BREAKING: Roger Stone Sentenced...[40mos]

[Right_in_Virginia]

Really?  Then what would you call the pre-dawn raid by a SWAT team and taped by the tipped-off CNN goons?  Did they not take him to jail? 

Your outrage would be better directed at that, rather than at Trump supporters who think Stone got a raw deal.

It's not only that Stone got a "raw" deal .... it's the sweetness of the deals for Comey, McCabe et al .... @Cyber Liberty

And I didn't know you had to be a supporter of the President @Applewood to support equal application of the rule of law, so thanks for clearing this up.

[EdinVA]

Really?  Then what would you call the pre-dawn raid by a SWAT team and taped by the tipped-off CNN goons?  Did they not take him to jail? 

Your outrage would be better directed at that, rather than at Trump supporters who think Stone got a raw deal.

http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/01/25/roger-stone-arrest-play-by-play-shortell-vpx.cnn

[berdie]

Her lies under oath to the court put her on the jury.  Had she told the truth about her political activities and affiliations she would have been dismissed from consideration with a thank you from the court. 

By lying to the court, SHE, her very presence in the jury box, tainted and tampered with the jury. 

The appeals court will take up the question of a new trial ... but this woman should be held to account for her knowing lies to the court.  After all, isn't lying under oath one of the counts she found Stone guilty of?

I'm making a huge assumption here, but isn't the  voir dire process confidential? Was this person questioned about this?

[Cyber Liberty]

I'm making a huge assumption here, but isn't the  voir dire process confidential? Was this person questioned about this?

It's not confidential.  All the jurors hear all the questioning, and are not admonished to keep what they heard secret when they're dismissed.  The Defendant, his attorneys and the prosecutors are present.

[corbe]

I'm making a huge assumption here, but isn't the  voir dire process confidential? Was this person questioned about this?

   I was under the impression that during Jury selection the pool of prospective Jurors are not put under oath.  Not saying she didn't lie and corrupt the process just that she was NOT under Oath during voir dire.  Am I wrong?

[Cyber Liberty]

   I was under the impression that during Jury selection the pool of prospective Jurors are not put under oath.  Not saying she didn't lie and corrupt the process just that she was NOT under Oath during voir dire.  Am I wrong?

You would be wrong in Arizona, where I've been a prospective Juror several times.  We were sworn in before questioning.  If there's a written questionnaire, it's signed under penalty of Perjury.  I don't know the rule in Federal Court, but I imagine it's the same. 

It's important.  There's no point in questioning that's not under oath.

[Bigun]

You would be wrong in Arizona, where I've been a prospective Juror several times.  We were sworn in before questioning.  If there's a written questionnaire, it's signed under penalty of Perjury.  I don't know the rule in Federal Court, but I imagine it's the same. 

It's important.  There's no point in questioning that's not under oath.

Texas is the same.

[thackney]

   I was under the impression that during Jury selection the pool of prospective Jurors are not put under oath.  Not saying she didn't lie and corrupt the process just that she was NOT under Oath during voir dire.  Am I wrong?

Commonly jurors are sworn in after Voir Dire is completed.

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/resources/law_related_education_network/how_courts_work/juryselect/

The judge might be able to apply a contempt of court, if the judge so chooses.  But I do not claim real legal knowledge here, just what I have found.

[Applewood]

Really?  Then what would you call the pre-dawn raid by a SWAT team and taped by the tipped-off CNN goons?  Did they not take him to jail? 

Your outrage would be better directed at that, rather than at Trump supporters who think Stone got a raw deal.

Ok, so my computer was out of commission for a while, so while it was down, I got in touch with a friend of mine, a retired FBI agent.  He told me that a pre-dawn raid with a lot of agents and tactics gear is not at all unusual. He said often this is done when the agency believes the suspect might flee or might destroy evidence.  The show of force and the tactical equipment (what Trump people call a SWAT team) is there because agents often don't know what the suspect will do.  Could he and/or those with him offer up armed resistance?  This kind of approach is used to keep everyone -- the suspect, agents and others nearby -- safe. 

Now this is what my friend told me.  You can believe it or not.  By the way, he is a Trump supporter.

