Compliance in all contexts: The party's final, most essential command.
 

Babba

Former Staff
Jul 2007
79,586
72,416
So. Md.
She obviously wasn't truthful in her statements about not being biased. She contaminated the jury.
No evidence has been publicly brought forth to suggest that that was the case with respect to the juror that Trump referenced.

In fact, the Washington Post reported on Thursday that the juror disclosed her political affiliation and past involvement with Democratic political campaigns during the selection process, as required.

You guys are just pulling this stuff out of your asses. You have no evidence that the relevant parties weren't aware of her political affiliations.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Marvin