Roger Stone Found Guilty on All 7 Counts

Is there really any kind of precedent for a 7-9 year sentence for what Stone was convicted of? Why was it ok for McCabe to LIE to the FBI and not even get a slap on the hand?

I have a feeling McCabe isn't off the hook yet though... some are forgetting about what Durham is up to.

koobookie wrote:
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?

To quote Otis, I can explain it to you but I cannot understand it for you.

Rick wrote: Is there really any kind of precedent for a 7-9 year sentence for what Stone was convicted of? Why was it ok for McCabe to LIE to the FBI and not even get a slap on the hand?

I have a feeling McCabe isn't off the hook yet though... some are forgetting about what Durham is up to.

If Durham had anything on McCabe, I doubt he’d be out there bragging on national TV. They know he’s walking.

Blazer Bob wrote:

koobookie wrote:
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?

To quote Otis, I can explain it to you but I cannot understand it for you.

But you have not explained it. The probability of one person being able to sway 11 others is minimal at best. Your supposition that one biased juror tainted the entire jury is incredulous.

The other theory that you have presented - that a person cannot put aside their bias in weighing a case - is also suspect. If your theory is true, then only a conservative could serve on Stone's jury.

koobookie wrote:

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?

All it takes is a strong willed person and the majority of the jury just wanting to go home.

My father was on a jury for drug possession, should have been an open and shut case, but one of the jurors was very pro legalization. Once the jury realized this case would go into a second day because of him, they voted not guilty. Really surprised me when my father said he caved because he was always very anti-drug. But he had a busy week at work ahead of him and couldn't miss any more time.

FredHayek wrote: All it takes is a strong willed person and the majority of the jury just wanting to go home.

My father was on a jury for drug possession, should have been an open and shut case, but one of the jurors was very pro legalization. Once the jury realized this case would go into a second day because of him, they voted not guilty. Really surprised me when my father said he caved because he was always very anti-drug. But he had a busy week at work ahead of him and couldn't miss any more time.

You really think that on a high profile case like this that one person could sway the other 11? Doubtful. Having served on a few juries, I very much took my duties seriously. I would not have switched my mind just so I could go home early. I doubt any of the Stone jurors would have, either.

I think it's just that the Trump Worshipers don't want to admit that one of Donalds' friends is a crook.

homeagain wrote:

homeagain wrote:

Rick wrote:

homeagain wrote:

homeagain wrote: APPROX. 110,000 pissed people have signed petition,HAVE YOU....?????

www.newsweek.com/thousands-sign-petition...ing-proposal-1486928

ALMOST 123,000 signed.....just since WED. am....at 50,000...THAT'S some pretty pissed people...what will it look like NEXT WED?.

The people who care have too many issues anyway. I look forward to Trump's pardon and more pending worthless signatures.

[/b]
I think ALICE WALKER stated quite well....((paraphrasing her)...''THE WAY PEOPLE GIVE AWAY THEIR POWER IS THINKING THEY HAVE NONE.''

126,000 as of 5pm est.....just 24hour old and 200,000 is NOT that far away....WATCH WHAT
HAPPENS.....

ALMOST 150,000....today is MONDAY.....sign the petition IF you want power.....

homeagain wrote:
ALMOST 150,000....today is MONDAY.....sign the petition IF you want power.....

Any power you feel is only in your mind... real power leads to a desired outcome. The outcome will not be changed by signatures, at least not in this case, sorry.

I'm wondering if anyone on this board agrees with Trump's action yesterday to commute Stone's sentence?

Interesting that the commutation will prevent Stone from ever being pressured to testify against Trump.

koobookie wrote: I'm wondering if anyone on this board agrees with Trump's action yesterday to commute Stone's sentence?

Interesting that the commutation will prevent Stone from ever being pressured to testify against Trump.

It was NOT a surprise....there will be many more before this fubar is over in Nov./Dec.