Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Ditkaless Wonders

Stone Case Prosecutors

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, The Z Machine said:

I'm not sure how that statement indicates that she couldn't judge Stone fairly.

Well that statement was specifically regarding trump supporters. 

Share this post


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

Well that statement was specifically regarding trump supporters. 

So?  Just because she thinks that people that remain silent in the face of racism is tacit approval of racism doesn't mean she cannot fairly evaluate the guilt or innocence of a man charged with lying to Congress and witness intimidation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, The Z Machine said:

So?  Just because she thinks that people that remain silent in the face of racism is tacit approval of racism doesn't mean she cannot fairly evaluate the guilt or innocence of a man charged with lying to Congress and witness intimidation.

She didnt say it was tacit approval. She said it was racist. Point blank. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:
25 minutes ago, The Z Machine said:

So?  Just because she thinks that people that remain silent in the face of racism is tacit approval of racism doesn't mean she cannot fairly evaluate the guilt or innocence of a man charged with lying to Congress and witness intimidation.

She didnt say it was tacit approval. She said it was racist. Point blank. 

So?  Just because she thinks that Trump supporters are racist doesn't mean she cannot fairly evaluate the guilt or innocence of a man charged with lying to Congress and witness intimidation.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, [scooter] said:

So?  Just because she thinks that Trump supporters are racist doesn't mean she cannot fairly evaluate the guilt or innocence of a man charged with lying to Congress and witness intimidation.

Amen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, [scooter] said:

So?  Just because she thinks that Trump supporters are racist doesn't mean she cannot fairly evaluate the guilt or innocence of a man charged with lying to Congress and witness intimidation.

A judge ordered that a new jury be selected in Patti Labelle's civil suit because the jury was all white. No accusations of racism. No proof of any wrongdoing. Just white. 

To pretend like a situation where we know the juror feels the defendant is a racist isnt even of the slightest concern is absurd and completely irrational. 

I already said it shouldnt be a mistrial, but come on. Just stop. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember when Maurile linked to the IP's statements regarding the rodney reed case.  

This case was racially charged. Rodney, a black man, was found guilty of murdering Stacey, a white woman, by an all-white jury.

that's it. No proof of anything. No statements, no past racist behavior. Just that they were white. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

I remember when Maurile linked to the IP's statements regarding the rodney reed case.  

This case was racially charged. Rodney, a black man, was found guilty of murdering Stacey, a white woman, by an all-white jury.

that's it. No proof of anything. No statements, no past racist behavior. Just that they were white. 

Wait. Are you under the impression that Roger Stone's case was racially charged?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

I remember when Maurile linked to the IP's statements regarding the rodney reed case.  

This case was racially charged. Rodney, a black man, was found guilty of murdering Stacey, a white woman, by an all-white jury.

that's it. No proof of anything. No statements, no past racist behavior. Just that they were white. 

I don't know what IP stands for and I've never heard of Rodney Reed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, parasaurolophus said:

Yeah being partisan is fine as long as you are truthful. Would seem weird to strike jurors based solely on party affiliation. 

This question and answer though seem at least a bit problematic...

Atty: Is there anything about his affiliation with the Trump campaign and the Republican party in general that gives you any reason to pause or hesitate or think that you couldn't fairly evaluate the evidence against him?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: No.

Kind of hard to reconcile that with also saying this. 

"Cosigning and defending a racist and his racist rhetoric makes you racist. Point blank"

But i imagine that this day and age it would be hard to find any jurors then or make cases stick if they had to show 100% consistency online. So not to a level of mistrial, but something seems at least a bit wrong there. 

Thanks for the response. I think there are a couple things going on. One is the legalistic point you're raising about fairness and race and all that. However:

Quote

So let’s recap. Stone’s lawyers knew that she was generally familiar with Stone, they knew she ran for Congress, they specifically asked about political bias, and then refused to seek her removal. 

