Trump, Trump, Trump

The rules: No spamming, no making a nuisance of yourself.

Moderators: chijohnaok, Kameolontti

Message
Author
jack t ripper
Sergeant Major
Posts: 32886
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 3:19 pm

Re: Trump, Trump, Trump

#2791 Post by jack t ripper » Wed Feb 12, 2020 8:43 pm

The person who deserves revenge is Trump.....AND Stone and Flynn and Papadopolous and Carter Page
Strong supporter of global warming as I have invested in speculative vineyard properties around Nome

User avatar
chijohnaok
Sergeant Major
Posts: 38157
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:50 pm
Location: West coast of the east coast
Contact:

Re: Trump, Trump, Trump

#2792 Post by chijohnaok » Thu Feb 13, 2020 4:24 am

Speaking of Roger Stone....how about this development:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/roger- ... cial-media
ROGER STONEPublished 5 hours agoLast Update 1 hour ago

Roger Stone jury foreperson's anti-Trump social media posts surface after she defends DOJ prosecutors

Gregg ReBy Gregg Re | Fox News

Former Memphis City Schools Board President Tomeka Hart revealed Wednesday that she was the foreperson of the jury that convicted former Trump adviser Roger Stone on obstruction charges last year -- and soon afterward, her history of Democratic activism and a string of her anti-Trump, left-wing social media posts came to light.

Hart even posted specifically about the Stone case before she voted to convict, as she retweeted an argument mocking those who considered Stone's dramatic arrest in a predawn raid by a federal tactical team to be excessive force. She also suggested President Trump and his supporters are racist and praised the investigation conducted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, which ultimately led to Stone's prosecution.


Meanwhile, it emerged that U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson had denied a defense request to strike a potential juror who was Obama-era press official with admitted anti-Trump views -- and whose husband worked at the same Justice Department division that handled the probe leading to Stone's arrest. And, another Stone juror, Seth Cousins, donated to former Democratic presidential candidate Beto O'Rourke and other progressive causes, federal election records reviewed by Fox News show.

The revelations came as Trump has called the handling of Stone's prosecution "ridiculous" and a demonstrably unfair "insult to our country." They raised the prospect that Stone's team could again seek a new trial, especially if Hart provided inaccurate responses under oath on her pretrial questionnaires concerning social media activity.

The drama began when Hart confirmed to CNN and other media organizations Wednesday that she had written a Facebook post supporting the Justice Department prosecutors in the Stone case who abruptly stepped down from their posts on Tuesday, saying she "can't keep quiet any longer." The prosecutors apparently objected after senior DOJ officials overrode their recommendation to Jackson that Stone face up to 9 years in prison.

DOJ PROSECUTORS QUIT EN MASSE; TRUMP SAYS STONE CASE A MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE

"I want to stand up for Aaron Zelinsky, Adam Jed, Michael Marando, and Jonathan Kravis -- the prosecutors on the Roger Stone trial," Hart wrote in the post. "It pains me to see the DOJ now interfere with the hard work of the prosecutors. They acted with the utmost intelligence, integrity, and respect for our system of justice."

Hart added: "As foreperson [of the jury], I made sure we went through every element, of every charge, matching the evidence presented in the case that led us to return a conviction of guilty on all 7 counts."

Independent journalist Mike Cernovich, not CNN, then first reported that a slew of Hart's other publicly available Twitter and Facebook posts readily suggested a strong political bias. Some of Hart's posts were written as Stone's trial was in progress.

Hart, who unsuccessfully ran for Congress as a Democrat in 2012, quoted someone in an August 2017 tweet referring to Trump as a member of the KKK.

In January 2019, she retweeted a post by pundit Bakari Sellers, who noted that "Roger Stone has y'all talking about reviewing use of force guidelines," before suggesting that racism was the reason for all the attention Stone's arrest had received from conservatives.
Stone case tweet 1.jpg
Stone case tweet 1.jpg (56.63 KiB) Viewed 154 times
In August 2019, Hart called all Trump supporters "racist."

"Gotta love it!" Hart wrote on Jan. 13, 2018, in response to a news report that a vulgarity had been projected onto the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C.

[additional tweets at above linked article]

A week later, on Jan. 21, 2018, she shared an opinion piece entitled, "What’s so extremely, uniquely wrong about Trump’s presidency."

