Roger Stone trial set to begin (Update: Stone found guilty on all 7 counts)(Update: Trump commutes sentence) (1 Viewer)

[superchuck500]

Jury selection will begin Tuesday morning. Note that Steve Bannon intends to testify for the prosecution.

Roger Stone will go on trial starting Nov. 5 in Washington, the federal judge presiding over the high-profile case said Thursday.

U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson set out a calendar for a two-week trial that will pit the longtime Trump associate against special counsel Robert Mueller on charges Stone lied to Congress and obstructed lawmakers’ Russia investigations.

Stone entered the D.C. courthouse for Thursday’s status hearing uncertain whether he’d face any penalties — including jail — for violating the terms of a gag order restricting his ability to talk about any aspect of the case.

But Stone was spared any punishment after Jackson opened the proceedings saying she didn’t “intend to dwell” on the dispute, which centers on discrepancies over whether Stone mislead the court about plans to rerelease a recent book with a new introduction bashing Mueller’s investigation.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/14/roger-stone-trial-1221289


https://www.law.com/nationallawjour...n-roger-stones-trial/?slreturn=20190931143946

 

[Dadsdream]

Sounds like your daughter could have used a father who was willing to teach her how to properly use condescension and unrelated short stories to avoid the discussion entirely.

Then instead of spending tens of minutes thinking and writing, she could share a story from her life that is probably mostly true that sure seems like it has some lesson for us all.

It would only take a couple of minutes, then she could spend her valuable time on teaching battle tactics to Serbian Green Berets or updating the instruction manual for the sybian or one of the thousands of other important sounding tasks that keep her from providing an in depth or even remotely adequate response.

Actually, she got paid to do those postings . . . spending money for a starving college student on a Pell Grant and state tuition assistance. For a while her avatar was a young woman with a US flag hijab. She's a blonde that's never been near a mosque. I used to tease her about that.

I still hold out hope for finding common ground with you too, samiam5211. You never know.

 

[samiam5211]

Actually, she got paid to do those postings. Spending money for a starving college student on a Pell Grant.

I still hold out hope for finding common ground with you too, samiam5211. You never know.

Just seems like your time would be better spent catfishing elderly widows or varnishing your sock drawer than actively avoiding discussion on a discussion forum.

Your mannerly condescending trolling has been especially pathetic the last day or two.

Not trying to go down the rabbit hole of the pathology of your affliction, so I’ll leave you to neurotically trolling online in between recoding the software for the 737 Max.

 

[SaintForLife]

The Clinton Campaign hired Steele? I could have sworn the Campaign hired US based FusionGPS. It was FusionGPS that contacted Steele, wasn't it? Is there any evidence that the Clinton Campaign directed FusionGPS to contact Steele (or was aware that they were doing so before the fact?)

So, he says "Here’s the bottom line: a federal candidate who is freely given information is not receiving a “contribution” or “thing of value," but this document posted on the FEC website, written by the Chair of the FEC clearly states that opposition research IS a thing of value.
Page two starts with: "The Commission has held a long a diverse list of goods and services (both tangible and intangible, both easy and difficult to value) to qualify as contributions, including
--Opposition research"

https://www.fec.gov/resources/cms-content/documents/2019-10-ELW-the-law-of-a-thing-of-value.pdf

So, who do we believe? The document that currently explains the law, or a man who stated "I served as an FEC Commissioner," but who actually withdrew his name from consideration before his confirmation hearing?

Nominee for F.E.C. Withdraws (Published 2008)

The nominee to the Federal Election Commission, Hans von Spakovsky, a former Justice Department official, did not have Democratic support to win confirmation.

www.nytimes.com

Please see the previous document, titled "The Law of a 'Thing of Value' which states quite clearly, that the first item listed as a 'thing of value' is opposition research.

The Clinton campaign paid Steele through their lawyer and GPS Fusion. GPS Fusion didn't pay Steele out of their pockets. If your interpretation of the law is correct, do you think the FEC would allow the Clinton campaign to skirt the law of getting opposition research from a foreign national by using intermediaries to give their money to Steele?

There is nothing unlawful in receiving the information but there is ample reason to inform the FBI of a foreign power interfering with our election, particularly a hostile foreign power. Some have argued that information can be a “thing of value” under federal election laws. If so, receiving information from a foreign government could violate the ban on such contributions. However, I have always viewed such arguments as too sweeping. Obviously, there is a great deal of information that passes from government sources, including information acquired by the Clinton campaign from foreign intelligence figures in the Steele Dossier. The loose interpretation given to any “information” as a “thing of value” would raise serious first amendment concerns that I have discussed in earlier columns.