Also, I looked at the CNN video of the arrest linked by @EdinVA.  It's a little hard to see for my old, tired eyes, but it does not look like the horrendous SWAT scenario people are crowing about.  Looks like neither Stone nor anyone inside offered any resistance or caused any trouble.

And for what it's worth, CNN denies it was tipped off.  It claims it was just luck that there was a CNN reporter at the scene.  Apparently, CNN did note some unusual activities at the FBI and expected something was up, so they kept a reporter on the story in case something was going to happen. 

Of course, I don't expect any Trump supporters to believe CNN's story.  Maybe I don't either.

[skeeter]

Ok, so my computer was out of commission for a while, so while it was down, I got in touch with a friend of mine, a retired FBI agent.  He told me that a pre-dawn raid with a lot of agents and tactics gear is not at all unusual. He said often this is done when the agency believes the suspect might flee or might destroy evidence.  The show of force and the tactical equipment (what Trump people call a SWAT team) is there because agents often don't know what the suspect will do.  Could he and/or those with him offer up armed resistance?  This kind of approach is used to keep everyone -- the suspect, agents and others nearby -- safe. 

Now this is what my friend told me.  You can believe it or not.  By the way, he is a Trump supporter.

Also, I looked at the CNN video of the arrest linked by @EdinVA.  It's a little hard to see for my old, tired eyes, but it does not look like the horrendous SWAT scenario people are crowing about.  Looks like neither Stone nor anyone inside offered any resistance or caused any trouble.

I’ll buy that. Although he’s nearly 70 Roger might still be fast enough to make a break for it in his jammies. And who knows - his wife might’ve thrown her hearing aid & put someone’s eye out. Or sicced her Pomeranian on one of the 29 heavily armed agents.

[Applewood]

I’ll buy that. Although he’s nearly 70 Roger might still be fast enough to make a break for it in his jammies. And who knows - his wife might’ve thrown her hearing aid & put someone’s eye out. Or sicced her Pomeranian on one of the 29 heavily armed agents.

LOL.  Ok, but as I said, the agents don't know if anyone else is in the house who could offer armed resistance. 

[berdie]

   I was under the impression that during Jury selection the pool of prospective Jurors are not put under oath.  Not saying she didn't lie and corrupt the process just that she was NOT under Oath during voir dire.  Am I wrong?

I just had jury duty last week. We were sworn in before voir dire. (and the questionnaire threatened with waterboarding if ya lied, lol)  Maybe different for  federal?

[Applewood]

Her lies under oath to the court put her on the jury.  Had she told the truth about her political activities and affiliations she would have been dismissed from consideration with a thank you from the court.

I don't know if her political activities and affiliations would have necessarily disqualified her from service.  In state court in PA,  both sides have the right to reject a certain number of prospective jurors without cause ("peremptory challenge") and the right to challenge jurors for a specific reason.  I don't know that a prospective juror can necessarily be dismissed based on political affiliation.    And I don't know what the law and procedure is in federal court.

By lying to the court, SHE, her very presence in the jury box, tainted and tampered with the jury. 

Well, there would have to be absolute proof that she did use some excessive means of persuading her fellow jurors to vote for conviction -- like I said before, coercion, threats and such.   Alas, none of us were present in the jury room, so we don't really know what she might have said or done.

The appeals court will take up the question of a new trial ... but this woman should be held to account for her knowing lies to the court.  After all, isn't lying under oath one of the counts she found Stone guilty of?

Well, I do agree that id she lied and even worse, blabbed about the case on social media, there should be consequences.

As an aide, the part that cracks me up is, assuming she was really hellbent on convicting Stone because she hated Trump, she likely sabotaged her own efforts just by sheer stupidity in talking about the case while it was going on.  Oh, she may have obtained the conviction she wanted, but there's a good chance her actions will result in an overturning of that conviction on appeal. 

Not the brightest bulb in the chandelier.

[Smokin Joe]

Well, Mr. President, those other people have to be investigated, arrested, tried and convicted first.  In this country, we don't pick people up off the street and throw them into the hoosegow.  There's a procedure that has to be followed and if no one wants to utilize that procedure, then all these people walk free.  You're the President of the United States and you like to meddle in legal matters.  Have you bothered to ask your Attorney General why, for example, the investigation into McCabe was discontinued.  Or why there has been no action on the others?

