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.

 

What is Wrong With Stone's Recommended 7-9 years

page: 2
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 16 2020 @ 01:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: DBCowboy

More cheap lies and BS accusations coming from you! I'm shocked, I tell you, shocked!


No, she lied and her own statements that she scrubbed from the 'net prove it. There's no way in hell someone that biased can be impartial in a case like this. None. Zero. I wouldn't be either but I wouldn't lie about it.




posted on Feb, 16 2020 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Tomeka Hart, foreperson of the Roger Stone trial jury, clearly lied during the jury selection process to obscure her own political activism and obvious bias in the Stone case.

Tomeka Hart lied to get selected to the Stone jury.

“So nothing that I can recall specifically. I do watch sometimes paying attention and sometimes in the background CNN. So I recall just hearing about him being part of the campaign and some belief and reporting around interaction with the Russian probe and interaction with him and people in the country, but I don’t have a whole lot of details. I don’t pay that close attention or watch C-Span,” said Tomeka Hart, identified by her life details matching a juror who was interviewed, according to a transcript of the jury selection process.



nationalfile.com...


For everyone who is TL;DR

The jury foreman lied during the voir dire portion of jury selection.

It is a mistrial and will be up to the DOJ if they decide to re-try the case.



posted on Feb, 16 2020 @ 02:02 PM
link   
a reply to: HalWesten

She did not lie. She revealed her party affiliation and participation in political event. It's not upon jurors to supply a history of their social media, that's incumbent upon the defense team during voir dire. Jury selection is an important part of a defense team's strategy. It's not the court's fault they didn't do their job. Now, Stone has a new lawyer, but she can't rescreen the jurors. And, 12 of them all voted to convict Stone on 7 charges. He deserves whatever he gets.

But, it's not my opinion or your opinion that counts. The judge will decide whether or not this info amounts to a mistrial.
edit on 16-2-2020 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2020 @ 02:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

What are you saying? Do you think that Flynn didn't lie about being a paid Turkish asset to Mike Pence and Donald Trump? Are you saying that he and his son weren't running Pizza Gate lies from the during the transition and from White House? Do you not believe that Flynn and his son were not involved in a plot to kidnap a Turkish cleric and fly him back to Turkey to be dealt with? That Flynn didn't lie to the FBI about conversations with Russian officials about dropping the sanctions?


I'm saying exactly what I said....

Well I guess we will never know unless you deemed yourself Judge, Jury and Executioner. Your post here proves my point in why would they even go with a simple lying plea deal if all this was a slam dunk, end of story, go to jail for 50 years...



posted on Feb, 16 2020 @ 02:07 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

I'm not seeing a lie. Just because some right wing pundit parrots the talking points that she lied, doesn't make it true, nor does it make Roger Stone innocent.



posted on Feb, 16 2020 @ 02:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire

If we take the points you have made as a given your conclusions are reasonable. I am in sympathy with Trump's statements on this account however not if he only interjects his position on this one case, the case of his friend Stone. Should he call for an over all reassessment of these sentencing guidlines across the board and not just in the Stone case I would support his move. However I do not think that he will.


I think that is the next step, people like Sookie took it right down the political bias path and my post was using Stone as an example of a broken system that has filled our prisons with a lot of non-violent offenders.



posted on Feb, 16 2020 @ 02:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: DBCowboy

I'm not seeing a lie. Just because some right wing pundit parrots the talking points that she lied, doesn't make it true, nor does it make Roger Stone innocent.





She lied, you just won't admit it. Since she lied, Stone's guilt or innocence is a moot point because of a biased jury.



posted on Feb, 16 2020 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero




Your post here proves my point in why would they even go with a simple lying plea deal if all this was a slam dunk, end of story, go to jail for 50 years...


You don't have a point. You have confusion. A little research into Flynn and his son's alleged crimes would help with that.



posted on Feb, 16 2020 @ 02:17 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

I'm not seeing it. We'll see if the judge sees it.

