Is This Impartial Justice? How Can Judge Not Call Mistrial?

[Kutnupe14]

Trump has a moral obligation, IMO, to pardon Roger Stone and many others who were harmed by this witch hunt.
So many people who were by his side every step of the way and went to the gallows still sticking by him.

If it was a “witch hunt,” then as my preacher says “the truth shall set you free.” Problem? Stone repeatedly didn’t tell the truth and threatened other people in the process. We have laws for reasons. You break them there’s a penalty. IMO, the president has a moral obligation to stay out of cases where he was somehow involved, and certainly out of cases that involve friends he’s had for decades. I doubt the president has read up on Stone’s entire case file... and if he has, and is willing to weigh in publicly as he already, then he illustrating the favoritism he extends to his friends as I’m confident he’s not reading over ever case file coming out of the DoJ.

 

[Trigger Time]

Im just hoping pete rose gets into the hall of fame now

 

[Ingomike]

More is coming out, she was a dem candidate for representative from Tennessee. Has a lot of partisan posts.

Judge Napolitano said on Carlson that if she lied she may well face jail and have her law license revoked. The dam is breaking the cloak of anonymity is gone, bloggers are digging through her past.

The Daily Caller reported that on 11/5/19 she testified that she knew little about Stone, just background stuff from CNN. On 1/30/19 she retweeted a post that named Stone by name.

Other jurors the defense wanted struck but the judge would not included the wife of a DOJ employee, a leftist Beto donor.

It is concerning that so many were potentially political when a non-political jury could be assembled...

 

[Kdf101]

Judge Napolitano said on Carlson that if she lied she may well face jail and have her law license revoked. The dam is breaking the cloak of anonymity is gone, bloggers are digging through her past.

The Daily Caller reported that on 11/5/19 she testified that she knew little about Stone, just background stuff from CNN. On 1/30/19 she retweeted a post that named Stone by name.

Other jurors the defense wanted struck but the judge would not included the wife of a DOJ employee, a leftist Beto donor.

It is concerning that so many were potentially political when a non-political jury could be assembled...

i agree that it is concerning that, IF all that is true, and I tend to think it could be, then criminal cases are being influenced openly by your political leaning. Maybe they always have been, probably to some extent, but this would be an important change. We are so polarized now that it is getting harder to be impartial if then”other guy” is of the opposite political view. Slippery slope. This guy, at least from what I read, probablyDID lie, but if the result was preordained just by political leaning, that is bad real bad

 

[Kutnupe14]

Judge Napolitano said on Carlson that if she lied she may well face jail and have her law license revoked. The dam is breaking the cloak of anonymity is gone, bloggers are digging through her past.

The Daily Caller reported that on 11/5/19 she testified that she knew little about Stone, just background stuff from CNN. On 1/30/19 she retweeted a post that named Stone by name.

Other jurors the defense wanted struck but the judge would not included the wife of a DOJ employee, a leftist Beto donor.

It is concerning that so many were potentially political when a non-political jury could be assembled...

Should she face jail time if she lied?

 

[CampingJosh]

7 felony counts. Including threatening another witness. I’ve seen lesser crimes get more. The sentencing is on the books, and I haven’t seen ANYBODY say that Stone was innocent.

Nonviolent crime should not lead to long terms of incarceration.

I'm not a fan of Roger Stone, and he is definitely guilty. We just need serious criminal justice reform.

That's all. We can go back to the thread as intended.

 

[Vigilant]

Should she face jail time if she lied?

9 years sound good?

 

[Ingomike]

Should she face jail time if she lied?

I love the Vigilant answer, but no, no jail for non-violent crime of perjury. Loss of law license? Yes sir...

If it comes out she lied for political purposes to hurt a Trump associate what should that penalty be? Not a perjury that is explained by "I forgot" but a deliberate lie to get on jury to inflict damage on a Trump associate. What then?

 

[actaeon277]

[video=youtube;CTjlZNCjyeE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTjlZNCjyeE[/video]

 

[jamil]

Trump has a moral obligation, IMO, to pardon Roger Stone and many others who were harmed by this witch hunt.
So many people who were by his side every step of the way and went to the gallows still sticking by him.

I don’t think so. The people who were prosecuted for “process” crimes, still committed crimes. It’s in our estimation of how much that says about the underlying investigation which caused the process crimes that is important. The sociopolitical significance is that the anti trump side wants to make this a guilt-by-association charge against the president. The pro-Trump side, maybe because of a sense of loyalty, wants to make it not a crime at all.

Stone and others didn’t have to lie under oath. They could and should have told the truth to investigators. If for no other reason (though hopefully the right ones) because the investigators knew the truth anyway. They earned the “guilty”. The question is, what punishment was earned? If justice has any objectivity, it certainly isn’t 9 years. Peolle do way worse and get far less.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Nonviolent crime should not lead to long terms of incarceration.

I'm not a fan of Roger Stone, and he is definitely guilty. We just need serious criminal justice reform.

That's all. We can go back to the thread as intended.

Generally, I'd agree, but if depends on the crime. Maddoff? His crime was non-violent. That #$%@# deserves every single year.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I love the Vigilant answer, but no, no jail for non-violent crime of perjury. Loss of law license? Yes sir...

If it comes out she lied for political purposes to hurt a Trump associate what should that penalty be? Not a perjury that is explained by "I forgot" but a deliberate lie to get on jury to inflict damage on a Trump associate. What then?

See my previous post

 

[Kutnupe14]

9 years sound good?

Did she do it 7 times and threaten other juror to vote for conviction?

 

[jamil]

Seems to me sentencing should reflect the actual harm done to a person, the people directly involved, and then society. 3 months in jail, loss of license. Next case?

