Douglas Caddy Posted February 13, 2020 Share Posted February 13, 2020 1 minute ago, Ty Carpenter said: https://thefederalist.com/2020/02/13/jury-foreman-in-roger-stone-case-was-trump-hating-russia-collusion-hoaxer/ Then why didn't Stone's lawyers object when he was proposed for serving on the jury? If this were true, they had every right to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ty Carpenter Posted February 13, 2020 Share Posted February 13, 2020 9 minutes ago, Douglas Caddy said: Then why didn't Stone's lawyers object when he was proposed for serving on the jury? If this were true, they had every right to do so. He is actually a she and perhaps they were not aware. This wasn't known until she decided she needed to make a stand a few days ago. Also, why does it matter if it was known then or is known now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Bauer Posted February 13, 2020 Share Posted February 13, 2020 (edited) Sounds hard to believe that Stone's legal team didn't do a basic social media background check of his jurors which would have revealed her public tweets. Any sharp teenager today knows how to find such things in the time in takes to eat three slices of pizza. There are countless internet background search companies that can find this stuff in minutes. Twitter-Facebook- Linkedin, etc. And I'll wager that some ( at least one ) on the jury were Trump people as well. It's a meaningless point however in regards to the unprecedented political influencing scheme Trump's Roy Cohn-Bill Barr is trying to pull off with Stone's case. Edited February 14, 2020 by Joe Bauer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Niederhut Posted February 13, 2020 Share Posted February 13, 2020 (edited) 54 minutes ago, Ty Carpenter said: https://thefederalist.com/2020/02/13/jury-foreman-in-roger-stone-case-was-trump-hating-russia-collusion-hoaxer/ Trump and his supporters always make lame excuses for his egregious misconduct by attacking the "messengers," even when the messengers are Trump's own appointees and former associates-- e.g., Michael Cohen, Rex Tillerson, John Bolton, Ambassadors Bill Taylor and Sondland, etc. It never ends. Let me guess. This week, Trump and his media Trumpagandists (including The Federalist) will be attacking General Kelly for his claim that Vindman "did the right thing" -- as if Kelly had been a Never Trumper! It's laughable. Edited February 13, 2020 by W. Niederhut Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Iacoletti Posted February 13, 2020 Share Posted February 13, 2020 6 hours ago, James DiEugenio said: Well, Pelosi gave Trump the ball back with about about five minutes to go in the half. He'll fumble it again before too long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted February 13, 2020 Share Posted February 13, 2020 13 hours ago, Bob Ness said: I've posted about this before but I have no idea why the Democrats didn't play hard ball, enforce subpoenas, charge for contempt and do everything they could to fight Trump on their own turf. The House can’t enforce subpoenas and what good does charging contempt accomplish? If Pelosi had delayed impeaching Trump it would have looked weak. If she’d delayed sending the articles to the Senate for months it would have looked weak. Instead, the House managers presented such a strong case there was a bi-partisan vote to convict and Trump was denied his best opportunities to promote a tainted acquittal. Trump is trying to consolidate dictatorial powers and we’re still bashing Democrats? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted February 13, 2020 Share Posted February 13, 2020 7 hours ago, James DiEugenio said: I agree with Bob on this. Pelosi turned the case over to McConnell too fast. In football, you do everything you can to run out the clock at halftime and try to score without giving the ball back to the other side. If you do not score, then you try for a FG at least. Well, Pelosi gave Trump the ball back with about about five minutes to go in the half. Let’s game out this analogy. Trump got the ball back. He wanted to pick up at least one Dem vote to acquit, hold on to every Republican, and get it wrapped up in 2 weeks so he could brag about it before the Super Bowl and State of the Union. He didn’t get any of it. Now he’s losing what little mind he has left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Niederhut Posted February 13, 2020 Share Posted February 13, 2020 1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said: Trump and his supporters always make lame excuses for his egregious misconduct by attacking the "messengers," even when the messengers are Trump's own appointees and former associates-- e.g., Michael Cohen, Rex Tillerson, John Bolton, Ambassadors Bill Taylor and Sondland, etc. It never ends. Let me guess. This week, Trump and his media Trumpagandists (including The Federalist) will be attacking General Kelly for his claim that Vindman "did the right thing" -- as if Kelly had been a Never Trumper! It's laughable. This just in... What a shocker. Trump attacks another former close associate for telling the truth. Carl Bernstein was correct three years (and 16,000 lies) ago when he said, "There's no reason to believe anything Trump says." Trump hits back at John Kelly: 'Can't keep his mouth shut' https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-hits-back-at-john-kelly-cant-keep-his-mouth-shut/ar-BBZYhwp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douglas Caddy Posted February 13, 2020 Share Posted February 13, 2020 2 hours ago, Ty Carpenter said: He is actually a she and perhaps they were not aware. This wasn't known until she decided she needed to make a stand a few days ago. Also, why does it matter if it was known then or is known now? There is an old saying that ignorance of the law is no excuse. Here is an explanation of jury selection that was applicable to Stone's criminal trial.. https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/jury-selection-criminal-cases.