Trump Ally Roger Stone Gets 40 Months for Lying, Witness-Tampering

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

The Jury forewomen was vetted by Stone Lawyers and she wasn't the only Juror to convict


The judge also barred Stone from speaking about it,,, its a gag order and not uncommon and apply to both parties

i’m told that in federal court, the judge selects the jury, not the lawyers. either way, she should have been booted.

i’ve seen democrat lawyers who were stunned at the gag order. it’s not only sean hannity saying that was excessive.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

i’m told that in federal court, the judge selects the jury, not the lawyers. either way, she should have been booted.

i’ve seen democrat lawyers who were stunned at the gag order. it’s not only sean hannity saying that was excessive.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

A gag order doesn't change whats told in court by either side not sure of why this is problematic to you


The judge and the attorneys then ask the potential jurors questions to determine their suitability to serve on the jury, a process called voir dire. The purpose of voir dire is to exclude from the jury people who may not be able to decide the case fairly.

this is in All us courts Not sure how many they get to dismiss when I was selected the defendant was with his attorneys when then asked if i could be impartial even as a correctional officer , And didn't get bounced until the last round

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

A gag order doesn't change whats told in court by either side not sure of why this is problematic to you


The judge and the attorneys then ask the potential jurors questions to determine their suitability to serve on the jury, a process called voir dire. The purpose of voir dire is to exclude from the jury people who may not be able to decide the case fairly.

this is in All us courts Not sure how many they get to dismiss when I was selected the defendant was with his attorneys when then asked if i could be impartial even as a correctional officer , And didn't get bounced until the last round

it’s problematic to me because it violates his first amendment right. again, i’ve seen harvard law professors who identify as democrats, say she has no reason to prevent him from speaking, especially after its over. i haven’t heard one single person say it’s common. i guess you know more, but little old me, i have to rely on experts. unlike you, i can accept and process that which goes against my beliefs, i don’t need to deny all such things.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

especially after its over.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Who has said this?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Who has said this?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He's been convicted and sentenced, so it's over. And the judge has him under a gag order. So he's not allowed to talk about the proceedings, he's not allowed to speak in his defense when he's excoriated on CNN. Which from what every lawyer (even democrats) I've heard say, is very unusual for a case like this.

The guy was convicted of a crime, I have no problem with him being punished. However, I think it's very strange that he, of all people, is worthy of a special forces team storming his house at dawn, rather than simply calling his lawyer to have him turn himself in. And everyone says a gag order in this kind of a case is unusual. And the jury forewoman (while obviously only one juror) had absolutely zero business being on that jury. So there are multiple red flags. It smells of politics. Why an assault team with those kinds of weapons? Is that a typical response for an old man accused of interfering with witness and of lying about emails? Maybe all seniors accused of these kinds of crimes get that kind of a response, and if so, that's fair. But I'd bet that's not the case.

If his conviction isn't overturned, he'll probably get pardoned.