Federal Judge Dismisses Stone Motion … and Premise Of An Unbiased Jury

ajacksonIn the crush of news this week, one story was a bit buried. U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson has denied former Donald Trump adviser Roger Stone’s motion for a new trial. It was an expected ruling but one that eviscerates the notion of an unbiased jury.  I previously discussed the issue of the bias of the head juror and the need for a new trial.  What is interesting is that Jackson does not seriously question her political bias but effectively gives a shrug and says “go to jail anyway.”

I have previously discussed the statements made by Tomeka Hart before she became the jury foreperson. She exhibited intense hostility against Trump and his associates and protested against the administration. She also expressed support for investigations of the administration and even discussed this case. Worse yet, the transcript of the voir dire hearing did not suggest that the defense counsel was aware of this history. Either she disclosed the information and defense counsel was less than effective, or Hart had withheld the information and was less than transparent.

As discussed in an earlier column, there were multiple points on the voir dire form where Hart could have revealed her prior statements and protests.  This was not a small part of her life. Hart is a Democratic activist and critic of the Trump administration. She was the Memphis City Schools board president. Not surprisingly, given her political background (including a run for Congress), Hart has been vocal in public on her views of Trump and his associates.

She referred to the President with a hashtag of “klanpresident” and spoke out against “Trump and the white supremacist racists.” She posted about how she and others protested outside a Trump hotel and shouted, “Shame, shame, shame!” When profanities were projected on the Trump hotel, she exclaimed on Jan. 13, 2018, “Gotta love it.” On March 24, 2019, she shared a Facebook post — no longer public — while calling attention to “the numerous indictments, guilty pleas, and convictions of people in 45’s inner-circle.”

More worrisome are her direct references to Stone, including a retweeted post, in January 2019, from Bakari Sellers, again raising racist associations and stating that “Roger Stone has y’all talking about reviewing use of force guidelines.” She also described Trump supporters such as Stone as racists and Putin cronies.

As expected, the court simply brushed aside these clear examples of bias.  Jackson wrote:

“The defendant has not shown that the juror lied; nor has he shown that the supposedly disqualifying evidence could not have been found through the exercise of due diligence at the time the jury was selected. Moreover, while the social media communications may suggest that the juror has strong opinions about certain people or issues, they do not reveal that she had an opinion about Roger Stone, which is the opinion that matters . . . To the extent one could consider any of the social media posts to be inconsistent with the juror’s questionnaire, they do not warrant a new trial because they do not meet the legal test for something that has been ‘newly discovered.’ [A] defendant seeking a new trial must establish that the information presented in his motion could not have been discovered earlier through the exercise of due diligence.”

I do agree with Judge Jackson that there is question of whether this information “could …have been discovered earlier through the exercise of due diligence.”  The court notes

“the foreperson’s views were certainly not hidden at the time of jury selection. The juror’s personal affiliation with Democratic politics was set forth in her written answers. She said straight out that she had opinions about the “officials” on the list of people who might be mentioned in the case, and Donald Trump was the most prominent, if not the only, ‘official’ named.”

This was publicly available on social media and the question remains why the defense was not aware of the past expressions of political bias by Hart.  One would have thought that Hart’s political past would have caused greater scrutiny of her past statements but, as I discussed previously, the transcript shows only a brief and matter-of-fact examination.

Yet, the opinion seems to work hard to avoid the obvious. It clearly demonstrates that even the failure to answer voir dire questions fully and truthfully will not be a barrier to service.  Jackson has confirmed for future jurors that they can hide bias or past statements without fear of repercussions or a new trial.  Even though Hart conveyed intense opposition to both Trump and his associates, Jackson dismisses the concern.    Moreover, Hart’s answers seem clearly unresponsive and misleading on the questionnaire but Jackson again categorically and conclusorily dismisses the objections to her incomplete answers.

If there is a due process right to an unbiased jury, then there should be a presumption in favor of the defendant when bias is uncovered. In other words, Stone should have been given a new trial.  Otherwise, as here, the result makes a mockery of due process.

Here is the opinion: Stone decision

212 thoughts on “Federal Judge Dismisses Stone Motion … and Premise Of An Unbiased Jury”

  1. The American Carceral state is the modern extension of slavery and Jim Crow and has effectively segregated the black male population into American prisons But Brother Jonathan wants to make this rich white moral degenerate as the symbol of injustice Another example of the Professor throwing red meat to the Trump base Why can’t you write above the takings case at the Supreme Court involving the Colorado family that had their home destroyed.

