The Roger Stone Trial

#1,127
#1,127
volinbham said:
She wasn't just under; she was less than 1/2 the recommended sentence.

Let's try it this way - do you think lying to Congress and a verbal threat to a witness is a worse offense than armed robbery with a discharge of the weapon?
Click to expand...

Sentences vary by a wide range compared to recommendations. Its just a part of the process.

Consider what Stone's attorneys asked for: no jail time at all, just probation
 
#1,128
#1,128
1972 Grad said:
Sure, if it's a Trump supporter.
Click to expand...

It's a pattern. The arrest of Stone was so over the top yet the judge let him go with bail. Clearly he was no threat; particularly one that merited SWAT teams, a helicopter, a boat in the canal and a tip to CNN.

The judge as LG points out thinks Stone is "uber" guilty (UF Law School term I guess) and gives him less than 3.5 years when prosecutors wanted 7 - 9 years.

It's overreach across the board but he's linked to Trump so he deserves it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sea Ray, volfanjustin, NCFisher and 2 others
#1,129
#1,129
lawgator1 said:
Sentences vary by a wide range compared to recommendations. Its just a part of the process.

Consider what Stone's attorneys asked for: no jail time at all, just probation
Click to expand...

they were closer to what he got...

you think his crime was worse than armed robbery/home invasion?
 
#1,130
#1,130
I really don't care about this case, I'd just like to see one single case against the democrat side get prosecuted. Apparently they can do the same thing and walk out scott free.
 
  • Like
Reactions: volfanjustin
#1,131
#1,131
lawgator1 said:
Okay, that's fine. You can certainly ignore the commentary. But if you read the questioning of the juror at issue, I can tell you that is not going to be enough to get her disqualified, retroactively. It is ALWAYS the case in a trial that a juror will recount sources of potential bias, but if when asked will this cause you to be biased and they say no, then that's it. This is especially so when your lawyers quesiton them a bit more and cannot establish that there is a problem. You can use a preemptive strike, but that did not happen here because the defense apparently accepted her answers.
Click to expand...
I got that, it's part of "the good information." French has his prejudices, mostly because he's a Bill Kristol Never Trumper. Just like Trump, who he despises, he just can't control himself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tennesseefan2019
#1,132
#1,132
volinbham said:
It's a pattern. The arrest of Stone was so over the top yet the judge let him go with bail. Clearly he was no threat; particularly one that merited SWAT teams, a helicopter, a boat in the canal and a tip to CNN.

The judge as LG points out thinks Stone is "uber" guilty (UF Law School term I guess) and gives him less than 3.5 years when prosecutors wanted 7 - 9 years.

It's overreach across the board but he's linked to Trump so he deserves it.
Click to expand...

Is “uber guilty” worse than just guilty?
 
#1,133
#1,133
37L1 said:
I got that, it's part of "the good information." French has his prejudices, mostly because he's a Bill Kristol Never Trumper. Just like Trump, who he despises, he just can't control himself.
Click to expand...


It is reality that people, when asked, think that yes they can be objective and set aside bias and they answer that way. But it is subjective. To prove she actually intended not to be unbiased will be tough. Very tough.

Not impossible to prove, it does happen from time to time. But everyoner knows that after the fact that claim can always be made. So I'd roughly estimate that it works as an appellate issue maybe 1 or 2 percent of the time.
 
#1,134
#1,134
volinbham said:
they were closer to what he got...

you think his crime was worse than armed robbery/home invasion?
Click to expand...


Of such a different character that I reject efforts to compare what he did to armed robbery. The sentencing guidelines are completely different.
 
#1,135
#1,135
lawgator1 said:
No, she has wide discretion on sentencing and from what I understand she went through a lengthy explanation as to why she decided on 40 months.

I don't see the problem. I for sure do not see this as some sort of statement by the judge that what Stone did was "not a big deal," or "minor." She said quite the opposite, especially as to witness tampering.
Click to expand...

She scrubbed her Facebook and Twitter accounts. She had a slew of anti-Trump, anti-Trump supporters posts, referring to him as the KKK president. She'd posted regarding the Stone arrest. She'd stated she "doesn't pay attention or watch C-SPAN" when in fact she pays a lot of attention and referenced C-SPAN. She posted a celebratory tweet regarding Stone's conviction, and for some reason felt it her place to defend the resigned prosecutors.