Trump: I Would Accept Dirt On Political Opponents If Offered By Foreign Governments [Updated]

In controversial interview, President Donald Trump told ABC News Chief Anchor George Stephanopoulos in the Oval Office that he would accept dirt on political opponents from foreign governments and …

jonathanturley.org

 

[SaintForLife]

According to the first WaPo article posted by Optimus, the defense sought a new trial due to alleged bias of a different juror who worked as an IRS lawyer, but the judge denied it because the juror didn't work with the DOJ on prosecution-related issues. So apparently the defense didn't raise this juror's bias in a written motion for new trial.

I don't think that means the defense didn't object to her during voir dire, and frankly it would surprise me if they hadn't. Just superficially, her profile is pretty close to the opposite of an ideal juror for Stone regardless of her political views (like it or not, lawyers aggressively profile and stereotype potential jurors), plus it's my understanding her political affiliation would've been known to the attorneys. There's almost no way the defense didn't know every single detail about her online persona before, during, and after trial. I've been hired as counsel by national lawyers in local cases just to eyeball potential jurors from my area to give them any information I can derive by looking at them. And I've been in trials with much lower stakes than Stone's where I've scorched the ends of the earth looking for social media tidbits on every person in the courtroom.

If she was truthful in voir dire but also credibly said she could fairly apply the law, then it might be hard for the defense to say the judge abused her discretion in allowing her over the defense's objections. If it turns out she was less than forthcoming, it could be very problematic for the prosecutors and for the politics of the case.

She wasn't truthful in these 2 instances.

 

[JimEverett]

According to the first WaPo article posted by Optimus, the defense sought a new trial due to alleged bias of a different juror who worked as an IRS lawyer, but the judge denied it because the juror didn't work with the DOJ on prosecution-related issues. So apparently the defense didn't raise this juror's bias in a written motion for new trial.

I don't think that means the defense didn't object to her during voir dire, and frankly it would surprise me if they hadn't. Just superficially, her profile is pretty close to the opposite of an ideal juror for Stone regardless of her political views (like it or not, lawyers aggressively profile and stereotype potential jurors), plus it's my understanding her political affiliation would've been known to the attorneys. There's almost no way the defense didn't know every single detail about her online persona before, during, and after trial. I've been hired as counsel by national lawyers in local cases just to eyeball potential jurors from my area to give them any information I can derive by looking at them. And I've been in trials with much lower stakes than Stone's where I've scorched the ends of the earth looking for social media tidbits on every person in the courtroom.

If she was truthful in voir dire but also credibly said she could fairly apply the law, then it might be hard for the defense to say the judge abused her discretion in allowing her over the defense's objections. If it turns out she was less than forthcoming, it could be very problematic for the prosecutors and for the politics of the case.

Here is what I was referring to:

And that first juror was an only-in-D.C. character, a former Obama-era press secretary for the Office of Management and Budget whose husband still works at the Justice Department division that played a role in the Russia probe that ultimately snagged Stone. She even acknowledged having negative views of President Donald Trump, and said she had followed the media coverage of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation.

Still, the woman said she did not have strong views about Stone, and Judge Amy Berman Jackson, who is overseeing the case, denied a request from Stone’s lawyers to strike the woman as a potential juror.

Medical emergencies and Milo Yiannopoulos: Roger Stone’s trial opens

It was a fittingly unpredictable opening to the trial of the longtime conservative provocateur, who is fighting charges he lied to Congress.

www.politico.com

 

[FullMonte]

The Clinton campaign paid Steele through their lawyer and GPS Fusion. GPS Fusion didn't pay Steele out of their pockets. If your interpretation of the law is correct, do you think the FEC would allow the Clinton campaign to skirt the law of getting opposition research from a foreign national by using intermediaries to give their money to Steele?

I think that if there is any evidence that the Clinton Campaign asked or directed FusionGPS to contact Steele, then yes, that should be looked into to determine whether or not it was legal. But, if they hired FusionGPS to do opposition research, and FusionGPS took it upon themselves to contact Steele, then it would be unfair to hold the Clinton Campaign liable for an action that they were not a party to or aware of.