  2. (music to tune of John Printed song Sam Stone)
    Rog Stone…came home…
    To his wife and family.
    After serving time for snotting on his jeans.

    And life had lost it’s fun!
    There was nothing to be done.
    But wait for Trump to pardon all his team!

  3. The story of King Alfred and the burnt cakes is likely a case of the tale growing with the retelling.

    Similarly he wasn’t called the Great, along with King Cnut, until much later on.

    According to Wikipedia his legal code was a mess. At least something was written down.

  4. By some reports the novel coronavirus is messing with the drug dealers’ supply chain.

    1. Ray Cramer:

      “Maybe ineffective counsel?”
      Probably no appellate relief for one lawyer misstep but it was a beaut. That’s why the trial judge needed to step in here. It’s a high profile case and she decided what one half of the country thinks is unfair is irrelevant. The appearance of impropriety matters if there is to be any confidence left in the system. Our Dim juror didn’t lie but for her to suggest she “really, really couldn’t recall” if she shared a anti-Trump post is disingenuous for a political activist/candidate. They live politics. ABJ chooses to believe what she wants to believe. Imagine her giving some criminal defendant the same benefit the doubt in a bench trial. She’s be on him like horseflies on Secretariat.

      1. Mespo, can you remember everything you’ve posted to Facebook?

        It’s not unusual for Facebook users to share 5 posts per day. At that rate one can easily forget a post from just 2 months ago.

        1. Clearly you forget. Last week you made a false legal argument with BTB and already you act like a legal scholar again. You forget.

          1. Young, I didnt get a chance to engage in that debate. Certain puppets kept me busy with cowardly smears.

            But I noted that day that your arguments dont look professional. Since then you have talked about medicine more often than law. And your medical comments look no different than Estovir’s.

            1. Couldn’t debate a point because you were busy fighting cowards? Sounds like a tough day. I hazard to guess you didn’t win in either arena.

          2. Young, the Constitution under Article III, Section 2 reserves the type cases to be heard by Federal courts. Jurisdiction for the lower federal courts are determined by the Congress. You have repeatedly and mistakenly claimed that the Congress decided what cases Federal courts may hear.

            1. book, please read this wiki article again. it can help you understand that the power of Congress to strip jurisdiction from federal courts at every level is more than most people realize. more than most lawyers realize. this is an arcane point of government structure and it’s one that is little used, but lies in wait should Congress ever have the temerity to limit the federal judiciary

              see Congress does not do this, simply because it likes the article III courts settling the hard questions.

              like desegregation, contraception, abortion, and gay marriage.

              Congress does not like going out on a limb to liberalize such things, so it was happy to have the SCOTUS do it for them.

              nothing comes up to the SCOTUS except from below. t this is related to the “real case or controversy” requirement. these things work together and are how the scope of what comes to SCOTUS can be controlled from below.


              i had all this explained to me by my constitutional law prof who was an ACLU leader. this is not a matter of political perspective. it is a very real power that Congress has to narrow federal judicial subject matter.

              1. Kurtz–Nice try. BTB seems to be incapable of understanding this point even when it has been made by the administrator of the federal courts. He will never get it. It’s like a math problem he can’t solve even when he has had it explained to him. Everyone else gets it.

                You raise an interesting point about the willingness of Congress to trim federal court jurisdiction. They have the power but not the will. I have said before that the dems will be less enthusiastic about judicial power as Trump appoints more judges. We will see.

                The only instance I am aware of isn’t quite on point. Normally one expects to be able to apppeal from the final decision of an administrative agency but a claimant who has lost an appeal within the Department of Labor has no right to appeal that administrative decision to an actual court. I don’t think that is right. It leaves far too much power in the hands of an administrative agency, but there is no denying [ except by BTB] that Congress has the say in whether or not the courts have that jurisdiction. In this instance Congress said they don’t.

              2. Thanks for the link Kurtz. This controversy started when Young said Congress determines what cases federal courts may hear. I have repeatedly stated that Art III, section 2 says otherwise and the article you cite says:

                “Congress may not strip the U.S. Supreme Court of jurisdiction over those cases that fall under the Court’s original jurisdiction defined in the U.S. Constitution. Congress can limit only the appellate jurisdiction of the Court.[8] According to the Constitution, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in, “all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party. … ” This last state-shall-be-a-party language does not mean that the U.S. Supreme Court has original jurisdiction merely because a state is a plaintiff or defendant, even if a provision of the U.S. Constitution is at issue. Instead, the controversy must be between two or more states, or between a state and citizens of another state, or between a state and foreigners.[9][10] Additionally, in 1892, the Court decided that it has original jurisdiction in cases between a state and the United States.[11]

                At no time has Young corrected his statement to qualify the limits on Congress or attempted to explain how what he said and the Constitution can both be right. They can’t be.

