Judge Jackson Slams Stone Defense Over Disqualification Motion

I previously wrote that I thought that the motion to disqualify Judge Amy Berman Jackson filed by the Roger Stone defense team was exceedingly weak and should not have been filed. Jackson has now rejected the motion, but the final line of the opinion is a real stinger. The judge effectively accuses the team of filing a frivolous motion to pander to the public. It was ill-conceived and poorly executed motion that only further alienated the court.

In the opinion below, Jackson destroys the claims on a factual and legal basis. On the facts, she makes short work of the defense argument:

First of all, the Court did not make any “finding” about the pending motion for a new trial, much less a “categorical” one. The motion raises questions concerning the completeness of one juror’s responses during the jury selection process, and it speculates about exposure to prejudicial extra-record material during deliberations. See generally Def.’s Mot. for New Trial. But it does not include any allegations, or set out any facts, impugning the integrity of any other juror or jurors. The Court’s very general comment that “jurors” served with integrity – three words on the 88th page of the 96-page transcript of a two-and-a-half-hour hearing – did not purport to, and did not, address the motion.

However, it is the final line of the opinion that is the one that leaves a mark:

At bottom, given the absence of any factual or legal support for the motion for disqualification, the pleading appears to be nothing more than an attempt to use the Court’s docket to disseminate a statement for public consumption that has the words “judge” and “biased” in it.

That is not subtle. It is saying that this was a meritless filing that misused the docket for a sensational statement crafted for public consumption. The appellate court would likely agree. Given the strength of the issue on jury bias (whether or not it proved successful), this motion only served to undermine the credibility of the defense team generally and the new trial motion specifically.

368 thoughts on “Judge Jackson Slams Stone Defense Over Disqualification Motion”

  1. Well, Jinn, then you can certainly us how the Mueller Report, in tandem with the Stone trial, supports your conclusions.
    ________________________________________________

    I already told you that…
    I also have told you how Mueller, Comey, Russiagate, Ukraingate and other fake controversies that are intended to make it look like trump is in Battle Royale with the deep state swamp will accomplish their intended purpose of getting Trump re-elected.

    It is called kayfabe and the morons on both the right and the left eat it up as if it was real.

    Without these phony battles with the deep state the rubes that vote for Trump might realize that Trump has done hardly anything for them but has done a lot that benefits the deep state swamp.

  2. Well, Jinn, then you can certainly us how the Mueller Report, in tandem with the Stone trial, supports your conclusions.
    OR, you can continue spouting your routine bullsh!t here.
    That is your true comfort zone.

  3. Which says that he lied to cover up for himself, Andy.
    I didn’t see that Barr was happy because Stone was converting up for Trump; his comments were in reference to the actual charges brought against Stone.

  4. Byethebook,
    I appreciate that you shared your knowledge of what God figured out and when.
    Not many people have your insight, or your arrogance.

    1. Tucker told it straight. Required listening for everyone who gives a dam. Judge should be ashamed. But alas, leftist activists have no shame.

      1. It is not prejudicial for the judge to state that Stone was “was prosecuted for covering up for the president” since that is in fact what the prosecutor said in opening and closing arguments to the jury. The jury found that to be believable and convicted.

        Now personally I am positive that Stone was not covering up for the President and the jury and prosecutor are wrong but the judge has the right to rely on the findings of the jury. That is not prejudice.
        The judge was simply stating a fact – that was what Stone was prosecuted for and jury found him guilty of.

        Stone himself contributed to this belief that something was being covered up by making public statements that he was not going to rat on the president.

        1. jinn:

          “It is not prejudicial for the judge to state that Stone was “was prosecuted for covering up for the president” since that is in fact what the prosecutor said in opening and closing arguments to the jury. The jury found that to be believable and convicted.”
          ****************************

          She wasn’t out getting her nails and makeup done when the evidence was presented. She was sitting right there. The words of an attorney are not evidence as every lawyer knows and every juror gets told in the instructions.* She knew damn well that there was nothing to cover up yet she said it anyway. We call that a liar.