There is nothing unlawful in receiving the information

52USC30121, which you mentioned earlier would disagree with you. Section (a)(2) of that law: "It shall be unlawful for a person to solicit, accept, or RECEIVE a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national." (Those subparagraphs refer to a donation of "money or other thing of value," which the document I referred to says includes opposition research.

As for the rest of your post, you could be right that the current law is too sweeping or has other issues; but until it is challenged and changed, the law is what it is.

 

[Taurus]

I think that if there is any evidence that the Clinton Campaign asked or directed FusionGPS to contact Steele, then yes, that should be looked into to determine whether or not it was legal. But, if they hired FusionGPS to do opposition research, and FusionGPS took it upon themselves to contact Steele, then it would be unfair to hold the Clinton Campaign liable for an action that they were not a party to or aware of.



52USC30121, which you mentioned earlier would disagree with you. Section (a)(2) of that law: "It shall be unlawful for a person to solicit, accept, or RECEIVE a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national." (Those subparagraphs refer to a donation of "money or other thing of value," which the document I referred to says includes opposition research.

As for the rest of your post, you could be right that the current law is too sweeping or has other issues; but until it is challenged and changed, the law is what it is.

"Contribution or donation". You can pay for information, services and goods from foreign nationals. You just can't accept it for free. Or ask, for that matter.

 

[MT15]

Great distinction, Taurus. One that people supporting Trump never seem to recognize.

 

[BobE]

 

[FullMonte]

"Contribution or donation". You can pay for information, services and goods from foreign nationals. You just can't accept it for free. Or ask, for that matter.

That is a very interesting take.

 

[Taurus]

That is a very interesting take.

IIRC we went over it pretty thoroughly in the Mueller thread.
You can buy a million Chinese-made MAGA hats, but you can't accept a million free ones.
I'm not sure how it could work any other way.
Your campaign has to be able to buy stuff.

 

[TaylorB]

She wasn't truthful in these 2 instances.

Unsurprisingly, I had a really hard time finding any sort of legal discussion in the media about Stone's Motion for New Trial might go down, so I did some digging on my own. Judge Jackson’s ruling denying the defense’s motion pertaining to the other juror gives us a window into what she will likely focus on in the newest motion:

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.203583/gov.uscourts.dcd.203583.288.0_5.pdf

Two big takeaways are (1) her heavy reliance on the written questionnaires provided to the jurors, and (2) the notion that a granting of a new trial requires the defense to show a “serious miscarriage of justice.” The difference in the newest motion is that there will be allegations that the juror was dishonest, which was different from the issue in the motion involving the other juror.

Probably the most important case involving alleged juror dishonesty is McDonough, a 1984 SCOTUS case. I found a total of 14 reported cases within the DC circuit (some at the USDC level and some at the DC Appeals level) since 1984 which cite to McDonough, and not one of them resulted in a verdict being overturned due to dishonesty or bias.

Basically, at least in the DC circuit, it’s really, really hard to overturn a verdict. In some of these cases where the trial court and/or appeals court didn’t disturb the verdict, the evidence was much more egregious either in terms of the nature of the alleged dishonesty, or of the potential for bias involved. Here’s an example of a DC case discussing the how the law works (scroll down until the number column on the left is at 259 for the pertinent discussion):

910 F.2d 843

law.resource.org

I don’t think the C-SPAN comment is helpful for the defense because I think that tweet was from 2011, but the defense could potentially make some hay about the comment about her following particularly closely, because that appears to be at least somewhat misleading unless there’s context we are missing. The judge will compare that comment to her written questionnaire and other comments made in voir dire to see if it was not credible and/or prevented the defense from digging into her potential bias further. But even so, there’s a lot of discretion for the judge to accept as true any representations by the juror that she could be unbiased with respect to Stone notwithstanding her other responses. And even if it showed some bias, there’s room to decide it still didn’t actually affect the deliberations. Also, if the defense actually knew about the social media posts, they’re precluded from raising the issue after the fact because they can’t bait the court into trying a faulty case then blow up the verdict after the fact.

In sum, the odds of Stone getting any relief here do not appear to be very good. Jackson has a ton of discretion on this, and she would be well within the bounds of how DC appeals has treated this type of thing in the past, so the odds of her denial of the defense’s motion being overturned on appeal are also not good. I could see Jackson conducting a hearing to re-question the juror, but it likely will not change the result, and will just be a political issue that Trump could use to help justify a pardon. I’m not arguing that’s how the law should be, just saying that’s what it is.

