News DOJ asks for 7 to 9 for Roger Stone

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
O

outriding

Diamond Member
Feb 20, 2002
4,402
3,818
136
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie
J

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
..
outriding said:
You mean this one..

www.usatoday.com

Roger Stone juror Seth Cousins defends forewoman Tomeka Hart after Trump's claim of 'significant bias'

Seth Cousins, who served on the jury that convicted Roger Stone, said forewoman Tomeka Hart was \
www.usatoday.com www.usatoday.com

Cousins insisted that Hart's opinions did not affect how she handled her responsibilities.
Click to expand...

It's the usual game of making it not about the GOP criminal but about everybody & everything else. In a sane America, Roger Stone would go to prison for lying repeatedly to Congress & threatening Credico. The facts simply are not in dispute. It's funny how him being a long time Trump crony puts a whole different perspective on it for Trumpsters, isn't it? That's because he lied *for Trump* & they'll do the same given the opportunity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zinfamous
zinfamous

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,857
31,346
146
imported_tajmahal said:
Look it up yourself, google is your friend.
Click to expand...

you're making extraordinary claims. It's on you to defend your claim against the commonly-accepted facts relevant to the case.

Until you do, you're just a fucking pathetic liar. ...but we know that is probably all this is. Just you lying, don't give a fuck that you're lying, just think it's your pathetic job to blast out easily-proven lies about everything your Orange Fuhrer wants you to lie about, liar.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie and BlueWeasel
HomerJS

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
39,313
32,823
136
imported_tajmahal said:
Because they didn't know of her steadfast, biased and unreasonable opposition to their client.
Click to expand...
Based on the way the country is now you either love or hate Trump. That means according to you no citizen in the country can serve on a jury in a case related to Trump.

Get over you undying love for the incompetent corrupt bigot. I served on a few juries and the charge is to put any bias to the side and judge the case on the merits. If you can do that you serve. Also in case you didn't know there were 11 other people who ruled. Guilt requires 12.

That's how the system works, Skippy. Unlike you, I can't stand that motherfucker but I have no doubt I could rule in a case fairly solely based on evidence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zinfamous and DarthKyrie
F

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,936
55,293
136
HomerJS said:
Based on the way the country is now you either love or hate Trump. That means according to you no citizen in the country can serve on a jury in a case related to Trump.

Get over you undying love for the incompetent corrupt bigot. I served on a few juries and the charge is to put any bias to the side and judge the case on the merits. If you can do that you serve. Also in case you didn't know there were 11 other people who ruled. Guilt requires 12.

That's how the system works, Skippy. Unlike you, I can't stand that motherfucker but I have no doubt I could rule in a case fairly solely based on evidence.
Click to expand...

This is the same dumb argument they try to use for everything else because they have no defense on the merits. They don’t argue Stone is innocent, because he’s guilty as hell. Instead of just admitting he should go to prison though because they are tribal they have to invent an excuse for him anyway. So, they choose process arguments, even irrational ones like this.

As I’ve said before imagine a mob lawyer arguing the only people who could serve on their juries were those who liked or were indifferent to the mob. Everyone would laugh at them, conservatives included. That’s exactly the dumb argument they are making here though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zinfamous and DarthKyrie
T

TheVrolok

Lifer
Dec 11, 2000
24,254
4,092
136
fskimospy said:
This is the same dumb argument they try to use for everything else because they have no defense on the merits. They don’t argue Stone is innocent, because he’s guilty as hell. Instead of just admitting he should go to prison though because they are tribal they have to invent an excuse for him anyway. So, they choose process arguments, even irrational ones like this.

As I’ve said before imagine a mob lawyer arguing the only people who could serve on their juries were those who liked or were indifferent to the mob. Everyone would laugh at them, conservatives included. That’s exactly the dumb argument they are making here though.
Click to expand...
The "Law and Order party" sounds an awful lot like criminal defense attorneys these days.. Funny that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie
F

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,936
55,293
136
TheVrolok said:
The "Law and Order party" sounds an awful lot like criminal defense attorneys these days.. Funny that.
Click to expand...

Welllll, they sound like criminal defense attorneys sometimes. It depends entirely on the target. Brown and a refugee? Law and order! White and a friend of Trump? The system is corrupt!
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie
zinfamous

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,857
31,346
146
hal2kilo said:
Oh look at this opinion piece. Claims an impeached president no longer has pardoning power. It's in the constitution.
www.politico.com

Opinion | Why President Trump Can’t Pardon Roger Stone

The Constitution and the Framers sought to protect the republic from a scenario like this.
www.politico.com www.politico.com
Click to expand...

well Old Billy pardoned a few on his way out, so I don't see how this could be a real thing.

besides, it's not like the constitution ever stopped Trump or the GOP. they just don't gaf.
 
ivwshane

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
33,512
17,016
136
zinfamous said:
well Old Billy pardoned a few on his way out, so I don't see how this could be a real thing.

besides, it's not like the constitution ever stopped Trump or the GOP. they just don't gaf.
Click to expand...

Were those pardons in relation to his impeachment?
 
F

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,936
55,293
136
I'm pretty sure that opinion writer is wrong, or at least stating an opinion at odds with the vast majority of constitutional lawyers on this issue. The clause is broadly understood to mean that the president cannot pardon an impeachment, not that once impeached he can no longer pardon people of regular crimes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hayabusa Rider
zinfamous

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,857
31,346
146
ivwshane said:
Were those pardons in relation to his impeachment?
Click to expand...

Don't think so--and I didn't read the linked article but it seems to claim "an impeached president loses their pardoning power," which doesn't suggest anything related to their impeachment, just broad pardon power overall, because they were impeached.

I don't think this could be correct.
 
zinfamous

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,857
31,346
146
hal2kilo said:
Oops! Yea, that detail is important. Anything related to the impeachment investigations.
Click to expand...

Also, not like it matters because Trump will try it, anyway. I'm sure Susan Collins is confident that Trump learned his lesson and would never try to do that, now, so we can all stop worrying about it, I guess.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom