Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.

Here’s What The Lead Roger Stone Juror Said During Jury Selection

2

Comments

  • HHuskyHHusky Member Posts: 21,621

    HHusky said:

    HHusky said:

    HHusky said:

    If what’s being reported is the most damning evidence of juror misconduct, I think the case for a new trial is pretty weak.

    Of course you do you authoritarian boot licking hack
    It is inconceivable that Stone’s defense team was unaware of her social media statements. Checking her out would have been SOP. Unless there was a motion to get rid of her that we don’t know about, I think a motion for a new trial is DOA.
    The juror is the least of the problems with the fascist prosecution. The Obama prosecutors trying to save Mueller's mangy ass and the coordination with CNN on a dawn raid and an Obama judge that is as impartial as you are.

    At least we found the one man in America that the left thinks belongs in prison for a long time
    So you’d prefer to make a different argument now. Good choice!
    Its all the same argument, hack. I have you down in favor of malicious prosecution of political enemies based on a lie and illegal taps. Poison fruit is welcome
    Trump’s DOJ prosecuted the case. It was in the papers.
  • RaceBannonRaceBannon Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 107,666 Founders Club
    HHusky said:

    HHusky said:

    If what’s being reported is the most damning evidence of juror misconduct, I think the case for a new trial is pretty weak.

    Well, given your legal expertise, dazzler, that means absolutely jack shit.
    Her politics were known. Her social media presence was not anonymous. And there is no evidence that she and her 11 fellow members of a unanimous jury failed to look at the evidence impartially.

    But she has political opinions. Good luck on that new trial motion.
    And the judge picked the jury

    What is your point other than running cover for a police state?

    She was the foreman and she was rabidly partisan and when that came out has no bearing. The judge is also a rabid partisan.

    The Flynn case is already falling apart. This is soon to follow. The entire Mueller investigation was a sham and a mockery and this is the last hope for a veneer of respectability

    And you're a lawyer. Gaia help us

    9 years for what?
  • HHuskyHHusky Member Posts: 21,621

    HHusky said:

    HHusky said:

    If what’s being reported is the most damning evidence of juror misconduct, I think the case for a new trial is pretty weak.

    Well, given your legal expertise, dazzler, that means absolutely jack shit.
    Her politics were known. Her social media presence was not anonymous. And there is no evidence that she and her 11 fellow members of a unanimous jury failed to look at the evidence impartially.

    But she has political opinions. Good luck on that new trial motion.
    And the judge picked the jury

    What is your point other than running cover for a police state?

    She was the foreman and she was rabidly partisan and when that came out has no bearing. The judge is also a rabid partisan.

    The Flynn case is already falling apart. This is soon to follow. The entire Mueller investigation was a sham and a mockery and this is the last hope for a veneer of respectability

    And you're a lawyer. Gaia help us

    9 years for what?
    The judge picked the jury?

    I’m just a lawyer, but that would be pretty newsworthy. You should contact the press.
  • DugdawgDugdawg Member Posts: 308
    Voir dire. You guys are pathetic.
  • PurpleThrobberPurpleThrobber Member Posts: 44,812 Standard Supporter
    Dugdawg said:

    Voir dire. You guys are pathetic.


    It originally referred to an oath taken by jurors to tell the truth (Latin: verum dicere), i.e., to say what is true, what is objectively accurate or subjectively honest, or both.


    Yeah...crazy telling the truth during voir dire.

  • HHuskyHHusky Member Posts: 21,621

    Dugdawg said:

    Voir dire. You guys are pathetic.


    It originally referred to an oath taken by jurors to tell the truth (Latin: verum dicere), i.e., to say what is true, what is objectively accurate or subjectively honest, or both.


    Yeah...crazy telling the truth during voir dire.

    What did she lie about?
  • PurpleThrobberPurpleThrobber Member Posts: 44,812 Standard Supporter
    HHusky said:

    Dugdawg said:

    Voir dire. You guys are pathetic.


    It originally referred to an oath taken by jurors to tell the truth (Latin: verum dicere), i.e., to say what is true, what is objectively accurate or subjectively honest, or both.


    Yeah...crazy telling the truth during voir dire.

    What did she lie about?
    Why should I answer your question? You've refused to answer mine for three months.

    So as the great philosopher Michael Damone once said

    FUCK OFF!

  • HHuskyHHusky Member Posts: 21,621

    HHusky said:

    Dugdawg said:

    Voir dire. You guys are pathetic.


    It originally referred to an oath taken by jurors to tell the truth (Latin: verum dicere), i.e., to say what is true, what is objectively accurate or subjectively honest, or both.


    Yeah...crazy telling the truth during voir dire.

    What did she lie about?
    Why should I answer your question? You've refused to answer mine for three months.

    So as the great philosopher Michael Damone once said

    FUCK OFF!

    So she lied, but you can’t say what her lie was.
  • PurpleThrobberPurpleThrobber Member Posts: 44,812 Standard Supporter
    HHusky said:

    HHusky said:

    Dugdawg said:

    Voir dire. You guys are pathetic.


    It originally referred to an oath taken by jurors to tell the truth (Latin: verum dicere), i.e., to say what is true, what is objectively accurate or subjectively honest, or both.


