Roger Stone Found Guilty on All 7 Counts

LOL I was disqualified from sitting on a jury for way less.

"Jury Foreman In Roger Stone Case Was Trump-Hating Russia Collusion Hoaxer
FEBRUARY 13, 2020 By Tristan Justice
Social media posts from the lead juror in the Roger Stone trial, who is “standing up” for the four prosecutors who withdrew from the case this week, reveal she was a perpetuator of the grand Russian collusion conspiracy theory in addition to showing an obvious bias against Stone.

In March of 2019, Tomeka Hart tweeted about the Mueller indictments which, at the time, included Stone.

“Ignoring the numerous indictments, guilty pleas, and convictions of people in 45’s inner-circle, some Republicans are asserting that the Mueller investigation was a waste of time because he hasn’t found evidence,” Hart wrote on Twitter sharing from a now-deleted Facebook post."...

thefederalist.com/2020/02/13/jury-forema...ia-collusion-hoaxer/

www.cnbc.com/2020/02/14/trump-tweets-he-...-barrs-critique.html


'THIS DOES NOT MEAN I DONT HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT, I CHOSEN NOT TO.'' R U KIDDING ME.....as I stated before OMNIPOTENT.....he is toast...watch what happens

Blazer Bob wrote: LOL I was disqualified from sitting on a jury for way less.

"Jury Foreman In Roger Stone Case Was Trump-Hating Russia Collusion Hoaxer
FEBRUARY 13, 2020 By Tristan Justice
Social media posts from the lead juror in the Roger Stone trial, who is “standing up” for the four prosecutors who withdrew from the case this week, reveal she was a perpetuator of the grand Russian collusion conspiracy theory in addition to showing an obvious bias against Stone.

In March of 2019, Tomeka Hart tweeted about the Mueller indictments which, at the time, included Stone.

“Ignoring the numerous indictments, guilty pleas, and convictions of people in 45’s inner-circle, some Republicans are asserting that the Mueller investigation was a waste of time because he hasn’t found evidence,” Hart wrote on Twitter sharing from a now-deleted Facebook post."...

thefederalist.com/2020/02/13/jury-forema...ia-collusion-hoaxer/

The Grand Russian Collusion Conspiracy Theory. Funny.

I've sat on several juries. One was spousal abuse. During jury selection, the judge and the defense counsel asked each potential juror if they could be fair and impartial. Some said yes, some said no. Every person in that interview process was sworn under oath to tell the truth.

I often think that conservatives have a hard time with understanding fairness. It seems a difficult concept for Republicans to grasp. They think that just because a journalist is liberal, that they cannot report honestly and fairly on a conservative issue. Many Republicans seem to think that political leanings can rule out and eliminate a person from any judgement.

I know that when jury deliberations started, I left any bias I had outside the door. I had the responsibility of the future of a person in my hands, along with 5 other people. It was not a duty that I took lightly.

Remember that Stone was found guilty on seven counts. A guilty verdict is required to be a unanimous decision by 12 people, not just one person. Also, remember that a jury foreman is pretty much just a traffic cop, that is directing a few moments in the deliberation. The foreman does not decide the case. It takes 12 people to convict, not one.

Sure some liberal journalists can be impartial, but so many others use their positions to twist their stories. CNN recently settled a multimillion dollar suit where they framed young school children as racists. And "K" thinks the Right should trust the press to be impartial!!!!

Sorry, the whole Roger Stone story stank to high heaven all along. First of all, his arrest was leaked to the press, and they showed live a SWAT team descending on the home of a 69 year old man. The guy is a bit of a nut, but nine years? Really? Seems excessive to me. Especially when illegal immigrants who murder people are just allowed to sneak out the back door.

koobookie wrote:

Blazer Bob wrote: LOL I was disqualified from sitting on a jury for way less.

"Jury Foreman In Roger Stone Case Was Trump-Hating Russia Collusion Hoaxer
FEBRUARY 13, 2020 By Tristan Justice
Social media posts from the lead juror in the Roger Stone trial, who is “standing up” for the four prosecutors who withdrew from the case this week, reveal she was a perpetuator of the grand Russian collusion conspiracy theory in addition to showing an obvious bias against Stone.

In March of 2019, Tomeka Hart tweeted about the Mueller indictments which, at the time, included Stone.