                  1. The Constitution only grants original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court in those very few instances that your note cited. They can be changed only with a Constitutional amendment. In actual practice, as when one state sues another, the Court does not often sit. Most of the Court’s work is by hearing appeals and the Court’s appellate juisdiction and the jurisdiction of the Courts of Appeal and the trial courts, the US District Courts, is at the mercy of Congress. If Congress said federal courts have no jurisdiction to hear cases touching on gay marriage the issue would never have been brought before the Supreme Court.

                    1. Young, thanks for admitting what the Constitutions says by qualifying your previous blanket statement.

                1. there are some questions of scope and application that are beyond me. i would say that turley is the guy who can explain that far better than me. it’s way above my wheelhouse.

                  the bottom line is however is that there is some Congressional power to limit federal courts jurisdiction, perhaps even more than the courts would like, but Congress generally prefers instead to increase their jurisdiction

                  and that has been the strong trend also inside the SCOTUS since Marbury v Madison

                  inside the executive branch the POTUS lawyers probably have their own thinking on how to craft executive orders such that the edicts won’t be reviewable either. the technical aspects of that I am not well versed to explain

                  1. Kurtz– Yes, as you said above, Congress likes to leave some of the harder issues to the courts. Unfortunately both Congress and the courts have been too willing to delegate their duties to administrative agencies who are sometimes only too happy to abuse the latitude granted by the longer longer leash. The Court finally seems to be waking to the problem after the abuses of the clean water act, but Congress needs to retake more of its legislative authority.

              3. Kurtz– I finally figured it out. BTB didn’t understand what ‘jurisdiction’ meant. I posted to him.

                1. BTB– I never said Congress can strip the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction. Clearly I was discussing the lower courts created by Congress. You repeatedly claimed that Congress had no power over their jurisdiction and I pointed out that Congress created them and could eliminate them and modify their jurisdiction. You decided to pretend that statements made about lesser courts were also meant to include the Supreme Court. That is a Seth trick, one he resorts to when caught on a limb, pretending to argue against a position never made.

                  You repeatedly claimed Congress had no control over the jurisdiction over lower federal courts.

                  When it became undeniable that Congress did have that control you pretended that we had been discussing the Supreme Court. I had distinguished that court early on by saying it was the only court required by the Constitution and that lesser courts were created by Congress and held jurisdiction by Congress.

                  When I saw your attempt to pretend the discussion was different from what it was and reflected on your remarks to other posters I immediately pictured you as a strutting midget with the instincts of a bully who starts fights he can never win but who limps around with his bruises proclaiming he was the victor while nobody (except Seth maybe) believes it.

                  1. Young, you posted repeated times without qualification that Congress can set what cases federal courts hear. I posted section 2 of Art III and brought up the SC several times and you did not correct yourself.

                  2. Young:

                    btb is a liar and a cad so I’d recommend never getting into a substantive discussion with him as I scrupulously avoid. The twists, turns and reversals will make you as dizzy as he is and when that fails, the lie parade begins. He’s an intermeddler, gadfly and agitator likely sponsored by some leftist group or, even worse, his own inflated ego. As Shakespeare describes in “All’s Well That Ends Well”: “A most notable coward, an infinite and endless liar, an hourly promise breaker, the owner of no one good quality.”

                    1. Mespo– Thanks. I think you have caught his character perfectly. I agree, waste of time to engage with someone who is not sincere or honest.

                      Nice quote from Shakespeare.

            2. BTB —

              You said: “Young, the Constitution under Article III, Section 2 reserves the type cases to be heard by Federal courts. Jurisdiction for the lower federal courts are determined by the Congress. You have repeatedly and mistakenly claimed that the Congress decided what cases Federal courts may hear.”

              Evidently you don’t understand what you have read and repeated although you have absorbed a little from the manual I quoted before.

              1. You recognize that jurisdiction for the lower federal courts is determined by Congress [correct].

              2. You claimed that I was wrong saying that congress decided what cases federal courts may here. [incorrect]

              Finally I see what the problem is. You don’t understand what ‘JURISDICTION’ means.

