Posted on 11/24/2019 12:42:11 PM PST by Swarthy Greek Immigrant
Jack Posobiec 🇺🇸@JackPosobiec · 2h
In a column in the Washington Post one of Roger Stone’s DC jurors essentially admits he did not pay attention to defense arguments
(Excerpt) Read more at twitter.com ...
The evidence in this case was substantial and almost entirely uncontested. Stone’s testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in September 2017 was a matter of record; both the prosecution and defense agreed on the facts. The real dispute was whether Stone had lied under oath and whether that mattered. The defense offered by Stone’s attorney can be summed up in to two words: So what?
First, there's no comparison of Stone's House testimony to the other, apparently contradictory, testimony relied on by the Government. Then there's the cavalier summation of Stone's attorney's argument as no more than "So what?" Seems he ought to have said what the "so, what" was and why it was wrong. After all, the prosecution had to prove that Stone's testimony was false and intentionally false. There's no indication that this jury even considered the vital issue of intent.
Good afternoon boys and girls.
Can you say mistrial?
I knew you could.
m i s t i a l
Might be....not listening to the defense is prejudicing the case.....pre-judge.
WikiLeaks?
I am of the opinion that President Trump and Attorney General Barr are figuring out how to try the criminals in courts that are not contaminated by the evil swamp.
Same here, I didn’t see it.
The defense lawyers will use this as grounds for an appeal.
You can bet you booties that everyone on the jury was a Dem. Are there any Republicans in DC.
The left will find out that 2 can play the game.
The difference is our side will be doxed for doing it.
Mistrial?
Tony Podesta skated because they believed Obama lawyer Greg Craig (acquitted)
DC trial juries, like the DC grand Jury, reflects the demographics of the DC citizens. They are 97% democrat, and devoid of any white male Republicans.
This gives the democrats a real weapon.
Our system depends on the integrity of our citizens. We’re in trouble.
The defense offered by Stone’s attorney can be summed up in to two words: So what?
Sorry, no defense attorney makes that sort of comment, "So what?" He explains to the jurors why the defense believes what took place did not arise to the level of criminality. This juror simply boiled all the defenses statements down to that. In other words, he dismissed them.
This juror along with the others gave no credence to the defense.
This guy telegraphed to me a real "tell" in his comments. When he said, "My favorite person on the jury was an African American woman from Tennessee.", he pretty much volunteered he's a demoncRat.
People on the Right don't make comments like that.
Further, the Judge generally dismisses the jury from the jury box at the end of the trial
Going to a jury holding room seems a bit theatrical.
“There are many parts of ourcountry where the IQ of the average jury member equals that of an average 10-year-old.”
That high?
Find me a case that was overturned because a juror publicly proclaimed he behaved improperly. I don’t think you can.
This guy should be liable for Stones costs to retry the case. He admitted that Stone didn’t get a fair hearing because of him.
Stone would have never gone to jail as long as he didn’t talk. He decided to talk in front of Congress. Don’t talk to the police or talk in front of Congress.
Has any democrat at any time, gone to jail for lying to Congress?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.