Jump to content
Hugo Stiglitz

The Roger Stone Trial

Recommended Posts

Still and all, what Stone did was flat out lie, not say he couldn't recall.  That's a much easier burden to sustain, regardless of context.

In real life litigation, if you can prove that what a witness can't recall did in fact happen, you are usually content with that and unwilling to attempt to prove the lie. That's why they tend to be called "process violations."

At some point, Trumpco is going to get caught in flat-out, no-dispute, inarguable criminality and we won't give a shit about obstructive offenses anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nivek said:

Just wait until someone finds out where Roger Stone’s tattoo of Trump is.

It's gotta be just above his pussy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/22/2020 at 10:55 AM, Loco said:

It's gotta be just above his pussy

Pussy over pussy?  Like a fraction? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Burt said:

Pussy over pussy?  Like a fraction? 

Undefined, can't divide by zero 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Burt said:

Pussy over pussy?  Like a fraction? 

Nuterator/Dominator?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Gil Bang said:

 

the thing isaw was that she retweeted some anti-trump tweet. is that the limit? do people remember everything they retweet? i mean, i'm sure i've made posts on this board expressing political opinions and opinions on the justice system. does that mean i'm disqualified to be on a jury?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i love that the defense's, uh, defense is that they themselves fucked up. i think they are setting this up for appeal - ineffective assistance of counsel. 

"they didn't even google the jurors before voir dire!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Um.  Whoops.

Even had they found that stuff, I'm not sure it's challenge for cause stuff.  Unless the juror just went apeshit in voir dire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that's like getting a match on tinder and not immediately googling her

"amanda, says she's a dentist here in houston, i know what she looks like, let's see if i can find her"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

the thing isaw was that she retweeted some anti-trump tweet. is that the limit?

a good excuse for me to express my biggest beef with political commentary these days.

 

what you are trying to do is establish a test, and then apply the test to the facts.  that isn't allowed in today's analysis.  all that matters is if you can analogize to something someone of the other political party did.

 

in non-snarky terms:  this is my biggest beef of the last 12 months or so.  so much undisciplined thought.  should trump be impeached?  well, if you'll remember, president [x] also asked country [y] for [z], and he wasn't impeached.  therefore, no.  it's never:  well, it says we should if he committed treason, bribery, HC&M. did he commit any of those?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

a good excuse for me to express my biggest beef with political commentary these days.

 

what you are trying to do is establish a test, and then apply the test to the facts.  that isn't allowed in today's analysis.  all that matters is if you can analogize to something someone of the other political party did.

 

in non-snarky terms:  this is my biggest beef of the last 12 months or so.  so much undisciplined thought.  should trump be impeached?  well, if you'll remember, president [x] also asked country [y] for [z], and he wasn't impeached.  therefore, no.  it's never:  well, it says we should if he committed treason, bribery, HC&M. did he commit any of those?

This x 1000.

Otherwise known as, "whataboutism."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

Another lie. They googled her. My 9 yr old googles people.

 

They deliberately let her on the jury so they could claim bias, and get the verdict tossed.

 

You mean they've been acting so smart because they're so stupid. (/Tremors 2: Aftershocks)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

Is stone in his prison cell yet ???

Technically, no, he's in Florida. I'd argue that's on the prison continuum though. 

Edited by Degenerate Gardner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a little surprised they're going into juror testimony.

Juror misconduct is supposed to be proven by "extrinsic" evidence, that is, something other than the jurors themselves.

Maybe all you have to do is raise a threshold issue, as by tweets and facebook and then you can get into juror testimony.

Otherwise, every convict or loser would have a motion for new trial and examine every juror.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I'm a little surprised they're going into juror testimony.

Juror misconduct is supposed to be proven by "extrinsic" evidence, that is, something other than the jurors themselves.

Maybe all you have to do is raise a threshold issue, as by tweets and facebook and then you can get into juror testimony.

Otherwise, every convict or loser would have a motion for new trial and examine every juror.

Many moons ago, I had a juror we overheard outside on her cell phone, discussing the case with a third party (and, by the sound of her end of the conversation, getting his thoughts on the matter).  We raised it to the judge, and the judge absolutely called the juror in for him to examine her under oath.  She deflected the softball questions pretty well, though, and thus we didn't have a good motion to disqualify.*

* Ended up being the only jury verdict I've lost.**

** Which we flipped, completely, on appeal.  

Edited by Brisketexan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting, after a President has been impeached, he can’t pardon people associated with the impeachment ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

Interesting, after a President has been impeached, he can’t pardon people associated with the impeachment ?

Wut?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

Interesting, after a President has been impeached, he can’t pardon people associated with the impeachment ?

I don't think that's the case, but even if that were to be the case, it doesn't apply.  This president will do whatever the fuck he wants, and let his courts sort it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that he has yet to pardon Manafort and he could pardon Flynn and others, someone is in his ear about not pardoning these people.

Perhaps its the 5th Amendment.  Maybe it's the political cost.  I assume it's something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Many moons ago, I had a juror we overheard outside on her cell phone, discussing the case with a third party (and, by the sound of her end of the conversation, getting his thoughts on the matter).  We raised it to the judge, and the judge absolutely called the juror in for him to examine her under oath.  She deflected the softball questions pretty well, though, and thus we didn't have a good motion to disqualify.*

* Ended up being the only jury verdict I've lost.**

** Which we flipped, completely, on appeal.  

Perez Mason?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Many moons ago, I had a juror we overheard outside on her cell phone, discussing the case with a third party (and, by the sound of her end of the conversation, getting his thoughts on the matter).  We raised it to the judge, and the judge absolutely called the juror in for him to examine her under oath.  She deflected the softball questions pretty well, though, and thus we didn't have a good motion to disqualify.*

* Ended up being the only jury verdict I've lost.**

** Which we flipped, completely, on appeal.  

I guess too there is a difference between stopping juror misconduct before deliberations and trying to attack a verdict based on juror misconduct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/02/27/trump-pardon-roger-stone-constitution-117757

Both the plain meaning of the Constitution’s text and the historical evidence show that once a president has been impeached, he or she loses the power to pardon anyone for criminal offenses connected to the articles of impeachment — and that even after the Senate’s failure to convict the president, he or she does not regain this power.


 

it’ll GoTo the courts. I’m sure the WH will ask for an emergency Supreme Court order 

 

 

Edited by tx 3 putt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mpu


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Recruiting ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Help ... For Sale ... Politics ... Board Discussion
×
×
  • Create New...