          Here’s the pattern instruction in criminal cases:

          *”Certain things are not evidence and must not be considered. I will list them
          for you now:
          • Statements and arguments of the lawyers. In their opening statements and
          closing arguments, the lawyers will discuss the case, but their remarks
          are not evidence;”

          1. Mespo,
            The trial ended a few months ago and I did not follow it closely.
            Judge Jackson’s recent statement that Stone was covering up for Trump raised a couple of questions; did Jackson back up that allegation, or just make that allegation?
            Also, were there details presented at trial that showed that Stone was involved in “covering up for the president?
            I thought the charges were that he lied to Congress and threatened a witness; in the course of the trial, was a “cover-up for the president demonstrated?
            Questions for you or anyone who might have answers to them.

            1. Judge Jackson’s recent statement that Stone was covering up for Trump raised a couple of questions; did Jackson back up that allegation, or just make that allegation?
              ________________________________________

              The prosecutor made that allegation and the jury backed it up by finding Stone guilty. The judge accurately described what the prosecutor’s case was.

                1. I’ll answer it for you Anonymous, you asked ” did Jackson back up that allegation, or just make that allegation?”

                  Yeas she did…. she was backed up by the evidence disclosed in the trial. Here’s what was revealed…

                  Stone lied to Congress about his contacting Wikileaks to get Clinton’s e-mails and hand them over to Trump’s campaign and also failed to turn over documents to Congress that would have exposed his lies.

                  Don’t forget that AG Barr said he was “happy” with the Stone conviction

                2. That does not answer my question
                  ___________________________________

                  If your question was did the Judge back up the allegation. I answered.

                  First. it was not an allegation it was a accurate description of the case that the prosecutor presented against Stone.

                  Second the jury gave the prosecutor’s case credence by finding Stone guilty.

                  1. Then if the prosecution “backed up” the judge’s statement that Stone was ” covering up for the president”, where was that backed up in the trial?
                    I don’t know if “JinnGin” was there observing the trial, or if it was televised and he watched it, or if he has poured over the transcript of the trial.
                    Skirting the question does not answer the question. What, if anything, during the course of the trial supports the conclusion that Stone’s actions were to “cover up for the president”.
                    That is a very specific question that I asked, and the bullsh** half-assed answers you and Andy have tried to pass off as answers don’t come even close to answering that question.

                    1. Then if the prosecution “backed up” the judge’s statement that Stone was ” covering up for the president”, where was that backed up in the trial?
                      _________________________________

                      It was backed up by weak circumstantial evidence, which the jury accepted as conclusive. I have said repeatedly the jury was wrong but that is not the fault of the judge. The statement she made is factually correct. And she made it after the jury decided so it was not prejudicial.

                      Keep in mind that Stone was trying to get himself convicted. Stone’s lawyers put up a weak defense and went out of their way to get jurors that would find Stone guilty.

                      Randy Credico wrote a letter to the judge asking that Stone not be giving a sentence for the witness tampering charge because Credico never felt threatened by Stone.
                      Credico said he would have testified to that in court but Stone’s lawyers never asked him.

                    2. What, if anything, during the course of the trial supports the conclusion that Stone’s actions were to “cover up for the president”
                      _________________________________

                      In my opinion the evidence did not effectively support that conclusion. What little evidence there was just more kayfabe from the Trump team.

                      But the essence of the prosecutions case was that Stone did have a contact that put Trump in communication with Assange and the Russian hackers and that through Stone information was relayed back and forth. The prosecutor claimed the testimony Stone gave to Congress was intended to misdirect and cover up the communication channel between Trump and the Russian hackers.

                      Stone’s defense is that he never had any real information. It was all speculation and guesses.

                    3. “But the essence of the prosecutions case was that Stone did have a contact that put Trump in communication with Assange and the Russian hackers ”

                      Sybil, like everything else this is in your imagination. Though Stone was convicted of an offense the above has zero to do with the conviction. If this was the essence of the case Stone wouldn’t have been convicted.