 

[Kutnupe14]

I don’t think so. The people who were prosecuted for “process” crimes, still committed crimes. It’s in our estimation of how much that says about the underlying investigation which caused the process crimes that is important. The sociopolitical significance is that the anti trump side wants to make this a guilt-by-association charge against the president. The pro-Trump side, maybe because of a sense of loyalty, wants to make it not a crime at all.

Stone and others didn’t have to lie under oath. They could and should have told the truth to investigators. If for no other reason (though hopefully the right ones) because the investigators knew the truth anyway. They earned the “guilty”. The question is, what punishment was earned? If justice has any objectivity, it certainly isn’t 9 years. Peolle do way worse and get far less.

From my understanding, the Obama administration started the kinder and gentler punishments for federal crimes, from the harsher punishments that were employed under the Reagan/Bush eras. Trump in his campaign to change anything related to Obama, returned us to the Reagan/Bush punishment. The DoJ pursued that policy until, Roger Stone.

 

[drillsgt]

I don’t think so. The people who were prosecuted for “process” crimes, still committed crimes. It’s in our estimation of how much that says about the underlying investigation which caused the process crimes that is important. The sociopolitical significance is that the anti trump side wants to make this a guilt-by-association charge against the president. The pro-Trump side, maybe because of a sense of loyalty, wants to make it not a crime at all.

Stone and others didn’t have to lie under oath. They could and should have told the truth to investigators. If for no other reason (though hopefully the right ones) because the investigators knew the truth anyway. They earned the “guilty”. The question is, what punishment was earned? If justice has any objectivity, it certainly isn’t 9 years. Peolle do way worse and get far less.

Did they though? You think if you were dragged in and grilled for hours on end you might say something or mis-remember something that doesn't jive with what they say happened? If in the end all you have on these guys is 'perjury' then you didn't have anything to begin with, it certainly wouldn't be worth 9 years lol. Don't forget the double standards as well when it was hillary in the hot seat and her associates were being questioned not under oath and a lot of other nonsense, the whole thing is just politics taken to a whole new nasty level.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Seems to me sentencing should reflect the actual harm done to a person, the people directly involved, and then society. 3 months in jail, loss of license. Next case?

In theory, sure. But this administration made it a point, to roll back the Obama Admin policy, and to hand out stiffer sentences.

WASHINGTON — Attorney General Jeff Sessions has ordered federal prosecutors to pursue the toughest possible charges and sentences against crime suspects, he announced Friday, reversing Obama administration efforts to ease penalties for some nonviolent drug violations.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/12/...al-jeff-sessions-drug-offenses-penalties.html

And no, it was not solely confined to drug offenses. To me, if you changed policy, indicating you will be seeking tougher sentences as to what was passed by Congress, it seems problematic, when you got to bat for one of your friends who is subject to one of those tougher sentences.

 

[Cameramonkey]

Seems to me sentencing should reflect the actual harm done to a person, the people directly involved, and then society. 3 months [STRIKE]in jail[/STRIKE], loss of license. Next case?

I think a fine and that time served in a residential group home setting would be more appropriate. Whatever it was that Dinesh D'souza served his term in. Basically house arrest in a group home where they arent allowed to leave. We need the bed space in real jails for violent criminals.

I prefer those for low risk individuals like her, like the actresses that got busted for college bribery, etc. ESPECIALLY rich folk like them. (instead of just house arrest) How awful. I'm forced to spend the next year and a half in a mansion with XBoxes, Cable TV, Pool, Hot tub, Sauna, etc.

 

[Ingomike]

Did they though? You think if you were dragged in and grilled for hours on end you might say something or mis-remember something that doesn't jive with what they say happened? If in the end all you have on these guys is 'perjury' then you didn't have anything to begin with, it certainly wouldn't be worth 9 years lol. Don't forget the double standards as well when it was hillary in the hot seat and her associates were being questioned not under oath and a lot of other nonsense, the whole thing is just politics taken to a whole new nasty level.

Like everything else the shade of gray is different for different people. As the Sgt notes in a different administration thing were different, there were NO predawn, guns drawn, CNN on the scene to broadcast the arrest. No hours long interrogation using top level interrogation techniques. Nope, totally different. A compliant in the tank media barely noticed, they rabidly pursue anything to get one on Trump, even if it's that his janitor put the wrong plastic in the wrong bin.

We the Trump voters see this and recognize it for what it is, nakedly political law enforcement aimed at hurting at the least and taking down the Trump administration if they can. So the left can call up hypocrites, but they are wrong, we just want equal justice and that is not happening and that is largely because the deep state would never do that to dems...

 

[Kutnupe14]

Like everything else the shade of gray is different for different people. As the Sgt notes in a different administration thing were different, there were NO predawn, guns drawn, CNN on the scene to broadcast the arrest. No hours long interrogation using top level interrogation techniques. Nope, totally different. A compliant in the tank media barely noticed, they rabidly pursue anything to get one on Trump, even if it's that his janitor put the wrong plastic in the wrong bin.

We the Trump voters see this and recognize it for what it is, nakedly political law enforcement aimed at hurting at the least and taking down the Trump administration if they can. So the left can call up hypocrites, but they are wrong, we just want equal justice and that is not happening and that is largely because the deep state would never do that to dems...

During the previous administration there was no need to. Obama allowed the DoJ to do it's job without interference. Obama associates; Jessie Jackson Jr, Anthony Weiner, and Rod Blagojevich were all tried and convicted by his DoJ. None were pardoned. No public comments about how unfairly they were treated. No suggestions that they were treated too harshly. I can't help but wonder if in similar situations would Trump have done the same. I have not seen any inclination that he is willing to punish people who commit crimes, if those persons are loyal to him.