 

[JimEverett]

Unsurprisingly, I had a really hard time finding any sort of legal discussion in the media about Stone's Motion for New Trial might go down, so I did some digging on my own. Judge Jackson’s ruling denying the defense’s motion pertaining to the other juror gives us a window into what she will likely focus on in the newest motion:

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.203583/gov.uscourts.dcd.203583.288.0_5.pdf

Two big takeaways are (1) her heavy reliance on the written questionnaires provided to the jurors, and (2) the notion that a granting of a new trial requires the defense to show a “serious miscarriage of justice.” The difference in the newest motion is that there will be allegations that the juror was dishonest, which was different from the issue in the motion involving the other juror.

Probably the most important case involving alleged juror dishonesty is McDonough, a 1984 SCOTUS case. I found a total of 14 reported cases within the DC circuit (some at the USDC level and some at the DC Appeals level) since 1984 which cite to McDonough, and not one of them resulted in a verdict being overturned due to dishonesty or bias.

Basically, at least in the DC circuit, it’s really, really hard to overturn a verdict. In some of these cases where the trial court and/or appeals court didn’t disturb the verdict, the evidence was much more egregious either in terms of the nature of the alleged dishonesty, or of the potential for bias involved. Here’s an example of a DC case discussing the how the law works (scroll down until the number column on the left is at 259 for the pertinent discussion):

910 F.2d 843

law.resource.org

I don’t think the C-SPAN comment is helpful for the defense because I think that tweet was from 2011, but the defense could potentially make some hay about the comment about her following particularly closely, because that appears to be at least somewhat misleading unless there’s context we are missing. The judge will compare that comment to her written questionnaire and other comments made in voir dire to see if it was not credible and/or prevented the defense from digging into her potential bias further. But even so, there’s a lot of discretion for the judge to accept as true any representations by the juror that she could be unbiased with respect to Stone notwithstanding her other responses. And even if it showed some bias, there’s room to decide it still didn’t actually affect the deliberations. Also, if the defense actually knew about the social media posts, they’re precluded from raising the issue after the fact because they can’t bait the court into trying a faulty case then blow up the verdict after the fact.

In sum, the odds of Stone getting any relief here do not appear to be very good. Jackson has a ton of discretion on this, and she would be well within the bounds of how DC appeals has treated this type of thing in the past, so the odds of her denial of the defense’s motion being overturned on appeal are also not good. I could see Jackson conducting a hearing to re-question the juror, but it likely will not change the result, and will just be a political issue that Trump could use to help justify a pardon. I’m not arguing that’s how the law should be, just saying that’s what it is.

I disagree I think there is a good chance for overturning the conviction. And it is definitely a good chance of appealing a denial by the trial court and delaying any serving of the sentence.

Lying on a jury questionnaire is not sufficient for a new trial, there has to be a showing of actual bias, and that actual bias may be inferred. A showing that this juror had a desire to hurt the defendant and/or help the prosecutor will be sufficient for the grant of a new trial. It seems likely, based on what we have seen, that this conclusion can be rather easily inferred from the juror's social media posts.

 

[TaylorB]

I disagree I think there is a good chance for overturning the conviction. And it is definitely a good chance of appealing a denial by the trial court and delaying any serving of the sentence.

Lying on a jury questionnaire is not sufficient for a new trial, there has to be a showing of actual bias, and that actual bias may be inferred. A showing that this juror had a desire to hurt the defendant and/or help the prosecutor will be sufficient for the grant of a new trial. It seems likely, based on what we have seen, that this conclusion can be rather easily inferred from the juror's social media posts.

The crux of the North case I linked to was that dishonesty on a questionnaire was not per se evidence of actual bias. The DC circuit specifically declined to adopt a test in which actual bias would be inferred by a dishonest response, but rather, there would still have to be a demonstration of actual bias in addition to the dishonest response. Actual bias in this framework is way more than anti-Trump sentiment; it’s usually case-specific and very hard to show if they don’t literally admit to personal bias with respect to the particular case.

As far as I know, we don’t know whether she was dishonest on the written questionnaire anyway. The limited piece of the voir dire transcript seemed to suggest she was less than forthcoming regarding how closely she follows politics, but we dont know whether the written transcript or remaining voir dire questions would help or hurt her credibility. And even if they hurt her credibility on the issue of how closely she follows politics, the DC circuit case law suggests that this alone would not demonstrate bias of the sort that would necessitate a new trial. There were several other cases showing much more clear evidence of dishonesty and much more clear instances of potential bias, and none of those guilty verdicts were disturbed.