I have strong political opinions, but if I was asked to decide if someone was guilty of a crime or not, based on the evidence the court provides, my political opinions would have nothing to do with my decision. I would hope that the same would be true with you, but based on your postings to me, I doubt that you could.


edit on 16-2-2020 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2020 @ 02:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: DBCowboy

I'm not seeing it. We'll see if the judge sees it.

I have strong political opinions, but if I was asked to decide if someone was guilty of a crime or not, based on the evidence the court provides, my political opinions would have nothing to do with my decision. I would hope that the same would be true with you, but based on your postings to me, I doubt that you could.



I don't think you could either, you just won't admit that your bias could steer your opinion one way or the other. And she DID lie about her ability to be unbiased and fair. Your saying she didn't doesn't counter the fact that she made the previous statements. I don't care what the judge believes either because she's partisan and biased as well. This needs to be a mistrial in order for Stone to have a fair trial.



posted on Feb, 16 2020 @ 02:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: HalWesten

She did not lie. She revealed her party affiliation and participation in political event. It's not upon jurors to supply a history of their social media, that's incumbent upon the defense team during voir dire. Jury selection is an important part of a defense team's strategy. It's not the court's fault they didn't do their job. Now, Stone has a new lawyer, but she can't rescreen the jurors. And, 12 of them all voted to convict Stone on 7 charges. He deserves whatever he gets.

But, it's not my opinion or your opinion that counts. The judge will decide whether or not this info amounts to a mistrial.



A Mistrial , plain and Simply . Justice was Not Served here .



posted on Feb, 16 2020 @ 02:26 PM
link   
a reply to: HalWesten

Just a small point to remember, the judge is an Obama appointee.



posted on Feb, 16 2020 @ 02:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Xtrozero

The jury foreman was caught lying about her knowledge of Stone and the case.

Mistrial, and prosecute again.

But we live in Banana Republic and the leftists want to attack anyone associated with Trump so they will probably kill him because they *(the evil leftists) are evil and don't believe in the rule of law.


Anyone associated with Trump AND Wikileaks.



posted on Feb, 16 2020 @ 02:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: HalWesten

Just a small point to remember, the judge is an Obama appointee.


Yeah, that explains her bias against Stone and the people that exposed her and the juror.



posted on Feb, 16 2020 @ 02:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

I have strong political opinions, but if I was asked to decide if someone was guilty of a crime or not, based on the evidence the court provides, my political opinions would have nothing to do with my decision. I would hope that the same would be true with you, but based on your postings to me, I doubt that you could.



If we are talking "a" crime I believe you, but a highly politicized event focused around a president you hate with a passion who the accused just happens to be connected with said president? Just by your posts on ATS I don't think you can be non-bias in that type of situation.

I am more libertarian than anything else so I think I could, as even in my post I have always felt Clinton's impeachment was total bull too, but here are two so called non-bias jurors/judge...


Hart even posted specifically about the Stone case before she was selected to sit on the jury, as she retweeted an argument mocking those who considered Stone's dramatic arrest in a predawn raid by a federal tactical team to be excessive force. She also suggested President Trump and his supporters are racist and praised the investigation conducted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, which ultimately led to Stone's prosecution.

Meanwhile, it emerged that U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson had denied a defense request to strike a potential juror who was Obama-era press official with admitted anti-Trump views -- and whose husband worked at the same Justice Department division that handled the probe leading to Stone's arrest.



posted on Feb, 16 2020 @ 02:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: smurfy
A couple of things,
Stone hasn't been sentenced yet as I understand it, so it's still remains to be seen what will actually be handed out, I would reckon that something like four to five years might just be what Stone receives.
Thing is, Stone's lawyer has said that Stone himself acknowledges the seriousness of the charges, and probably the witness tampering would carry the bulk of the sentence, around five years then.