On March 24, 2019, Hart shared a Facebook post saying that Republicans who complained about Mueller's probe were deliberately "ignoring the numerous indictments, guilty pleas, and convictions of people in 45’s inner-circle," referring to Trump.

And, on Nov. 15, 2019 -- the day she voted to convict Stone on seven counts of obstruction, witness tampering and making false statements to Congress -- Hart tweeted two "heart" emojis, followed by two pump-fist emojis. (None of Stone's charges accused him of engaging in a criminal conspiracy with Russia or any other actors concerning election interference; instead, his offenses related to his statements concerning his contacts with WikiLeaks and others.)

Hart's tweet linked to a Facebook post that has since been taken down from public view.

If Hart have provided misleading answers on her jury form concerning her political or social media activity, her views on Trump and the Russia probe, or other related matters, there could be grounds for Stone's team to seek a new trial, legal experts told Fox News.

FLASHBACK: FORMER FBI DIRECTOR MCCABE ADMITS LYING TO INVESTIGATORS, STILL NO CHARGES

Hart did not immediately respond to Fox News' request for comment. The Memphis Commercial Appeal noted that she was a native of the city and had served a term as the president of its school board.
So the foreperson on the jury had an apparent bias before the trial.
She was also Tweeting DURING the trial, including on the day the jury voted to convict Stone.

That sounds like it has the makings for a mistrial.
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.
- misattributed to Alexis De Tocqueville

No representations made as to the accuracy of info in posted news articles or links

Anthropoid
Sergeant Major
Posts: 16811
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 3:06 pm
Location: marching home to [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAzVYCs4BMY]Erica[/url]

Re: Trump, Trump, Trump

#2793 Post by Anthropoid » Thu Feb 13, 2020 4:30 am

If a single answer on any of her pre-trial instruments was the least bit inaccurate, (I think) that is sufficient to call it a mistrial. In that case, I seem to recall that the case (and the preceding determination) are simply tossed out and the convicted are deemed innocent on all charges. Double jeopardy is definitely NOT okay in our American legal system, so I don't see how it could be considered as a legitimate basis for a re-trial if the jury which reached a guilty verdict was corrupted. Shame Pastanasky isn't around to clarify this shit for us . . .

User avatar
chijohnaok
Sergeant Major
Posts: 38157
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:50 pm
Location: West coast of the east coast
Contact:

Re: Trump, Trump, Trump

#2794 Post by chijohnaok » Thu Feb 13, 2020 4:39 am

Anthropoid wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 4:30 am
If a single answer on any of her pre-trial instruments was the least bit inaccurate, (I think) that is sufficient to call it a mistrial. In that case, I seem to recall that the case (and the preceding determination) are simply tossed out and the convicted are deemed innocent on all charges. Double jeopardy is definitely NOT okay in our American legal system, so I don't see how it could be considered as a legitimate basis for a re-trial if the jury which reached a guilty verdict was corrupted. Shame Pastanasky isn't around to clarify this shit for us . . .

I think that if a mistrial is called, it is as if the first trial never occurred; meaning that the prosecutors can file charges for a new trial.
Therefore double jeopardy does not come into play.
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.
- misattributed to Alexis De Tocqueville

No representations made as to the accuracy of info in posted news articles or links

Anthropoid
Sergeant Major
Posts: 16811
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 3:06 pm
Location: marching home to [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAzVYCs4BMY]Erica[/url]

Re: Trump, Trump, Trump

#2795 Post by Anthropoid » Thu Feb 13, 2020 4:41 am

chijohnaok wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 4:39 am
Anthropoid wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 4:30 am
If a single answer on any of her pre-trial instruments was the least bit inaccurate, (I think) that is sufficient to call it a mistrial. In that case, I seem to recall that the case (and the preceding determination) are simply tossed out and the convicted are deemed innocent on all charges. Double jeopardy is definitely NOT okay in our American legal system, so I don't see how it could be considered as a legitimate basis for a re-trial if the jury which reached a guilty verdict was corrupted. Shame Pastanasky isn't around to clarify this shit for us . . .

