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.

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

  1. “He was not prosecuted, as some have complained, for standing up for the president, he was prosecuted for covering up for the president,” said Judge Amy Berman Jackson about Stone. Trey Gowdy who was there for every word of Stone’s testimony before the House said that statement is not true. The judge put out a lie about Stone that was not true and It is now in the public domain and has been reported as true.

    1. The problem with Jackson’s remark is not Gowdy’s impression of Stone’s testimony. It is that it presumes the existance of a crime that not only was not charged, is not in evidence, but has been soundly refuted by multiple investigations.

      Jackson is STATING that she is holding Stone accountantable for something he was not charged with that did not happen.

      I do not understand why it is so hard for Turley and others to see that is pretty close to as biased as you can get.

  2. This is bs and the fact that you would defend any decision by this political hack says more about you turley than this crooked judge. You turley will go down in history for what you are a coward.

    1. Just because you disagree with Judge Jackson’s decision doesn’t make her a hack… do you have evidence to back up you charge??

      1. Hell we could all tell she was a complete Whack job when she ordered Paul Manaport be thrown in an ph’in Dungeon.

        While Manaport’s Boss Tony Podesta Hillary’s buddy, completely staked free, & the Gates got less time selling out to the crooked Mueller team.

          1. Andy,

            Hey wannabe Brain Surgeon from Ferguson Mo. smokin a blunt.

            those 1st four fraudulent FISA warrants were all poisonous evidence. Everything that flowed flow them, Manaport, Stone,etc., it’s supposed to be all unusable in court otherwise these courts are the criminals & they were a party to the crimes against the US Govt, no doubt.

            Either way, they can call.

            But Stone should have the Right to Speak in Public & to have access to exculpatory evidence for his attorneys.

  3. I think 2020 will come to be known as the year the scales fell off our eyes and we came to see just how corrupt, manipulative and elitist our societal institutions have become. From law to business to government to religion we have been betrayed by greed, empire-building and petty self-aggrandizement. The huge sums of money involved in all these endeavors have so corrupted our leaders they no longer see what they nefariously do as corruption. It’s mass self-delusion with a cash register ringing in the background. These moments happen throughout history and the pattern is always the same: outrage, messy ousting from power and re-examination of how it happened. It always boils to down to human nature which seems to evolve not at all. Nietzsche and Dostoyevsky had it right: kill God, welcome in nihilism and end up with blood lust and tyranny.

    1. “These moments happen throughout history and the pattern is always the same: outrage, messy ousting from power and re-examination of how it happened. It always boils to down to human nature which seems to evolve not at all. Nietzsche and Dostoyevsky had it right: kill God, welcome in nihilism and end up with blood lust and tyranny.’

      Excellent post, mespo. You have a great way with words.

      1. Margot:
        Thank you. I think words are as good as the ideas they describe. With Nietzsche and Dostoyevsky you about as great a duo of thinkers as this planet has ever produced. You could throw in Aristotle and a few others but these two head the class in explaining the psychology of human deeds. Read “The Devils” if you want to know what happens when nihilism takes control.

        1. “Read “The Devils” if you want to know what happens when nihilism takes control.”

          I will take your recommendation. I swear, you must’ve been Cicero in a past life.

        2. Yeah, this God dude did a heck of a job up through the mid 20th century.That’s back when public lynchings were common and beheadings weren’t just done by ISIS, all capped off with 2 world wars with millions killed. Ah, the good old days. We sure have it rough and now it’s even considered bad manners to be openly racist, let alone practice discrimination and persecution openly. It’s especially outrageous that a federal judge now makes almost half what a whip lash specialist attorney like Mespo can earn by hard work. Fortunately we have a selfless and devout crusader leading America and this will not stand.

          1. Yeah, this God dude did a heck of a job up through the mid 20th century.That’s back when public lynchings were common

            They weren’t common. You live immersed in your own fictions.

            1. By that did you mean they didn’t happen every day? It’s probably important we quantify the exact degree of deviancy in your response.

              1. Quantification is good. Of course, you’re not operating in good faith and neither is Gainesville. A crude exercise in theodicy is rather like him.

                There were about 4,700 lynchings over the period running from 1882 to 1946. That’s from the Tuskeegee database. The coders at Tuskeegee could be rather lax and did include things like political murders and oddball kidnapping / murder cases which wouldn’t fit any facial standard of what constitutes a ‘lynching’, so that’s not a lowball figure. That’s about 73 lynchings a year. About half occurred prior to 1902 and half after. At the time, the infrastructure of law enforcement in the western states was quite rickety and very rough means of order maintenance flowed from that, although most were in the Deep South. The population of the United States in 1902 was just shy of 80 million, so that amounts to a rate of just under 0.1 lynchings per 100,000 people, or < 2% of a typical year's supply of homicides. There were roughly 75 metropolitan centers in the U.S. at that time, so that's around 1 lynching per year in a given metropolitan newspaper circulation area.

                It's interesting how people's inclination and capacity for spontaneous collective action has declined in the intervening decades, for good and for ill. Nowadays, the social system of order maintenance has gone to the opposite extreme and favors process process process without end (see the Jodi Arias case in Arizona for one of the more flagrant examples, or the Markel case in Florida). Neither state of affairs is salutary.

                1. Well, congrats on the antiseptic and rather insensitive treatment of a truly gruesome aspect of American history. i guess? I mean, if one did get lynched, often by representatives of the police and town elders, it happened to you one hundred percent of the time. So I’m going to say the bleaching of those stats, ultimately, is completely worthless from that point of view.

            2. “Common” is a relative term , and in my comparison of the presumably God-conscious period preceding the god less present -mespo’s thesis, not mine, though I do celebrate the decline of belief in magic spirits – an accurate one on public lynchings, beheadings, drawing and chartering, burning at the stake, state sanctioned and enforced racism and religious persecution. That you equate these practices with too much “process” in modern times is revealing and revolting, and a commentary on your sanity.

          2. btb:
            ” Yeah, this God dude did a heck of a job up through the mid 20th century. … with 2 world wars with millions killed.”
            ************************
            Precisely what Nietzsche and Dostoevsky (especially) said would happen when society killed God and installed nihilism.

            You really ought to read before you comment, if not for you for the rest of us, as you compel us to marvel out loud at your utterly getting it ass-backwards every time.

            Fact is — you’re just not smart enough to argue here. There’s no shame in admitting you’re out of your depth.

            1. Mespo, maybe you should tell us when you think God left the building, since any sane person would recognize that the last 75 years of human history have been a lot better than the previous 75. You see where I’m going I hope – you are trying to establish cause and effect to dubious effect. Did he come back, or what? Surely you’re not arguing that things – including human behavior – were dandy through the 19th century, right?

                    1. Nietzsche is dead.

                      Your stats leave out war dead and even then still prove my point on declining death from fellow humans since WW2. On a per capita basis we are much less likely now to meet our end at the hands – or armaments – of a fellow human than at any time in our long history. And we are not even getting into institutional racism and religious persecution.

                      Did God return in 1946 or did getting rid of him help civilize us? Only a fool would choose to be alive at another time than now.

                  1. There is something to be said for living in a pre- nuclear age.
                    There was little cocaine use, I don’t know if there was meth, PCP, fetanyl, etc.
                    There would not have been these freak shows like a guy running for president kissing his “husband” at a rally.
                    Overall, one can always find some advantages, some long- gone positive features of previous generations.

                    1. Anonymous, indeed there are dangers inherent in our scientific success but that is a separate issue from the state of our moral behavior and the benefits from the spread of civilization and the principles of the Elightenment.As recently as the 19th century, by longevity tables, most of us posting here would have been dead now for several decades as God had not yet figured out the basic medical advances to get even a majority of a family’s children to make it to adolescence, Surely you can tolerate witnessing simple affection between couples who’s sexual relations may be less palatable to your imagination then say Clark Gable and Lana Turner – that would be most of us – as a reasonable trade off for those extra 50 years of life without marauding neighboring tribesmen and racial and religious persecution. I’ll take that anytime.

                    2. Byethebook,
                      I’ll try to keep that in mind about tolerance for “less palatable” relationships when there is father-daughter, mother-son, sister-brother “affectionate” relationships.
                      When a society can “redefine normalcy” and formalize those relationships in a generation or less, the sky seems to be the limit.

                    3. “There would not have been these freak shows like a guy running for president kissing his “husband” at a rally.”

                      That it bothers you is telling.

          3. book, I’d like you to try and prove soft tissue injuries and damages and causation. it’s not exactly easy. the older i get the more i respect personal injury lawyers, in general.

            and trust me–
            there’s nobody who’s had a bigger stiffie for cutting the Seventh Amendment down to size than federal judges!

            “In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.”

            1. Kurtz, I’m sure it is not easy being a hit man, loan shark, or drug dealer, either, but I some how manage to keep any admiration for this ability in check to my greater disdain for the blood sucking anti-productive nature of the work.

              As to the 7th amendment, I assure you, nothing stirs my sense of civic duty like being possibly picked for jury duty on a month long trial between 2 schmucks fighting over money while I would get $50 a day

            2. Mr K,

              I don’t know I’d find my way back here for a response but how do you prove just how much a soft tissue damage of a near perfect photographic memory is worth after it’s taken away? And just how many Decades would it take through the courts to get satisfaction?

