USA v Roger J. Stone, Jr., USDC-DC, Obstruction, False Statements, Witness Tampering

User avatar
RVInit
Posts: 8827
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2016 4:31 pm

Re: USA v Roger J. Stone, Jr., USDC-DC, Obstruction, False Statements, Witness Tampering

#1126

Post by RVInit »

Here is my fantasy about Bill Barr "testifying" in front of Congress. Let's let Dan Goldman do all the questioning. :thumbs:
"I know that human being and fish can coexist peacefully"
--- George W Bush

ImageImage

User avatar
fierceredpanda
Posts: 2705
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2016 3:04 pm
Location: BAR Headquarters - Turn left past the picture of King George III
Occupation: Criminal defense attorney - I am not your lawyer, and my posts do not constitute legal advice

Re: USA v Roger J. Stone, Jr., USDC-DC, Obstruction, False Statements, Witness Tampering

#1127

Post by fierceredpanda »

RVInit wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 8:10 am
Here is my fantasy about Bill Barr "testifying" in front of Congress. Let's let Dan Goldman do all the questioning. :thumbs:
:yeah: x1000000
"There's no play here. There's no angle. There's no champagne room. I'm not a miracle worker, I'm a janitor. The math on this is simple; the smaller the mess, the easier it is for me to clean up." -Michael Clayton


User avatar
GreatGrey
Posts: 10094
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:06 am
Location: Living in the Anthropocene

Re: USA v Roger J. Stone, Jr., USDC-DC, Obstruction, False Statements, Witness Tampering

#1128

Post by GreatGrey »

I am not "someone upthread".
Trump needs to be smashed into some kind of inedible orange pâté.

User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 9855
Joined: Tue May 10, 2016 2:56 pm
Location: Animal Planet
Occupation: Permanent probationary slave to 1 dog, 1 cat, and 1 horse, 4 granddogs, and one grandcat.

Re: USA v Roger J. Stone, Jr., USDC-DC, Obstruction, False Statements, Witness Tampering

#1129

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer »

Frater I*I wrote:
Wed Feb 12, 2020 5:07 pm
much ado wrote:
Wed Feb 12, 2020 2:56 pm
Just hope there never comes a time that we would prefer William Barr as AG.
Just wait until we have AG Larry Klayman... :shock:
:eek2:
I read your comment and immediately got out my garlic cloves necklace, installed floor to wall mirrors in every room, and placed a crucifix on each outside door. Beware of black cats.
A 19th Amendment Centennial Moment:
The 19th Amendment was first introduced to Congress in 1878, yet it was not approved by Congress until 1919 – 41 years later.
- https://legaldictionary.net/19th-amendment/

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 46238
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: USA v Roger J. Stone, Jr., USDC-DC, Obstruction, False Statements, Witness Tampering

#1130

Post by Sterngard Friegen »

I'm surprised the new lawyer Stone added wasn't William Barr.

User avatar
neonzx
Posts: 7478
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:27 am

Re: USA v Roger J. Stone, Jr., USDC-DC, Obstruction, False Statements, Witness Tampering

#1131

Post by neonzx »

This Seth Ginsberg?

Mafia lawyer Seth Ginsberg weeded out; banned from visiting lockup after he's caught with pot
http://www.fivefamiliesnyc.com/2010/10/ ... d-out.html
To which Trump replied, Fuck the law. I don't give a fuck about the law. I want my fucking money.

User avatar
Gregg
Posts: 3502
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2014 6:09 am
Location: Cincinnati, OH USA
Occupation: We build cars

Re: USA v Roger J. Stone, Jr., USDC-DC, Obstruction, False Statements, Witness Tampering

#1132

Post by Gregg »

RVInit wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 8:10 am
Here is my fantasy about Bill Barr "testifying" in front of Congress. Let's let Dan Goldman do all the questioning. :thumbs:
Don't get your hopes up. Don't you remember his very casual "Yeah I'm here, but phuck you if you think I'm going to answer any
questions...."