              It means the right to hear and judicially resolve an issue.

              If Congress tells the federal courts that they do not have jurisdiction over ‘A’ that means the federal courts don’t have the right even to hear case ‘A’ much less decide it.

              You probably do not know that when someone files a case in federal court there is usually a clause stating why the plaintiff is claiming the court has jurisdiction over the matter. Generally this will refer to a statute that grants the court the authority [jurisdiction] to even let the plaintiff in the door. Without being able to prove federal jurisdiction you need to go to state court.

              This can happen even if you have a civil case in federal court under diversity jurisdiction that claims damages less than the amount to allow jurisdiction. Less than $75,000 and you don’t get in the door.

              Even the right for federal district courts to hear civil cases under diversity jurisdiction comes from Congress. Congress grants and Congress can take away.

              Never even occurred to me that you would venture into a discussion on these issues without understanding the most basic terms involved. But you apparently did. No wonder you never made sense and seemed unable to follow what Kurz and I were trying to tell you.

              1. “Congress may not strip the U.S. Supreme Court of jurisdiction over those cases that fall under the Court’s original jurisdiction defined in the U.S. Constitution. Congress can limit only the appellate jurisdiction of the Court.[8] According to the Constitution, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in, “all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party. … ” This last state-shall-be-a-party language does not mean that the U.S. Supreme Court has original jurisdiction merely because a state is a plaintiff or defendant, even if a provision of the U.S. Constitution is at issue. Instead, the controversy must be between two or more states, or between a state and citizens of another state, or between a state and foreigners.[9][10] Additionally, in 1892, the Court decided that it has original jurisdiction in cases between a state and the United States.[11]

                At no time has Young corrected his statement to qualify the limits on Congress or attempted to explain how what he said and the Constitution can both be right. They can’t be.

      2. mespo7, saying she couldn’t recall her bias IS a lie. The judge is absolutely corrupt & herself biased. She should have been recused, but she is not honest enough to do so nor is she even fit to be a judge.

        The Stone trial is a huge blow against honest jurisprudence.


    2. Ray Cramer – back probably in the 70s or early 80s the top criminal attorney in Phoenix took a dive so a client could get a new trial. He admitted to the appellate court that he was ineffective counsel, and the court bought it. 😉

    3. The issue with ineffective counsel is that at some point it is so bad that the result is unjust.

      Usually there are two questions. First, was counsel ineffective? Second, but for the ineffective counsel would the verdict have been different?

      However that is a distraction here. A verdict and judgment can also be set aside if some other factor caused an unjust outcome.

      That other factor could be if evidence emerges that one or more jurors engaged in significant misconduct, such as prejudging the case or concealing intense animosity or bias toward the defendant.

      Just on what has become publicly available about a couple of jurors this verdict should have been set aside.

      I think somebody in law enforcement should have a look at the jurors’ questionaires and answers on voir dire. Perhaps a prosecution is in order.

      Ask yourself, would any reasonable person want this hate-raddled woman on his jury? No, I don’t think so.

      1. Young, keep in mind, you’re supposed to be a lawyer. That’s how you established yourself more than a week ago.

        So here you are a lawyer advocating the prosecution of a Black woman who served as a Jury Foreperson.

        Even a conservative lawyer would be reluctant to prosecute jurors. Who would want to serve on juries if they become politicized?

        So you’re not a lawyer Young. Which goes to show that sock puppets need consistent personalities. Creating a lawyer sock puppet requires a skilled writer who knows about law.

        1. Seth–Explain to me again how you are convinced that Congress has no role in the jurisdiction of federal courts. It was a hoot last time you did it.

        2. There used to be a thing called ‘benefit of clergy’ that enabled criminals to escape state penalties by being a member of the clergy. One test was to prove you knew some Latin so clever crooks would memorize a few lines of Latin to escape the gallows by benefit of clergy.

          You seem to be advocating something like that based on race rather than being a member of the church. You are upset that a black juror who has lied might be prosecuted for perjury. Would your objection extend to a white woman who identifies as black?

          There should not be a judicial system with different tracks based on rsce.

          It is depraved and racist of you to suggest it.

          1. Young – even with Benefit of Clergy you were branded on the thumb with a cross.

            1. Paul, I didn’t remember that about the thumb brand. But better than a noose.

          2. Would you please top trying to deflect onto the ‘race card’. No one cares what the skin color is. The judge & fore ‘person’ are corrupt. End of story. I’d say the same thing for any such biased judge or juror.