              You have no doubt seen old Chinese law?

              I hate it but I’m thinking people are within months now of complete giving up on the US justice system, or by months ago, & for cause like A BJ, etc….

        3. bar associations are busy denouncing, not the failure to conduct a proper voir dire, but instead, the awful, terrible motion to disqualify her

          Judges have been misusing RPC 8.2 to suppress lawyer speech for years now. one suspects that will be coming

          http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/criticism_judges_ethics_rules

          the thing is when lawyers are ready to go all the way, then the RPC become toothless. we often see that with lawyer crooks, but we may one day see it with lawyer free speech heroes, too.

          1. Kurtz, it is amazing that the left always talks about reforming the justice system when they don’t even understand what justice is.

            Take note it required a Trump to do justice reform. The left couldn’t do it when they had the Presidency and both Houses. I am not saying I support the recently passed laws or not.

    2. It always boils to down to human nature which seems to evolve not at all.

      Mark,
      You’ve proven to be a student of history and nothing has proven more true than the fact human nature is the same today as it was in the beginning. You’ll also know what comes next. 2020 will indeed shock the consciousness, but will it be enough to remove the scales?

    3. “ Nietzsche and Dostoyevsky had it right: kill God, welcome in nihilism and end up with blood lust and tyranny.”

      ….

      Hold up a mirror, Mespo

      Your girth shows all that you too are consumed with petty self-aggrandizement.

      Such sophistry

      1. Anon says sophistry? The demise of the sacred due to the Enlightenment is one of the biggest themes of Nietzsche. You could try reading him. Or go right to the point

        “THE MADMAN—-Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market place, and cried incessantly: “I seek God! I seek God!”—As many of those who did not believe in God were standing around just then, he provoked much laughter. Has he got lost? asked one. Did he lose his way like a child? asked another. Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? emigrated?—Thus they yelled and laughed

        The madman jumped into their midst and pierced them with his eyes. “Whither is God?” he cried; “I will tell you. We have killed him—you and I. All of us are his murderers. But how did we do this? How could we drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying, as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is not night continually closing in on us? Do we not need to light lanterns in the morning? Do we hear nothing as yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we smell nothing as yet of the divine decomposition? Gods, too, decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him.

        “How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed; and whoever is born after us—for the sake of this deed he will belong to a higher history than all history hitherto.”

        Here the madman fell silent and looked again at his listeners; and they, too, were silent and stared at him in astonishment. At last he threw his lantern on the ground, and it broke into pieces and went out. “I have come too early,” he said then; “my time is not yet. This tremendous event is still on its way, still wandering; it has not yet reached the ears of men. Lightning and thunder require time; the light of the stars requires time; deeds, though done, still require time to be seen and heard. This deed is still more distant from them than most distant stars—and yet they have done it themselves.

        It has been related further that on the same day the madman forced his way into several churches and there struck up his requiem aeternam deo. Led out and called to account, he is said always to have replied nothing but: “What after all are these churches now if they are not the tombs and sepulchers of God?”
        Source: Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science (1882, 1887) para. 125; Walter Kaufmann ed. (New York: Vintage, 1974), pp.181-82.]”

        I further recommend, to understand the significance of this, Martin Heidegger’s essay about “Nietzsche’s Word”

        https://www.scribd.com/document/160876554/Heidegger-Nietzsche-s-Word-God-is-Dead-Holzwege

        1. “The demise of the sacred due to the Enlightenment is one of the biggest themes of Nietzsche. You could try reading him.”
          ********************
          Anonymous could never get through a work of Nietzsche, Mr. K. It’s dogs listening to Mozart.

  4. ” … 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.”
    **************************
    The same could be said for her own words above. Like I said before, she’s an activist judge with her panties in a knot. She oughta resign.

        1. you’ve presented nothing to back up your claim. You are projecting and speculating so I will ignore… the jury convicted 7 counts in 7 hours because the evidence was overwhelming…. and don’t forget she was threatened by Stone!!!!

            1. Actually you made a claim without evidence… I’ll try again

              If Stone was convicted by a jury and AG Barr thinks the conviction was “righteous” … why do you think the conviction was unfair???

              1. Andy – the predicate for the arrest and charging was bogus. Innocent people have been convicted. The Constitution does not guarantee that you will not be convicted if you are innocent, only that you will get a fair trial.

                1. Nonsense…. they have him on tape…. the jury decided 7 counts in 7 hours, that is very fast. He was convicted by a jury and AG Barr thinks he belongs in jail.. You are making a claim without evidence.

                  1. Andy – in less than 4 hours the jury found O.J not guilty. Do you deny that innocent people are put in prison?

              2. I’m not interested in debating the topic. I laid it out before and I’m not here to educate you in the law. Suffice to say my position is remarkably well-subscribed by lots of prominent lawyers and judges who’ve looked at this.

                1. I guess you know more about the law than AG Barr and the DOJ??… go run and hide with your fake accusations… shame on you!!!

                  1. Andy — “All roads lead to Putin,” right?? That’s what the media and Speaker Pelosi keep telling us, right? Selective prosecution? You bet, but who cares! It’s Trump’s inner circle. He never should have beat Hillary!!
                    Lock ’em all up! Throw away the keys!

                    Equal justice under the law? Not on your life.

                    This. Is. Not. America.

                    1. What you just did is change the subject, that means you have no case!!

                      Stone was convicted by a jury and the AG thinks it was a “righteous” conviction”

                      That.Is.American.Justice

                      What is NOT American justice is the President interfering in a case of an political associate who was convicted of lying to protect him

                    2. “This. Is. Not. America.”

                      Amen, brothah! Or sistah, as the case may be. And, I feel a song coming on:

                  2. Pardon Roger Stone! Now!

                    And then prosecute McCabe. Prosecute Comey. Prosecute Clapper. Prosecute Brennan. Prosecute them all!

                    Fat chance that’ll happen. And so? Pardon Roger Stone. Now!

                    Pardon Flynn now too! No justice no peace!!

                    1. Stone was convicted by a jury and AG Barr thinks Stone belongs in jail…. but continue your nonsense

                    2. Andy — you know who else belongs in jail? James Comey. Andy McCabe. James Clapper. Peter and Lisa too. Who else? Look at the list of all those who were “fired for cause” and not prosecuted for their crimes. And that sick lying pig John O. Brennan deserves to rot in jail for the rest of his putrid life. THAT would be “justice.”

                      If Roger Stone goes to prison? They ALL go to prison. If none of the criminals from the corrupt Obama administration get prosecuted? Then Stone gets pardoned. And Flynn too. And Manafort. THAT is what might be called equal justice under the law.

                    3. I’m just stating facts…. what have I claimed that is not accurate????

                      I’ll wait here for the answer

                    1. Andy is yet another sockpuppet for the handful of trolls that run this blog like a casino. Andy is using the same exact verbiage as a former troll under the sockpuppet Jinn

                      They are so uncreative and rather boring

                      Good night you brave Americans!
                      Bite me sockpuppet…double glove tho with latex

                      Bwahahahaahahaa

                    2. Andy is using the same exact verbiage as a former troll under the sockpuppet Jinn
                      __________________________________

                      No he is not. I have said the prosecution of Stone was ridiculous and an embarrassment.

                      Sure Stone was lying. Stone is such a blowhard that he can’t keep track of what is truth and what is fiction.

                      Stone invited himself to testify to Congress so that he could brag about his back channel connection to wiki leaks, but it was all in his head. He had no more access to information about wiki leaks than you or I do. It was all BS.

  5. Hillary conducts a global pay-for-play scheme/destroys evidence – Exonerated by James Comey. Years in prison: 0

    Obama conducts a coup d’etat/weaponizes FBI/IRS/abuses power – Exonerated by William Barr. Years in prison: 0

    Stone commits a victimless process crime – Prosecuted by William Barr/Judge Amy. Years in prison: 3.3

  6. 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.

    Judge Jackson reacted with emotion and sensationalism which is what fuels America’s “docket”. She, being a Jusge, did not need to “leave a mark”. She could have rejected the motion and let it languish in failure. Instead she provided the defense team yet more ammo, for the public or appeals court or President Trump

    Big win for Roger Stone’s team

        1. Tony – he was responding to Estovir, however I almost responded that he hadn”t seen dumb posts until he had seen yours. However, I bit my tongue and didn’t.

      1. This appears to be the only comment of yours I am able to reply to.

        What Barr has said is that the corrected sentencing recomendation was appropriate for the charges Stone was convicted of.

        Barr has not commented on Stone’s guilt and DOJ should not outside of the prosecutors handling the case.

        Stone was convicted. Convictions often get overturned on appeal. There has been no final adjudication. There is still a very strong motion for a new trial before Jackson, and if that is not granted, multiple grounds for appeal.

        There is ample reason for intelligent people to beleive Stone did not get a fair trial – the Jury foreperson being merely the most prominent of those.

        I do not see how the threats based charges survive Elonis. If threatening to shoot your wife and bomb the police on Facebook does not constitute a “true threat” then an email about a dog that was taken as a joke by the purported target.

        The most serious charge against Stone runs afoul of the first amendment.

        You have said that There are tapes of Stone lying.

        So what ? There are lots of requirements for a lie to be a crime. Otherwise all of us would be in jail. One of those is that the lie is material. The absence of an underlying crime comes very near destroying materiality.