                    4. Though Stone was convicted of an offense the above has zero to do with the conviction. If this was the essence of the case Stone wouldn’t have been convicted.
                      _________________________________

                      What I think you don’t see is that the prosecution had to do more than just prove that Stone gave testimony that was false. They had to show that Stone was intentional misleading the Congressional committee for some purpose that mattered.
                      The theory that they came up with was that Stone was lying to cover up for the president. In other words if the false statements were not intentional and had no purpose then the prosecutors case would fail.

                    5. Sybil, you are wrong on the law and you also don’t understand that your reasoning involves such vagueness that it would not be an acceptable legal position.

            2. The answer is yes, Stone was covering up for Trump. That is why AG Barr said he was “happy” Stone was convicted

              Stone lied to Congress about his contacting Wikileaks to get Clinton’s e-mails and hand them over to Trump’s campaign and also failed to turn over documents to Congress that would have exposed his lies.

              1. Thanks, Mespo.
                Unless that element…..the “covering up for Trump”….was a part of a conspiracy charge brought against Stone and backed up by the prosecution ( not “backed up by the jury”, that’s not their job), it looks more like an editorial comment by the judge.
                Rather than an actual issue of the trial or the indictments.
                The specific charges and convictions involved lying to Congress and threatening a witness.
                If there was a theory that Stone was involved in a conspiracy to cover up for Trump, I didn’t see where it was covered in the trial.

                1. It was argued as motive by the prosecutor but the Occam’s Razor solution was better – Stone is doddering buffoon trying to relive his dirty trick days of the 60s/70s and wanting to stay relevant. Still you don’t snack down a old buffoon having an email battle with a comedian, you just gently get him his warm milk and usher him off to bed.

                  1. It was argued as motive by the prosecutor but the Occam’s Razor solution was better – Stone is doddering buffoon trying to relive his dirty trick days of the 60s/70s and wanting to stay relevant. Still you don’t snack down a old buffoon having an email battle with a comedian, you just gently get him his warm milk and usher him off to bed.
                    __________________________________

                    Of course that is all quite likely correct. Altho Stone is probably a lot more competent than you give him credit

                    But the jury saw it differently. You would think that it would not have been hard to find one or two jurors who could see this for what it was. That suggests that the Stone defense went to great lengths to get jurors that were disposed to buying into this phony narrative.

              2. Actually the evidence proved that Stone lied to Congress about his contacting Wikileaks to get Clinton’s e-mails and hand them over to Trump’s campaign and also failed to turn over documents to Congress that would have exposed his lies.

          2. She wasn’t out getting her nails and makeup done when the evidence was presented. She was sitting right there.
            _________________________________________

            The evidentiary part of the trial was over.

            The judge made a factually accurate statement describing the Prosecutor’s case. That was what Stone was prosecuted for.
            __________________________________________

            Certain things are not evidence and must not be considered.

            ______________________________________

            The jury was done considering. This had nothing to do with evidence that the jury considered.

            If you want to talk about evidence. Why did the Stone defense not present evidence that would exonerate him?
            The answer is Stone was trying to get convicted. Stone is raking in a lot a money from donors and he will get a pardon so Stone did everything he could to get convicted.

            1. Jinn:
              “The jury was done considering. This had nothing to do with evidence that the jury considered.

              If you want to talk about evidence. Why did the Stone defense not present evidence that would exonerate him?
              The answer is Stone was trying to get convicted. Stone is raking in a lot a money from donors and he will get a pardon so Stone did everything he could to get convicted.”

              **********************
              You fundamentally misunderstand the legal process, the burden of proof, the role of judges and lawyers and what judges can and can’t say in their official capacity. Unfortunately, it would take hours to educate you and even more to convince you that Dunning- Kruger is a real thing. I don’t have the time or the interest.

