This two-faced bitch Tameka Hart has got some 'splainin' to do!!

[HoeHummer]

Yeap, Trumpholians. Roger Stone got jobbed. Fuckings outgrageous!


Fucking disgrace of the year... eh?


Give your balls a tug.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Just because Jonathan Turley's legal analysis is way too sharp for your pea brain to comprehend, let alone rebut, doesn't make it "a bunch of crap".

And yes, this bitch engaged in serious misconduct if she lied to or misled the court regarding her flagrant biases.

I suggest you reread wtf Turlet has written.

He did not accuse this jurist of any misconduct....just as I stated you lying jackoff.

Get back with me if you are still confused.

Stone is getting pardoned just like Flynn. That is why Flynn has tried to change his plea. Easier to pardon someone who didn't admit to the crime.

Both are guilty as fuck or as guilty as Michael Cohen.

You really have trouble reading between the lines.

[bambino]

Originally Posted by WTF

I suggest you reread wtf Turlet has written.

He did not accuse this jurist of any misconduct....just as I stated you lying jackoff.

Get back with me if you are still confused.

Stone is getting pardoned just like Flynn. That is why Flynn has tried to change his plea. Easier to pardon someone who didn't admit to the crime.

Both are guilty as fuck or as guilty as Michael Cohen.

You really have trouble reading between the lines.

That’s one of your biggest problems, you read between your own lines. Which are your own fairytales.

[HoeHummer]

Turlet?

Isn’t what where you cops a squat, on the Turlet?

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by HoeHummer

Turlet?

Isn’t what where you cops a squat, on the Turlet?

if you say so, Archie Bunker.


BAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAA

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

if you say so, Archie Bunker.


BAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAA

I think you mean Meathead.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by bambino

That’s one of your biggest problems, you read between your own lines. Which are your own fairytales.

lustylaffer lied about what was said.

Again....there is no evide6shown so far suggesting this jurist did anything illegal.

[nevergaveitathought]

illegality takes a back seat in our adversarial legal system to the idea of impartiality

there is a need for impartiality of jurors in our system

as the supreme court has ruled:

In Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717, 722 (1961), the Supreme Court stated “the minimal standards of due process” demand a fair hearing before competent and impartial jurors. See also United States v. Tegzes, 715 F.2d 505, 507 (11th Cir. 1983) (citing Murphy v. Florida, 421 U.S. 794, 799 (1975)

a definition of an impartial juror by someone other than me:

"impartial jurors are those who are willing and able to consider the evidence presented at
trial without preconceived opinions about the defendant’s guilt or innocence, to apply the
governing law as instructed by the trial judge, and to deliberate in good faith to render

a legally and factually justifiable verdict."


it remains to be seen whether this juror broke any law, but that's a red herring by our resident "red-herringer"

[WTF]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

illegality takes a back seat in our adversarial legal system to the idea of impartiality

there is a need for impartiality of jurors in our system

as the supreme court has ruled:

In Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717, 722 (1961), the Supreme Court stated “the minimal standards of due process” demand a fair hearing before competent and impartial jurors. See also United States v. Tegzes, 715 F.2d 505, 507 (11th Cir. 1983) (citing Murphy v. Florida, 421 U.S. 794, 799 (1975)

a definition of an impartial juror by someone other than me:

"impartial jurors are those who are willing and able to consider the evidence presented at
trial without preconceived opinions about the defendant’s guilt or innocence, to apply the
governing law as instructed by the trial judge, and to deliberate in good faith to render

a legally and factually justifiable verdict."


it remains to be seen whether this juror broke any law, but that's a red herring by our resident "red-herringer"

How do you know she was not willing to consider the evidence impartially?

You've shown no evidence of that....all the other jurors concurred with her.

Did she have some magic wand she held over the others?

[nevergaveitathought]

Originally Posted by WTF

How do you know she was not willing to consider the evidence impartially?

You've shown no evidence of that....all the other jurors concurred with her.

Did she have some magic wand she held over the others?

you're off on another jaunt through red-herringville

there is evidence she wasn't impartial

usually the reasonable man standard is applied


there is no "how do I know" excuse as if that settles things as "no one knows" so "shes ok by me"

you wouldn't feel that way if you were on the dock and your worst enemy was sitting in judgment of you

when the supreme court decision was made, theres no 5 out of 7 or 1 out of 12 exception, it was impartial jurors - like its ok if only one of you has preconceived hatreds toward the defendant

there's reason and the judge or future judges, if appealed, decide that after a complete review of the record

in the post I did of jonathan turley you took exception to his saying the judge should review that in terms of a mistrial

from gnadfly's post you imbecile:

Tomeka Hart testified during the jury selection that she had no biases against Roger Stone and that she ‘hardly paid attention’ to the Russia investigation, but she specifically attacked Stone on Twitter shortly after he was arrested.

that's seemingly a lie to the court, or is your response "you don't know" if she lied as she might have forgotten, but I remember to you its a lie even if the person thinks it was totally true

[gnadfly]

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/202...-to-the-court/

All these upper level DC Democrats know each other...

[WTF]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/202...-to-the-court/

All these upper level DC Democrats know each other...

Oh wow....I guess that means the Supreme Court is impartial!

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by WTF

I suggest you reread wtf Turlet (sic) has written.

He did not accuse this jurist of any misconduct....just as I stated you lying jackoff.

Get back with me if you are still confused.

You're the one who is lying, confused, or both.

I suggest you re-read my post with special attention to the word "if". There is ample evidence of this bitch's bias.

If she lied to the court or concealed it, that's misconduct.

And Turley agrees.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by WTF

You really have trouble reading between the lines.

Evidently you do.

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by lustylad

You're the one who is lying, confused, or both.

I suggest you re-read my post with special attention to the word "if". There is ample evidence of this bitch's bias.

If she lied to the court or concealed it, that's misconduct.

And Turley agrees.

WTF's reading comprehension issues and his inability to draw logical conclusions are well documented.