        With respect to the lying charges there is virtually no difference between this and McCabe – which DOJ properly refused to prosecute – though the standard for an acting FBI director should be higher than a private person.

        McCabe lied repeatedly to investigators and under oath about a self serving leak. His lies mislead an investigation. And but for the fact that the lie was about a self serving (and false) classified leak, that he unfortunately had the independent authority to release, it would have been a crime.

        We very rarely prosecute lies under oath where there is no underlying crime.
        Jackson’s own remarks make it clear that – despite multiple investigations and reports and evidence from her own trial that the alleged crime not only did not but could not have taken place, Jackson still beleives there was an underlying crime – one that is not charged – and that is bias.

        1. Actually Barr HAS commented on Stone’s guilt. This is what he said…”I thought that was righteous prosecution. And I was happy he was convicted”

          And there was an underlying crime…. Witness tampering!!

    1. I guess because she’s barren she’s resentful of stone having a family.

      Whatever the case, her hormones & judgement are way out of whack & Trump wouldn’t be out of line in having her go through a 2 week wellness check at a psych ward.

      There is something like 30+ judges so why is it this Trump hater is getting these cases anyway? CJ John Roberts?

      1. Barren? Tell that to her sons, one of whom (Matt Jackson) was on Jeopardy! Facts: Amy Berman Jackson is a liberal Jewish judge who married a black conservative Christian (graduate of Howard law school). They have two children. They’re now divorced, so I don’t know why why she continues to use his name, but whatever, this info is easily available by typing her name into Google.

          1. I read somewhere that they’re separated/divorced, but Wiki claims they’re still married. And Roger Stone may be the one who is “barren.” He has a step-son, Scott, a deputy sheriff in Broward County, FL, and Adia, who is sometimes referred to as his “daughter,” but given their ages, is more likely to be his step-daughter. He is 67 and she is 53. I don’t know these folks…just going by what is reported online, which of course is not always correct. Thanks for pointing that out.

            1. Fair enough Tin, but what in the hell is her problem?

              4 fraudulent FISA warrants started all this coup crap.

              Then DC is one of the worst courts in the US for a fair trial.

              DC, a jury pool which went for Hillary about 99 to 1.

              Likely not a fair jury there.

              Federal prosecutors of the US have something like a 98% conviction rate.

              Hell the USSR & Commie China can’t hardly touch that.

              Then what about her Red Queen fit?

              Sentence 1st to tag the defendant guilty & place/gag him fully under her control, while everyone else is free to lie/slander about him. As she seemed to have done.

              Then she would have us believe he can have a fair trial later. But it won’t be in her court.

              Judge ABJ, the Red Queen.

              Doesn’t matter much now what happens to Stone as she’s already has blown it as many see it.

            2. There’s a Washington Post article that says that she’s divorced. Most sources indicate that she’s still married.

        1. Thanks, I did look because I sense something is wrong with her , but the 1st page did mention any kids.

          So it isn’t the kid thing so it must mean she’s Racist & is another self-hating Jew that can not mange long term relationships & it’s clear she has TDS.

          1. There are a number of things that suggest bias: she’s a Democrat born and raised in Baltimore; appointed by Obama. But for me the most telling evidence of bias was her denial of Stone’s first request for a re-trial, based on a juror whom the court should have struck, a person employed by the IRS Criminal Division, who reported during voir dire that she works together with DOJ on criminal prosecutions. Judge Berman-Jackson blew that off by writing that the juror was just one of 1400 lawyers in the IRS and her work doesn’t come close to suggesting possible bias. That, to me, was telling. This juror worked in the IRS CRIMINAL Division. She was a prosecutor. That can’t be compared to some IRS lawyer writing tax code regulations on insurance law or soy bean futures. Normally a police officer or prosecutor or employee of a law enforcement agency (or even a family member of such) is routinely excused from a jury in any criminal prosecution.

            1. AG Barr and the entire DOJ thinks that Stone is guilty… are they all biased as well? …or maybe, just maybe the jury is right and Stone is guilty!!!

              1. We have this concept in this country called “due process.” That means the accused – guilty or not – is entitled to a fair, unbiased trial. It doesn’t matter what you or I or the judge or the entire DOJ think of Stone’s guilt or innocence. He is entitled to a fair, unbiased proceeding free of taint by the political interests or the judge or jurors.

                1. Let’s see, Stone had competent defense lawyers and a trial by jury… sounds like due process to me.

                  AG Barr said that Stone is guilty is he biased???

                  Bet you won’t answer my question

              2. Again false. AG Barr thinks the sentence the DOJ ultimately recommended is correct for the crimes convicted.

                But beyond the fact that your statement is false it is also fallacious.

                If all of mankind save one felt Stone was guilty – that would not change anything if in fact he was innocent.

                Men have been convicted and sentenced to death multiple times only to be revealed to be innocent by DNA evidence.

                Our courts get it right much of the time, but neither they nor DOJ are infallible.

                ABJ does not seem to grasp that.

                Nor do you.

                1. This is how it works… a jury decides guilt or not guilty. The Stone jury took 7 hours to decide 7 convictions, that is very fast. Stone will appeal but the evidence is overwhelming, it will not be overturned

                  Barr has not only said the Stone conviction was “righteous” he also said he “was happy that he was convicted”…. verification below

                  Here’s the question no will answer…. do you think Barr was biased in forming that opinion? or did he review the evidence and then decide Stone was convicted fairly??

                  Will you answer this direct question?…. thx

                  https://www.mediaite.com/news/bill-barr-contradicts-trump-calls-roger-stone-prosecution-righteous-i-was-happy-he-was-convicted/

                  https://dailycaller.com/2020/02/14/bill-barr-happy-roger-stone-convicted/

            2. I’ll just put it this way, it appears to me the Trump Haters are playing this Stone/Trump angle as if it were just another supermarket checkout stand tabloid for entertainment.

              It’s not that I’m best friends with Manaport, Stone, Flynn, but if the Deep State can do it to them they can do it to the least of us.

              And that’s not counting the Whistler Blower that was found shot out in Cali recently.

              Even with this Stone case, where in the hell is the FBI held evidence about the Seth Rich the Leaker to Wikileaks who was murdered by likely the Hillary/Obama mafia.

              Not a Russian Heck as ABJ is suggesting.

                1. Has he Arrested Hillary, or Obama, Comey, McCabe, Brerran, Clapper, Storker& Lisa, Susan Rice, etc., etc., X 1000’s?

                  Has he fired about 66,000 of the 110000 in the DOJ?

                  I hear through the grapevine he’s got 2 or 3 months to act in a big way or he’ll need to move aside

                  1. You didn’t answer my question so I’ll try again… AG Barr said that Stone is guilty, is he saying that because he’s biased or because he saw the evidence and thinks Stone is actually guilty???

                    1. Do you understand the history of Barr?

                      I only know a few key points of Barr. Others have noted some of the rotten crap he’s been in the middle of. I haven’t a clue as to why Trump hires some of these people.

                      I understand why Trump didn’t start off with the Nation Security… Round Up of the Coup Plotters back then, but now most people that matter know those coups have to be shut down.

                      No, I’m not in love with Barr, but a thoughtful person I respect suggested we give him a bit more rope before we start bustin his balls. We’ll see.

                      I thought Barr told everyone he wished to Reform DOJ? Tell me, how’s that job 1 coming along?

                      I wished him success then as I do now. He could be our best shot at the task.

                    2. Thanks for the irrelevant commentary… now answer the question

                      Is AG Barr biased when he says Stone is guilty?…. if you think he is… why??

                2. What the hell is wrong with you Andy???

                  It is completely irrelevant what I think about Barr/Stone/Jackson.

                  The 17 US Intel agencies have informed those that need to know the an Alien race are massing Starships & hiding the from view behind the planet Mars & they have Godzilla with them fo an immanent attack against the people of Earth.

                  But Alex Jones is really Pissed Off this time & he’s bring the Incredibility Hulk & the whole infowars crew to engage & defeat those Commie/Nazi azzholes.

            3. Look at the gag order. The judge stops Stone from speaking anywhere or having someone else relay his words. That is how Stone earns money. Stone, therefore, is deprived of income to pay his legal bills and the right to publically defend himself telling his side of the story yet there is no such gag order on the press.Sounds quite autocratic

              1. So unfair!!…. his appeal to three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit was turned down because, those 3 judges like AG Barr and the jury were biased against a guilty man who couldn’t keep his mouth shut and put the judges face in cross hairs…. so unfair!!! 😉

                1. Learn to read!

                  “Look at the gag order. The judge stops Stone from speaking anywhere or having someone else relay his words. That is how Stone earns money. Stone, therefore, is deprived of income to pay his legal bills and the right to publically defend himself telling his side of the story yet there is no such gag order on the press.Sounds quite autocratic”

                    1. As I said you think justice is pure in Saudi Arabia where the judge can make a decision based on the desired outcome. Not to bright.

                      Judges are servants of the people. They are there to judge based on the law not based on their political leanings.

                      You badly need a lesson in civics.

                    2. So ignorant to compare the Stone trial to Saudi Arabian justice!!

                      The jury made the decision that Stone is guilty not the judge… AG Barr is “happy” he was convicted. Are you accusing Barr of being corrupt??

                      what decision did the Judge make on a desired outcome???… I await your delusional answer

                    3. “So ignorant to compare the Stone trial to Saudi Arabian justice!!”