            Sheesh. We have had enough! of the race baiting crap.


          3. Young, your dramatic condemnation is just hot air.

            You, as a lawyer have made no case at all. Exactly what has this Forewoman done that a D.A. would be comfortable prosecuting?

            You’d need other Jury members to testify Ms Hart was out of line. You don’t have that here. And if you were following the case you’d know the jury supported Ms Hart as fair and diligent.

          4. ha ha young there still are; in employment matters which have a ‘pastoral purpose” the courts will not try allegations of violations of civil rights law or firing for cause– due to 1st amendment deference of religious matters.

            so lets say a synagogue hires a woman rabbi (they have those in the liberal ones yes? i am not jewish, you could posit this in a protestant church if you wanted….). say the flock does not like this pastor and fires her. maybe she files a sex discrimination case. well all the Sanhedrin has to say is “pastoral purpose” and then the case is gone at summary judgment.

            funny how that works when it comes to less “legit” religions such as cults such as scientology or what have you. normally the US courts will also not “judge” who is a religion and who is not.

            different system in countries like Germany or Russia, on that point

        3. Seth– You asked: “Who would want to serve on juries if they became politicized?”

          You should be asking what juror would want to lie on voir dire if they knew they could go to jail for it?

          1. Young, would a juror lie if she KNEW the judge was ALSO corrupt? Tomeka Hart did. Looks to me like the fix was in.


            1. Sam–Unfortunately I suspect the same. So much for “the appearance of justice” being important.

      2. Given that the juror in question, as foreman, asked the already decided for guilt jury to reconsider the 3rd charge, the supposed hate Young charges refers more to his own attitude and not the facts of this case and the judges ruling. We are not asked as citizens to be free of all prejudice when we serve on juries, but only to set aside our preconceptions in the interests of providing a fair hearing for the accused. By her actions the juror demonstrated that quality.

        Case closed.

        1. oh, i don’t think so. you will see notice of an appeal soon enough. and it will be a tough one for the appeals judges to ignore and pervert with their usual excuses for not reversing errors

          NACDL writers have already published articles about the Stone case and more will be coming

    1. Independent Bob – Shirley, you cannot think that the DoJ would judge shop?

  5. Was the year 1688 significant in the development of the common law?

    1. In the growth of it, yes. The Glorious Revolution was an important event for law and government. Significant growth also took place with the Statute of Westminster II (1285), and with the steps taken before that by Henry II. Some scholars say the common law began with Henry II but Hume places its beginning with the laws of Alfred the Great. Others say the more you study it the harder it is to decide when it began.

      It can also be difficult with Civil Law. Technically it might have begun with the 12 Tablets prepared by the Decemvers, but they were a codification of earlier law. Our modern version might better find its foundations in the Digest of Justinian or its rediscovery and reception long after the fall of the empire.

      It is an interesting field of study. I once used a part of the Statute of Westminster II to prevail in a modern civil action. As part of the common law it was incorporated by statute into modern law and available for use. That is rare, however.

      1. Hume places its beginning with the laws of Alfred the Great.
        I’d go with Hume. Alfred the Great was appropriately and singularly named. Anybody who can fight off Vikings, rival brothers, introduce the right to keep and bear arms and and still try to watch some baking wheat cakes for an old peasant woman probably could do anything.

        1. Yeah, he was king but tolerated verbal abuse from an old woman living in the swamp where he was hiding because he burnt the cakes he was supposed to be watching. Besides Hume’s account I have read other accounts of his life. He was truly great and, in fact, the only English king ever called that. His grandfather, Egbert, was pretty impressive, too. His brothers not so much. The best thing his father did was take him to Rome where in the ruins he could see what civilization was capable of. Like Gibbon he probably wondered “what happened?” We are still asking that.

          Although Hume credits Alfred with the birth of the common law he finds its seeds in the customs of the early Germanic (Saxon and Angle) invaders.

          1. “Like Gibbon he probably wondered “what happened?” We are still asking that.”
            Gibbon knew and it had a lot to do with licentousness and loss of character as well as dearth of martial spirit. Sound familiar?

            1. He also blamed Christianity and the rise of monasticism. Lately people are also looking at great plagues. I think Goldsworthy leans toward civil wars. Likely all of these things and more played a role.

              The people I know in the military are great but I can’t imagine the recent generations of snowflakes getting out of the Higgins boat when the ramp comes down on Omaha beach. Isn’t being machinegunned and shelled while wading through cold boobytrapped water a microaggression?