You're missing the part further up from that dialogue where it was clear that Stone's lawyers knew about her affiliations and her prior run for Congress, likely from that same social media history they're raising now, and thus they were asking the questions they did, like the one you noted. They still consciously accepted her as a juror. New trial requests aren't a perpetual machine where defendants get to constantly revisit voir dire and other decisions throughout trial, there has to be some outstanding injustice such that they did not know something game-changing because it was impossible to know or hidden and because they could not do anything about it. 

And Stone has got seven (7!) lawyers now, three law firms (including one former consiglieri for the Luchese crime family), and he's got almost limitless support from defense funds, and he's in a joint defense agreement with the President of the USA. It's not like this guy's getting railroaded by a racially biased jury in some podunk rural parish.

- However my main point was that this was the second motion for new trial in 2 days. Stone just claimed this about the same juror or a different one.... it's looking pretty frivolous already, he's just throwing pasta at the walls. It really just seems, like Flynn, that he's delaying, delaying, delaying... but for what? Because usually this kind of time wasting of the court just results in pissing off the judge. But Stone has some greater aim in mind that most defendants, almost all others, don't.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

But Stone has some greater aim in mind that most defendants, almost all others, don't.

And what is that? Delay such that he does less time behind bars before he gets pardoned? Or is he simply this to curry favor with Trump in the hopes he'll receive a pardon?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, The Z Machine said:

And what is that? Delay such that he does less time behind bars before he gets pardoned? Or is he simply this to curry favor with Trump in the hopes he'll receive a pardon?

I'm guessing some sort of intervention from Barr, like we just saw with Flynn or perhaps Durham. Or yeah creating invented grounds for Trump to use when he pardons them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see how anything Durham comes up with from his Ukrainian sleuthing would cast doubt on Stone's guilt on either charge.  Lying to Congress and witness intimidation are independent of extraneous peripheral facts not related to his falsehoods, and Stone was already found guilty to those acts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, [scooter] said:

Wait. Are you under the impression that Roger Stone's case was racially charged?

Perhaps, in the eyes of this juror....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sam Quentin said:
10 hours ago, [scooter] said:

Wait. Are you under the impression that Roger Stone's case was racially charged?

Perhaps, in the eyes of this juror....

Are you under the impression that new trials are ordered because people on the internet think that one juror "perhaps" has a certain belief?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

I don't think those are hard to reconcile. The defendant was not charged with being racist.

Agreed.  Not at all hard to reconcile unless one accepts also the premise that all republicans are racists.  There is a step in the syllogism which is missing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am under the impression that a defendant has to raise all of their collateral attacks on a verdict in one motion and all of their appealable issues in one appeal.  If they are not raised the first time they are waived.  Perhaps I am wrong.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

I am under the impression that a defendant has to raise all of their collateral attacks on a verdict in one motion and all of their appealable issues in one appeal.  If they are not raised the first time they are waived.  Perhaps I am wrong.  

That only counts for non politically connected defendants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

Agreed.  Not at all hard to reconcile unless one accepts also the premise that all republicans are racists.  There is a step in the syllogism which is missing. 

It doesn’t matter if you or I accept it....if the juror accepts it....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

Agreed.  Not at all hard to reconcile unless one accepts also the premise that all republicans are racists.  There is a step in the syllogism which is missing. 

It's not hard to reconcile even if the juror thinks all Republicans are racist, because the defendant wasn't charged with being racist.

I personally believe that all Klan members are racist. But, as a juror, I could be fair to a known Klan member on trial for mail fraud. The fact that I think he's racist is irrelevant. I don't believe any judge would dismiss me for cause if I told him that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

It's not hard to reconcile even if the juror thinks all Republicans are racist, because the defendant wasn't charged with being racist.

I personally believe that all Klan members are racist. But, as a juror, I could be fair to a known Klan member on trial for mail fraud. The fact that I think he's racist is irrelevant. I don't believe any judge would dismiss me for cause if I told him that.

So two steps missing.  The second being that a specific bias indicates a universal one as well.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

I don't know what IP stands for and I've never heard of Rodney Reed.

Innocence project. 