                      No such comparison was made. I was discussing what you considered to be justice. (“That is only because you don’t know or understand justice. You would do well in Saudi Arabia where for a rather minor infraction of the law you could be convicted and sentenced to death.”)

                      “The jury made the decision”

                      Sometimes juries are lead down the garden path, sometimes they are biased, sometimes the judge refuses to accept a juries verdic, and sometimes the law is wrong as is the penalty.

                      Earlier I described what justice really was but you were too ignorant to integrate any of that into your present response.

                    4. You have a vivid imagination… go complain to AG Barr he’s the guy who prosecuted and put Stone in jail!!!!!!

                      When you talk to him tell him you think jury tampering is a minor offense…

                    5. “go complain to AG Barr he’s the guy who prosecuted and put Stone in jail!!!!!!”

                      Barr may be the AG but that doesn’t mean he has any direct activity in the case. It is not his job to determine guilt or innocence like you inferred in a much earlier case, what he says is based on his job not his personal feelings.

                      I repeat. You aren’t very bright.

                    6. AG Barr is acting in his official duties. We don’t know where his sympathies lie except based on history and from there it is only a guess.

                    7. You are such a dummy, living in your safe little echo chamber!!

                      AG Barr said the Stone conviction was a “righteous prosecution” and he was “happy” Stone was convicted. Does that sound like we don’t know his sympathies????

                      I guess the Pierre Thomas interview that was huge news 2 weeks ago didn’t penetrate your conspiracy sites!!!!!…..

                      OMG … it did… you just can’t read!!!!

                      https://dailycaller.com/2020/02/14/bill-barr-happy-roger-stone-convicted/

                    8. “Does that sound like we don’t know his sympathies????”

                      Yes. You think you can understand Barr’s mind when you can’t even understand your own.

                    9. There are times where you can drop that pesky extra ‘o’ in “too”….

                      I’m going to go out on a limb and say that was an unfortunate place to do it. Ha.

                    10. Andy,
                      At some point you said to complain to Barr, because Barr p
                      prosecuted Stone and put him in jail.
                      Stone was actually arrested and indicated before Barr became AG. And I think that the prosecutors were connected with the Mueller in investigation, so I don’t think Barr was an active participant in Stone’s prosecution.

                    11. For the 100th time…. Barr said it was a “righteous prosecution” and he was “happy” with Stone’s conviction…. HE IS TOTALLY BEHIND IT!!!!

            4. and you TIN if you said most of that stuff in a motion to DQ they would throw a beef at you under rpc 8.2

              there has to be something more or they will try and take your license as a penalty for daring to question them

              here there MAY BE something more…. related to that biased juror!~

              the great irony here is that lifetime tenure article III judges are supposed to be “above politics”

              actually they aren’t. that notion has been a thousand times disproven

              1. So Andy is sticking by his previous claim that “Barr prosecuted Stone and put him in jail”?
                Stone was arrested and indicted before Barr became the AG.
                Also:”As the case against Stone kicked off, former Mueller prosecutor Aaron Zelinsky took the baton and seemed to relish the opportunity to weave the president’s name into the prosecution’s narrative on as many occasions as possible”. – from Vox, November 2019
                Regardless of what Barr said about the outcome of the trial after the conviction, it’s a stretch ( to put it mildly) that Barr prosecuted Stone.

                1. During the sentencing hearing last week, prosecutor Crabb, who replaced the prosecutors who had resigned, and we can safely assume knew Barr’s wishes, argued for a sentence nearly as harsh as the 7-9 years recommendation, and also described the verdict as “righteous”.

                  As demonstrated by Andy today, most of the posters here are so poorly informed – they watch you tube, Alex Jones, or read that crackpot newspaper put out by the Chinese religious group and have no idea what’s going on.

                  1. Btb:
                    “During the sentencing hearing last week, prosecutor Crabb, who replaced the prosecutors who had resigned, and we can safely assume knew Barr’s wishes, argued for a sentence nearly as harsh as the 7-9 years recommendation, and also described the verdict as “righteous”.
                    ********************
                    Of course, Crabb did no such thing. In his written submission below and in his argument, Crabb argued for no specific jail time amount. He deferred to the court even as he argued for “substantial” incarceration. Crabb did also argue for the threat enhancement the “victim” said he never took seriously and which Crabb pointed out in his sentencing memo amendment – a strange contradiction. So strange and lethal to your assertion, that when Judge Amy Bean indeed granted it, the total jail time still didn’t amount to half of what the 4 DOJ quitters originally asked for (40 months versus the 84-108 months originally and vindictively sought). Perhaps that is “nearly as harsh” to you, but to the speakers of the English language it sure sounds a hell of a lot different.

                    I do admire a good liar; it takes a certain panache to cleverly hide the truth. However, to undo your thicket merely takes a half second Google search and few more seconds to marvel as just how unglued one has to be to try and fool all of the people all of the time. Like I said, you’re out of your depth and sinking even further. Splash on.

                    https://www.lawfareblog.com/prosecutors-amend-roger-stone-sentencing-recommendation

                    1. Actually Crabb did ask for the original 7-9 year guidelines

                      The sentence was shorter because the Judge had Stone serve all the sentences concurrently

                      facts!!!

                    2. Mespo, I hope you do better research in your ambulance chasing practice .

                      Crabb did not write the revised sentencing guidelines as you sloppily alleged, or at least declined to say who did when asked by Jackson. Yeah, I’d be embarrassed too.

                      Ignoring the fact that Crabb also described the conviction as “righteous” , argued for the enhancements, and deferred repeatedly to the original recommendations, you hang your hat in Baghdad Bob triumphalism on Jackson sentencing less than the original recommendations, as judges often do, and as was her prerogative before the destructive Barr intervention.

                      As to prosecutorial vindictiveness, that’s SOP with non cooperating witness who mock the process and threaten the judge. You’d know this if actually had any experience going to court.

                    3. btb:

                      “Crabb did not write the revised sentencing guidelines as you sloppily alleged, or at least declined to say who did when asked by Jackson. Yeah, I’d be embarrassed too.”
                      *********************

                      Funny, he signed it. Which you’d know if you bothered to read before you comment. Here I’ll flashcard it for you:

                      https://www.lawfareblog.com/prosecutors-amend-roger-stone-sentencing-recommendation

                      You ought to be embarrassed. Like I said, you’re much too dumb to argue here.

                    1. Oh and here’s my source, btb … er …. Andy:

                      “Prosecutor Crabb asked the judge to impose “a substantial period of incarceration.” Stone’s attorney Seth Ginsberg repeated the defense team’s plea that Stone get no prison time. Stone declined to address the court.”

                      https://apnews.com/3f25972591780e9750d6fc17bcff506b

                      Your likely source, the Washington Compost, said Crabb “seemed” to argue for the original recommendation. Fooled by your own unreliable source or poor reading comprehension, you decide.

                    2. Like I said, Andy, you can’t read or are easily fooled. From the NYT article you posted:

                      “But Mr. Crabb raised yet more questions by simultaneously defending the argument for a stiff sentence laid out in the office’s first sentencing memo without disavowing the second sentencing memo that argued for a lighter punishment.”

                      Like I said, he argued for a “stiff sentence,” not the original 7-9 year recommendation. Btw, I quoted Crabb directly; the NYT didn’t. Are all libs this gullible?

                    3. Incorrect, Crabb argued FOR the first sentencing memo!!!

                      I await your desperate delusional response…

                      “But Mr. Crabb raised yet more questions by simultaneously defending the argument for a stiff sentence laid out in the office’s first sentencing memo without disavowing the second sentencing memo that argued for a lighter punishment.”

                      Crabb… “defending the argument for a stiff sentence laid out in the office’s first sentencing memo without disavowing the second sentencing memo that argued for a lighter punishment”

                    4. Btw, Andy even your clown car driver btb didn’t say Crabb argued for the same sentence. He has enough shame to say “nearly as harsh.” Words mean things.

                    5. Andy:
                      He defended the argument for a “stiff sentence” not the recommendation in the first memo. You have to be btb ‘cause you’re too dumb to be anyone else. What a doofus.

                    6. Crabb “defended the argument for a stiff sentence in the first sentencing memo.” Seems very clear the DOJ still supported the original 7-9 year sentence!!!! I await more desperate delusional responses!!!

                      But here’s the full quote….

                      “But Mr. Crabb raised yet more questions by simultaneously defending the argument for a stiff sentence laid out in the office’s first sentencing memo without disavowing the second sentencing memo that argued for a lighter punishment.”

                  1. You are doubling down on the same BS, Andy.
                    Stone was arrested and indicated before Barr was AG. By the Special Counsel.

                    Most if not all if the prosecution team was part of Mueller’s SC team.
                    From all indications, Barr was not direction or interferring with the charges against and the trial for Stone.
                    Barr’s involvement came well after the conclusion of the trial, and was related to the sentence.
                    Not the prosecution. If you’re going to keep insisting that Barr prosecuted Stone because be happened to be AG at the time of the trial, you might as well claim that it was Rod Rosenstein, not Mueller, who “prosecuted” everyone.
                    He was the one who appointed Mueller, so if you keep insisting on saying that Barr was the prosecutor, double down on your stupid claim again and say that Rosenstein was the prosecutor.