And as to Hillary, seems to me you once promised that when you were elected President, you were going to see to it she was investigated and prosecuted.  But then you changed your mind once you were elected.  If nothing has been done about Hillary, then it seems to me you share some of the blame.

Oh and by the way, Mr. President, nothing involving Hillary and the others has anything to do with Mr. Stone.  Until and unless it can be proven that there was any impropriety in the investigation, arrest, trial and conviction of Mr. Stone, then it is assumed he is guilty of the crimes alleged and deserves jail time. 

So knock off the red herring rhetoric, ok?  You're flailing around making anyone and everyone into a villain here when, as of now, the only culprit is Roger Stone.

THIS ^^^

[skeeter]

LOL.  Ok, but as I said, the agents don't know if anyone else is in the house who could offer armed resistance.

Could be. But imo the raid was staged to lend weight to the public perception of ‘seriousness’ of the investigation. Made great headlines.

[Smokin Joe]

Could be. But imo the raid was staged to lend weight to the public perception of ‘seriousness’ of the investigation. Made great headlines.

My opinion as well. This was a grandstand arrest made for the Media to blow up into some sort of major crime.
Many more heinous criminals have been taken into custody in far less made for media circumstances, even when resistance was expected.

[Applewood]

Getting back to the jury forewoman, here is this:

Roger Stone juror Seth Cousins defends forewoman Tomeka Hart after Trump's claim of 'significant bias'

A former juror in the trial of Roger Stone, a longtime associate of President Donald Trump, defended the forewoman whom the president accused of "significant bias" that influenced the guilty verdict.

Juror Seth Cousins told CNN on Wednesday night, "The irony here is that Tomeka Hart, who we elected as our foreperson on a secret ballot," was "perhaps the strongest advocate in the room for a rigorous process, for the rights of the defendant and for making sure that we took it seriously and looked at each charge."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/02/20/roger-stone-juror-seth-cousins-defends-forewoman-tameka-hart/4818170002/

***

Now this is one juror and none of us were in the jury room, so we don't really know for sure what the forewoman said or did.  But this is contrary to the complaint that Miz Hart improperly influenced the other jurors to convict.

[Cyber Liberty]

We may not have been in the jury room, but there's nothing to stop people from wildly speculating.  Obviously, Trump put him up to it, and we need another Impeachment to teach Trump a lesson.  Tomeka is a saint.

[Applewood]

We may not have been in the jury room, but there's nothing to stop people from wildly speculating.  Obviously, Trump put him up to it, and we need another Impeachment to teach Trump a lesson.  Tomeka is a saint.

Well, we all speculate.  The problem comes in when people think speculation is fact.  For example, Trump says Miz Hart was biased and she induced the rest of the jury to convict.  That is speculation at this point, not fact.  But so many are repeating the speculation and proclaiming it as fact.

[Cyber Liberty]

Well, we all speculate.  The problem comes in when people think speculation is fact.  For example, Trump says Miz Hart was biased and she induced the rest of the jury to convict.  That is speculation at this point, not fact.  But so many are repeating the speculation and proclaiming it as fact.

Meanwhile, people on the other side claim the gal from Memphis, who somehow ended up on a DeeCee Jury, is as pure as the driven snow, and Jackson should have thrown a heavier book at the evil slime Stone.  Killing's too good for people like Stone.  Thank God the FBI was smart enough to dispatch a helicopter, a boat and dozens of machine-gun equipped Special Agents to take that bastard down.

And yeah.  Sure.  CNN just happened to be tooling a media van around the neighborhood when this scoop fell into their surprised laps.

It all depends on what side one starts from.  Haters gonna hate.

[EdinVA]

Meanwhile, people on the other side claim the gal from Memphis, who somehow ended up on a DeeCee Jury, is as pure as the driven snow, and Jackson should have thrown a heavier book at the evil slime Stone.  Killing's too good for people like Stone.  Thank God the FBI was smart enough to dispatch a helicopter, a boat and dozens of machine-gun equipped Special Agents to take that bastard down.

And yeah.  Sure.  CNN just happened to be tooling a media van around the neighborhood when this scoop fell into their surprised laps.

It all depends on what side one starts from.  Haters gonna hate.

