Conclusive statements are conclusive. Lawyers get peremptory challenges
@Safiel @TheDoctorIsIn @kingarthur65 @FreeAndClear
What do you guys think about this? Should Judge Berman Jackson be removed from the bench and disbarred?
1 Like
I forget how many jurors it takes to convict again? Is it one? I think it’s one.
1 Like
I’m pretty sure that is what I was told when I served on my last jury. I think that is right. One.
1 Like
DougBH
515
9 years for lying when McCabe and Clapper get nothing is indeed special treatment.
1 Like
Let’s wait until a trial and then we can figure out what’s fair for them.
DougBH
517
Excellent. Twitter and facebook are how Putin and Trump stole the election and now…enh…
When did the Trump DOJ charge McCabe and Clapper? I must have missed their trials. Do you have a link to the Trump-led DOJ bringing a case against either of them?
Jezcoe
519
They couldn’t get a Grand Jury to do anything on McCabe,
Insufficient evidence on Clapper.
Stone was convicted on seven charges.
So… there is that.
2 Likes
DougBH
520
“Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.; Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., immediately called for an investigation into Trump’s alleged political intervention into Stone’s sentencing.”
The DOJ allegedly interfered in the prosecution by the DOJ? They don’t even make sense.
Maybe they can have another one of those no crime impeachments where they give out free pens and solemnly march over to the Senate which then throws it in the trash.
1 Like
who’s argued that?
I would argue the jury was not impartial and tainted and that the prosecution more than a little over zealous. For that he deserves a new trial.
in the absence of a new trial, he does not deserve 9 years for this. Follow the sentencing guidelines DoJ is recommending. Which at maximum is 37-46 months.
Jezcoe
522
The guidelines are 37-46 months if you ignore the witness intimidation thing.
Why ignore that part?
A lot of interesting arguments being made about jury impartiality and overzealous prosecution. I guess it takes an associate of te President for people to dust off their legal degrees
It’s not that there is no evidence of a tainted verdict because the only information is regarding a single juror and no evidence that she affected the jury. It’s not that witness intimidation is a big deal. It’s that this is all unfair apparently.
1 Like
it only takes one to taint the jury. there are at least two on this jury.
Yes the doj did interfere. Literally nobody is disputing that. The President thanked his attorney general for that
May be senator Collins can get on her soap box and tel us how the President has learned from his past mistakes.
3 Likes
lol… she was the jury fore person walking the rest of them through the evidence. may as well have just let the prosecutor do it.
1 Like
Bosun
528
Where there is smoke there is fire, perhaps.
Scratch
529
Yes group leaders in a jury room can affect a jury. There is only conjecture at this time that she did. Jury nullification requires a breach of a very high standard. Your accusations regarding the judge are nothing but rhetoric.
He also has the right to appeal his verdict and her decision.
DougBH
531
How can the DOJ interfere with the DOJ? No, upper tier people in the DOJ had a different decision than lower tiered people in the DOJ. That is not interference, that is supervision.
You know, the thing that Horowitz said was lacking when the lower tier of the FBI lied to the FISA judges?
