It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Roger Stone's Jury Has Been Rigged

page: 1
22
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+4 more 
posted on Nov, 7 2019 @ 02:58 AM
link   
Identity Of Roger Stone Juror Who Headed Up Obama Dept. Revealed

America is officially a Banana Republic. No Constitutional laws are being followed. Roger Stone is on trial for using his freedom of speech. I'm totally disgusted by the lack of rule of law. Spread this around. Shine light on this proceeding. It could be you next.

banned.video...




posted on Nov, 7 2019 @ 03:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Doctor Smith

I seen this the other day. Did Stone's lawyers object?



posted on Nov, 7 2019 @ 03:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: RexKramerPRT
a reply to: Doctor Smith

I seen this the other day. Did Stone's lawyers object?




I would think so. Wouldn't you? Or are you that naive?



posted on Nov, 7 2019 @ 03:41 AM
link   
Trump will pardon his good friend Roger Stone, if he's convicted on some BS charge(s).



posted on Nov, 7 2019 @ 03:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Doctor Smith

So you only think so? Good to know.



posted on Nov, 7 2019 @ 03:50 AM
link   
a reply to: RexKramerPRT

Two words. Alex Jones!!!



posted on Nov, 7 2019 @ 03:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Doctor Smith

Maybe you can correct me, but don’t lawyers from both sides need to agree on the jurors?



posted on Nov, 7 2019 @ 06:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: Doctor Smith

Maybe you can correct me, but don’t lawyers from both sides need to agree on the jurors?



Not necessarily.

In the process known as “striking a jury,” the prosecution and defense take turns arguing their challenges for cause. If the judge grants a challenge, the juror will be struck from the jury panel. Once there are no more viable challenges for cause, the sides alternate in striking jurors via peremptory challenges until those are exhausted or each side is satisfied with the jury panel. www.nolo.com...

The Judge has the final say over whether or not a juror can be removed after a lawyer makes a challenge.



posted on Nov, 7 2019 @ 06:54 AM
link   
So we’re to be disqualified from our duties as citizens because of our political affiliations?

Pffft.



posted on Nov, 7 2019 @ 07:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Doctor Smith

Both attorney's participate in Voir Dire. They both have the opportunity to question and reject jurors. If Stones attorney didn't know how to select a jury, then he's not a very good attorney.
edit on 7-11-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2019 @ 07:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

would you feel you got justice if your jury was full of Trump loving men from MAGA country?



posted on Nov, 7 2019 @ 07:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Doctor Smith

Both attorney's participate in Voir Dire. They both have the opportunity to question and reject jurors. If Stones attorney didn't know how to select a jury, then he's not a very good attorney.


so it's all up to the lawyers and the Judge has no say in the jury?



posted on Nov, 7 2019 @ 07:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
So we’re to be disqualified from our duties as citizens because of our political affiliations?

Pffft.


Are you for real? Regardless of affiliation, she was an Obama APPOINTEE and served as his Secretary of Health and Human Services after Sebelius resigned for incompetence.



posted on Nov, 7 2019 @ 07:46 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

Judges can also question potential jurors.



posted on Nov, 7 2019 @ 07:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Deetermined

How is that disqualifying? How does her previous position in Health and Human Services hinder her ability to hear the case and make a decision based on evidence and law?



posted on Nov, 7 2019 @ 08:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

The fact that she is a direct appointee from a previous President makes her ripe for prejudice against someone who is clearly in opposition to the government administration in which she served.


edit on 7-11-2019 by Deetermined because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2019 @ 08:10 AM
link   
why do i get a sinking feeling - that few people who have posted in this thread - acutually read the thread startes OP sources ?



posted on Nov, 7 2019 @ 08:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

If the story is true, I think it should have been a good reason to disqualify her and it certainly something that the defense should have discovered. I mean they usually get the names early enough to do a little background research.

But, this is coming from fake news, the dead kids are not dead, alex jones.. and since they will tell us how cnn, NBC, and just about every mainstream media is an unreliable source.. I'm just gonna say anyone who thinks alex Jones is reliable probably doesnt have the ability to judge what is reliable and what isnt.
edit on 7-11-2019 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2019 @ 08:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Doctor Smith

It will be interesting to see the evidence (if any) of guilt and how it will be interpreted.

We are so polarized, as a nation, that any jury would be suspect if we start isolating simply based on political ideology.



posted on Nov, 7 2019 @ 08:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: Sookiechacha

The fact that she is a direct appointee from a previous President makes her ripe for prejudice against someone who is clearly in opposition to the government administration in which she served.



I hope you feel the same outrage when Trump's impeachment goes to trial in the Senate, where several jurors have already said that they won't read the hearing transcripts and have promised to acquit, before the public hearings have even begun.




top topics



 
22
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join