              1. LMAO

                Love the one two sucker punch to Jinn / Bythebook / Andy / Anon / WTF

                You are better off watching grass grow than responding to Anon and their 16 personalities and growing

              2. According to The Theories of Jinn, Trump plotted with Rosenstein and Mueller to
                launch a lengthy Special Counsel investigation of Trump.
                Jinn has a lot of “unique” theories he likes to display here, to show that he is the one “in the know” and can tell everyone else “the real story”.

                1. According to The Theories of Jinn, Trump plotted with Rosenstein and Mueller to
                  launch a lengthy Special Counsel investigation of Trump.
                  ___________________________________

                  Read the Mueller report. Most of the report and most of Mueller’s time was spent investigating the tweets and leaks that came from the WH after the investigation was started. The whole thing could have been wrapped up in about a month without Trump’s help to keep it going for 2 years.

              3. You fundamentally misunderstand the legal process, the burden of proof, the role of judges and lawyers and what judges can and can’t say in their official capacity.
                _____________________________________
                No you are the one failing to comprehend. If the judge had said that before the jury decided the verdict it might be prejudice.

                What the judge said was a simple statement of fact.
                She described the prosecutor’s case which the jury bought into and returned a guilty verdict.

              4. Mespo, the number of hours to educate this nut has to be multiplied by the number of personalities. I like your description of this multifaced loon described by you later…Sybil, an attention seeker and a liar.

    2. Mespo,

      Keeping it short, Carlson should replace Hannity any day.

      Hannity seems set on bring back the good ole day of GW Bush, well, I never was there.

      Carlson is better at the job.

        1. Maybe a young Lou Dobbs type will appear? At 76 he’s still pretty good, but the networks have choke collars on all of them so they good get to far a field.

          I’m not clear on what media will look like in just a year, but we can see the eyeballs/ears are turning to on demand content/shows.

          That’s where I get most of the stuff I’m seeing. Like you posted a couple of short pointed clips last night here. I may have not seen those had you not been able to post them.

          Paraphrasing: Matt Drudge was saying a few years back, Hillary running, that a seating supreme court justice told him there was almost enough political power to block you, him, anyone from sharing content forcing us back into the old controlled media ghettos. Those forces are still working towards meeting some of those goals.

          Until the Nov elections I think the billionaires will keep some of the ole media propped up.

          After, that we’ll see.

  5. That has nothing to do with an inaccurate statement that Barr prosecuted Stone.
    Barr had no role in that prosecution, and let the Mueller indictments and the trial that resulted play out.
    Barr’s involvement came months after Stone’s conviction, and had to do with the sentencing, not the prosecution.
    And the fact that he was glad that Stone was convicted does not alter those facts; “John Doe'” off the street might be glad that Stone was convicted, but it does not mean that John Doe was a prosecutor in the case.

  6. covid-19 roundup

    –PRC maximum leader Xi Jinpeng says “new legislation must be rushed” concerning safety in biolabs….. huh? does this mean it WAS an accidental release of existing viral sample?

    — iran and italy have big breakouts. Milan streets a ghost town.

    — stock market dives 1000 plus points 3d biggest selloff in history

    i told you last week the market was nuts. well today, its not so nuts

    — safety supplies even more sold out this week than last in USA. purell gone! hope you had some stacked up.

    Dr Steven Hatfill, who was falsely accused of being the “antrax mailer” by Meuller’s Famous But Incompetent, warned us!

    NOVEMBER 1 2019 RELEASED HIS BOOK 3 SECONDS TO MIDNIGHT

    https://www.amazon.com/Three-Seconds-Midnight-Steven-Hatfill/dp/1700120298

  7. she might just go after the lawyers on a RPC beef against them.

    Criticizing a judge is dangerous for a license. Free speech is not even close to free when you’re a lawyer

    Turley is right, they undermined, at least a bit, their client’s strong current position with this.