I started a thread about reed. You said you held the IP in high regard and here is their take on the matter. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, [scooter] said:

Wait. Are you under the impression that Roger Stone's case was racially charged?

If the threshold for being racially charged is just a jury being white and a defendant being black, then i think the jury foreperson being black and thinking the white defendant is racist would easily qualify as racially charged then. 

I dont think that a jury being white is enough to pass that threshold but obviously some people do. People that are held in high regard. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, parasaurolophus said:
15 hours ago, [scooter] said:

Wait. Are you under the impression that Roger Stone's case was racially charged?

If the threshold for being racially charged is just a jury being white and a defendant being black, then i think the jury foreperson being black and thinking the white defendant is racist would easily qualify as racially charged then.

I don't think you're understanding the context here.

The threshold for being racially charged is NOT simply "white jury/black defendant".

The threshold, at least in the Reed case, is more like "white jury/black defendant/white victim", where the victim and defendant were reportedly involved in a relationship that had to be hidden because of prejudice in their community (potentially tainting the jury pool), where the victim's former boyfriend reportedly called the suspect the N-word.

Nothing like that happened in the Stone case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

You're missing the part further up from that dialogue where it was clear that Stone's lawyers knew about her affiliations and her prior run for Congress

My guess is they got that info from required filings for running.

I agree that they had their shot to challenge and they didnt do it. Throwing pasta against the wall with appeals and motions is not really uncommon when enough money is backing the person. 

As I mentioned before too it would be a terrible lime to draw regarding social media and online discussion. People are hyperbolic and often disingenuous online. If a simple online statement could undo verdicts that would not be good, especially with pasta throwers.

Obviously we shouldnt want jurors to think defendants are racists in a perfect world. Most people have a very difficult time getting over biases and I dont think thats a minor one. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, [scooter] said:

I don't think you're understanding the context here.

The threshold for being racially charged is NOT simply "white jury/black defendant".

The threshold, at least in the Reed case, is more like "white jury/black defendant/white victim", where the victim and defendant were reportedly involved in a relationship that had to be hidden because of prejudice in their community (potentially tainting the jury pool), where the victim's former boyfriend reportedly called the suspect the N-word.

Nothing like that happened in the Stone case.

I copied their exact quote. They dont mention any of what you say. 

The IP has never presented one single piece of evidence regarding them hiding their relationship or how they needed to hide it nor presented anything about a tainted jury in any filings. In fact the only evidence they have presented about the relationship centers around them allegedly not hiding it. 

Alleged witnesses that say things like she told them in casual lunch meetings about her banging a black guy named rodney, a sighting at dairy queen in town during the middle of a sunday afternoon, regular drives through town smoking crack in a two door truck with rodney and his cousin, waiting in a parked car together on a main street, hanging out at the bar in town, being publicly confronted by the boyfriend and another officer, etc.

But they certainly mention the all white jury.

 

ETA: the n word calling claim is very recent btw. That is from Arthur Snow. A guy that tried to extort her ex fiance in prison and was reported to the Warden causing him to be transferred to a more secure facility. He has now come forward a few years ago to say that Fennell said this to him in 2009. This obviously has no impact on the jury 12 years prior. 

Edited by parasaurolophus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:
34 minutes ago, [scooter] said:

I don't think you're understanding the context here.

The threshold for being racially charged is NOT simply "white jury/black defendant".

The threshold, at least in the Reed case, is more like "white jury/black defendant/white victim", where the victim and defendant were reportedly involved in a relationship that had to be hidden because of prejudice in their community (potentially tainting the jury pool), where the victim's former boyfriend reportedly called the suspect the N-word.

Nothing like that happened in the Stone case.

I copied their exact quote. They dont mention any of what you say. 

Come on, man.

First off, you omitted the link underneath that quote (which said "he was having a secret affair with her to avoid scandal in a small Texas town").

Second, the part about the former boyfriend calling the suspect the N-word was mentioned immediately after the quote you referenced.

