Roger Stone's Jury Has Been Rigged

After a trial begins and information is found out like in this case, the judge can excuse the juror and use one of the alternate. Especially if Stone’s lawyer dangles “mistrial” as an option after a verdict is reached. That is why there are always alternate jurors and why there is a danger of mistrial when they have been exhausted and another would be needed.

a reply to: dawnstar

There is a good chance that this juror will be dismissed simply because she's been publicly outed.

I'm sure that jury selection was done properly, by his legal team, on Monday, when Rodger Stone said he had "food poisoning" and was excused from being present for the process, by the judge.

Stone's case has nothing to do with politics. This is a criminal trial in which, one of the things he's on trial for is jury tampering!

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Well, before they replace her I hope they spend a little time to make sure it's the same women and not someone who happens to share a name with her...

Didnt jones practically plea insanity in one of the lawsuits against him??

a reply to: dawnstar

I have every reason to think that the judge will handle this as professionally as possible. I'm betting they're none too happy about this illegal breach of a juror's identity.

a reply to: Deetermined

I am for real. Political party affiliation does not disqualify anyone to serve on a jury.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Stone's case has nothing to do with politics.

LOL! Thanks for the laugh!

This is a criminal trial in which, one of the things he's on trial for is jury tampering!

It was witness tampering and it wasn't witness tampering of an official proceeding such as a trial.

a reply to: network dude

Dude I am surrounded by MAGA men. Some are great folks. Some aren't.

You know like the rest of us.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Deetermined

I am for real. Political party affiliation does not disqualify anyone to serve on a jury.

That obviously went right over your head. Party affiliation and administration affiliation are two different things, but I don't expect you to understand the point here, as I mentioned in another post.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I listened to about half of that video..
Gee racheal maddow spends time reading the actual court transcripts of cases.. and that's fake news..
The witnesses testifying in the impeachment hearings have transcripts that are being read on mainstream media, but they are fake news and the witnesses are claimed to have 2nd and 3rd hand information.

From what I listened to from alex jones, supposedly the source is stone's assistant. They seem to be taking the word of a self confessed mentally unstable alex Jones and his minions, and roger stone's assistant who very well could be just saying whatever stone made up and told him to say.
But it instills doubt into the minds if some as far as our system and has the added perk of putting a target on some poor lady that probably isnt even a juror for all we know.

Sorry, but where's the proof that she is even on the juror? This is second or third hand information being passed onto you from the crazy man that was claiming a bunch of kids killed in the sandy hook shooting wasn't dead and regularly brought the story back to life so his legion of minions could harass the heck out of grieving families ever since.

a reply to: dawnstar

There's no reason to believe anyone/anything unless several different sources confirm it.

Gee racheal maddow spends time reading the actual court transcripts of cases.. and that's fake news..
The witnesses testifying in the impeachment hearings have transcripts that are being read on mainstream media, but they are fake news and the witnesses are claimed to have 2nd and 3rd hand information.

Schiff pretended to read directly from the Ukraine telephone script too while lying about what it said. Maddow's not above doing the same. Once again, several sources are recommended.

a reply to: Deetermined

Schiff pretended to read directly from the Ukraine telephone script too while lying about what it said.

No he didn't!

He talks about the president's rambling words, and says, "this is essence of which he communicated", and then gives his "Godfatherly" like personal summation of the conversation. He never says that he's reading from the transcript. Schiff was making "opening arguments".

a reply to: Deetermined

Well gee, not that I expect you'll accept them..
But you can find the official released transcripts here..

intelligence.house.gov...

And, there are quite a few sources reading the same thing from these transcripts.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Regardless of whether Schiff said, "this is in essence of what he said", he went on to act like he was reading from the script where the Ukraine president said directly, "I will only say this 7 times, so you better listen good". He was speaking from a first person account as if he was reading directly from the script instead of stating, "the Ukraine president said" this or that. He kept using "I" statements instead of "he" statements.

a reply to: dawnstar

And, there are quite a few sources reading the same thing from these transcripts.

Sure, and they're taking them out of context and cherry picking statements without reading it all.

Just like the Washington Post stating that one of the Washington Nationals baseball players snubbed Trump, when he didn't. The Washington Post cut out of their video right before the player shook Trump's hand.

a reply to: Deetermined

So, because Schiff used a little bit or artistic expression, that's reason to dismiss everything.

But you'll believe the words of alex.. the dead kids arent dead.. jones???
Theres something seriously wrong in this country...

a reply to: dawnstar

I don't ever believe Alex Jones unless multiple sources back him up. I'm just stating that if this is true, then there is good reason to reject this particular person as a jury member.

a reply to: Deetermined

he went on to act like he was reading from the script

His entire opening statement was a prewritten statement that he read from, the entire time.



Yep, Schiff's opening arguments included a dramatic parody of the mafia boss like coercion that the summary of the call revealed. But, I don't see how anybody would think that he's reading Trump's words from a verbatim transcript, when he's clearly summarizing everything else.

Get over yourself.

And, by the way, Devin Nunes' opening statement was riddled with lies and inuendo.

Regardless, it looks like Stone has turned on trump to save his own skin. Not much loyalty in that WH.

www.rawstory.com...

www.foxnews.com...

Tucker Carlson talked about this recently. Stones lawyer did try to challenge the juror but the judge (who is an obama appointee) allowed the juror to stay.

This is some serious BS for sure.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Deetermined

he went on to act like he was reading from the script

His entire opening statement was a prewritten statement that he read from, the entire time.

Yep, Schiff's opening arguments included a dramatic parody of the mafia boss like coercion that the summary of the call revealed. But, I don't see how anybody would think that he's reading Trump's words from a verbatim transcript, when he's clearly summarizing everything else.

Get over yourself.

And, by the way, Devin Nunes' opening statement was riddled with lies and inuendo.

[snipped] Schiff did this so that those people would think this was him reading from the transcript.