Some have also remarked his defense should have had her struck, but we don't know if they did or not. Further, if they did not review her online accounts, Stone has grounds because of incompetent representation.
It's a problem. She's the primary reason the judge is now forced to consider a mistrial.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vols40 and Tennesseefan2019
#1,136
#1,136
VolStrom said:
I really don't care about this case, I'd just like to see one single case against the democrat side get prosecuted. Apparently they can do the same thing and walk out scott free.
Click to expand...
Democrats are above the law, that’s why when I keep hearing Barr and Durham are still investigating I roll my eyes. Nothing will ever happen to any of those scum bags
 
  • Like
Reactions: hjeagle1vol, vols40 and Tennesseefan2019
#1,140
#1,140
37L1 said:
I read the whole thing. There is some good information in it as well as some real clear cut bias, particularly when the author wanders away from the main topic of Stone's case. You know what I'm talking about.

Question: Is Donald Trump abusing his power with his public tirades against his enemies?
Answer: Certainly.

Trump’s latest comments and criticisms about the Stone sentencing recommendation are but the latest of hundreds of violations by Trump of the norm.

Until the Stone episode, however, one could make a plausible case that the Justice Department had ignored or deflected the president's norm-violating attempts at influence. But soon after Trump’s tweet attack on the prosecutors and the judge involved in the Stone case, the Justice Department announced it was course, overruled the sentencing recommendation of career prosecutors, and recommended a lighter sentence. The Justice Department denied that political considerations went into the reversal. But that was very hard to believe since the reversal was announced in light of Trump’s comments and pressure.

I'm not so sure that the decision by the DOJ and the President's tweets are put in the proper order as I have read information that would seem to contradict that but the author makes no such distinction.

Then there's this as well:

Yes indeed. The president is rewarding his (criminal) friend with special attention and advocacy and targeting his (law-abiding) enemy with threats of criminal reprisal. This is yet another abuse of presidential power, and the abuses will no doubt continue until the moment his presidency ends.

It may just be my own prejudicial leanings, but I would say, based upon the above and some others that are not included, that the author of this piece has his own prejudicial paradigm that taints his article from being accepted as an unbiased and totally factual document.

Having said all that, there is still good information provided as to why Stone may not get anywhere with an appeal and it is pretty well explained why, if that should come to pass. He should have just stuck with that, IMO.
Click to expand...

It’s a newsletter that covered multiple topics.
 
#1,145
#1,145
NCFisher said:
She scrubbed her Facebook and Twitter accounts. She had a slew of anti-Trump, anti-Trump supporters posts, referring to him as the KKK president. She'd posted regarding the Stone arrest. She'd stated she "doesn't pay attention or watch C-SPAN" when in fact she pays a lot of attention and referenced C-SPAN. She posted a celebratory tweet regarding Stone's conviction, and for some reason felt it her place to defend the resigned prosecutors.

Some have also remarked his defense should have had her struck, but we don't know if they did or not. Further, if they did not review her online accounts, Stone has grounds because of incompetent representation.
It's a problem. She's the primary reason the judge is now forced to consider a mistrial.
Click to expand...
According to the portion of transcript in the link I posted, they did not move to exclude her for cause.
 
#1,147
#1,147
RockyTop85 said:
According to the portion of transcript in the link I posted, they did not move to exclude her for cause.
Click to expand...
That simply indicates they did ask for her dismissal at that moment. Multiple reports say Stone's defense did try to remove her: Lawyers: Roger Stone’s Attorneys Should Have Done a Better Job Vetting Anti-Trump Jury Foreperson I think Berman and Stone lawyers should have been more circumspect. It'll likely - and should - be retried in a new venue outside of DC.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 37L1 and vols40
#1,148
#1,148
  • Like
Reactions: hjeagle1vol, 37L1, NorthDallas40 and 2 others
#1,150
#1,150
volfanjustin said:
Democrats are above the law, that’s why when I keep hearing Barr and Durham are still investigating I roll my eyes. Nothing will ever happen to any of those scum bags
Click to expand...

Lack of provable corrupt intent (due to there being no crime to cover up) is what kept Mueller from being able declare criminal conduct by Trump. It worked for McCabe in this instance.

Barr stated May 20, 2019:

"Attorney General William Barr said that his handling of the Mueller report and its aftermath is rooted in a desire to defend the power of the executive branch rather than personal support for President Trump.

“I felt the rules were being changed to hurt Trump, and I thought it was damaging for the presidency over the long haul,” Barr told The Wall Street Journal in El Salvador in an interview published Monday, where he traveled last week to boost support for Trump’s policies toward the violent street gang MS-13.

“At every grave juncture the presidency has done what it is supposed to do, which is to provide leadership and direction,” Barr added. “If you destroy the presidency and make it an errand boy for Congress, we’re going to be a much weaker and more divided nation.”

Everyone who wants justice for this needs to temper expectations. Durham has been appointed for just nine months. These are heads of intel, FBI, and Rosenstein's DOJ; they're not stupid people who threw down trails of indictable breadcrumbs and we won't get everyone we want. McCabe is still under investigation, along with Comey, Brennan, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orange_Vol1321, BigOrangeD and vols40
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top