Kelly and Barr attack Trump

[Dragonlady]

The judge has NOTHING to do with picking jurors. Stone's lawyers knew about the forewoman, her background and her politics aren't some big secret, regardles of how Trump tries to spin this.

If the lawyers for either the prosecution or the defense object to any juror, they simply say are "unacceptable", but Stone's lawyer knew who she was and didn't object. It is only after the fact, that Trump and other attacked this juror as biased.

Again, this is yet another case of this Administration attacking and vilifying a woman of colour who doesn't do the President's bidding.

This is as corrupt as a President can be. Today Barr re-opened General Flynn's case. Flynn plead guilty, and told a judge he was guilty in his elocution. Now Flynn, who plead guilty to perjury is trying to say he wasn't guilty of lying to the FBI.

Trump is angry that his people are going to jail and those who oppose him are getting away with opposing him, and he's trying to let anyone who broke the law helping him, off the hook.

How long to you think the American people will stand for this level of corruption and criminality?

The judge has NOTHING to do with picking jurors.

She's not in the room during jury selection?
She doesn't decide whether a juror is acceptable or not?

Are you sure?

If the lawyers for either the prosecution or the defense object to any juror, they simply say are "unacceptable",

And the judge has to accept or reject their objection.

Actually, I looked it up, and the only thing the judge questions the jury on is their ability to serve, and if they are legally able to serve. Selection is left up to the lawyers.

I checked it out because I was curious.

Jury Selection in Criminal Cases

The trial judge begins voir dire by asking the prospective jurors questions to ensure that are they are legally qualified to serve on a jury and that jury service would not them cause undue hardship. For example, most states allow a student who might miss critical exams, a person who has an upcoming surgery scheduled, or someone who serves as sole caretaker of an ill or elderly family member to be excused from jury service for undue hardship.


Next, the lawyers for each side question the potential jurors about their biases and backgrounds, as well as any pre-existing knowledge they might have about the case. The attorneys can also ask questions designed to uncover characteristics or experiences that might cause potential jurors to favor either the prosecution or the defense. But the lawyers aren’t allowed to ask overly personal questions, and they aren't allowed ask the jurors how they would decide the case in advance.

Actually, I looked it up, and the only thing the judge questions the jury on is their ability to serve, and if they are legally able to serve. Selection is left up to the lawyers.​

In the process known as “striking a jury,” the prosecution and defense take turns arguing their challenges for cause. If the judge grants a challenge, the juror will be struck from the jury panel.

Yes but you would have to establish that such a challenge was made and rejected by the judge to make the statement that the judge had anything to do with this particular jurors selection.

I have seen nothing that even hits that this was the case. Do you have a link?

EVIDENCE: Anti-Stone Juror Lied During Jury Selection, Tweeted About Trump During Trial

Do her lies mean a mistrial?

Do they feed your these whackadoodle sources or do you find them by yourself? I have to admit that this is the first site I've seen labelled "Tin Foil Hat" and one level below "quackery"

National File - Media Bias/Fact Check

Overall, we rate National File an extreme right Tin Foil Hat Conspiracy website based on the promotion of unproven/debunked claims and a Strong Pseudoscience purveyor based on using junk science to support claims.

Her lies? What evidence do you have that she lied? She's run for office as a Democrat. Stone's lawyers knew that. Trump is grasping at straws to discredit Stone's conviction.

But you certainly reveal a lack of knowledge about American jury trials and courts which are all over the media, TV and movies that is utterly astounding for some so political.

 

[FA_Q2]

The judge has NOTHING to do with picking jurors. Stone's lawyers knew about the forewoman, her background and her politics aren't some big secret, regardles of how Trump tries to spin this.

If the lawyers for either the prosecution or the defense object to any juror, they simply say are "unacceptable", but Stone's lawyer knew who she was and didn't object. It is only after the fact, that Trump and other attacked this juror as biased.

Again, this is yet another case of this Administration attacking and vilifying a woman of colour who doesn't do the President's bidding.

This is as corrupt as a President can be. Today Barr re-opened General Flynn's case. Flynn plead guilty, and told a judge he was guilty in his elocution. Now Flynn, who plead guilty to perjury is trying to say he wasn't guilty of lying to the FBI.

Trump is angry that his people are going to jail and those who oppose him are getting away with opposing him, and he's trying to let anyone who broke the law helping him, off the hook.

How long to you think the American people will stand for this level of corruption and criminality?

The judge has NOTHING to do with picking jurors.

She's not in the room during jury selection?
She doesn't decide whether a juror is acceptable or not?

Are you sure?

If the lawyers for either the prosecution or the defense object to any juror, they simply say are "unacceptable",

And the judge has to accept or reject their objection.

Actually, I looked it up, and the only thing the judge questions the jury on is their ability to serve, and if they are legally able to serve. Selection is left up to the lawyers.

I checked it out because I was curious.

