Yeah I'm not sure on that. They both are being reassigned back to the Army, and Alexander will go to the Pentagon. I'm not sure if the Pentagon will be where his brother gets reassigned. But they will be hard pressed to get promotions or desired assignments while Trump is in office. You can be assured of that. I believe promotions will affect their pensions.
Taken out of context, one of your specialties. The context is for him to have enough sense be still after having a good week or two. Also you repeated the false statement that he fired Vindman. Vindman still has a job. Trump is requesting penalties, which I disapprove of. Your sentence about the four attorneys “would resigned” needs work. One resigned, the other three, at last report, left the case.
Imposing my own context? I can't do that, but you can cherry pick what I said to make my post have an opposite meaning.
. Politics in the DOJ and on the judiciary goes both ways.
It's going to be pretty hard to find a juror that didn't publicly express opinions either for or against Trump in 2016 on social media. Also, just because you hate the guy's boss, doesn't mean you can't be impartial for trial.In the end none of this is likely to matter as Stone’s conviction will likely be overturned on appeal. I’ve never seen a trial where a juror (much less the foreman) was publicly expressing hatred toward the defendants employer and allowed to remain on the jury. However, the Obama appointed federal judge for whatever reason allowed it
Stone's attorneys were at jury selection too and were allowed to review and choose the jurors. Why are they allowed to cry foul now?
Firstly, the foreman was a woman, secondly there was a motion filed by Stone's lawyers for a retrial, which was denied by the ruling judge specifically because Stone's lawyers would have been allowed to veto the juror.
It doesn't, Lawpoke was just referring to her as a "he". It was a quick clarification. I don't really care that she's a woman.
Unless, they were trying to game it to where they could get the case overturned on appeal.... Allowing one blatantly biased person could be a strategy. I'd be curious to know if they had used all of their veto's by the time she was selected. If they hadn't then I would say it was a failure by the defense team. If they had, then I might be swayed towards a retrial... though I think Stone would still be convicted.
In the end, it's still only one vote on the jury. The jury unanimously found him guilty. Also, it's not like the defense couldn't have asked her questions about her political leanings or her preconceived opinions of Stone's association with Trump.I would be very surprised if the defense attorneys were aware of everyone's social media posts during selection. To my knowledge the attorneys (either side) don't receive any background information on the jury pool prior to selection. Can't imagine defense attorney being cool with this pic of juror
She disclosed that she had run as a democrat for public office. Also, I don’t think it’s fair to only try and get people who haven’t heard about the crimes of the accused... or even people who have preconceived notions. You just need to have people that will make a tough decision give the presence or lack of evidence in the case. Everyone is going to be biased to some degree.
The problem you have when you try to get people that haven't heard about an issue is that they're usually a)kooks b)ancient or c) have been in a coma. It's not really a trial of your peers when those sorts of folks are presiding over high profile issues. I'd rather have people who value logic, science, and reason over people that simply haven't heard about issues.
I don't know enough about her, I'm not saying that she would be a beneficial juror for him, but I'm not willing to say that she wouldn't uphold justice given supporting evidence.