Allow me to remind how he defines "open testimony"



> SENATOR HARRIS. >> ... HAS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OR ANYONE AT THE WHITE HOUSE SUGGESTED THAT YOU OPEN AN INVESTIGATION OF ANYONE?
>> I WOULDN'T --
>> YES OR NO.
>> COULD YOU REPEAT THAT QUESTION?
>> I WILL REPEAT IT. HAS THE PRESIDENT OR ANYONE AT THE WHITE HOUSE EVER ASKED OR SUGGESTED THAT YOU OPEN AN INVESTIGATION OF ANYONE, YES OR NO, PLEASE, SIR.
>> THE PRESIDENT OR ANYBODY ELSE --
>> IT SEEMS YOU WOULD REMEMBER SOMETHING LIKE THAT AND BE ABLE TO TELL US.
>> YEAH, BUT I'M TRYING TO GRAPPLE WITH THE WORD SUGGEST, I MEAN THERE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSIONS OF MATTERS OUT THERE THAT THEY HAVE NOT ASKED ME TO OPEN AN INVESTIGATION, BUT --

Phuck them all to hell.
Honorary Commander, 699th Airborne Assault Dachshund Regiment
Deadly Sausage Dogs from the Sky

User avatar
bob
Posts: 28024
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: USA v Roger J. Stone, Jr., USDC-DC, Obstruction, False Statements, Witness Tampering

#1133

Post by bob »

Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Dan1100
Posts: 3741
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2014 3:41 pm

Re: USA v Roger J. Stone, Jr., USDC-DC, Obstruction, False Statements, Witness Tampering

#1134

Post by Dan1100 »

Is Larry Klayman making sense one of the signs of the apocalypse?

User avatar
bob
Posts: 28024
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: USA v Roger J. Stone, Jr., USDC-DC, Obstruction, False Statements, Witness Tampering

#1135

Post by bob »

Dan1100 wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 1:55 pm
Is Larry Klayman making sense one of the signs of the apocalypse?
Periodic scavenging blind clocks, and all that; cf.:
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
bob
Posts: 28024
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: USA v Roger J. Stone, Jr., USDC-DC, Obstruction, False Statements, Witness Tampering

#1136

Post by bob »



Mostly just the usual lies, hot air, and empty promises.

But Klayman did brag mention how he just completed Stone's deposition (for the defamation suit filed by Klayman or Corsi) in Florida. Klayman said Stone was -- surprise! -- very rude during the deposition.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
bob
Posts: 28024
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: USA v Roger J. Stone, Jr., USDC-DC, Obstruction, False Statements, Witness Tampering

#1137

Post by bob »

Daily Caller: Here’s What The Lead Roger Stone Juror Said During Jury Selection:
When Tomeka Hart was interviewed during the jury selection process as part of the Roger Stone trial, the former Democratic congressional candidate said she was generally aware of developments in the Russia investigation, but that she didn’t “pay that close attention” to the probe.

She also insisted that Stone’s affiliation with President Donald Trump would “absolutely not” color her views of the longtime Trump confidante, according to a copy of a court transcript obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation.

But Hart’s social media record, which emerged Wednesday after she came forward as the foreperson on Stone’s jury, paints a different picture.

Hart’s Twitter account shows that she tweeted frequently about developments in the special counsel’s investigation, typically stories that were negative for Trump. She was also intensely critical of Trump and his followers.

* * *

Hart’s Twitter account suggests that she closely followed the Russia probe and other investigations involving Trump associates.
The shell of the nut:
Hart was interviewed on Nov. 5, 2019 along with a group of other potential jurors. Hart is not identified by name in the transcript (she is referred to as Juror Number 1261), but the description matches her resume. Hart ran for Congress and also served as the foreperson on a grand jury in Tennessee for two years.

