- Mar 17, 2014
- 10,877
- 12,777
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
All about Trump
- Thread starter domus
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Maggie5
Moderator
- Moderator
- #1,552
Still not answering.. I will do it for your.McCabe lacked candor means he lied under oath!
New details about basis for Andrew McCabe's firing from FBI revealed
Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe was fired last month for committing three violations of the bureau's ethics code, an investigative source told Fox News Thursday.www.foxnews.com
NONE have been charged, gone to court or convicted.
- Thread starter
- #1,553
Lordy lordy! You remind me of the white justice system back in the pre civil rights era. Black man complains that he was arrested and jailed when a woman accused him of looking at her lustfully. He points to the white men who raped his sister and asks why they escaped justice.
Response: Because they weren't charged!!
Talk about getting stuck in a loop. The crime is the fact they were not charged-yet you broadcast it as a defense. They did lie under oath. That is not in dispute. Republicans have ben jailed for lying under oath-Papadopoulos and soon it will be Stone. You cannot tell me why one lie under oath gets a prison sentence and others escape charges. Could it be that all the Democrat men I listed are/were in powerful positions in the FBI or CIA? If that doesn't disturb you your values aren't quite what you claim them to be.
- Thread starter
- #1,554
Because the DOJ is corrupt and protects left leaning public servants and politicians. That's Trump's point. Do you know any of the details of the Stone case. The Forewoman of the jury blatantly lied when she was asked if she had any political affiliations or prejudice against Stone which would disqualify her from being on the jury. She said no! It turns out she ran for office as a Democrat. She has multiple comments on her FB page calling Trump a racist and applauding the twenty five police used to arrest Stone. Yet knowing this, the Obama appointed judge allowed their verdict to stand and thanked them for their impartial and honest work on the jury. it should lead to a retrial but that is the crap Republicans are up against in Washington.
americaisonline.com | Domain For Sale
This domain is for sale by DomainMarket.com. We sell only the best premium .Com domain names. Click to buy americaisonline.com now.
- Mar 17, 2014
- 10,877
- 12,777
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
There were 11 others on the jury who also found him guiltyBecause the DOJ is corrupt and protects left leaning public servants and politicians. That's Trump's point. Do you know any of the details of the Stone case. The Forewoman of the jury blatantly lied when she was asked if she had any political affiliations or prejudice against Stone which would disqualify her from being on the jury. She said no! It turns out she ran for office as a Democrat. She has multiple comments on her FB page calling Trump a racist and applauding the twenty five police used to arrest Stone. Yet knowing this, the Obama appointed judge allowed their verdict to stand and thanked them for their impartial and honest work on the jury. it should lead to a retrial but that is the crap Republicans are up against in Washington.
americaisonline.com | Domain For Sale
This domain is for sale by DomainMarket.com. We sell only the best premium .Com domain names. Click to buy americaisonline.com now.americaisonline.com
- Thread starter
- #1,556
So you are okay with what happened? What if it was a murder trial and you were the accused and the forewoman or man proved to harbor a hatred for you and had publicly condemned you but lied about this before being appointed to the jury?
- Mar 17, 2014
- 10,877
- 12,777
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
no matter what happens the right wing media will dig down to find something incriminating on EVERYTHING that threatens them. Its quite comical. oh AOC dances what a whore, Bidens son is working in the Ukraine he must be dodgy, Comey (who is a republican) hates trump oh he is doing something illegal.
I take anything that comes from those media sources with a grain of salt. They have an agenda and are using big brother 1984 tactics and you cannot see it
Here is a transcript of the oral voir dire.
Hart (identified only as Juror 1261, but identifiable by her statement that she ran for Congress, was affiliated with the Democratic Party and other biographical details) was questioned by the trial judge and by defense counsel. The judge asked a series of key questions to establish her ability to be impartial:
THE COURT: You've also indicated a fair amount of paying attention to news and social media including about political things?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: And when we asked what you read or heard about the defendant, you do understand that he was involved in Mr. Trump's campaign in some way?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Is there anything about that that affects your ability to judge him fairly and impartially sitting here right now in this courtroom?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Absolutely not.
THE COURT: What is it that you have read or heard about him?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: So nothing that I can recall specifically. I do watch sometimes paying attention but sometimes in the background CNN. So I recall just hearing about him being part of the campaign and some belief or 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.