I think that if a mistrial is called, it is as if the first trial never occurred; meaning that the prosecutors can file charges for a new trial.
Therefore double jeopardy does not come into play.
I have my doubts: https://www.merriam-webster.com/diction ... 20jeopardy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_jeopardy
Double jeopardy is a procedural defence that prevents an accused person from being tried again on the same (or similar) charges following a valid acquittal or conviction.[1]

If this issue is raised, evidence will be placed before the court, which will normally rule as a preliminary matter whether the plea is substantiated; if it is, the projected trial will be prevented from proceeding. In some countries certain exemptions are permitted, such as in the United Kingdom, where in Scotland a new trial can be initiated if, for example, the acquitted has made a credible admission of guilt, and in England and Wales, where serious offences may be re-tried following an acquittal if new and compelling evidence is found and for the trial to be in the public's interest. In some countries, including Canada, Mexico and the United States, the guarantee against being "twice put in jeopardy" is a constitutional right.[2][3] In other countries, the protection is afforded by statute.[4]
So, based on that, yeah . . . a prosecutor could conceivably CALL for an additional indictment. But if there had already been one trial and it had been deemed a mistrial, then I do believe a defense could readily call for the dismissal of any new attempt to indict based on the double jeopardy thing.

ADDIT: and wth are you doing up at this hour! I'm getting back into my Superman Schedule but this is a school night for you isn't it young man!? :)

User avatar
chijohnaok
Sergeant Major
Posts: 38157
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:50 pm
Location: West coast of the east coast
Contact:

Re: Trump, Trump, Trump

#2796 Post by chijohnaok » Thu Feb 13, 2020 4:52 am

Anthropoid wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 4:41 am
chijohnaok wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 4:39 am



I think that if a mistrial is called, it is as if the first trial never occurred; meaning that the prosecutors can file charges for a new trial.
Therefore double jeopardy does not come into play.
I have my doubts: https://www.merriam-webster.com/diction ... 20jeopardy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_jeopardy
Double jeopardy is a procedural defence that prevents an accused person from being tried again on the same (or similar) charges following a valid acquittal or conviction.[1]

If this issue is raised, evidence will be placed before the court, which will normally rule as a preliminary matter whether the plea is substantiated; if it is, the projected trial will be prevented from proceeding. In some countries certain exemptions are permitted, such as in the United Kingdom, where in Scotland a new trial can be initiated if, for example, the acquitted has made a credible admission of guilt, and in England and Wales, where serious offences may be re-tried following an acquittal if new and compelling evidence is found and for the trial to be in the public's interest. In some countries, including Canada, Mexico and the United States, the guarantee against being "twice put in jeopardy" is a constitutional right.[2][3] In other countries, the protection is afforded by statute.[4]
So, based on that, yeah . . . a prosecutor could conceivably CALL for an additional indictment. But if there had already been one trial and it had been deemed a mistrial, then I do believe a defense could readily call for the dismissal of any new attempt to indict based on the double jeopardy thing.
I will see your Merriam-Webster and raise you Wikipedia:
Retrial after mistrial

Mistrials are generally not covered by the double jeopardy clause. If a judge dismisses the case or concludes the trial without deciding the facts in the defendant's favor (for example, by dismissing the case on procedural grounds), the case is a mistrial and may normally be retried. Furthermore, if a jury cannot reach a verdict, the judge may declare a mistrial and order a retrial as was addressed in Perez. When the defendant moves for a mistrial, there is no bar to retrial, even if the prosecutor or judge caused the error that forms the basis of the motion. An exception exists, however, where the prosecutor or judge has acted in bad faith. In Oregon v. Kennedy, the Supreme Court held that "only where the governmental conduct in question is intended to 'goad' the defendant into moving for a mistrial may a defendant raise the bar of double jeopardy to a second trial after having succeeded in aborting the first on his own motion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Je ... r_mistrial

I will also raise you Cornell Law School:
Another kind of case arises when the prosecutor moves for mistrial because of prejudicial misconduct by the defense. In Arizona v. Washington,83 defense counsel in his opening statement made prejudicial comments about the prosecutor’s past conduct, and the prosecutor’s motion for a mistrial was granted over defendant’s objections. The Court ruled that retrial was not barred by double jeopardy. Granting that in a strict, literal sense, mistrial was not “necessary” because the trial judge could have given limiting instructions to the jury, the Court held that the highest degree of respect should be given to the trial judge’s evaluation of the likelihood of the impairment of the impartiality of one or more jurors. As long as support for a mistrial order can be found in the trial record, no specific statement of “manifest necessity” need be made by the trial judge