    But yes it is part of a bigger thing, on both sides

    Justice might as well be staring through safety googles instead of a blindfold, on this case

    1. This “judge” in nothing but a Democrat Party operative dressed up in black robes. She is a creature of the rabidly anti Trump NY Southern District. She should be impeached and rermoved from the bench. Think it’s not so? Imagine if Stone had been a pro-Obama operative.

  8. The entrenched judges over at the 9th Circuit aren’t feeling so good about Hope and Change these days. They’ve had the run of the house and now they’re upset about Trump’s nominees, so they’re selectively leaking to the media. There’s probably a similar dynamic going on at the DC Circuit.

    ———————————————————
    https://reason.com/2020/02/23/veteran-ninth-circuit-judges-complain-to-l-a-times-about-new-ninth-circuit-judges/

    1. Chilling that “Judges” would violate judicial rules. Here is looking at you Amy

      Thanks for the link.

      ===

      “Alas, some judges “refused to be quoted by name, saying they were not authorized to speak about what goes on behind the scenes.” In other words they spoke on background, not for attribution. Judges cannot speak on background. Ever. Generally, when a source says, “I am not authorized to speak publicly,” that statement suggests that, given the proper authorization, she could speak publicly. But judges can never speak publicly about internal deliberations. No authorization can be given by any superior authority. Shame on those judges who spoke on background to the press.

      At least one judge was willing to have quotes attributed to him: Judge Milan D. Smith Jr. The story leads with a picture of Judge Smith in chambers. And what did Judge Smith tell the Times?

      “Trump has effectively flipped the circuit.”

      It is common enough for commentators to speak in terms of “flipping” circuits. I’ll admit, I use that phrase from time-to-time, but it is a gross summary. But here, we have a judge describing his circuit in purely political terms.

      Smith also opined on how the flip will affect the court’s jurisprudence:

      Of the senior judges who will be deciding cases on “merits” panels — reading briefs and issuing rulings — 10 are Republicans and only three are Democratic appointees, Smith said.

      “You will see a sea change in the 9th Circuit on day-to-day decisions,” Smith predicted.”

      ===

      All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
      ― George Orwell, Animal Farm

  9. Tensions At Justice Department Started Before Stone

    The tensions between the office, the Justice Department and the White House date back further than the tumult in the Stone case. They have been simmering since at least last summer, when the office’s investigation of Andrew G. McCabe, a former top F.B.I. official whom the president had long targeted, began to fall apart.

    Mr. Shea’s predecessor, Jessie K. Liu, a lawyer whom Mr. Trump had appointed to lead the office in 2017, pressed the McCabe case even after one team of prosecutors concluded that they could not win a conviction. After a second team was brought in and also failed to deliver a grand jury indictment, Ms. Liu’s relationship with Mr. Barr grew strained, people close to them said. She left the position this year, though she and Mr. Barr have both stressed to associates that her departure was amicable.

    Still, her exit unnerved prosecutors and set off the chain of events that culminated in the current crisis, in which prosecutors in the office began to worry that Mr. Barr was intervening in sensitive cases for political reasons even as he has publicly pushed back against Mr. Trump, a rebuke the president has ignored.

    Mr. Barr has denied any political motivations. But as Mr. Shea took over, the attorney general assigned outside prosecutors to re-examine politically fraught cases, including that of Michael T. Flynn, Mr. Trump’s former national security adviser.

    Edited from: “D.C. Prosecutors Tensions With Justice Department Began Long Begore Stone Sentencing”

    The New York Times, 2/23/20
    ………………………………………………….

    It appears the failed effort to prosecute former FBI Director Andrew McCsbe was largely driven by White House demands.

    ADVERTISEMENT

    1. “ It appears….

      ADVERTISEMENT”

      Look! There is a sale at JC Penney’s!

      Next time include the advertisement details!

  10. If as you say this motion undermines the motion for a new Trial – that is actually proof this motion should have succeeded.

    Judge Contreras recused himself from the Flynn case as I understand because he once had Dinner with Strzok.