Jury Selection in Criminal Cases

The trial judge begins voir dire by asking the prospective jurors questions to ensure that are they are legally qualified to serve on a jury and that jury service would not them cause undue hardship. For example, most states allow a student who might miss critical exams, a person who has an upcoming surgery scheduled, or someone who serves as sole caretaker of an ill or elderly family member to be excused from jury service for undue hardship.


Next, the lawyers for each side question the potential jurors about their biases and backgrounds, as well as any pre-existing knowledge they might have about the case. The attorneys can also ask questions designed to uncover characteristics or experiences that might cause potential jurors to favor either the prosecution or the defense. But the lawyers aren’t allowed to ask overly personal questions, and they aren't allowed ask the jurors how they would decide the case in advance.

Actually, I looked it up, and the only thing the judge questions the jury on is their ability to serve, and if they are legally able to serve. Selection is left up to the lawyers.​

In the process known as “striking a jury,” the prosecution and defense take turns arguing their challenges for cause. If the judge grants a challenge, the juror will be struck from the jury panel.

Yes but you would have to establish that such a challenge was made and rejected by the judge to make the statement that the judge had anything to do with this particular jurors selection.

I have seen nothing that even hits that this was the case. Do you have a link?

EVIDENCE: Anti-Stone Juror Lied During Jury Selection, Tweeted About Trump During Trial

Do her lies mean a mistrial?

Possibly. Not a lawyer so I do not know how much impact lying during the selection process is for a conviction.

It does not support the conclusion that the judge was biased though.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

and today Bill Barr went on TV to complain that Trump's tweets about judges and active court cases is making his job very difficult.

Don't be so gullible. The Barr appearance was an orchestrated dog and pony show. Think about it. If he seriously had those concerns, he would talk to the president, not the public. You far overestimate Barr's honesty and integrity.

And for the love of Jebus, can we get some better interviewers in the media, please? The interviewer should have had the presence of mind to ask Barr why he is expressing these concerns in public instead of to the president. And then not let his slippery ass wriggle out of the question.

 

[Dragonlady]

and today Bill Barr went on TV to complain that Trump's tweets about judges and active court cases is making his job very difficult.

Don't be so gullible. The Barr appearance was an orchestrated dog and pony show. Think about it. If he seriously had those concerns, he would talk to the president, not the public. You far overestimate Barr's honesty and integrity.

I literally laughed out loud when he told that lie that he had reviewed the sentencing recommendation before it was filed, but then the prosecutor changed and filed something completely different than what we discussed. He was shocked, shocked I tell you, that the prosecutor would do such a thing so he immediately started writing the new recommendation and then Trump tweeted and that put him an awkward position. He's not even a good liar. But he should be disbarred for lying to the American people like that.

I worked in laws offices for 30 years. No subordinate would EVER do such a thing. They'd be disbarred. Literally. That's what would happen in any law office in the world. Much less than to do it to the AG. You'd never work again.

So no, I'm not that gullible or naive.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I literally laughed out loud when he told that lie that he had reviewed the sentencing recommendation before it was filed, but then the prosecutor changed and filed something completely different than what we discussed.

Yep, good for you. Obvious, blatant lie.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

and today Bill Barr went on TV to complain that Trump's tweets about judges and active court cases is making his job very difficult.

Don't be so gullible. The Barr appearance was an orchestrated dog and pony show. Think about it. If he seriously had those concerns, he would talk to the president, not the public. You far overestimate Barr's honesty and integrity.

I literally laughed out loud when he told that lie that he had reviewed the sentencing recommendation before it was filed, but then the prosecutor changed and filed something completely different than what we discussed. He was shocked, shocked I tell you, that the prosecutor would do such a thing so he immediately started writing the new recommendation and then Trump tweeted and that put him an awkward position. He's not even a good liar. But he should be disbarred for lying to the American people like that.

I worked in laws offices for 30 years. No subordinate would EVER do such a thing. They'd be disbarred. Literally. That's what would happen in any law office in the world. Much less than to do it to the AG. You'd never work again.

So no, I'm not that gullible or naive.

No subordinate would EVER do such a thing.

You're right, subordinates never do anything that could embarrass their boss.

They'd be disbarred.

You're lying.

That's what would happen in any law office in the world.

The law office you work for doesn't get to disbar you.

You'd never work again.

Yeah, those clowns who resigned will never work again. DURR

So no, I'm not that gullible or naïve.

You're stupid.

 

[bodecea]

and today Bill Barr went on TV to complain that Trump's tweets about judges and active court cases is making his job very difficult.

He didn't "complain" you dishonest tool he made a joke about it...you libs are so untruthful its no wonder you are going to lose in November...

It was a joke? Didn't see him laughing when he said it. But thanks for the gaslighting attempt.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

and today Bill Barr went on TV to complain that Trump's tweets about judges and active court cases is making his job very difficult.

Don't be so gullible. The Barr appearance was an orchestrated dog and pony show. Think about it. If he seriously had those concerns, he would talk to the president, not the public. You far overestimate Barr's honesty and integrity.