“Ignoring the numerous indictments, guilty pleas, and convictions of people in 45’s inner-circle, some Republicans are asserting that the Mueller investigation was a waste of time because he hasn’t found evidence,” Hart wrote on Twitter sharing from a now-deleted Facebook post."...

thefederalist.com/2020/02/13/jury-forema...ia-collusion-hoaxer/

The Grand Russian Collusion Conspiracy Theory. Funny.

I've sat on several juries. One was spousal abuse. During jury selection, the judge and the defense counsel asked each potential juror if they could be fair and impartial. Some said yes, some said no. Every person in that interview process was sworn under oath to tell the truth.

I often think that conservatives have a hard time with understanding fairness. It seems a difficult concept for Republicans to grasp. They think that just because a journalist is liberal, that they cannot report honestly and fairly on a conservative issue. Many Republicans seem to think that political leanings can rule out and eliminate a person from any judgement.

I know that when jury deliberations started, I left any bias I had outside the door. I had the responsibility of the future of a person in my hands, along with 5 other people. It was not a duty that I took lightly.

Remember that Stone was found guilty on seven counts. A guilty verdict is required to be a unanimous decision by 12 people, not just one person. Also, remember that a jury foreman is pretty much just a traffic cop, that is directing a few moments in the deliberation. The foreman does not decide the case. It takes 12 people to convict, not one.

koobookie wrote:
I often think that conservatives have a hard time with understanding fairness. It seems a difficult concept for Republicans to grasp. They think that just because a journalist is liberal, that they cannot report honestly and fairly on a conservative issue. Many Republicans seem to think that political leanings can rule out and eliminate a person from any judgement.

If you can't see that the vast majority of the media is strongly biased to the left, that tells me you don't have a broad enough group of sources.

If a Trump supporter took his van and deliberately slammed into a Sanders campaign tent barely missing several people, do you think that would be a big news story on every network? I seriously doubt you or any other Trump haters will answer this honestly but I'll make another futile attempt anyway.

A guilty verdict is required to be a unanimous decision by 12 people,

12 unbiased people. The jury was tainted. You make it sound like that is OK with you. Is it?

Blazer Bob wrote:

A guilty verdict is required to be a unanimous decision by 12 people,

12 unbiased people. The jury was tainted. You make it sound like that is OK with you. Is it?

Exactly how was the jury tainted? Let's say, for the sake of argument, that there were 11 totally unbiased people on the jury, and one biased person that hated the defendant. Since the ultimate decision was unanimous, that would pretty much indicate that Stone was guilty, regardless of any bias by the one person.

Are you saying that this one "biased" person was able to convince 11 other unbiased people to overlook the "obvious evidence that proved his innocence" and vote to convict?

I'll take that as a yes.
BTW it is innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent.

koobookie wrote:

Blazer Bob wrote:

A guilty verdict is required to be a unanimous decision by 12 people,

12 unbiased people. The jury was tainted. You make it sound like that is OK with you. Is it?

Exactly how was the jury tainted? Let's say, for the sake of argument, that there were 11 totally unbiased people on the jury, and one biased person that hated the defendant. Since the ultimate decision was unanimous, that would pretty much indicate that Stone was guilty, regardless of any bias by the one person.

Are you saying that this one "biased" person was able to convince 11 other unbiased people to overlook the "obvious evidence that proved his innocence" and vote to convict?

Blazer Bob wrote: I'll take that as a yes.
BTW it is innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent.

koobookie wrote:

Blazer Bob wrote:

A guilty verdict is required to be a unanimous decision by 12 people,

12 unbiased people. The jury was tainted. You make it sound like that is OK with you. Is it?

Exactly how was the jury tainted? Let's say, for the sake of argument, that there were 11 totally unbiased people on the jury, and one biased person that hated the defendant. Since the ultimate decision was unanimous, that would pretty much indicate that Stone was guilty, regardless of any bias by the one person.

Are you saying that this one "biased" person was able to convince 11 other unbiased people to overlook the "obvious evidence that proved his innocence" and vote to convict?

A yes to what?

Please explain how a single member of the jury could taint the rest of the jurors. Somehow, this single biased person convinced the remaining 11 to vote guilty?

homeagain wrote: www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-n...al-wikileaks-910348/

BANNON backs over Stone with school bus......yikes.....Stone lied to Mueller and NOW Stone is in serious shit....Oh my Q4 is fun!

AHEM......the first strike to Stone came from BANNON....let's go back to the beginning