    The standard for a judges conduct – certainly for every word they write, is the appearance of impropriety.

    If Jackson is unable to decide the new trial motion without being influenced by the defense motion to disqualify her, then she should recuse herself now.

    I am not sure of the exact timeline – and regardless, it is probably within Jackson’s authority to proceed in the order she has, but the moment the information on the Jury foreperson was made public – and before the Defense motion regarding that, Jackson should have back burnered everything else, until that was resolved. That would have created the strongest impression that she took the matter seriously.

    From the moment the issues regarding the Jury foreperson arrose, Jackson should have said NOTHING further about the jury.

  11. I do not understand why you think this motion was weak.

    Frankly Jackson’s response is pretty bad.

    Just a single point – if the reference in her remarks to the integrity of the jury was of no consequence – then WHY WRITE IT!!

    The standard for the conduct of Judges is the HIGHEST – it is the appearance of impropriety.

    I would have thought that “the appearance of impropriety” means do not write things you do not need to say that even hint that you may have prejudged something.

    Jackson was aware at the time she wrote that of the serious questions regarding the Jury. Her remark was a mistake. She would have been far better off admitting that she should not have said it and THEN saying it was an honest error, rather than attacking Stone’s lawyers for the claim.

    F’ing up Jury selection is a big deal. I am not sure how given the currently known facts Stone is not entitled to a new Trial. But throwing a hissy fit in the motion to disqualify over the issue of the integrity of the Jury, creates the appearance that she will not be able to impartially decide that issue.

    As to the claim that Stone’s lawyers were playing to public opinion – or frankly anything else. Lets assume that is true. If there is significant public opinion out there that Jackson has not given Stone as fair trial – that is pretty much the definition of “the appearance of partiality”. Public opinion should not determine the decisions of a court. But if a defense motion is a credible appeal to public oppinion in any case – the judge should probably think about it HARDER. The ultimate authority of government and courts rests SOLELY on the faith of the public in them.

    “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, ”

    The declaration of independence is not the law of the land in the US.
    It is the foundation on which the law of the land rests.

    Absolutely I have seen judges act worse than Jackson.

    But she has presided over two extremely high profile cases, and she has done so in a way that has resulted in a strong public impression in a large number of people that justice was not done BY HER. That is a serious failure on HER part.

    I personally do not know how the Stone case even got to court. There is no underlying Crime – and from Jackson’s on remarks it seems clear that she actually beleives otherwise and that alone is a very serious problem. Her assertion that Stone was seeking to coverup the bad acts of Trump rather than overzealously protest his own innocence – is damning to her. It runs afoul of the findings of Mueller and Horowitz and the House and Senate Intel Committees. No charge of an underlying crime involving the Trump campaign has been charged anywhere. But her remarks disagree with that AND sanction Stone for a crime that does not exist.

    But somehow magically overcoming the issues of bringing this case to court, in a case this weak were the politics and public attention is so high it was absolutely crucial for Jackson to avoid at all costs any appearance of bias against Stone.
    And she has repeatedly failed to do so.

    I have no idea if Stone will win a new trial or appeals,
    But what you keep calling Jackson’s well regarded reputation has been seriously tarnished, and that is no ones fault but her own.

    1. The beauty of the motion was not that it was likely to be granted but that it had a chance of flushing Jackson’s bias even more into the open.

      Jackson fell for it and the motion succeeded brilliantly.