                    1. It’s semantics, technically Barr inherited the case but there is no denying he was happy with stone’s conviction!!

              2. “go complain to AG Barr he’s the guy who prosecuted and put Stone in jail!!!!!!” – Andy

                I’d still like to know how AG Barr prosecuted Stone. Stone’s arrest and indictment was prior to Barr’s appointment as AG, and the charges and the trial came out of the Special Counsel investigation.

                1. Stone has been AG for a year, the trial started in November. So Barrs’s DOJ prosecuted Stone, not Barr himself, his dept.

                  He said he is happy with the verdict with the verdict

        2. The only thing that is relevant is her conduct regarding the trial and Stone.
          She is unfortunately far from the most biased federal judge.

          But her remarks and decisions reflect bias.

          Turley has noted the responsibility of the defense to question Jurors for bias.
          But the ultimate responsibility for a fair trial rests with the judge.
          If there was a failure in Vior Dire – and it is pretty self evident there was – that is on her, no mater who may technically be blamed.

  7. Prof. Turley you are an esteemed professional of our judicial system. I am not. I have been sued by Federal prosecutors. I was lucky. I got a magistrate judge who saw the fraud being perpetuated by Federal prosecutors. I do not for one minute respect our Federal court system. I know there are two standards of justice. I have no respect for Judge Amy Jackson.

    I understand why you feel compelled to support the integrity of our court system. I do not support or respect it.

  8. Absolutely insane. This harridan made it crystal clear that she has no business being on this or ANY bench. Political hack. This sort of thing will lead to literal revolution.

  9. Your well-reasoned, oh so reasonable, article is why I for one am now thoroughly convinced that the American Justice System is irreparably corrupt. You seem to sincerely believe that the fact that the jury foreman, a partisan Democrat activist, is a perfectly fine and ordinary thing in a trial of a nationally famous Republic ‘dirty trickster’ campaign operative caught up in a clearly bogus intelligence investigation which in fact gave license to the FBI and CIA to tap into a new and then a fully formed Administration for the purpose of trapping them into something impeachable. This entire thing is a complete disgrace and you are enabling it by remaining oh-so-reasonable.

    I simply cannot respect a system where reasonable people like yourself can sincerely justify such blatant hypocrisy.

    1. I agree with you and with Allan below. This is now a trial of the justice system and of arrogant judges who should wear togas and jackboots rather than simple judicial robes. Odd that for such smart people they do not see how this looks for them. Too arrogant I suppose.

      1. Thanks Young. The thought process involved in the discussions of Stone, Barr, the judge and jury all over this blog are mostly off base and viewed through blinders. One participant in particular can see a sentence in front of his nose but cannot understand what the sentence means in relationship to justice, what justice is, or how our Constitutional Republic functions.

        Guilt or innocence is not the question, justice is. Justice assumes the crime worthy of the punishment and that justice is blind so that all people are treated equally under the law.

        We have to remember that people can be charged with jay walking, spitting on the street and a multitude of crimes that are done by law abiding human beings almost every day so justice requires more than a finding of guilty. Barr was not a juror so his opinion doesn’t count under the law. Juries should have the idea of justice in their minds when deciding cases and they should decide it based on a single standard not one standard for one person and another standard for another person.

        That doesn’t seem to be what is happening. We now have a slew of individuals that have lied in front of Congress, intentionally and with malice. Stone acted with foolishness somewhat stupidly I think. He appeared before both a judge and jury that one would have reasonable cause to believe were biased. None of us should be happy with such widespread suspicion in a case that is so politically hot. It makes normal people of all beliefs suspicious of the legal system most notably in the federal court system where prosecutors and law enforcement have handled cases in a fashion that I do not believe is acceptable.

        Finally if justice prevails then justice demands that the one that acted with malice at least pay an equal if not higher penalty than one that was simply foolish.

        1. A jury convicted Stone and AG Barr said he was happy he was convicted…. sounds like justice to me…. just sayin!!!

            1. Paul:

              Andy just won’t accept that the bona fide appearance of unfairness is every bit as bad as proven unfairness. We’ve said it every which way you can say it.

              1. Except there is no evidence of unfairness!! Stones lawyers had experts that approved all the jurors. He had good representation in court and was convicted by the jury after which AG Barr said it was a “righteous” conviction… in other words no appearance of unfairness!!

                If you want the appearance of unfairness that would be Donald Trump interfering in the trial of his associate who was convicted of lying to protect him….. that is an example of the appearance of unfairness!!!

            2. No evidence of that… the jurors claim it was a fair jury

              Why did AG Barr call the conviction “righteous”?…. is he biased???

              1. Andy – everyone, including the President, has a right to their opinion. Barr has his, I have mine, you have yours. Are you biased?

                1. Give me a break!!!… Barr has the evidence and information. You’re expressing an opinion when you don’t have the fcats…Facts trump opinions…. It’s the job of the AG to make sure justice is served!!!!

                    1. You have a vivid imagination…He was charged, convicted and sentenced… AG Barr wants him in jail

                    2. Andy – just answer the question. Would justice be served if Stone was found not guilty?

                    3. Andy – I answered your question hours ago. You will have to parse out the answer. It will take thought on your part. Now answer my question.

                    4. Andy – get your act together and do something you should have done hours ago. Find my post answering you!!!!

                  1. Anon – coming back to something you said and I missed, the verdict of the jury is just an opinion based on what they “think” the facts are. I have been on two juries and it was clear that some members of the jury paid better attention than others. Ideally, between all of us. we were able to get all the facts. However, in both cases it was a hung jury.

            3. Chances are Stone’s jury whisperers advised leaving the foreperson on for a couple reasons:

              -someone with a political background would be sensitive to Stone being a blowhard with a drinking problem in the Opo research realm and would recognize it and overcompensate as such.
              -seeding grounds for retrial as a stopgap.

              1. Paul are you as knowledgeable about jury selection as you are about the Obamacare’s 50 employee rule? I’m not saying that you do or don’t have a point. I am only recalling how you made your points on that exact other subject when you didn’t know the rule.

                1. I know in great detail the aspects of Obamney care that affect MY business (and my life) …

                  So I suppose, as usual, you either do or don’t have a point. Bet you’d be the last to know.

                  1. “I know in great detail the aspects of Obamney care that affect MY business (and my life) …”

                    Paul the earth doesn’t revolve around you and neither did this discussion. You asked me to mention something Obama did that incentivized a reduction in jobs (or something like that).

                    I brought up Obamacare and you started acting as if my statement was wrong. That immediately demonstrated that you didn’t know about the 50 employee rule (or on second thought maybe the 30 employee rule.. The rule exists though I am not sure of the numbers) You were arrogant despite the lack of knowledge having to do with Obamacare and jobs. Even when told why Obamacare was used as an example you didn’t bother to debate that particular fact, accept it or even acknowledge it. Apparently you don’t admit when you are wrong and aren’t tall enough to directly respond when someone provides an answer to something you asked for and didn’t know about.

                    The point of my above remark was in reference to your knowledge on jury selection. You made yourself sound like an expert so I wanted to know if your expertise in jury selection was the same as your lack of expertise in the 50 employee rule.

                    1. “…That immediately demonstrated that you didn’t know about the 50 employee rule (or on second thought maybe the 30 employee rule.. The rule exists though I am not sure of the numbers) ”

                      Can you see how funny this is, Allan?

                      I just responded to you bringing up Obamacare in a discussion about jobs. Period. I actually wrote a much longer post under my alter ego that got me bounced because my humor went a little dark in it and by the time I appeared under my real name I’d forgotten all about it. Just followed where you were going with your narrative because it seems that’s the only way to speak with you. You’re tough to talk to. I’m sure I’m not the first to point that out. Maybe just a tad of condescension going on there. Just saying.

                      As far as dropping off the discussion, things move pretty quickly on this blog and I generally just move to the most current threads and drop off the pointless arguments. Nothing more than that.

                      “Apparently you don’t admit when you are wrong and aren’t tall enough to directly respond when someone provides an answer to something you asked for and didn’t know about.”

                      Lol. Irony alert. Irony alert. Ha. I’ll just leave it at that.

                      “You made yourself sound like an expert so I wanted to know if your expertise in jury selection was the same as your lack of expertise in the 50 employee rule.”

                      In no way was my intention to come off as a jury selection expert, Allan. If i was I’d state it explicitly.

                      Breathe man. Preferably in your nose and then out your mouth. It’s calming and lowers the blood pressure. I’m not a threat, man. Just playing around on a blog where a bunch of people take themselves way too seriously.

                      Peace.

                    2. “Can you see how funny this is, Allan?”

                      No, but I can see you are full with excuses.

                      I know nothing of your alter ego except that some use multiple aliases because they are unable to live with the prior statements they made. (what is you alter ego name, Elvis I presume and I presume you have had others)

                      “In no way was my intention to come off as a jury selection expert, Allan. If i was I’d state it explicitly.”

                      You acted as an expert in Obamacare and the 50 employee provision and it seemed you were doing the same with jury selection. The reason you might have difficulty talking to me is that you can’t stay on topic and sometimes you refuse to consider that you are unaware of the facts or the “science” behind certain policies. That is your problem, not mine and that problem seems to be quite prevalent among those here that are towards the left.