Again I’m not saying that’s what the law should be. I’m just saying I skimmed all the post-McDonough cases in the DC circuit and didn’t see any jurisprudential reason to think Jackson or DC appeals will overturn this. Also, the case against Stone with respect to the crimes he was charged with is overwhelming, and is heavily backed up by documentation in the event the live witnesses are less than cooperative, so I still think his best case scenario to avoid significant prison time is a pardon. Is it a fact that his sentence would be suspended during the appeal to DC Circuit?

 

[TaylorB]

I disagree I think there is a good chance for overturning the conviction. And it is definitely a good chance of appealing a denial by the trial court and delaying any serving of the sentence.

Lying on a jury questionnaire is not sufficient for a new trial, there has to be a showing of actual bias, and that actual bias may be inferred. A showing that this juror had a desire to hurt the defendant and/or help the prosecutor will be sufficient for the grant of a new trial. It seems likely, based on what we have seen, that this conclusion can be rather easily inferred from the juror's social media posts.

As far as I know, we don’t know whether she was dishonest on the written questionnaire anyway. The limited piece of the voir dire transcript seemed to suggest she was less than forthcoming regarding how closely she follows politics, but we dont know whether the written transcript or remaining voir dire questions would help or hurt her credibility.

I found a decent blog/article on this topic this morning; it's a mix of fact and opinion, and I'm not familiar with the source at all (I found it on google), but the writer does a better job than I did at laying out the interaction during jury selection. The link cites to the complete jury selection transcript which contains more details about what was said between Hart and Stone's lawyers:

Is there a Stone Jury Scandal? Not So Fast ...

Also, Trump is abusing his power, again.

frenchpress.thedispatch.com

The transcript does more to show the defense attorneys' awareness of her interest in politics, bid for Congress, etc. The comment about "not following too closely" still feels like she was minimizing her interest in politics, possibly to avoid being struck, but Jackson's not likely to find that that comment in and of itself shows "actual bias." There's nothing in the case law that suggests that comment -- by itself but in the context of her social media posts -- warrants a new trial, at least in the DC circuit.

That said, Jonathan Turley's article below makes an interesting point: unless Stone's attorneys were just incompetent and didn't press her on bias (which is still a possibility), it could be that they didn't press her further because she lied on specific parts of the written questionnaire which, if answered truthfully, would have given the defense more reason to try to question her and strike her:

Juror 1261 in Roger Stone’s case: Was justice undone?

There is serious question as to whether the conviction itself should be reevaluated.

thehill.com

If that's the case, while it's still not clear to me why they wouldn't have discovered her social media posts before the trial started, it could be a much closer call for Jackson to grant a new trial, depending on how clear it is the juror lied on the questionnaire, the extent to which it impacted what the defense did with her during jury selection, and the extent to which her specific response itself reveals bias. I think given the way she responded verbally, it's very well possible there's something in the questionnaire the defense is able to harp on. The major hurdle for Stone is really tough DC case law, but it's not insurmountable.

Finally, after Stone was charged and while he was awaiting trial, Judge Jackson found Stone violated 18 USC 115 by posting a picture of her behind cross-hairs; instead of charging him with a new crime, it was considered as a 6-month sentence enhancement under 3C1.1:

2015 Chapter 3

CHAPTER THREE - ADJUSTMENTS PART A - VICTIM-RELATED ADJUSTMENTS Introductory Commentary The following adjustments are included in this Part because they may apply to a wide variety of offenses. Historical Note: Effective November 1, 1987. Amended effective November 1, 1990 (see Appendix C...

www.ussc.gov

If Stone gets a new trial, it's a distinct possibility the government adds a charge under 18 USC 115, which ratchets up his prison exposure by another 6 years, instead of the 6 months if it's treated as an enhancement.

My money is still on the motion for new trial being denied, but the scenario posed by Turley is the 2nd most likely outcome due to the uncertainty of the responses to the written Qs. Scenario 2 would be a win for Trump due to the timeline of Stone's potential cooperation being significantly extended; we wouldn't find out for some time how much of a win it is for Stone.

 

[Nebaghead]

I found a decent blog/article on this topic this morning; it's a mix of fact and opinion, and I'm not familiar with the source at all (I found it on google), but the writer does a better job than I did at laying out the interaction during jury selection. The link cites to the complete jury selection transcript which contains more details about what was said between Hart and Stone's lawyers:

Is there a Stone Jury Scandal? Not So Fast ...