  12. “The Thirty Year Machiavellian Modus Operandi Of Robert Mueller”

    A Resume of Deceit

    Over the last three decades, Robert Mueller has concealed and whitewashed criminal elements in our government while using his modus operandi of threats to punish the innocent. In his book, State Senator John Milkovich reported on several criminal elements who were concealed from prosecution by Robert Mueller.

    https://newswithviews.com/the-thirty-year-machiavellian-modus-operandi-of-robert-mueller/

    “Robert Mueller’s Sordid History Of Illicitly Targeting Innocent People”

    https://newswithviews.com/robert-muellers-sordid-history-of-illicitly-targeting-innocent-people/

    “Fire, Indict And Prosecute Political Hack Robert Mueller: Says Former Federal Prosecutor”

    newswithviews.com/fire-indict-and-prosecute-political-hack-robert-mueller-says-former-federal-prosecutor/

    “Protect Robert Mueller? Jail Him”

    newswithviews.com/protect-robert-mueller-jail-him/

  13. EVERYBODY KNOWS MUELLER IS A CORRUPT COP .

    “K.T. McFarland Says Mueller Interrogators Put Her Through ‘Hell’ and Left Her ‘Traumatized”

    Longtime Republican politico K.T. McFarland said in a radio interview Wednesday that Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team pressured her for “20, 30, 40 hours of hell” to either cop a plea or implicate other Trump associates in crimes, even though she didn’t think she or they did anything wrong.

    https://amgreatness.com/2020/02/19/k-t-mcfarland-says-mueller-interrogators-put-her-through-hell-and-left-her-trauamatized/

    1. Chris N. Thanks for this article that I missed. It clearly demonstrates how the deep state has far too much power and is using that power in the fashion of a dictator.

      What troubles me is that FBI agents are assumed credible by the justice system and do interviews without tape recorders. As we have seen they are human and can alter documents. If a person is presumed to have lied (which could be nothing more than an honest error) they can be charged and go to jail.That permits the FBI to force innocent people to stretch the truth leading to a conviction of another or themselves even if innocent. On the other hand FBI agents can lie during the interview.

      In the past I would have cooperated with the FBI since I live a lawful life, but today the first thing I would do is to hire a lawyer and have the interview done in the lawyers office with a tape recorder running becoming noticeable once the interview was to start. When they say that is impermissible my lawyers response would hopefully be that he would not turn it off and if the FBI left then at least it demonstrates that I was willing to talk freely to them but they were not willing to rely on an exact replication of my words preferring their own interpretation.

      1. ha ha allan has watched the excellent video on this topic, i’ve posted it before. see, the ACLU guys are not completely useless! just mostly. well said Allan!

        1. I don’t think what I read came from the ACLU. It was a private attorney who was giving advice. It was excellent. Then again Kurtz he may have been associated with the ACLU. If you post the video maybe I’ll look again.

  14. This Judge should be in prison she knowingly allowed all hardcore anti Trump jurors who repeatedly made it known on social media that they hated Trump and anyone connected to him.

    “Roger Stone Is Innocent – Caught In The Path Of A Runaway Corrupt Special Prosecutor”

    https://newswithviews.com/roger-stone-is-innocent-caught-in-the-path-of-a-runaway-corrupt-special-prosecutor/

    “The FBI’s False Prosecution and Railroading of Roger Stone”

    https://newswithviews.com/the-fbis-false-prosecution-and-railroading-of-roger-stone/

    1. Just because the left is engaged in ludicrous hyperbolee, does not mean that those of us who think Jackson erred, should be making crimes out of bias.

      Unlike Turley – my impression of the integrity and reputation of a judge is based on their decisions not “the respect of their peers”. We may not all beleive our government is rotten to the core – but left or right we are unified in our understanding that there is alot of rot in government – even if we do not share the same views regarding where the rot is.

      I think Jackson’s conduct demonstrates that she is not always able to get beyond her bias’s and allows them to taint her decisions.

      Unfortunately that does not make her very exceptional – she may well have the integrity of the average or even above average federal judge. That just speaks badly of the judiciary.

      Regardless it is not a basis for imprisonment.

      1. A jury convicted Stone and AG Barr has said that Stone is guilty….. Judge Jackson presided but didn’t convict Stone, why are you obsessing over her??

        You should be mad at AG Barr …. he pressed the case and got Stone convicted!!!

        1. I know that’s a tough question to answer honestly…..it would mean you had intellectual honesty ha!, ha! cya a later, snowflake!!!!

Leave a Reply