              1. hillaire belloc identified usurious debt as a factor in byzantium losing its territories not only to Muslim military conquest but the compliance of the conquered populations who could void their debts by adopting islam which has a strong taboo against interest.

                “:great heresies” i think was the book

                perhaps we could reconsider the socially destabilizing effects of compounding consumer debt type interest on our own situation today? just a crazy idea from a nobody out here in flyover

                1. Kurtz, there are ample avenues right now for containing ill effects of usury. The only problem at the moment concerns excessive creditor protection for the purveyors of student loans and legal permission for payday lending (given the other avenues there be for microcredit).

                  1. personally it annoys me when i see average credit card interest running 15-20% when the issuers can borrow from fed near zero.

                    and will they eat their defaults? or will Uncle take those off their hands?


                    also, couple trillion dollars of asset purchases by the Federal Reserve seems like a problem too. why do the big banks get to keep on multiplying complex debt instruments where they get to keep the reward and society socializes the risk?

                    seems like worst of both worlds in the long run

                    1. They’re not purchasing CDOs. It’s Treasury issues and mortgage backed securities for the most part.

                    2. That annoys me also. Actually, it pisses me off.

                      Such genius to borrow money at such low rates over the last two decades and charge such exorbitant interest — usury indeed. Then, cap in hand, ask for more.

                      To DSS — “…and mortgage backed securities…”

                      What a familiar theme — I’m sure we’ve all forgotten.

                2. Kurtz– Islam may have s taboo against interest but Muslims still borrow for a fee which, after all, is interest. They just might be fooling themselves, for convenience, but they aren’t fooling any higher power or the lender.

                  If you want to rent money, pay the rent.

        2. I am with you, by the way. I am uncertain but like Hume will go with Alfred the Great. Henry II was too late a date for its beginning. Much was already in place by his time, including Magna Carta.

          1. Oops! Wrong on Magna Carta. That was signed by his son, King John. It came before Edward I.

            1. But it was based on an earlier charter signed by Henry I and then ignored. It was taken more seriously after John’s mistule.

              1. Young, are you getting all this from Wikipedia? It sounds like a stilted effort on your part to reassure the others that you really ‘are’ a lawyer.

  6. Turley stuck up for “legal significance” when a defendant tried to deceive about a perfectly consensual affair that was nobody’s business. So he’s certainly willing to obfuscate the fact that Stone is guilty and we’re going to get an absurd result because of it. What’s happening to Stone frequently happens in the judicial system. So it should be used far more sparingly than it is, But since lawyers breed faster than the coronavirus — at least in this country — and even social distancing won’t stop it, we have a problem.

  7. Jonathan via Twitter, about 10 minutes ago:

    “Jonathan Turley

    Trump just spoke on pardons for Flynn, Stone, and Manafort. Flynn is the only one with a credible pardon claim but Trump is not the person who should grant it. Manafort had ample evidence of guilt. Stone should have gotten a new trial, not a pardon.”


    1. Thanks, Anonymous. Turley doesn’t exactly think Stone is innocent.

      1. It isn’t exactly like Prof Truley, myself, you or others are completely without sin.

        Why haven’t we at least agreed to shut down every damn one of these Bio Weapon level 3 & 4 labs & arrested/charge those running them/involved with them, starting with Chapel Hill NC,
        Harvard, Wuhan China, etc…..?


        Current Dead Body/infected Count! I seem to recall the Nuremberg Code!


        World Coronavirus Count: 2,387,000 infected, 164,194 dead
        USA: 755,000 (40,109 deaths), Spain: 196,000, Italy: 176,000, France: 151,000, Germany: 144,000, UK: 120,000


    2. If Flynn has a credible pardon case then Trump is the only person in the country with the legal authority to grant it

      It’s small beer to tell someone you should have a pardon but I don’t think that the only person legally able to grant it should. I am not sure what the professor is thinking here.

      Pardons are acts of mercy that are necessarily subjective and are not strongly tied to guilt or innocence. Pardon the rest.

      There was less moral merit in some of the pardons Clinton grsnted when leaving the White House with some of the table silver in his bags.

    3. And Obama will never be eligible for the office of president. Funny how it all works, huh? And Obama is guilty of a coup d’etat which would have been penalized by Drawing and Quartering in Great Britain a couple of centuries ago. And Obama adhered to and gave aid and comfort to America’s enemy, Iran, as an act of treason.

      Wherefore Art Thou Justice?