Emphasis upon the trial judge’s discretion has an impact upon the cases in which it is the judge’s error, in granting sua sponte a mistrial or granting the prosecutor’s motion. The cases are in doctrinal disarray. Thus, in Gori v. United States,85 the Court permitted retrial of the defendant when the trial judge had, on his own motion and with no indication of the wishes of defense counsel, declared a mistrial because he thought the prosecutor’s line of questioning was intended to expose the defendant’s criminal record, which would have constituted prejudicial error. Although the Court thought that the judge’s action was an abuse of discretion, it approved retrial on the grounds that the judge’s decision had been taken for defendant’s benefit. This rationale was disapproved in the next case, in which the trial judge discharged the jury erroneously and in abuse of his discretion, because he disbelieved the prosecutor’s assurance that certain witnesses had been properly apprised of their constitutional rights.86 Refusing to permit retrial, the Court observed that the “doctrine of manifest necessity stands as a command to trial judges not to foreclose the defendant’s option [to go to the first jury and perhaps obtain an acquittal] until a scrupulous exercise of judicial discretion leads to the conclusion that the ends of public justice would not be served by a continuation of the proceedings.”87 The later cases appear to accept Jorn as an example of a case where the trial judge “acts irrationally or irresponsibly.” But if the trial judge acts deliberately, giving prosecution and defense the opportunity to explain their positions, and according respect to defendant’s interest in concluding the matter before the one jury, then he is entitled to deference. This approach perhaps rehabilitates the result if not the reasoning in Gori and maintains the result and much of the reasoning of Jorn.88

Of course, “a motion by the defendant for mistrial is ordinarily assumed to remove any barrier to reprosecution, even if the defendant’s motion is necessitated by a prosecutorial or judicial error.”89 “Such a motion by the defendant is deemed to be a deliberate election on his part to forgo his valued right to have his guilt or innocence determined before the first trier of fact.”90 In United States v. Dinitz,91 the trial judge had excluded defendant’s principal attorney for misbehavior and had then given defendant the option of recess while he appealed the exclusion, a mistrial, or continuation with an assistant defense counsel. Holding that the defendant could be retried after he chose a mistrial, the Court reasoned that, although the exclusion might have been in error, it was not done in bad faith to goad the defendant into requesting a mistrial or to prejudice his prospects for acquittal. The defendant’s choice, even though difficult, to terminate the trial and go on to a new trial should be respected and a new trial not barred. To hold otherwise would necessitate requiring the defendant to shoulder the burden and anxiety of proceeding to a probable conviction followed by an appeal, which if successful would lead to a new trial, and neither the public interest nor the defendant’s interests would thereby be served.

But the Court has also reserved the possibility that the defendant’s motion might be necessitated by prosecutorial or judicial over-reaching motivated by bad faith or undertaken to harass or prejudice, and in those cases retrial would be barred. It was unclear what prosecutorial or judicial misconduct would constitute such overreaching,92 but, in Oregon v. Kennedy,93 the Court adopted a narrow “intent” test, so that “[o]nly where the governmental conduct in question is intended to ‘goad’ the defendant into moving for a mistrial may a defendant raise the bar of double jeopardy to a second trial after having succeeded in aborting the first on his own motion.” Therefore, ordinarily, a defendant who moves for or acquiesces in a mistrial is bound by his decision and may be required to stand for retrial.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitutio ... g-mistrial
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.
- misattributed to Alexis De Tocqueville

No representations made as to the accuracy of info in posted news articles or links

User avatar
chijohnaok
Sergeant Major
Posts: 38157
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:50 pm
Location: West coast of the east coast
Contact:

Re: Trump, Trump, Trump

#2797 Post by chijohnaok » Thu Feb 13, 2020 5:00 am

Additionally there is this:
When Jeopardy Terminates

The attachment of jeopardy doesn’t necessarily mean the government can’t re-prosecute the defendant; jeopardy must also terminate. In other words, the case must in some sense conclude. The classic example is a jury reaching a verdict of either guilty or not guilty. Jeopardy also terminates when a judge finds the evidence insufficient to convict the defendant and enters a judgment of acquittal rather than letting the case go to the jury.