    Yeah...crazy telling the truth during voir dire.

    What did she lie about?
    Why should I answer your question? You've refused to answer mine for three months.

    So as the great philosopher Michael Damone once said

    FUCK OFF!

    So she lied, but you can’t say what her lie was.
    What part of FUCK OFF was so difficult to understand?

  • RaceBannonRaceBannon Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 107,666 Founders Club
    https://thehill.com/homenews/media/482932-foxs-napolitano-roger-stone-absolutely-entitled-to-new-trial-after-jurors

    Nip or Nap is the guy that said the counsel submitted questions but the judge made the call

    Regardless we know the foreman was biased beyond any reasonable standard

    Jack bootlicker
  • RaceBannonRaceBannon Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 107,666 Founders Club
    Dugdawg said:

    Voir dire. You guys are pathetic.

    When they come for you I'll be cheering bootlicker
  • SledogSledog Member Posts: 34,444 Standard Supporter
    HHusky said:

    HHusky said:

    HHusky said:

    If what’s being reported is the most damning evidence of juror misconduct, I think the case for a new trial is pretty weak.

    Well, given your legal expertise, dazzler, that means absolutely jack shit.
    Her politics were known. Her social media presence was not anonymous. And there is no evidence that she and her 11 fellow members of a unanimous jury failed to look at the evidence impartially.

    But she has political opinions. Good luck on that new trial motion.
    And the judge picked the jury

    What is your point other than running cover for a police state?

    She was the foreman and she was rabidly partisan and when that came out has no bearing. The judge is also a rabid partisan.

    The Flynn case is already falling apart. This is soon to follow. The entire Mueller investigation was a sham and a mockery and this is the last hope for a veneer of respectability

    And you're a lawyer. Gaia help us

    9 years for what?
    The judge picked the jury?

    I’m just a lawyer, but that would be pretty newsworthy. You should contact the press.
    I thought the judge picked the jury in these particular federal cases. The news thinks so too.

    Just where do you practice law?
  • DugdawgDugdawg Member Posts: 308

    Dugdawg said:

    Voir dire. You guys are pathetic.

    When they come for you I'll be cheering bootlicker
    So much hate....jeez. I'm more worried about the facist right coming for us than the social democrats. But as I've stated before I hold out hope that the centrists win out and help us all restore some sanity to our domestic politics.
  • RaceBannonRaceBannon Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 107,666 Founders Club
    Dugdawg said:

    Dugdawg said:

    Voir dire. You guys are pathetic.

    When they come for you I'll be cheering bootlicker
    So much hate....jeez. I'm more worried about the facist right coming for us than the social democrats. But as I've stated before I hold out hope that the centrists win out and help us all restore some sanity to our domestic politics.
    You would be because you're stupid

    Take a look at who is destroying the constitution and I'll take it back

  • WestlinnDuckWestlinnDuck Member Posts: 15,702 Standard Supporter
    Pretty sure it's not the conservatives that want my money, guns and my right to free speech.
  • SledogSledog Member Posts: 34,444 Standard Supporter
    edited February 2020

    Pretty sure it's not the conservatives that want my money, guns and my right to free speech.

    And our children.
  • HHuskyHHusky Member Posts: 21,621
    Sledog said:

    Pretty sure it's not the conservatives that want my money, guns and my right to free speech.

    And our children.
    Not yours. Genetics, ya know.
  • HHuskyHHusky Member Posts: 21,621
    edited February 2020
    Sledog said:

    HHusky said:

    HHusky said:

    HHusky said:

    If what’s being reported is the most damning evidence of juror misconduct, I think the case for a new trial is pretty weak.

    Well, given your legal expertise, dazzler, that means absolutely jack shit.
    Her politics were known. Her social media presence was not anonymous. And there is no evidence that she and her 11 fellow members of a unanimous jury failed to look at the evidence impartially.

    But she has political opinions. Good luck on that new trial motion.
    And the judge picked the jury

    What is your point other than running cover for a police state?

    She was the foreman and she was rabidly partisan and when that came out has no bearing. The judge is also a rabid partisan.

    The Flynn case is already falling apart. This is soon to follow. The entire Mueller investigation was a sham and a mockery and this is the last hope for a veneer of respectability

    And you're a lawyer. Gaia help us

    9 years for what?
    The judge picked the jury?

    I’m just a lawyer, but that would be pretty newsworthy. You should contact the press.
    I thought the judge picked the jury in these particular federal cases. The news thinks so too.

    Just where do you practice law?
    The transcript of jury selection is linked in the OP. Were you ever good at anything?
  • DugdawgDugdawg Member Posts: 308

    Dugdawg said:

    Dugdawg said:

    Voir dire. You guys are pathetic.

    When they come for you I'll be cheering bootlicker
    So much hate....jeez. I'm more worried about the facist right coming for us than the social democrats. But as I've stated before I hold out hope that the centrists win out and help us all restore some sanity to our domestic politics.
    You would be because you're stupid

    Take a look at who is destroying the constitution and I'll take it back

    I looked. It's the zealots and their minions at the extremes. Currently we are witnessing how absolute power corrupts absolutely.

    Hands off the judicial system and leave my brutalist architecture alone!
Sign In or Register to comment.