“You’ve also indicated a fair amount of paying attention to news and social media including about political things?” Judge Amy Berman Jackson asked Hart.

“Yes,” she replied.

“And when we asked what you read or heard about the defendant, you do understand that he was involved in Mr. Trump’s campaign in some way?” Jackson asked.

“Yes,” she said.

“Is there anything about that that affects your ability to judge him fairly and impartially sitting here right now in this courtroom?” Jackson queried.

“Absolutely not,” Hart answered.

“What is it that you have read or heard about him?” asked Jackson.

“So nothing that I can recall specifically,” Hart replied. “I do watch sometimes paying attention but sometimes in the background CNN.”

“So I recall just hearing about him being part of the campaign and some belief or reporting around interaction with the Russian probe and interaction with him and people in the country, but I don’t have a whole lot of details. I don’t pay that close attention or watch C-SPAN,” she continued.

“Can you kind of wipe the slate clean and learn what you need to learn in this case from the evidence presented in the courtroom and no other source?” Jackson asked, to which Hart responded, “Yes.”

* * *

“Is there anything about his affiliation with the Trump campaign and the Republican party in general that gives you any reason to pause or hesitate or think that you couldn’t fairly evaluate the evidence against him?” Jackson asked.

Hart answered: “No.”
The voir dire transcript.

Her responses are fairly equivocal. It will be, for example, difficult to prove that her knowledge about "political things" affected her ability to be impartial. (The judge's questions suggest a probe into the juror's demeanor, and not a literal exploration of her knowledge and beliefs.)

Her "nothing I can recall specifically" and "don't have a lot of details" are more troublesome; her active Twitter feed suggests that she may have known more details about Stone specifically (and not the impeached president or politics more generally). And her "not recalling" answer may be a form of juror concealment.


I would not be surprised if there was a new new-trial motion (or a motion for reconsideration), with her tweets as evidence. And I also would not be surprised if she was summoned as a witness for a hearing on this motion.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Maybenaut
Posts: 6024
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:58 am
Location: Maybelot

Re: USA v Roger J. Stone, Jr., USDC-DC, Obstruction, False Statements, Witness Tampering

#1138

Post by Maybenaut »

I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s a motion, or a hearing on the motion. I would be surprised if the charges were to be thrown out, though. I would expect to hear the words “overwhelming evidence of guilt” in any decision on the matter.
"Hey! You know, we left this England place because it was bogus. So if we don't get some cool rules ourselves, pronto, we'll just be bogus too." - Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
bob
Posts: 28024
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: USA v Roger J. Stone, Jr., USDC-DC, Obstruction, False Statements, Witness Tampering

#1139

Post by bob »

Maybenaut wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 5:16 pm
I would expect to hear the words “overwhelming evidence of guilt” in any decision on the matter.
Juror misconduct is a structural error; evidence of the defendant's guilt isn't a factor.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 10536
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: USA v Roger J. Stone, Jr., USDC-DC, Obstruction, False Statements, Witness Tampering

#1140

Post by Mikedunford »

I mean, the more active the social media feed, the more inclined I'd be to take an "I don't remember" at face value. Even if we exclude everything anime-dispute-related, I'm not sure I could tell you what I retweeted last week without looking at it.
"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 28024
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: USA v Roger J. Stone, Jr., USDC-DC, Obstruction, False Statements, Witness Tampering

#1141

Post by bob »

Mikedunford wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 5:22 pm
I mean, the more active the social media feed, the more inclined I'd be to take an "I don't remember" at face value. Even if we exclude everything anime-dispute-related, I'm not sure I could tell you what I retweeted last week without looking at it.
I think it can cut both ways. So the best method (from a record-preservation standpoint) is to have her testify (presumably to say, when asked during voir dire, she honestly didn't recall) and then have the judge make some credibility findings.