I literally laughed out loud when he told that lie that he had reviewed the sentencing recommendation before it was filed, but then the prosecutor changed and filed something completely different than what we discussed. He was shocked, shocked I tell you, that the prosecutor would do such a thing so he immediately started writing the new recommendation and then Trump tweeted and that put him an awkward position. He's not even a good liar. But he should be disbarred for lying to the American people like that.

I worked in laws offices for 30 years. No subordinate would EVER do such a thing. They'd be disbarred. Literally. That's what would happen in any law office in the world. Much less than to do it to the AG. You'd never work again.

So no, I'm not that gullible or naive.

Still waiting for you to Prove that I didnt know judges were appointed for life. Admit your lie you gimpy foreigner

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

and today Bill Barr went on TV to complain that Trump's tweets about judges and active court cases is making his job very difficult.

Don't be so gullible. The Barr appearance was an orchestrated dog and pony show. Think about it. If he seriously had those concerns, he would talk to the president, not the public. You far overestimate Barr's honesty and integrity.

I literally laughed out loud when he told that lie that he had reviewed the sentencing recommendation before it was filed, but then the prosecutor changed and filed something completely different than what we discussed. He was shocked, shocked I tell you, that the prosecutor would do such a thing so he immediately started writing the new recommendation and then Trump tweeted and that put him an awkward position. He's not even a good liar. But he should be disbarred for lying to the American people like that.

I worked in laws offices for 30 years. No subordinate would EVER do such a thing. They'd be disbarred. Literally. That's what would happen in any law office in the world. Much less than to do it to the AG. You'd never work again.

So no, I'm not that gullible or naive.

No subordinate would EVER do such a thing.

You're right, subordinates never do anything that could embarrass their boss.

They'd be disbarred.

You're lying.

That's what would happen in any law office in the world.

The law office you work for doesn't get to disbar you.

You'd never work again.

Yeah, those clowns who resigned will never work again. DURR

So no, I'm not that gullible or naïve.

You're stupid.

No, she has a point. That would constitute prosecutorial misconduct. And yes, a lawyer can be disbarred for it, temporarily or permanently.

 

[bodecea]

Ad so begins Barr's 24 hours of popularity with the moonbats.

Tomorrow, he'll go back to being the worse scourge the AG's office has ever had.

What makes you think that barr would be popular? You stuck in binary thinking?

 

[Rambunctious]

and today Bill Barr went on TV to complain that Trump's tweets about judges and active court cases is making his job very difficult.

He didn't "complain" you dishonest tool he made a joke about it...you libs are so untruthful its no wonder you are going to lose in November...

It was a joke? Didn't see him laughing when he said it. But thanks for the gaslighting attempt.

It was such a stupid comment from Barr that I thought he must have been joking....If it were not for twitter Trump would never have been able to defend himself during the sham impeachment...Barr is dead wrong...and if he can't do his job which is to dig out corruption in the FBI and DOJ then he should step down.....Trump is the president of the United States and I'm growing weary of assholes in the government that refuse to accept that reality....

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If it were not for twitter Trump would never have been able to defend himself during the sham impeachment...

Bullshit. He could hold press briefings and conduct interviews. He could also have testified in the Senate, or behind closed doors. Where do you get this nonsense?

And a relatively small number of people actually are on the child president's Twitter feed. Meaning, the vast majority of people who read his tweets do so on other media, when they are reported. Trump could just say these things himself, on interviews. But he is a lazy coward and can't handle the exposure to things like "questions".

So everything about what you just said is stupid.

 

[Rambunctious]

Bullshit. He could hold press briefings and conduct interviews.

Not with today's American media twisting his words and telling half truth's....He will ride Twitter to another victory and Barr can suck eggs if he doesn't like it....

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Not with today's American media twisting his words and telling half truth's

Bullshit. For one, he literally has a State media channel he can go on. Second, you can't "twist" his words stated on camera any more than you can when they are stated in a tweet.

So, bullshit. The president is simply a coward and a pussy.

 

[Rambunctious]

And a relatively small number of people actually are on the child president's Twitter feed

Relatively small number of people?...then why are you and Barr so worried about it?.....if its so bad for Trump to tweet then you should be happy he is doing it...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

if its bad for Trump to tweet you should be happy he is doing it...

That makes no sense on any level. You are getting desperate.

 

[Rambunctious]

So, bullshit. The president is simply a coward and a pussy.

If he is such a coward then what does it say that he is rising in the poles not shrinking?...

 

[Rambunctious]

if its bad for Trump to tweet you should be happy he is doing it...

That makes no sense on any level. You are getting desperate.

Read it slower dummy....if you a Trump hater thinks it hurts Trump to tweet why aren't you in support of him doing it?...

 

[Rambunctious]

Truth is it doesn't hurt Trump to tweet and it helps Trump when jackasses rail against his tweets....that's how so many people see them...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If he is such a coward then what does it say that he is rising in the poles not shrinking?...

It certainly doesn't say he is not a coward. But thanks for asking