Stone Tries To Get Judge Booted From Case Because She Mentioned Jurors’ ‘Integrity’

In a last-ditch effort to get a new trial, former President Trump associate Roger Stone filed a motion Friday night to disqualify the federal judge who presided over his case and just sentenced him to more than three years in prison.


This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://talkingpointsmemo.com/?p=1292701
1 Like

Of course Stone and crew are pissed that integrity was present in the juror box.

46 Likes

In other breaking news, Stone is demanding a new trial because Judge Jackson uttered the word, “guilty,” thereby revealing that she is biased against the defense.

60 Likes
  1. Even if Stone and his lawyers HAD any integrity, this POV would be a very, very long shot.
  2. They don’t, of course.
  3. In fact Stone’s entire reputation as a trickster is predicated on his being devoid of integrity, honesty, or the ability to play by anybody else’s rules.
18 Likes

Criminals often don’t like jail. It’s only news now because we live in an Age of Treason.

45 Likes

There is no argument or assertion that this guy will not use to extend his life outside prison. Must be nice knowing that even if his appeals are denied, he has his boss in the Oval who will be more than happy to pardon him. This feels more like a dance routine than a justiciable act.

14 Likes

He needs a good beatdown. Don’t go near my cat is all I can say.

9 Likes

Being judged by a jury of your peers in no way means that those peers are required to share your politics or ideas on how you have already decided you should be judged.

21 Likes

The desperation is palpable.

36 Likes

Ah, Roger…don’t ever change.

Even when you’re somebody’s aged bitch in GenPop.

9 Likes

The jurors who served with integrity under difficult circumstances cared.

He’s trying to make a case out of that statement? How? WTF!?!

10 Likes

Good. God. Almighty! What a sick and twisted person!

8 Likes

This motion stinks of flop sweat…

16 Likes

For now, an independent and for the most part professional, competent and ethical judiciary has proven to be a reasonably reliable backstop against Trump, as have, to a somewhat lesser (and rapidly decreasing) extent, certain branches of the executive branch. But if he wins reelection, and Repubs keep the senate, that’s going to end fairly soon.

I mean, even if Roberts proves to be an occasionally independent and decent swing vote, it won’t matter once RBG and Breyer are gone, and chances are good that at least one of them will be by 2025. And that’s just at the SCOTUS level. What they’ll do at the district and appellate level, I don’t even want to think about. Plus the wholesale destruction of independent executive branch agencies is a given.

I think we can survive Trump and eventually reverse most if not all of his crimes against the country and world if he’s driven out of office, especially if Dems retake the senate. Lots of bad things are going to happen between now and the election, but if Dems are able to take the WH and senate back, chances are we’ll be ok, however damaged. But if not, it’s basically game over, America.

23 Likes

No matter where you stand on any of this, gaslighting the judiciary should be a final straw and the reddest of flags.

Get ready to march.

21 Likes

Yes, but we will be the remainder of my lifetime doing it.

4 Likes

Stone , like Trump, has no idea what “integrity” means.
He must have gone outside his legal team to explain to his self what that strange word means.

7 Likes

Sadly, that’s life. We’re still, for example, cleaning up the mess that was the Civil War and botched Reconstruction, and will be for a very long time. The measure of success can’t be the complete eradication of evil or destruction. It’s always going to be a dialectic.

14 Likes

Yeah, the GOP hates integrity.

5 Likes

I doubt that would help much. We’re basically past the era of mass public protests having a meaningful effect on things. Look at all the anti-Trump protests in the year or two after his election. What good did they do? (If they had a measurable effect on Dems retaking the house, I’d take this back, of course). They only work if enough people take part in them, know about them, and are moved by them, and only the first might still apply. People under the age of 40 just aren’t watching or reading the news much anymore. They’re tuning it out, and not even necessarily intentionally. It’s just not part of their reality the way it was for previous generations. They get their “news” via social media sites, a tiny bite at a time. And protests just don’t have an impact that way. Maybe I’m wrong. But I think new ways of “protesting” and standing up to corruption and autocracy need to be found, that younger people can relate to, take part in, and be moved by. Ideas? I’m not plugged in so I have no idea how to get to them.

4 Likes