Jump to content

DOJ Appoints Robert Mueller as Special Counsel - Jerome Corsi Rejects Plea Deal


Recommended Posts

So much of the Resistance-created drama of the last three years, whether Russiagate, impeachment, DOJ revolt, etc.......

 

is about them pushing their strongly held view that political oversight of the administrative state is evil.

 

It is in fact a Constitutional imperative in our Republic.

 

 

 

 

  • Like (+1) 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Politico article from November:

</snip>

And that first juror was an only-in-Washington 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 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 Jackson denied a request from Stone’s lawyers to strike the woman as a potential juror.

</snip>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

Politico article from November:

</snip>

And that first juror was an only-in-Washington 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 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 Jackson denied a request from Stone’s lawyers to strike the woman as a potential juror.

</snip>

 

Oof. If that's accurate, how do you even begin to call that a "fair and impartial jury of peers"

 

 

 

The problem with this development is that people are inevitably going to wrap it in partisanship (see our wonderful resident idiot in his thread based on this) when in reality, it doesn't matter whether stone was guilty or not. If the trail wasn't fair, there either has to be a reversal of the ruling, or a re-trial. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, whatdrought said:

The problem with this development is that people are inevitably going to wrap it in partisanship (see our wonderful resident idiot in his thread based on this) when in reality, it doesn't matter whether stone was guilty or not. If the trail wasn't fair, there either has to be a reversal of the ruling, or a re-trial. 

 

I just hope that juror doesn't commit Arkancide!

 

Meanwhile, I have to appreciate the pace at which the Dems are destroying their party. Imagine how much work it took get that person as the jury foreperson.

 

 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...