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Ness Posted February 13, 2020 Share Posted February 13, 2020 2 hours ago, Ty Carpenter said: https://thefederalist.com/2020/02/13/jury-foreman-in-roger-stone-case-was-trump-hating-russia-collusion-hoaxer/ That's why they have more than one person on the jury. Stone didn't bring any witnesses nor did he testify on his own behalf. This was a slam dunk, not even a layup. Russia collusion wasn't a hoax. Please read the Mueller report, IG report and court documents, not the Federalist. While you're at it, please explain to me why the President of the United States is in a Mutual Defense Agreement with six convicted felons, two Ukrainian mobsters and a Ukrainian Oligarch. Just curious why a POTUS would have to be in an MDA with them if he didn't have anything to do with their activities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dennis Berube Posted February 13, 2020 Share Posted February 13, 2020 20 hours ago, Robert Wheeler said: Trump told GWB to give up the names of the "crooked cops", dirty generals, and compromised judges or else the JFK records get released Source? I generally find your associations interesting Robert, but saying the Bushs are the JFK masterminds is a bridge too far for me. Did prescott tell the Dulles brothers what to do? We will never know who the first person to hint at killing jfk was, never. But we can say Allen Dulles was involved by the overwhelming circumstantial evidence, that doesnt exist for bush as far as im aware. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted February 13, 2020 Share Posted February 13, 2020 55 minutes ago, Robert Wheeler said: . They could have played a roll of equal importance to the other VPs. Maybe the Harriman’s, Dulles, and Cabot’s are there too, but they are no where near as famous as the Bush family. Prescott Bush and Allen Dulles worked for Averell Harriman. Bush was a managing partner in Brown Brothers Harriman; the Dulles Brothers were Harriman’s long time personal lawyers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Niederhut Posted February 14, 2020 Share Posted February 14, 2020 (edited) Robert, Just to clarify. What I said with regard to Occam's Razor is not that "Trump is crazy," per se, but rather than he is entirely motivated by self-interest-- as opposed to basing his policy decisions on any higher principles of morality, the public good, or social ethics. In other words, he is not on a principled crusade to reign in the "Deep State" or the Neocons who organized the phony "War on Terror." Unlike JFK, Trump is not out to save the planet by "breaking the CIA into thousand pieces and scattering it to the wind." He's out to promote Donald Trump. My straightforward hypothesis about what makes Trump tick explains all of his decisions, including his switch from pretending to be a 9/11 Truther in the 2016 debates with Jeb Bush to becoming a Neocon mule by January of 2017, and never saying a word about "who really destroyed the World Trade Center on 9/11." And, IMO, Trump knows better, but says nothing. He knows that Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the PNAC Neocons collaborated with the Saudis and the Mossad in the 9/11 op. Yet, his first visits abroad after his inauguration were to Riyadh and Tel Aviv! Trump is not a moral animal, and certainly not a utilitarian. He always obeys Sutton's Law-- he goes where the money is. Edited February 14, 2020 by W. Niederhut Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Ness Posted February 14, 2020 Share Posted February 14, 2020 17 hours ago, James DiEugenio said: I agree with Bob on this. Pelosi turned the case over to McConnell too fast. In football, you do everything you can to run out the clock at halftime and try to score without giving the ball back to the other side. If you do not score, then you try for a FG at least. Well, Pelosi gave Trump the ball back with about about five minutes to go in the half. Another issue that is easily overlooked is the effect that their strategy has on witnesses that have or could possibly testify later. Friendly witnesses have been shown that they're not going to be protected and adverse witnesses have been shown exactly how impotent the House is. Meanwhile the Dems have to take a seat on the sidelines and watch as Trump et al mop the floor with decent people like Vindman and Yovanovitch as they ceded the initiative to the kook and his cronies. Any attempt at further articles of impeachment being forwarded is almost impossible politically and you can bet every dollar you have and anyone else's that Trump is aware of that. Having said all that... I can't believe the Trumpsters that run around celebrating like a bunch of idiots that their boy only has half the country that wants him removed from office! This is so bad it's really hard for me to believe that Trump will be able to win in 2020. My suspicion is that those famous base Trump supporters are getting less by the day and he's not likely to be reelected. Sure he has 80% approval among Republicans willing to admit such a thing in public, may be 200 or so hahaha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted February 14, 2020 Author Share Posted February 14, 2020 (edited) Robert: No serious writer/researcher thinks Skorzeny is high on the "list of Kill Team assemblers" as you put it. The Ganis book that came out saying this has very serious problems, to the point that John Newman, for one, completely disregards its credibility. We ran a negative review of it at Kennedys and King. https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/major-ralph-p-ganis-the-skorzeny-papers-evidence-for-the-plot-to-kill-jfk And our reviewer was actually being kind. At the 40th anniversary the idiot Nigel Turner put up the whole Barr McCellan fruitiness, which the demagogue Alex Jones fell for,. And was pushed on everyone by Walt Brown who famously walked into police HQ in Dallas and then was on Turner's TV show talking about the Wallace fingerprint. This turned out to be another pie in the face. Turner did not do due diligence and neither did Brown. Therefore it ended up being a repeat of the Roscoe White pratfall. As I have said many times, there is no silver bullet in this case. Every one of these silver bullets has turned out to be, after much buildup, a humiliation, which our enemies then use to heap ridicule on us. The best work on actually trying to solve the riddle can only be done by using the strongest circumstantial evidence. That is, the accumulation of incriminating circumstances to the point that 1.) There is no denying the direct criminal intent, and 2.) There is no other way the act could have happened without those particular players involved. This is what Jim Garrision long ago said would the the only way to find the solution. The idea that professional assassins--and that is what was used--would leave fingerprints behind, or would bite a shell, or would leave a diary, this is silly. If you are going to build a case for Arrowsmith, how does him buying a printing press for Rockwell prove his involvement in the murder of Kennedy? Edited February 14, 2020 by James DiEugenio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now