                      “Breathe man. Preferably in your nose and then out your mouth. It’s calming and lowers the blood pressure.”

                      In your world maybe you need those devices to remain calm but not in mine. You were the one that got bounced so apparently you were a bit aggravated. I’m here to learn and have a little fun with breaks from more serious work. I like to read and analyze so that might present you with a bit of difficulty.

                      Pax.

              2. Chances are Stone’s jury whisperers advised leaving the foreperson on for a couple reasons:
                ______________________________________

                I think you missed the most obvious reason. Stone wanted to lose the trial. For him being a martyr is very good for business.

                Stone won’t serve any time and he has made a fortune from donations from his fans. The appeals will drag on through the year and after the election he will be pardoned.

                1. Hillary won’t serve any time and he has made a fortune from donations from his fans. The lies will drag on through the year and after the election he will be hung.

                  FTFY

          1. That is only because you don’t know or understand justice. You would do well in Saudi Arabia where for a rather minor infraction of the law you could be convicted and sentenced to death.

            Your answer wasn’t very bright.

                    1. I know Roger Stone was convicted by a jury…… btw they couldn’t even get a grand jury to indict McCabe!!!

                      I also know AG Barr is “happy” Stone is going to jail…. but you probably think Barr is biased also

                    2. Explain how a jury reaching a decision that is supported by the AG is problem with our justice system…. I eagerly await your response

    2. Hart was interviewed by Stone’s jury experts and his lawyers, she revealed her history and they approved her for the jury. Other jurors have attested to her fairness…. you post is nonsense

          1. Voir dire is not quite the same as an interview or deposition and it is done by the attorney, not a ‘jury expert’. Didn’t think you knew what you were talking about.

              1. Well short of your claim that she was interviewed by jury experts. Not at all the same. If she lied about her objectivity it is very hard to detect, with or without ‘experts’. If she did not lie then it is a stain on the judge’s reputation that she remained on the jury. Any decent judge would have dismissed without the request of the defense if she had been as open about her prejudices in court as she was in media. Either way it is a disgrace and you, obviously, do not know what you are talking about. If someone is putting you up to this they need to retain someone who is competent.

                1. Do you have evidence that Hart lied during the jury interviews?? of course you don’t you’re talking out of your azz

                  The other jurors said she was fair and unbiased, Stone’s lawyers OK’d her for the jury and AG Barr siad it was a “righteous” conviction… debunk any of the facts I just laid out, can you??

                  1. You missed the part where I said if she did reveal her prejudices any decent judge would have dismissed her automatically. If she lied it is on her. If she did not lie it is on the judge. Either way it is an appalling miscarriage of justice. I think this judge is in for embarrassment on appeal, assuming she is not too arrogant to be capable of embarrasment. I suspect the appellate judges watching this pig rasslin wish she had just granted a new trial without her rant and put the mess out of sight after the next news cycle.

                    As for ‘debunking’ your ‘facts’ i thought I just debunked your silly claim that the jury experts interviewed her. How did you miss that part? Debunk that.

                    1. the fact is Stone’s lawyers hired jury experts to help them choose a jury, how did you debunk that???….I just entered crazy town!!!

                      Stone’s defense lawyers had ample opportunity to challenge any juror “for cause” before the trial and failed to do so.

                      Other than that, there sure were a lot of “if’s” in that post which means you have no facts or evidence, just speculation …. not that you care about facts or evidence when you form an opinion.

                      The main point is AG Bar thinks Stone belongs in jail but YOU believe he will be released on appeal!!!…. So Barr think Stone is guilty but YOU think Stone be exonerated, why will Stone be exonerated??

                    2. You can’t distinguish between a passive observer, a jury expert, and somone who is conducting a one-on-one interview? Yes, you have entered crazy town. Some while back, I think.

                    3. Actually I can and I claim that Stone hired jury experts to help him choose jurors…

                      There is NO evidence Hart lied, as a matter of fact other jurors claim she was fair and unbiased

                      Stone’s defense lawyers had ample opportunity to challenge any juror “for cause” before the trial and failed to do so…. they didn’t, why not?

                      Now instead of speculation provide evidence to debunk anything I just posted

                    4. Odd, you seem to be drawing on a limited set of responses from a menu somrone has given you rather than engaging sensibly. But, as you say, you have gone to crazy town. Don’t work so hard to prove it.

                    1. OK… now I know you are ignorant on the facts ion the Stone case… it was in the Pierre Thomas interviewed on ABC which was re-broadcast on every media outlet!!!!…. all you need to do is google Barr Righteous Prosecution…. so easy to be informed these days but you have to WANT to know the facts. Barr also said he was happy Stone was convicted

                      I answered your questions, now answer my question…

                      Is Barr biased by saying Stone is guilty or did he evaluate the evidence and decide Stone is guilty??

                      Everybody else on this blog has refused or disappeared without answering, let’s see if you can be intellectually honest!!!

                      https://dailycaller.com/2020/02/14/bill-barr-happy-roger-stone-convicted/

                      https://www.channel3000.com/i/trump-sets-the-stage-to-pardon-stone-despite-barr-calling-case-a-righteous-prosecution/

                      abcnews.go.com/Politics/transcript-attorney-general-bill-barrs-exclusive-interview-abc/story?id=68975178

                      mediaite.com/news/bill-barr-contradicts-trump-calls-roger-stone-prosecution-righteous-i-was-happy-he-was-convicted/

                    2. Andy – first, thanks for finding the transcript to the longer interview. The one I saw was 8 minutes. According to the transcript, Barr has looked at the evidence and decided this was a trial they should proceed with because he decided Stone was guilty. This is something all prosecutors do.

                      Surprisingly, the attorney for the sentencing appeared to push for 7-9 anyway, even though Main Justice had changed the recommendation. Was he biased?

                    3. I’m still waiting for an answer to my question…. do you think Barr was biased??

                      Regarding the sentencing guideline. I know you aren’t following this closely but here are the facts….The prosecutors don’t wing it , there are guideline they follow which led them to suggest 7-9 years. What’s very intereresting is the prosecutor who took over for the 4 prosecutors that quit offered the EXACT SAME STIFF GUIDELINES in front of Judge Jackson even after Barr wanted them lowered. The Judge went through the all the charges and Stone was looking at over 9 years but the judge said he should serve the sentences concurrently… obviously there was no bias

                    4. Andy – I have been following the sentencing. The guidelines are roughly 30 months which were push to 7-9 years by Mueller’s minions. Jackson followed the guidelines, what she did not follow was ruling first on the juror before sentencing. The judge also got political in her sentencing, which will help Stone on appeal, should he need it.

                      BTW, I answered your question sometime back. However, it is going to require some thought on your part to parse the answer. 😉

                    5. Let me be direct… you are don’t know what you are talking about. The guidelines checked by the prosecutors added up to 7-9 years. That is what the DOJ gave to the Judge during the sentencin. That is AFTER Barr complained. All the charges added together were over 7 years but the judge let Stone serve the sentences concurrently. Those are facts!!!

                    6. My response is awaiting moderation for some reason….. it was in the Pierre Thomas ABC interview… google Barr righteous prosecution

                    7. Andy,

                      There was one comment you posted which had four hyperlinks. You might not be aware but this website only permits two per comment. I dereferenced the extraneous links and restored it so it would post. To avoid this in the future, if you want the readers to review more than two hyperlinks, this may be accomplished by using multiple comments containing two links or less each.

                  2. sure she lied. it’s obvious from her statement that she could be “fair.” compared to all that garbage she wrote on social media. you’re being obtuse, dense, or dishonest.

                    1. You’re making an assumption, I’m stating facts!! …. the other jury members said she was fair and unbiased. AG Barr said the conviction was “righteous”…. believe what you want, Stone is guilty!!!

                    2. lol andy wake up. of course they did. they all look like fools now, deceived by the biased foreperson.

                      you’re not deluded about this, you’re just dishonest.

                      PS you can judge how important a point is to the anti-Trump strategists when they flood this place with comments. but for this one you guys are undermining one of the best things about the USA, due process and trial by jury

                      HAIL THE SEVENTH AMENDMENT

                    3. According to juror members there is absolutely no evidence any juror was biased. Stone lawyers and the hired jury experts interviewed her and knew she was a democrat that had run for office, They chose her anyway. The idea that a Democrat can’t be fair is ridiculous!

                  1. Andy, don’t waste your time. Paul never cites anything he posts, and how could he? He admits he gets his news from YouTube. Of course the Barr statements you note are commonly available in multiple respected news sources, but apparently not whatever crackpot channel Paul watches.

                    1. I know and understand…. my weird hobby is getting these knuckleheads into a logical corner then watch them disappear because they are intellectually dishonest. I’ve asked 6 or 7 people on this thread if they think Barr is biased when he says Stone belongs in jail….. that is when they vanish

                    2. Andy – again, link the podcast and the time where Barr said it. I don’t run away, however I do have other things to do with my life.

                    3. If you subscribe to SIrius it was last Thursday’s Dan Abrams show… if you don’t subscribe, do a trial subscription otherwise you will have to take my word BUT….. every high profile case hires jury experts to help choose jurors, it is perfectly normal. They interviewed Hart, she even told them she was a democrat who ran for office and they allowed her on the jury…. not crazy stuff here

                    4. Barr has to herd all these cats in the DOJ. It’s good enough for me he spanked the persecutors with a reduction in the sentencing recommendation. He can’t do much more than that given his position.