Also, Trump is abusing his power, again.

frenchpress.thedispatch.com

The transcript does more to show the defense attorneys' awareness of her interest in politics, bid for Congress, etc. The comment about "not following too closely" still feels like she was minimizing her interest in politics, possibly to avoid being struck, but Jackson's not likely to find that that comment in and of itself shows "actual bias." There's nothing in the case law that suggests that comment -- by itself but in the context of her social media posts -- warrants a new trial, at least in the DC circuit.

That said, Jonathan Turley's article below makes an interesting point: unless Stone's attorneys were just incompetent and didn't press her on bias (which is still a possibility), it could be that they didn't press her further because she lied on specific parts of the written questionnaire which, if answered truthfully, would have given the defense more reason to try to question her and strike her:

Juror 1261 in Roger Stone’s case: Was justice undone?

There is serious question as to whether the conviction itself should be reevaluated.

thehill.com

If that's the case, while it's still not clear to me why they wouldn't have discovered her social media posts before the trial started, it could be a much closer call for Jackson to grant a new trial, depending on how clear it is the juror lied on the questionnaire, the extent to which it impacted what the defense did with her during jury selection, and the extent to which her specific response itself reveals bias. I think given the way she responded verbally, it's very well possible there's something in the questionnaire the defense is able to harp on. The major hurdle for Stone is really tough DC case law, but it's not insurmountable.

Finally, after Stone was charged and while he was awaiting trial, Judge Jackson found Stone violated 18 USC 115 by posting a picture of her behind cross-hairs; instead of charging him with a new crime, it was considered as a 6-month sentence enhancement under 3C1.1:

2015 Chapter 3

CHAPTER THREE - ADJUSTMENTS PART A - VICTIM-RELATED ADJUSTMENTS Introductory Commentary The following adjustments are included in this Part because they may apply to a wide variety of offenses. Historical Note: Effective November 1, 1987. Amended effective November 1, 1990 (see Appendix C...

www.ussc.gov

If Stone gets a new trial, it's a distinct possibility the government adds a charge under 18 USC 115, which ratchets up his prison exposure by another 6 years, instead of the 6 months if it's treated as an enhancement.

My money is still on the motion for new trial being denied, but the scenario posed by Turley is the 2nd most likely outcome due to the uncertainty of the responses to the written Qs. Scenario 2 would be a win for Trump due to the timeline of Stone's potential cooperation being significantly extended; we wouldn't find out for some time how much of a win it is for Stone.

I'm not sure why he just doesn't get sentenced now and Trump commutes the sentence. Why risk a new trial and the possibility of a new president who won't commute or pardon a sentence. Seems at this point Trump will not let Stone serve anytime. Not like the senate will question anything Trump does so he has no consequences.

 

[coldseat]

I disagree I think there is a good chance for overturning the conviction. And it is definitely a good chance of appealing a denial by the trial court and delaying any serving of the sentence.

Lying on a jury questionnaire is not sufficient for a new trial, there has to be a showing of actual bias, and that actual bias may be inferred. A showing that this juror had a desire to hurt the defendant and/or help the prosecutor will be sufficient for the grant of a new trial. It seems likely, based on what we have seen, that this conclusion can be rather easily inferred from the juror's social media posts.

If those tweets are enough to get a mistrial for Roger Stone, I give up on the American judicial system. There is no way those tweets are sufficient to warrant a mistrial. The judge will never grant that. I'm sure she's just letting them submit their brief for due diligencie and to make sure no other information exist. It will go to sentencing.

 

[TaylorB]

I'm not sure why he just doesn't get sentenced now and Trump commutes the sentence. Why risk a new trial and the possibility of a new president who won't commute or pardon a sentence. Seems at this point Trump will not let Stone serve anytime. Not like the senate will question anything Trump does so he has no consequences.

Very interesting thought. I have to think it's a consideration for Stone.

Imagine having your freedom for the better part of the next decade rest entirely on the whim of Trump. Stone would have to hope that in Trump's own mind, whatever info Stone could give the feds on Trump by cooperating would be worse politically for Trump than the spectacle of the pardon itself.

It's possible Stone's lawyers think -- as I do -- that he's likely not getting a new trial regardless, but filed the motion for new trial anyway because it gives Trump more political cover to pardon Stone. Trump obviously thinks the issue helps him since he's tweeting about it, and we can be sure the twitter bots will explode if Stone's motion is denied.