THE COURT: Can you kind of wipe the slate clean and learn what you need to learn in this case from the evidence presented in the courtroom and no other source?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: You actually have had some interest in Congress yourself?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes.
THE COURT: Does the fact that this case involves allegations of not being truthful to Congress, is that something that you think that the nature of the allegations alone would make it hard for you to be fair?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: No.
The prosecution declined to ask Hart any questions. Then, defense counsel had its turn:
MR. BUSCHEL: Did you ever work for anyone in Congress?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: No.
MR. BUSCHEL: You've worked on campaigns for Congress people running for Congress?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I ran for Congress.
MR. BUSCHEL: You ran for Congress?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I worked on my own campaign.
MR. BUSCHEL: And you have friends who worked for other congressmen?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: Yes.
MR. BUSCHEL: Do you have any political aspirations now?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I don't know, not federal.
MR. BUSCHEL: What might they be?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: My home state in Tennessee. No local.
MR. BUSCHEL: Just recognize that there might be some media— What are your aspirations?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I served, can I just say I served in political office in Memphis in a local office on the school board. So I, one day I wake up and say I run for, you know, office again in Memphis to impact education. One day I wake up and say no way in the world would I do that. So I don't have an immediate plan to run for office.
MR. BUSCHEL: The fact that you run for an office, you're affiliated with a political party. Roger Stone is affiliated with the Republican party, Donald Trump. You understand what I'm saying and getting at?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I do.
MR. BUSCHEL: How do you feel about that?
MR. KRAVIS: Objection.
THE COURT: Can you make that question a little bit more crisp? Is there anything about his affiliation with the Trump campaign and the Republican party in general that gives you any reason to pause or hesitate or think that you couldn't fairly evaluate the evidence against him?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: No.
MR. BUSCHEL: Thank you, ma'am.
THE COURT: All right, you can step out.
R. BUSCHEL: Thank you, ma'am.
THE COURT: All right, you can step out.
(Prospective juror leaves courtroom.)
THE COURT: Mr. Buschel, you have a motion?
MR. BUSCHEL: No.
THE COURT: Okay, let's bring in the next juror.
So let’s recap. Stone’s lawyers knew that she was generally familiar with Stone, they clearly established that she was affiliated with the Democrat political party, they knew she ran for Congress, they specifically asked about political bias, and then refused to seek her removal.
- Thread starter
- #1,559
That's an utter failure of the defense team for Stone.. She lied. She is a rabid Trump hater. For her to suggest she could judge Stone impartially was a lie.
- Thread starter
- #1,560
Oh Lord give me strength!
The right is using Big Brother tactics says the Russia Russia Russia , Trump is Putin's puppet and operative, dirty dossier, FISA court corruption and spying on Trump's campaign, FBI agents actively plotting to influence the election outcome. You are hilarious.CNN: A former juror in the trial of Roger Stone, defended the forewoman whom the president accused of "significant bias" that influenced the guilty verdict. The revelations vindicated the view of Stone’s defence team, that Hart’s ‘political experience’ would assist in due process being followed and fair deliberations by the jury.
Juror Seth Cousins stated: “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."
Cousins insisted that Hart's opinions did not affect how she handled her responsibilities. “Without her in the room, we would have returned the same verdict, and we would have returned it more quickly and without looking as deeply into the evidence," he said. "I'm firmly convinced of that."
- Mar 17, 2014
- 10,877
- 12,777
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
this is what the right wing media want you to think the other media is doing lolOh Lord give me strength!
- Thread starter
- #1,563
The Democrat's corrupt acts are not a matter of opinion or something a conservative believes-they are all established fact. Are you suggesting the Mueller investigation wasn't an utter sham? Do you actually believe Trump is a Russian operative? You do know the FISA's used to get permission to spy on Trump's campaign were fraudulent and Comey, Rosenstein and others signed off on them knowing they contained lies? This is not conjecture-unlike the endless myths cooked up by the Democrats and Trump haters these are indisputable facts. Durham's criminal investigation should hopefully see some Democrats going to jail.