                      I’m in favor of a new trial for Stone. Let him stay in jail for the duration, no problem! He gets convicted by a new unbiased jury, ok! if he gets off, fine. Most important thing, just purge the taint of this concealed bias juror and foreperson from this result.

                      This stuff used to be a simple concept back when I was in law school and my professor was hammering into our brains what “due process” is meant to mean. See he was a big liberal, about such things, and I listened.

                      Here’s a law review article from 1938 on topic! this is a no brainer. educate yourselves!

                      https://www.jstor.org/stable/1282179?seq=1

                      Jury: False or Misleading Answers on Voir Dire as Grounds for a New Trial
                      James H. Kilbourne
                      Michigan Law Review
                      Vol. 36, No. 6 (Apr., 1938)

                    5. “I’m in favor of a new trial for Stone. Let him stay in jail for the duration,”

                      Kurtz, why should he rot in jail in the interim if he were to get a new trial? He is not a threat to anyone though in his case his arrest was spectacularly made with ‘ground, sea and air’ support.

                    6. Not all threats are considered valid. People threaten others all the time even those violating restaining orders but most remain out of jail. I don’t think anyone of intelligence believes he is a threat to life or limb.

                    7. What do you think the MSM are doing. They can write what they want about Stone but he can’t reply. You really do belong in a Saudi Arabian justice system.

                    8. When you change the subject it means you have no case, the MSM and Saudi Arabia have NOTHING to do with Stone. Everytime you try to distract it hurts your argument

                      Roger Stone was convicted by a jury and AG Barr said he was “happy” that Stone was convicted. Unless you want to accuse Barr of being biased, do you??? Stone is a liar and a menace who tampered with witnesses and threatened the judge… he belongs in jail

                    9. The way you come to your conclusions proves you deserve Saudi justice. If ignorance is bliss you must be a very happy person.

                    10. OK, I’ll bite explain … how I come to my “conclusions proves I deserve Saudi justice”?

                      This should be entertaining if you can even muster up a coherent answer

                    11. “OK, I’ll bite explain … how I come to my “conclusions proves I deserve Saudi justice”?”

                      Anon, below I provide the post where I said that, but to gain context you will have to track the statement backwards. In essence you equated justice to a trial by jury and nothing else. That may or may not be justice but for you Saudi justice seemed to suffice.
                      ————-

                      Allan says: February 24, 2020 at 5:49 PM
                      That is only because you don’t know or understand justice. You would do well in Saudi Arabia where for a rather minor infraction of the law you could be convicted and sentenced to death.

                      Your answer wasn’t very bright.

                    12. So ignorant…..John Crabb Jr the DOJ attorney, who replaced the 4 prosecutors who quit, gave a sentencing guideline of 7-9 years, I guess Barr relented!!

                      There is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE that any juror was biased, just your own biased speculation. if you have evidence she lied besides your vivd imagination, present it!!

                      The jurors who have been interviewed claim the deliberations were fair and unbiased. All the jurors were interviewed by Stones attorneys and the jury experts he hired. They knew who was a democrat and even knew that one ran for office. They chose her anyway. There is NO EVIDENCE anybody lied during the jury interviews!!

                  2. Andy – I think this may be part of your problem, following MSNBC. However, a link and timestamp is needed now.

                    1. a link and timestamp for what??

                      I answered your question, now answer mine…. is Barr biased when he says Stone belongs on jail?? …. or did he come to a logical conclusion after seeing the evidence???

                    2. Andy – again, I have only your word for what Barr said. That is not enough. Post a link. I cannot answer until I see and hear the context.

                    3. Now for the 100th time…. will you answer my question?

                      Is Barr biased when he says that Stone is guilty?…. or did he review the evidence and coem to a logical conclusion??

                    4. If you’re talking about the Dan Abrams show on Sirius… it is there in the middle of the show, give a listen…but ALL high profile cases use jury experts to help choose jurors, why is it even an issue??

                      Will you answer my question now.?….. Is Barr biased when he says Stone is guilty?

                    5. Andy – I tracked down the interview and the interviewer says that Barr told him that he is happy Stone was convicted. We don’t hear that from Barr himself.

  10. She is likely right in claiming the motion to step aside was political rather than legal. Good. If you are going to be a political hack rather than an impartial jurist then expect political attacks. She should expect more of the same, deservedly.

    I don’t think the defense needs to fret about alienating this judge. She appears to be a fully committed Deep State malignant actor. Her bias meter is already pegged. I suspect that she and the apparently corrupt juror could have traded places with no change in outcome.

    She should know better than to wrestle in the mud and expect to come out clean

    1. She could have spared herself, and the tarnished image of the judiciary, some grief by saying I do not need to rule on the motion to step aside because on my own motion I am ordering a new trial because of the juror’s public statements. She could have gotten out cleaner than she has, but she is not smart enough to see that easy exit.

  11. “an attempt to use the Court’s docket to disseminate a statement for public consumption that has the words “judge” and “biased” in it.”

    This is no longer a simple trial of an individual but perhaps part of a bigger public “trial” that involves the legal system and bias in the courts. Public opinion counts.

    1. “This is no longer a simple trial of an individual but perhaps part of a bigger public “trial” that involves the legal system and bias in the courts.”

      You just nailed that good and hard. Exactly. And here’s the deal: everything, and I mean everything, runs on confidence. When people lose confidence in something, whether it be a person, a product, an organization, a system, or whatever, they abandon it. And then it fails and withers away. That is our “justice” system. That is the courts. That is attorneys. Done. Finito. If Trump did nothing else, he exposed the sh*t show known as the American “justice” system for the farce and fraud that it is.

      1. Are you concerned that Trump is interfering in a trial of his associate?? A person who was convicted by a jury of lying to protect Trump.

        1. “A person who was convicted by a jury of lying to protect Trump.”

          Bogus charge, bogus conviction, based on a bogus Mueller investigation. Say, did you know Putin is helping Sanders? Must be true, because the media sez so.

          1. They have him on tape!!! ….. the jury decided 7 counts in 7 hours because the evidence was overwhelming

            In your own words explain why the charges and conviction are bogus… thx

                1. Once again, because they are based on the fruit of the poisonous tree, the Mueller “investigation”. Had the Mueller “investigation” not taken place, Roger would not have been brought to trial.

                  1. Even if that was true, it is not evidence of an unfair conviction nor that Stone is innocent

                    Besides, the mandate of Mueller was to investigate Russian interference and any crimes associated with it, so you claim in nonsense.

                    1. Andy – we have yet to see the 2nd extension of the powers of Mueller and his team. It remains classified.

                    2. Why?????… is there evidence that Stone is not guilty… NO!!!! If you change the topic it means you have no case, but nice try!!!!

                    3. Andy – I am wondering why 4 high-priced DoJ attorneys, 3 from the infamous Mueller team, are involved in prosecuting process crimes?

                    4. It was discovered during the Mueller investigation, tha’t’s your description but all DOJ lawyers are high powered… lying to congress is serious and witness tampering IS NOT A PROCESS CRIME!!!!… it’s about a serious as it gets for our legal system, not cool of you to discredit that!!

                    5. “Even if that was true, it is not evidence of an unfair conviction nor that Stone is innocent”

                      That’s one off the wall statement. Talk about nonsense.

                  1. Be use the juror was blatantly partisan and prejudiced against the defendant at least by appearance and that’s what matters. She made public statements about the case and downplayed any interest in the case. That’s a red flag

                    1. The evidence is she was unbiased….Stone’s lawyers and jury experts ok’d her for the jury and other jury members claim she was unbiased…. what evidence do you have to back up that charge?…. especially since AG Barr thinks Stone belongs in jail

                    2. you guys are clueless. if she were an “alt right” white closet juror who had tons of racial speech stuff up on the internet nobody found at voir dire, until later, and then she sat in judgment of a black man accused of rape, this would be an “Emmet Till” no brainer and a new trial in a heartbeat. the judge wouldnt have bothered with sentencing. the bias is clear now not just against the defendant from the juror but also yes,

                      from the judge.

      2. “When people lose confidence in something, whether it be a person, a product, an organization, a system, or whatever, they abandon it.”

        Margot, right now the Democrats voting in the primaries consists of the highest percentage of far leftists in the party. They are deciding the candidate. However, the bulk of Democrats are not as hostile to capitalism and individual freedom. My bet is that they are losing confidence and that bodes well for the American economy and individual freedoms.

        1. “Confidence is, indeed, the driver of all things human. Just look at the markets today.”

          Paul, that is another thing where Obama did not perform well when dealing with economic policy. Lack of confidence has a negative effect on the economy. I understand Obama’s lack of confidence as he didn’t understand what he was doing. His forte was being a community activist. Community activists generally tear things down (that can be good or bad). His problem was he didn’t understand the process of building things up.

          1. Actually, he was a ‘community activist’ for less than three years.

            He really wasn’t demonstrably good at much of anything. Pro-rating p/t and seasonal work, he was employed in law offices for < 4 years. He was on the faculty of Chicago's law school for 12 years as a 40% time instructor. He didn't attend faculty meetings, didn't teach core courses, and didn't publish a single scholarly article. He sat in legislatures for 12 years, but was an identified maven in no area of policy. He was the chairman of the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a project of the Joyce Foundation which proved a failure. He was interviewed for the Presidency of the Foundation in 2000. His wife wanted him to land that job; he flubbed the interview.