  8. There are rules, procedures and laws. The evidence of bias was available at the time of trial so it is not “new.”
    The judge made a ruling. Justice was not involved. Sometimes “law” is a game played by the lawyers with the judge deciding who was the better lawyer. The better lawyer may or may not be on the side of justice.

  9. Mockery of due process? Nah, just a bunch of whining by Turley that disregards the facts and the law. Turley is still gunning for that judicial appointment by Trump.

    Criminal defendants live and die by what their counsel do and don’t do. That happens every day. Stone’s counsel, who are capable Attorneys, had ample time and ability to discover the facts and to take whatever action they felt appropriate, before the jury was seated. They chose not to do so. While I have not read the underlying Motion, I suspect that there is no accompanying declaration from Stone’s counsel which says that their failure to do the type of due diligence that they could have done was due to “mistake” or “inadvertence.”

    As others have pointed out, the juror in question slowed down the deliberations to look more carefully at the evidence. And 11 other jurors voted to convict.

    Whine away Turley. As loudly and as long as you want. It won’t change the fact that it is just whining which ignores the facts and the law.

  10. Judge Amy is a loose canon, a partisan, a liberal hypocrite just like Jeff Bezos who screws over his employees.

    Amazon Sick Out


    Amazon Employees for Climate Justice

    If you are an Amazon employee, sign up here to get details about next steps. Amazon has censored our internal communications so we are forced to communicate externally.
    — –
    Amazon Employees for Climate Justice (AECJ) sent a meeting invitation to fellow employees internally on April 10, so we can hear from warehouse workers about conditions in warehouses during COVID-19 and about the intersections between the climate crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic from author and climate justice advocate Naomi Klein.

    Hours after the invitation was sent, Amazon fired Emily Cunningham and Maren Costa, two leaders with Amazon Employees for Climate Justice who had over 20 years of tenure at Amazon between them.

    Amazon then deleted the meeting invitations & details from employee calendars, after over 1,500 Amazon employees had accepted the invitation.

    Hundreds of Amazon employees attended the April 16th meeting anyway. Amazon Employees for Climate Justice called on tech workers to call in sick on Friday, April 24th, to protest the company’s actions.

    Fellow Amazon employees: We are asking you to call in sick on Friday, April 24th to show that you want Amazon to go in a different direction.

  11. I am not a lawyer. “Judge” Amy Berman Jackson (an Obama appointee) appears to be a partisan and should have recused herself from the Stone case. Is it usual for a Judge to put a gag order on a defendant?

    What, if any, recourse do citizens have to request removal or investigation of a sitting judge? I’d like to get this ball rolling.

    Mr. Stone’s case seems highly unusual. The FBI sent a SWAT team to his home rather than request that he turn up at an local FBI office.

    Something don’t pass the smell test.

          1. Right, Marky

            this is to “let’s go anonymous to show how courageous we are” chickeshit liberal

  12. The judge and juror swim in the same political and social environment. It is not out of the question that they have met, are acquainted, and possibly are even casual friends.

    If the judge knew this juror’s prejudices even before she was seated and failed to act this is a serious problem.

    1. Young, virtually all jurors are prejudiced. That’s not the standard. Willingness to sit in judgement on an accused fellow citizen fairly and without that prejudice guiding their decision is what we ask of them.

  13. BTB,

    I’d like to know just what is the name of book that you go by,”By The Book”?

    I recall a few weeks ago you writing a post calling for a Global Government.

    1. Ultimately we will almost certainly have to have a global government if we want to survive as a species. Hopefully it can be a federation with a weak central power and strong human rights recognized everywhere and democratic decision making.

      I don’t subscribe to any specific book – religious or political – but believe in fair play and blind rules.

      1. I take it then that you have concerns about selective prosecution and perjury traps — which happen when people fall in love with blind rules and start applying them to any set of facts they can find.

        1. Bythebook is a septuagenarian who lives in North Central Florida, blind as a bat infected with Wuhan virus and smokes Chinese herbs for his Joe Bidenesque dementia

          1. Anonymous:

            “Bythebook is a septuagenarian who lives in North Central Florida, blind as a bat infected with Wuhan virus and smokes Chinese herbs for his Joe Bidenesque dementia”
            You forgot master of all things knowable from oriental rug appraisals to rocket science with a little law and medicine thrown in. He’s a regular Leonardo!

            1. Maybe, but I don’t amuse myself on low level personal insults like so many of the righties here.

              I’m waiting for anyone to make a coherent counter argument to my points. They’re not difficult, but no one has.