But yeah: the conservative-outrage camp is making hay over a retweet; that'll go nowhere -- legally. (Politically is another matter.)
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Sugar Magnolia
Posts: 10842
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2012 6:44 am

Re: USA v Roger J. Stone, Jr., USDC-DC, Obstruction, False Statements, Witness Tampering

#1142

Post by Sugar Magnolia »

Mikedunford wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 5:22 pm
I mean, the more active the social media feed, the more inclined I'd be to take an "I don't remember" at face value. Even if we exclude everything anime-dispute-related, I'm not sure I could tell you what I retweeted last week without looking at it.
And I hate to admit it, but I also occasionally share stuff that I haven't read (or read thoroughly) or vetted for truth, so there's no way I could remember all the stuff that is attached to my name, much less what it all says. I've even been known to share the same cat meme with the same person before!

User avatar
Gregg
Posts: 3502
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2014 6:09 am
Location: Cincinnati, OH USA
Occupation: We build cars

Re: USA v Roger J. Stone, Jr., USDC-DC, Obstruction, False Statements, Witness Tampering

#1143

Post by Gregg »

If he gets remanded for a new trial, one that would take place after a new Justice Department would be overseeing it, a new President would be less inclined to pardon him after it and one that might cost him $100,000s in new legal fees, I think I could bring myself to live with that.
Honorary Commander, 699th Airborne Assault Dachshund Regiment
Deadly Sausage Dogs from the Sky

User avatar
bob
Posts: 28024
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: USA v Roger J. Stone, Jr., USDC-DC, Obstruction, False Statements, Witness Tampering

#1144

Post by bob »

Gregg wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 5:30 pm
If he gets remanded for a new trial, one that would take place after a new Justice Department would be overseeing it, a new President would be less inclined to pardon him after it and one that might cost him $100,000s in new legal fees, I think I could bring myself to live with that.
The concern is there won't be a new trial: the newly assigned AUSA toady doesn't need to be told to dismiss the case.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Maybenaut
Posts: 6024
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:58 am
Location: Maybelot

Re: USA v Roger J. Stone, Jr., USDC-DC, Obstruction, False Statements, Witness Tampering

#1145

Post by Maybenaut »

bob wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 5:18 pm
Maybenaut wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 5:16 pm
I would expect to hear the words “overwhelming evidence of guilt” in any decision on the matter.
Juror misconduct is a structural error; evidence of the defendant's guilt isn't a factor.
I’m not sure that’s true. Admittedly it’s been a while since I researched this, but I thought there was a test that asked first whether the juror was dishonest in voir dire (if not, stop), and if so whether the dishonesty presented a valid basis for challenge (and the courts were all over the place with respect to whether they had to find that the challenge would actually have been successful). And some went in to consider harmlessness.
"Hey! You know, we left this England place because it was bogus. So if we don't get some cool rules ourselves, pronto, we'll just be bogus too." - Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
bob
Posts: 28024
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: USA v Roger J. Stone, Jr., USDC-DC, Obstruction, False Statements, Witness Tampering

#1146

Post by bob »

bob wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 5:54 pm
I’m not sure that’s true. Admittedly it’s been a while since I researched this, but I thought there was a test that asked first whether the juror was dishonest in voir dire (if not, stop), and if so whether the dishonesty presented a valid basis for challenge (and the courts were all over the place with respect to whether they had to find that the challenge would actually have been successful). And some went in to consider harmlessness.
I can't speak to a test you remember, but juror concealment prevents the parties from exploring potential jurors' possible biases. It isn't a test of whether reasonable counsel would have exercised a peremptory challenge against the juror; it is whether there was a reasonable probability of bias.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Sugar Magnolia
Posts: 10842
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2012 6:44 am

Re: USA v Roger J. Stone, Jr., USDC-DC, Obstruction, False Statements, Witness Tampering

#1147

Post by Sugar Magnolia »

bob wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 5:54 pm
Maybenaut wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 5:35 pm
bob wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 5:18 pm