            Hendrik Hertzberg used to sneer at Ronald Reagan, maintaining he wasn't an actor, he was an announcer (who just happened to land one starring role after another in feature films over the period running from 1937 to 1957; you have to be Harvard '65 to understand why that doesn't count). Well, Obama's true vocation was as a generic NGO functionary.

            1. “Actually, he was a ‘community activist’ for less than three years.”

              DSS, Obama was brought up and surrounded by people of that ilk so I think the title represents Obama’s being.

              “He really wasn’t demonstrably good at much of anything. “

              I never said he was a smart community activist but we agree “He really wasn’t demonstrably good at much of anything. “

              1. DSS, Obama was brought up and surrounded by people of that ilk so I think the title represents Obama’s being.

                His grandfather sold furniture (later insurance). His grandmother worked for the Bank of Hawaii. I think her job involved supervising escrow accounts or some such. His step-father was a geographer employed by Indonesia’s state oil company. His mother worked for the Ford Foundation’s Indonesian operations in some capacity. If you’re referring to Frank Marshall Davis, at one point he had a small business distributing paper. At another, he sold advertising. He did once work for the west coast Longshoremen, but that was before the Dunham’s moved out to Oahu. I think his father worked for the Ministry of Transportation in Kenya. Doesn’t matter. BO and his father spent no more than nine weeks resident in the same city over the period running from 1961 to 1982.

                1. DSS, Community activism is not necessarily an income producing job so one expects many of them to have ordinary jobs. I think your argument is inconsequential.

                  1. DSS, Community activism is not necessarily an income producing job so one expects many of them to have ordinary jobs. I think your argument is inconsequential.

                    It’s ‘inconsequential’? Tell, me, Allen, just what ‘community activism’ did any of these people engage in in his presence? The only examples you might come up with would relate to his mother, a black-girl wannabe whose known interests were otherwise limited to Indonesian handicrafts and exotic d***.

                    1. While we’re at it, the only periods of time Obama spent apart from his grandparents extended from the fall of 1961 to the spring of 1962 and from the middle of 1967 to the middle of 1971. While his mother lay dying of cancer in October 1995, he was attending the Million Man March.

                    2. “Tell, me, Allen, just what ‘community activism’ did any of these people engage in in his presence?”

                      DSS, I feel it is better to discuss his actual activism then his relatives. I am not claiming that Obama was a great community organizer or another Saul Alinsky. I don’t claim he worked hard at it or was good at it. I actually used the term community orgainzer as a perjorative in reference to Obama so I am not sure why you are getting all out of shape over this use of term.

                      His actual years as a “commuinty organizer” was as you say 3 years, but even later as a lawyer I believe he worked for ACORN as well and I believe his use of the word “Change” might have been spurred by his work at that time. He actually did community organization on a large scale as President.

                      Obama in his book “Dreams From My Father”, said he was a community organizer. I was in the process of referring you to this book to satisfy your needs but then I felt that unfair so after writing my response I took a quick websearch and found an article pertinent to your question. “What Obama Did As A Community Organizer” https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-obama-did-as-a-community-organizer/

                      I erased an entire paragraph listing some of the things Obama did but after seeing this I felt this would be more complete for a specific time period and far more accurate than my recollections.

                    3. DSS, I feel it is better to discuss his actual activism then his relatives. I

                      Allan, you said “was brought up and surrounded by people of that ilk”. I didn’t introduce his relatives, you did. The trouble is, that doesn’t describe his upbringing except, perhaps, his mother’s contribution to it.

                      He had a useless job for a 30 month period around age 26. I think the reason it defines his life is not its significance per se, but the comparative insignificance of everything else he’s done.

                      I think if you want to make sense of Obama, don’t look at his family, don’t look at Java, don’t look at Honolulu, except to understand what wasn’t there which usually is there. Look at Occidental and Columbia. That’s the content which filled the empty hole.

                    4. “Allan, you said “was brought up and surrounded by people of that ilk”. I didn’t introduce his relatives, you did. ”

                      DSS, that is fair enough. At least now I understand your focus. I seem to remember from his book that there were others that he was in contact with that were of that ilk during his early years (before his entry into politics). I would have to review the book and other writings so I won’t claim superior knowledge. Right now I don’t remember or know enough. I included ACORN in my earlier response because its full name is clear: Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now.

                      By the way just to make things clearer I said “surrounded by people”, I didn’t use the word relatives, you did. which doesn’t exclude non-family members. I don’t doubt your word on the names you mentioned.a I do however, recognize how fast he was vaulted up the ladder and believe that there likely was some outside help. Community activist or organizer can span a wide set of disciplines so we are discussing something relatively obscure.

                      I can barely remember your entrance into the discussion or why. I almost feel like I am playing the game of Trivial Pursuit.

              1. He sounds like a winning game show contestant that knows how to light up his head and smile while instantaneusly answering questions in a way that generates audience approval even if the answers are meaningless.

          2. Did a lot better for the grain markets than Trump. In fact, let’s rephrase that…, Trump has done his absolute best to destroy the grain markets. We have to distinguish between confidence and hubris.

            Of course, Trump’s con is short for confidence…so there’s that.

            1. Paul, you are the type to wait until one is nearly destroyed before acting. You don’t want our intellectual property protected. You want our industry shipped offshore and you want unemployment numbers to climb. You don’t care about the growth of the economy.

              What you want is clear and I accept your opinion. That seems to be the predominant opinion among the left. They believe Americans should have to suffer more like the rest of the world.

              OK, I don’t intend to vote for you or any of your fellow socialist/ communist supporting candidates. That is what possesses your mind. You know Trump will win and continue to good for the nation.

              1. So…., thanks for the compliments. Honored. Ha.

                Actually I’m just a grain trader wading through the markets everyday, buying and selling on waves of market momentum and relative strength. It’s a ride. Good thing I did a lot of surfing as a kid, taught me a whole lot about market swings.

                Not running for any office (my past would absolutely disqualify me). Not communist. And am hopeful that as few people in the world have to suffer as possible. I’ve seen a lot of pain in this world both physical and otherwise and i don’t wish it on anyone. It turns you into an animal and there’s nothing fun about it.

                And I like to be as predictive of future events as I possibly can, knowing it’s impossible to fully achieve the goal. Don’t classify myself as being left or right, but know there are pieces of both in my general outlook. Pragmatism and practicality rank high with me. I was raised by two scientists while concurrently thriving much more on the creative side myself, so the pragmatism is something I tended to have to learn from the outside in.

                I’ve been a small business owner and have had probably 40 or so helpers over the years before I physically hit the wall and could no longer do the work because it was too physically taxing. I never wanted to just manage a crew — I fully believed the only fair arrangement was to never ask a helper to do something I wasn’t willing or able to do myself. Didn’t send one job overseas in the process. Ha.

                You give me too much credit, my friend. Seems i’m renting some free space in your head. Not my intention by any means. But hey, you be you. I’m cool with it. Probably won’t be responding to you in the future as it seems to be way more work than it’s worth.

                Generally I like to respond to the professor’s articles and should probably stop interactions out here in the cheap seats of the blog because it seems to be navel gazing at its worst.

                Peace.

                1. “So…., thanks for the compliments. Honored.”

                  I’ll see to it that I provide you with more of the same.

                  “And am hopeful that as few people in the world have to suffer as possible. I’ve seen a lot of pain in this world both physical and otherwise and i don’t wish it on anyone. It turns you into an animal and there’s nothing fun about it.”

                  You see! We have things in common.

                  ” I fully believed the only fair arrangement was to never ask a helper to do something I wasn’t willing or able to do myself. ”

                  I understand the sentiment but that could be at another worker’s expense of unemloyment because one less job was available. Some people would not trade places with their bosses even for a tremendous hike in salary.

                  “Seems i’m renting some free space in your head.”

                  Sorry, but in this case you are giving yourself too much credit. I only know you from a few lines of text on a blog and provide a few seconds or a minute or two to read and respond. Then you are gone perhaps forever without any residual remaining unless you provided something I did not know or think about.

                  ” should probably stop interactions out here in the cheap seats of the blog”

                  AS you say this is fun, relax, breathe deep and enjoy before you move onto the real work of the day.

                  Pax.

  12. Off topic question: Why is Adam Schiff still on the Intelligence Committee? A known leaker. That’s illegal. Why isn’t he being investigated and removed pending results? Why?

  13. Surprise!! Judge Amy Berman Jackson denied the motion to recuse herself from Roger Stone’s trial. Is anyone really surprised?

  14. The fact that she said Stone was convicted of “covering up for Trump” — something he wasn’t charged with — is all you need to know.

  15. The judge did not undermine the defense team. She undermines herself. The mine under her is a goal mine. Or coal.

  16. Judge AMY JACKSON is BIASED based on her comments, restrictions on free speech, displayed hatred of Trump.

    A retrial is merited and a strict review of the jurors and Amy Jackson should remove herself from the trial for she is biased and Active Dem.

    In the end, this case will be appealed for Roger will not get a fair trial and Judges biased is documented, her own comments in and out of court.

    Roger will be Pardon

Leave a Reply