You're ignoring context and at this point I have to conclude that you're doing it deliberately.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have still not heard anyone argue Stone’s innocence, so why are we talking about biased jurors?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Dickies said:

I have still not heard anyone argue Stone’s innocence, so why are we talking about biased jurors?

I don't think anyone here is arguing he is innocent, but when you're prepared to throw the book at someone you should really hope the case is above reproach, which this case isn't.  Hence the criticism.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Max Power said:

I don't think anyone here is arguing he is innocent, but when you're prepared to throw the book at someone you should really hope the case is above reproach, which this case isn't.  Hence the criticism.   

So why argue that the jury is biased?  They aren’t the ones recommending the sentencing. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Max Power said:

I don't think anyone here is arguing he is innocent, but when you're prepared to throw the book at someone you should really hope the case is above reproach, which this case isn't.  Hence the criticism.   

The sentencing guidelines recommendation is partly done by the Probation office. It’s set in stone. It’s Barr - at the behest of the President- who’s deviating from them. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Dickies said:

So why argue that the jury is biased?  They aren’t the ones recommending the sentencing. 

They can both suck equally.  The sentence was bad and Ford's inclusion in the Jury should be reviewed.  I'm not one who is demanding a new trial for Stone either.  I just want to see less of this stuff in our court systems.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

The sentencing guidelines recommendation is partly done by the Probation office. It’s set in stone. It’s Barr - at the behest of the President- who’s deviating from them. 

Trump didn't order Barr to change it and while the sentence may have fallen within guidelines, it was excessive because the prosecutors made it political.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Max Power said:

Trump didn't order Barr to change it and while the sentence may have fallen within guidelines, it was excessive because the prosecutors made it political.  

Trump didn’t order Cohen to do anything either but Cohen did exactly what Trump wanted every time.

The probation office is part of the determination- did you know that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Trump didn’t order Cohen to do anything either but Cohen did exactly what Trump wanted every time.

The probation office is part of the determination- did you know that?

There are many legal analysts who say Stone's sentence recommendation was excessive. When you look at what Stone actually did I don't see how people can think the sentence fit the crime.  

The Trump order Barr angle has already been debunked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Max Power said:

There are many legal analysts who say Stone's sentence recommendation was excessive. When you look at what Stone actually did I don't see how people can think the sentence fit the crime.  

The Trump order Barr angle has already been debunked.

The threat to the judge? Attempting to taint the jury pool? Lying on the stand? The threat to Credico? Involvement in the hacked data and misleading investigators about that? These experts address these things? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/14/2020 at 7:54 PM, parasaurolophus said:

Yeah being partisan is fine as long as you are truthful. Would seem weird to strike jurors based solely on party affiliation. 

This question and answer though seem at least a bit problematic...

Atty: Is there anything about his affiliation with the Trump campaign and the Republican party in general that gives you any reason to pause or hesitate or think that you couldn't fairly evaluate the evidence against him?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: No.

Kind of hard to reconcile that with also saying this. 

"Cosigning and defending a racist and his racist rhetoric makes you racist. Point blank"

But i imagine that this day and age it would be hard to find any jurors then or make cases stick if they had to show 100% consistency online. So not to a level of mistrial, but something seems at least a bit wrong there. 

Believing someone is a racist doesn’t mean you can’t fairly evaluate whether he is guilty of perjury.  

Edited by Henry Ford
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If David Duke is on trial his jury doesn’t have to consist solely of people who think his views are reasonable or who doen’t think he’s a Nazi.  Juries find in favor of people they hate all the time. 

Edited by Henry Ford
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

The threat to the judge? Attempting to taint the jury pool? Lying on the stand? The threat to Credico? Involvement in the hacked data and misleading investigators about that? These experts address these things? 

Everything he was convicted of.  

Do you think Lying to and misleading investigators deserves jail time?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Max Power said:

Everything he was convicted of.  

Do you think Lying to and misleading investigators deserves jail time?  

Do you mean lying to Congress, witness tampering, and obstruction?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you don’t mind me answering, yes, I believe those deserve jail time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Henry Ford said:

If David Duke is on trial his jury doesn’t have to consist solely of people who think his views are reasonable or who doesn’t think he’s a Nazi.  Juries find in favor of people they hate all the time. 