Juror misconduct is a structural error; evidence of the defendant's guilt isn't a factor.
I’m not sure that’s true. Admittedly it’s been a while since I researched this, but I thought there was a test that asked first whether the juror was dishonest in voir dire (if not, stop), and if so whether the dishonesty presented a valid basis for challenge (and the courts were all over the place with respect to whether they had to find that the challenge would actually have been successful). And some went in to consider harmlessness.
I can't speak to a test you remember, but juror concealment prevents the parties from exploring potential jurors' possible biases. It isn't a test of whether reasonable counsel would have exercised a peremptory challenge against the juror; it is whether there was a reasonable probability of bias.
Can you define "bias" as used in this sense? That's a serious question. If the woman ran for the Senate as a Democrat, what other bias would have any bearing on it?

User avatar
bob
Posts: 28024
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: USA v Roger J. Stone, Jr., USDC-DC, Obstruction, False Statements, Witness Tampering

#1148

Post by bob »

Sugar Magnolia wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 5:58 pm
Can you define "bias" as used in this sense? That's a serious question. If the woman ran for the Senate as a Democrat, what other bias would have any bearing on it?
A simple question with a not-so-easy answer.

Very generally speaking, categorial beliefs (especially ones affecting a party) are "legal" biases that warrant excusal. E.g., "the defendant is probably guilty (the prosecutor wouldn't bring a case otherwise)"; "all cops are liars"; "minorities commit most of the crimes/cheat the system/would lie for each other"; "I could never vote to put someone to death"; "I was molested as a child, so I know all victims are telling the truth"; etc.

Voir dire is to explore potential jurors' beliefs. A potential juror could hold beliefs (say, the impeached president is lying klan member) that would not justify excusal for cause by the court -- because Stone was on trial, and not the impeached president. The court could comfortably rule that potential jurors' generalized political beliefs do not amount to bias to justify a (free) for-cause removal at Stone's trial.

But a savvy litigator wants those kinds of insights into potential jurors' mind, to evaluate whether burning a peremptory challenge on a potential juror who may not be biased (in a legal sense) but nonetheless would be predisposed as to how to vote.

Juror concealment prevents the parties from exploring these issues.


On the other hand, for other kinds of juror misconduct, like watching the news (when ordered not to) or talking about the case outside of the jury room, prejudice is a factor. The judge can rule, for example, that the prohibited behavior was brief and not likely to have affected the juror's deliberative process.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
June bug
Posts: 6215
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 3:29 pm
Location: Northern San Diego County

Re: USA v Roger J. Stone, Jr., USDC-DC, Obstruction, False Statements, Witness Tampering

#1149

Post by June bug »

Barr's out with a t.v. interview where he criticizes Trump for some of his tweets, saying they undermine his ability to do his job.
  • Claims he won't be bullied.
  • Says his decision to reverse his Justice attorneys' recommendation on Stone has nothing to do with Trump, but that Trump's tweets make it look bad.
  • Pointed back to his confirmation testimony, saying he only does what he thinks is right.
Apparently the response from Trump's non-Press Secretary was pretty mild - just that Trump has the right to express his opinions any time he wants.

This is nothing but theater!

They've been caught with their hands in the cookie jar, so now both Barr and Trump are trying to make it go away by creating a "feud" out of whole cloth.

On CNN, I was shocked to hear Jeffrey Toobin praise Barr. Susan Hennessey wasn't buying it though. Like me she said it's theater, that he's facing a revolt within his Justice Department and is trying to tamp it down by making noises about integrity. And, like me, she thinks if any real pushback comes from Trump it's just more theater.

User avatar
Slim Cognito
Posts: 8011
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2014 8:37 am

Re: USA v Roger J. Stone, Jr., USDC-DC, Obstruction, False Statements, Witness Tampering

#1150

Post by Slim Cognito »

All the better (reason) to pardon the sleezebag.
ImageImageImage x4

Post Reply

Return to “Courts, Law, and Legal Issues”