Calling what he did "witness tampering" is pretty sad and just adds to the whole failure I talk about in my post?




Stone’s threats, which were successful, ultimately resulted in his witness tampering conviction.

'Stone “engaged in witness tampering by urging Credico either to corroborate this false account, or to tell the Committee that he could not remember the relevant events, or to invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination to avoid testifying before the Committee,” the Justice Department said in a press release after Stone’s conviction. “Credico ultimately invoked his Fifth Amendment right in response to a Committee subpoena.”


www.factcheck.org...

Remember, Trump is the guy that says Stone did nothing wrong....I guess then that if you are from New York, "Doing nothing wrong, is but a relative term, and that the law is but an interpretive concept?

edit on 16-2-2020 by smurfy because: Text.

IMPORTANT: Using Content From Other Websites on ATS
Posting work written by others
edit on Sun Feb 16 2020 by DontTreadOnMe because: EX tags added, profanity removed, made link work



posted on Feb, 16 2020 @ 03:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: smurfy

Stone’s threats, which were successful, ultimately resulted in his witness tampering conviction.


While the person he was talking to laughed it all off and even told the judge it meant nothing, " That's just how Stone talks all the time", so the success of the threats is very questionable.




Remember, Trump is the guy that says Stone did nothing wrong....I guess then that if you are from New York, "Doing nothing wrong, is but a relative one, and that the law is but an interpretive concept?


I think everyone sees Stone as not a great person, who been playing the political field for like 50 years. My point wasn't about how good or bad Stone is as it was more about the system in how a first time non-violent offender can possibly get 9 years.



posted on Feb, 16 2020 @ 06:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero




If we are talking "a" crime I believe you, but a highly politicized event focused around a president you hate with a passion who the accused just happens to be connected with said president? Just by your posts on ATS I don't think you can be non-bias in that type of situation.


Well see, there it is. You don't know me, only a few posts of mine that you remember. But that's enough for you to think that I would be lying to a court of if I said I could be impartial. Even if I believed that I could be impartial, you might still say I was lying, like many posters here are saying about this juror.



I am more libertarian than anything else so I think I could, as even in my post I have always felt Clinton's impeachment was total bull too, but here are two so called non-bias jurors/judge...


Exactly. You believe that you could be impartial, but judging from your posting history, I think you're just as strongly opinionated as me. But, I wouldn't call you a liar. That's why voir dire is important. If I was the prosecutor on a similar case, I would ask that you be dismissed. But, I wouldn't come back after the fact and call you a liar, if you weren't dismissed and you rejected my arguments.



posted on Feb, 16 2020 @ 06:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
Well see, there it is. You don't know me, only a few posts of mine that you remember. But that's enough for you to think that I would be lying to a court of if I said I could be impartial. Even if I believed that I could be impartial, you might still say I was lying, like many posters here are saying about this juror.


Why does everything come down to "lying"? What is wrong with you people, I feel at times its like I'm debating third grade morality here. Courts are never black and white otherwise the SC would always vote 100% one way or the other. What I see as not enough evidence you could see as damning all because you hate Trump and think what he does, what Stone does is always wrong, and you DO think everything Trump does is ALWAYS wrong, so is that lying, or are you just so bias you can't see reality past what you think it is.

I'm not calling you a liar, I'm saying Stone wouldn't have a chance in hell based on your bias and what you see as correct/right. The funny part is this wasn't really what my OP was about....






edit on 16-2-2020 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2020 @ 06:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
Criminal Justice Reform is being implemented. Rapists only get 5 years now.

All Stone was convicted of was telling a lie to investigators. (gasp!)


Obviously we need one set of laws for when a Republican is committing a crime. And another set of laws when Democrat is committing a crime.

Never mind Stone was convicted on 7 counts which lengthened his sentence. What is important here is political party comes before country and the rule-of-law.


edit on 16-2-2020 by dfnj2015 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join