Exactly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Max Power said:

Everything he was convicted of.  

Do you think Lying to and misleading investigators deserves jail time?  

He was convicted of 7 felonies, what do you think someone convicted of 7 felonies should serve? It’s not like he was convicted of 7 crimes but then cooperated with investigators. He was convicted of the crimes, there’s no doubt he is guilty anymore. The guy that posted a picture of the judge in crosshairs during his trial, now wants to claim bias. And there is a certain segment of the population that agrees with him because he’s friends with the president. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Max Power said:

Do you think Lying to and misleading investigators deserves jail time?  

The lying, by itself, say just lying would be around 1.5-2 years, but then there is obstruction and witness tampering. But because it included a threat of harm to others it gets enhanced, it also is enhanced after that because it did impede investigators, it gets enhanced after that because of the duration and the scope of it (lied to Congress, concealed data and documents, an online campaign against Credico and then the judge even after indictment, this went on a long time in a wide variety of ways), and then it gets enhanced after that because of what he did in trial, threatening the judge, trying to taint the jury pool and then lying about that on the stand in court before the judge. The lying itself was enhanced by four separate behaviors besides just "lying" so yeah, per the guidelines, those things should not be ignored. Plus the substance of what he was lying about, a data hacking and election interference investigation involving acts that he himself and his client/mentee were involved in, and the need for the respect of law even in the courtroom itself, and the willfulness of it, all make it very justified in my opinion.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Max Power said:

The Trump order Barr angle has already been debunked.

I think this is one way you can tell that Barr interfered for Trump and that Trump participated - on February 12th Trump withdrew Jessie Liu's nomination. Barr couldn't do that, nor could "the White House," only Trump could do that. Barr has said that he decided - all by his lonesome and against the recommendation of the Probation Office (it recommended 7-9 years) - at midnight or just after on February 11th to reverse his own line prosecutors on a very normal, standard thing, following guidelines. The next afternoon 2 of those line prosecutors quit rather than show up in front a judge and humiliate themselves and say things that they did not believe were true. Then Barr's flunky, who was never on the team, stepped in to file the revised motion, then the other two line prosecutors quit. Then the next day Trump - no one else, Trump - withdrew Liu's nomination to Treasury. Because otherwise Liu would have testified as part of her nomination, as such, more or less in limbo he could instruct her to refuse to cooperate with Congress as being part of the administration.

It's probably worth further noting that Barr replaced Liu with his own aide the day after Liu signed off on the sentencing recommendation for Flynn.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

I think this is one way you can tell that Barr interfered for Trump and that Trump participated - on February 12th Trump withdrew Jessie Liu's nomination. Barr couldn't do that, nor could "the White House," only Trump could do that. Barr has said that he decided - all by his lonesome and against the recommendation of the Probation Office (it recommended 7-9 years) - at midnight or just after on February 11th to reverse his own line prosecutors on a very normal, standard thing, following guidelines. The next afternoon 2 of those line prosecutors quit rather than show up in front a judge and humiliate themselves and say things that they did not believe were true. Then Barr's flunky, who was never on the team, stepped in to file the revised motion, then the other two line prosecutors quit. Then the next day Trump - no one else, Trump - withdrew Liu's nomination to Treasury. Because otherwise Liu would have testified as part of her nomination, as such, more or less in limbo he could instruct her to refuse to cooperate with Congress as being part of the administration.

It's probably worth further noting that Barr replaced Liu with his own aide the day after Liu signed off on the sentencing recommendation for Flynn.

Well sure, if you look at the facts and view them in context it looks bad, but if you "get" that the real crimes are those more or less unspecified things the Democrats have done during their unprecedented witch hunt, well then you can see this from the President's perspective.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1229805288498302978

NBC's Pete Williams says on @MSNBC that his educated guess is that it is very likely Roger Stone will face some prison time, probably 3 or 4 years, as the government said in its revised sentencing recommendation.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.