@Cyber Liberty

I think the starting point is weather or not a person believes the system (federal and state governments and media) is corrupt and that provides the baseline for a person position.
My view is, the system is corrupt from the very bottom to the very top.  The judicial system is not trustworthy, law enforcement is tainted (fbi, doj, etc), the IRS is out of control and the media is covering it all up under the guise that Trump is the liar.  This will get solved but the choice is how we chose to solve it, together or against one another.

[Cyber Liberty]

@Cyber Liberty

I think the starting point is weather or not a person believes the system (federal and state governments and media) is corrupt and that provides the baseline for a person position.
My view is, the system is corrupt from the very bottom to the very top.  The judicial system is not trustworthy, law enforcement is tainted (fbi, doj, etc), the IRS is out of control and the media is covering it all up under the guise that Trump is the liar.  This will get solved but the choice is how we chose to solve it, together or against one another.

Well, to some it's all good, as log at the Feebs take down the right people.  These are the folks you'll find defending the indefensible, like Peter Strozk, John  Brennan and Andy McCabe.  And O'Bastard appointed Judges who tell provable lies from the bench while sentencing people, like claiming as fact Stone was "covering up" for Trump.

[Smokin Joe]

Meanwhile, people on the other side claim the gal from Memphis, who somehow ended up on a DeeCee Jury, is as pure as the driven snow, and Jackson should have thrown a heavier book at the evil slime Stone.  Killing's too good for people like Stone.  Thank God the FBI was smart enough to dispatch a helicopter, a boat and dozens of machine-gun equipped Special Agents to take that bastard down.

And yeah.  Sure.  CNN just happened to be tooling a media van around the neighborhood when this scoop fell into their surprised laps.

It all depends on what side one starts from.  Haters gonna hate.

Media show up for a grandstand raid....Remember Waco? same pattern....there have been others.

[Applewood]

Meanwhile, people on the other side claim the gal from Memphis, who somehow ended up on a DeeCee Jury, is as pure as the driven snow, and Jackson should have thrown a heavier book at the evil slime Stone.  Killing's too good for people like Stone.  Thank God the FBI was smart enough to dispatch a helicopter, a boat and dozens of machine-gun equipped Special Agents to take that bastard down.

And yeah.  Sure.  CNN just happened to be tooling a media van around the neighborhood when this scoop fell into their surprised laps.

It all depends on what side one starts from.  Haters gonna hate.

For me it's not a matter of hate.  It's actually more like frustration because these days there is no one I can trust to give me the straight story.    Trump says he takes to Twitter to get out the truth because the media won't.  But then he says things like, Roger Stone was railroaded,  without offering any actual proof.  How do we know Trump is telling the truth?  Because he says so?  Sorry, but I can't accept his word on that. 

So I find myself questioning every minute detail of everything, not just those matters involving Trump or his allies.  I understand that Trump supporters trust him without question.  There was a time when I thought I could trust presidents to be at least sort of honest.  Haven't been able to do that since Clinton.   I also thought at one time I could trust the media.  Definitely can't do that anymore.  Even alternative sites like Breitbart were more reliable.  Now even they play fast and loose with the facts because they all have an agenda and a bias. 

Now as to the jury foreperson from Memphis:  True that she is a native of Memphis, but she has been a DC resident for some time.  Apparently, she works for the Bill Gates foundation, whatever it's called.    So as long as there was no objection to her serving on that jury (and apparently there wasn't), then she has the right to be there.  I still believe that even if her political affiliations and activities were known at the time she was placed on that jury, there still would not have been grounds to keep her out. 

And no, I don't buy CNN's story of how its reporter happened to be on the scene at the time Stone was arrested.  I just wanted to set forth CNN's version.  Like I said, I can't just accept "facts" as they are presented anymore.  I have to look at alternatives. 

[Bigun]

This guy gets a pass and Stone gets buried

Ex-Senate staffer from Ellicott City gets two months behind bars for lying to FBI

What the difference?  Mr. Wolfe just happens to be a Democrat and what he did is 100 times worse than anything Stone allegedly did!

US District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson said that given Wolfe's former position as a senior government official tasked with safeguarding government secrets, his crime was that much more serious than other defendants who also pleaded guilty to lying...

Try those FACTS on for size. @Applewood