'
- Thread starter
- #1,564
Seriously-what the hell would you expect a fellow juror to say? Oh Tomeka was incredibly biased and our decision was certainly influenced by her rabid anti Trump stance! That would reflect badly on all of the jurors and make their moment in the sun totally null and void as a new trial would be a certainty. Would you like to take the jurors word for it when all you need to do is look at Tomeka's Facebook page to know exactly what she thinks and feels?
- Mar 17, 2014
- 10,877
- 12,777
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
both sides have elements of corruption but digging up irrelevant dirt and making a big deal of it is a right wing media specialty. Its a dirty tactic that sucks stupid people in
Exhibit 1: ‘You do know the FISA's used to get permission to spy on Trump's campaign were fraudulent and Comey, Rosenstein and others signed off on them knowing they contained lies? This is not conjecture-unlike the endless myths cooked up by the Democrats and Trump haters these are indisputable facts.‘
What the ???? Does he think we forgot about this?
Exhibit 2: The Forewoman of the jury blatantly lied when she was asked if she had any political affiliations .... It turns out she ran for office as a Democrat but lied about this before being appointed to the jury.
In our everyday lives we associate with decent people of goodwill, therefore we accept what people say at face value. It would be appreciated if posters here could do the same. We are strangers. We will never vote in the US election. There is no perceivable benefit in ‘gaslighting’ here.
People should be able to login to BF for a bit of a break. They do not expect to have to spend hours fact checking posts.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #1,567
If that belief helps you to sleep at night-run with it!
- Thread starter
- #1,568
And they don't have to if they don't wish to! There is no obligation for anyone to even follow this thread. I think that's why we have titles and topics of threads listed-people can decide what interests them and what they would like to comment on.
magpie_marty
Premium Platinum
- Apr 30, 2017
- 6,215
- 7,329
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
Seriously-what the hell would you expect a fellow juror to say? Oh Tomeka was incredibly biased and our decision was certainly influenced by her rabid anti Trump stance! That would reflect badly on all of the jurors and make their moment in the sun totally null and void as a new trial would be a certainty. Would you like to take the jurors word for it when all you need to do is look at Tomeka's Facebook page to know exactly what she thinks and feels?
So the other (eleven jurors) where also corrupt and wrong and trump haters?
Maybe Judge Amy was also biased lock her up at the next rally will be the chant!
As for Stones lawyers perhaps he should have hired Rudy.
And ask your self why is Stone being jailed?
Let me help you out the man is a proven criminal.
Perhaps we should change the court case rules so only Republicans can sit on a jury and give a verdict on an another Republican.
Bloody facts getting in the way of a good conspiracy theory.....
Yes, I would expect a fellow juror to say “she was incredibly biased etc etc” because there is a history of jurors doing just that in America. Particularly as there are media outlets that would pay for such a statement.Seriously-what the hell would you expect a fellow juror to say? Oh Tomeka was incredibly biased and our decision was certainly influenced by her rabid anti Trump stance! That would reflect badly on all of the jurors and make their moment in the sun totally null and void as a new trial would be a certainty. Would you like to take the jurors word for it when all you need to do is look at Tomeka's Facebook page to know exactly what she thinks and feels?
Face it domus, this ones a bust for you. The justice system worked as it should, and the fact that it found one of your mans friends had broken the law isn’t something that makes any of us respect you when you continue to argue that the system is flawed.
- Thread starter
- #1,572
This one's a bust for you! Let's see if there is a retrial before you do a victory lap. Are you suggesting many other posts of mine have been credible or correct? Which ones?
- Thread starter
- #1,573
Until you can explain why others who have committed criminal offenses (all captured on tape) have not been charged you are flapping in the wind. Of course the judge was biased. She demonstrated her personal malice by enforcing restrictions on Stone which would normally never be applied. Eg. A total gag with the threat of jail even if a family member or friend spoke about the trial.
How do you defend the twenty fully armed cops banging on his door at dawn and arresting him while filmed by a CNN who were given the heads up that the arrest was about to happen? No corruption? No bias? They wouldn't send that many cops to arrest a serial killer. It was a farce designed to humiliate a man who was a friend of Trump.
I await your explanation for the scenes we saw on the morning of Stone's arrest.
- Mar 17, 2014
- 10,877
- 12,777
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
you make me laugh.
- Thread starter
- #1,575