But just because a case ends doesn’t mean that retrial is barred. Again, a hung jury often allows for a retrial. Similarly, if the defense consents to a mistrial, perhaps because of juror misconduct, the prosecution can usually re-prosecute the defendant. On the other hand, if a judge declares a mistrial over the defense’s objection, the prosecution typically must show a critical need in order to retry the defendant. But that isn’t as tough as it might seem. For example, retrial might well be allowed when, despite the defense’s protest, a judge declares a mistrial because a juror stopped coming to court. (United States v. Wells, 790 F.2d 73 (10th Cir. 1986).)
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia ... pardy.html

and

from Findlaw:
Mistrials and Double Jeopardy

Mistrials don’t necessarily invoke double jeopardy protections unless the trial judge weighs the reasoning for the mistrial and rightly dismisses the case. Deadlocked jurors who are honestly split in their opinions can lead to retrials if “manifest necessity” demands a retrial.

Mistrials caused by prosecutorial conduct are obviously protected by the double jeopardy rule, and the charges remain dismissed through all jurisdictions. Conversely, double jeopardy doesn't attach when the defendant intentionally causes a mistrial, and they can be subject to a new trial.
https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-r ... -hold.html

SO, if the mistrial was due to prosecutorial misconduct, then it would appear that double jeopardy comes into play and the defendant cannot be tried again.
If there was jury misconduct, the defendant has grounds to file for a mistrial, and since the defendant intentionally caused the mistrial (by filing for it) then the defendant can be subject to a new trial.
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.
- misattributed to Alexis De Tocqueville

No representations made as to the accuracy of info in posted news articles or links

Anthropoid
Sergeant Major
Posts: 16811
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 3:06 pm
Location: marching home to [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAzVYCs4BMY]Erica[/url]

Re: Trump, Trump, Trump

#2798 Post by Anthropoid » Thu Feb 13, 2020 5:43 am

Well Stone sure is a controversial fellow . . .

Not sure he is worthy of Trump sticking his neck out, though a good bit of that wiki article does seem to have a anti-Trump / anti-Stone slant to it.

Anthropoid
Sergeant Major
Posts: 16811
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 3:06 pm
Location: marching home to [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAzVYCs4BMY]Erica[/url]

Re: Trump, Trump, Trump

#2799 Post by Anthropoid » Thu Feb 13, 2020 8:49 am

So I skimmed over pretty much that entire wiki page and noticed what he was charged with. Seemingly "technicality crimes;" but I'm still a bit unclear on what exactly he is supposed to have done that was "illegal" and which actual laws he broke. If one were to adopt the "anti-Stone / anti-Trump standpoint" what exactly, and explaining it like I'm five years old, did Stone do that was "criminal?"

User avatar
chijohnaok
Sergeant Major
Posts: 38157
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:50 pm
Location: West coast of the east coast
Contact:

Re: Trump, Trump, Trump

#2800 Post by chijohnaok » Thu Feb 13, 2020 6:02 pm

Snippet from an article at ABC News:
In an exclusive interview, Attorney General Bill Barr told ABC News on Thursday that President Donald Trump "has never asked me to do anything in a criminal case” but should stop tweeting about the Justice Department because his tweets “make it impossible for me to do my job.”

Barr’s comments are a rare break with a president who the attorney general has aligned himself with and fiercely defended. But it also puts Barr in line with many of Trump’s supporters on Capitol Hill who say they support the president but wish he’d cut back on his tweets.

“I think it’s time to stop the tweeting about Department of Justice criminal cases,” Barr told ABC News Chief Justice Correspondent Pierre Thomas.

When asked if he was prepared for the consequences of criticizing the president – his boss – Barr said “of course” because his job is to run the Justice Department and make decisions on “what I think is the right thing to do.”
Article continued at:
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/barr-bl ... d=68963276

I do give Barr credit for his comments.
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.
- misattributed to Alexis De Tocqueville

No representations made as to the accuracy of info in posted news articles or links

Post Reply