        2. SteveJ, Or facts they make up. This Stone trial was a sham from the start. Selective prosecution s getting very old. HRC should be in prison by now, along with a host of others.


      2. I’m not sure a global govt could ever work as we can see below right now how all these petty tyrants have came forward recently, just as this Judge Amy BJ has in the Stone case. A case that spring from the fruit of the poisonous tree.

        The UN, W.H.O., Commie Chinese govt,, the approx 2 or 3 million Satanic believers in islam, DOJ, FBI, AMA, Big Pharma, MIC., etc, etc., I can hardly think of a major organization that hasn’t went nearly completely corrupt that could surrender to a Federation.

        The difference now is millions of more Americans realized just how bad the tyranny has gotten here & are resisting it.


          1. PS Oky1, I don’t think it’s a matter of choice if we hope our civilization, and maybe our entire species, is to survive. There are too many people and too many weapons to think we can continue our old ways of national wars without tripping Armegeddon eventually.

            1. With you and Seth going off the rails we should be rid of your kind any.day.now

            2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkLlqobr3PY

              pandemics even at the worst extermity are not likely to kill off the species

              however, they could disrupt civilization a lot

              they could also lead to cascading events that trigger war

              according to lee ellsberg, a nuclear war would trigger debris clouds in statosphere, leading to cold climate crop failures on a global scale leading to massive starvation dieoff, even if only an exchange between india and pakistan of around 200 smaller sized nukes each

              silver linings? the green crowd would be happy since “global warming” would be short circuited along with “overpopulation” ….

              not really any comfort, unless you’re a psychopath

              1. The discussion on globalism and survival was not related to the pandemic.

          1. Young, so does the man featured in the video below. bythebook’s call for a one world govt isn’t new. A one world govt is communism on super steroids.

            The New World Order’s one world govt is a prediction found in the Best Book of all.


              1. Sam Fox has been commenting here for quite some time, though very intermittently. You’re not helping yourself (or the Dems), Seth.

      3. bythebook, You need a better book. One world government eh. That would fulfill a prediction in the Best Book of all.

        Here is one who thinks human nature can be fixed by a New World Order. He is all fussed up about war among other topics. He forgets to mention that war is continually kept up by the NWO cabal to get the planet so tired of war that we would accept peace at any price. A bad deal for the human race.


        1. Sam, since WWII we have avoided any major wars, less humans are killed by other humans on a per capita basis than at any time in history, the world – including the 3rd world – lives longer, is less sick, and is more likely to live in a democracy than at any time in history. It is not inevitable that we can swing this, but we have demonstrated the capacity to improve life for most and increase those living in freedom.

    2. Oky1– BTB doesn’t know what he is talking about. A couple threads back he argued with three lawyers that Congress had no say in federal court jurisdiction. He finally went silent when he was given a link to a pdf publication of the administrator of the courts that says Congress decides what cases the courts hear. Seth pitched his legal acumen into the frying pan with Book before the heat was turned up. Neither seems to know much.

      1. Young,

        Entertainment of posting on the internet is fun for some yet they are unaware that what they have caused already left injuries upon millions/billions of people.

        Knock wood so far my wife’s cancer treatment drugs have been available. About 1700 dead a day now of cancer & we’ll all be touched by this crap multiple times by us & those we love, even our enemies.

        Who were our Azzhole politicians that sold us Americans out decades ago, “Like Romney. etc….”, that 80-89% of the USA’s drugs are hostage to the Chicoms/India?

        I suggest the people that are aiding in this disaster apologize, surrender & ask for us quarter before the general public realises who was aiding/abet those that caused this disaster.

        The Goods News is that the AMA/CDC/NIH’s Doc Fauci/HHS are having trouble coming up with a vaccine for the Wuhan Flu virus that also spreads the virus & causes autism so any vaccine will be delayed a long while until they solve the problem,. LOL;)

        1. Oky1, I don’t agree with much on this post either, except to wish the best for you and your wife in her battle with cancer.

      2. Young is mistaken. I responded to his post with section 2 of Article 3 of the Constitution which delineates those cases the federal courts will hear. The Congress sets jurisdictions, writes laws, and sets the number of SC justices, but otherwise does not dictate what the federal courts hear. I also included for him a WH.gov document explaining this for him.

  14. The problem isn’t the jury. It’s the law. And heaven forbid Turley should address that. The merry-go-round of laws is what his pristine profession lives for.

Comments are closed.