Lead Juror In Roger Stone Case Ran For Congress As A Democrat In 2012

  
Via:  Vic Eldred  •  2 months ago  •  142 comments

By:   Chuck Ross

Lead Juror In Roger Stone Case Ran For Congress As A Democrat In 2012
Her Twitter feed shows dozens of references to Trump, many of them links to negative stories about the Republican. In a Twitter post on Aug. 19, 2017, Hart quoted a tweet referring to Trump as the “#KlanPresident,” in an apparent reference to the KKK.

Leave a comment to auto-join group We the People

We the People

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


The foreperson on Roger Stone’s jury ran for Congress as a Democrat in 2012, it was revealed Wednesday. 

Tomeka Hart revealed her role on the jury in a Facebook post defending four prosecutors who quit the Stone case in protest over a revision to the Trump confidante’s recommended prison sentence. 

Hart’s social media activity shows she closely followed the special counsel’s Russia investigation, and frequently posted negative stories about President Donald Trump.


A former Democratic congressional candidate whose social media accounts are replete with criticism of President Donald Trump came forward Wednesday as the foreperson on the jury that convicted longtime GOP operative Roger Stone at a trial in November 2019.

According to multiple news reports, Tomeka Hart revealed her role on the jury in a Facebook post supporting the  four prosecutors who withdrew from the Stone case  Tuesday in protest over a revision in a sentencing recommendation for the GOP operative.

“I have kept my silence for months. Initially, it was for my safety. Then, I decided to remain silent out of fear of politicizing the matter,” Hart wrote on Facebook, adding: “But I can’t keep quiet any longer.”

CNN first  reported  Hart’s post but did not note that she was a Democrat. Commercial Appeal, a news outlet affiliated with USA Today that spoke to Hart,  reported  details of her professional background. Those details match up with the same person who ran for Congress in 2012. A Politico reporter who covered Stone’s trial  identified  Hart as a former congressional candidate.

Hart, who did not respond to The Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment, lost to incumbent Democratic Rep. Steve Cohen in the 2012 primary.

Hart’s social media accounts show she kept a close eye on developments in the special counsel’s investigation.
Her Twitter feed shows  dozens of references  to Trump, many of them links to negative stories about the Republican. In a Twitter post on Aug. 19, 2017, Hart quoted a  tweet  referring to Trump as the “#KlanPresident,” in an apparent reference to the KKK.

She also retweeted a post  from CNN analyst Bakari Sellers criticizing Stone defenders who were upset over the circumstances of his arrest on Jan. 25, 2019. More than a dozen FBI agents raided Stone’s home in South Florida.


Screen-Shot-2020-02-13-at-8.02.06-AM-620

Screen shot of Tomeka Hart’s Twitter feed


Stone, who was indicted Jan. 24, 2019, argued in the lead up to his trial that he would be unable to receive a fair trial in Washington, D.C., due to its left-leaning populace. He was convicted Nov. 15, 2019, on five counts of making false statements to Congress, one obstruction charge, and a witness tampering charge.
“I want to stand up for Aaron Zelinsky, Adam Jed, Michael Marando, and Jonathan Kravis — the prosecutors on the Roger Stone trial,” Hart wrote in her post, referring to the four prosecutors who resigned from the Stone case.

The government lawyers  quit the Stone case after the Justice Department ordered a revision to the U.S. attorney’s office’s recommendation that Stone serve between 87 months and 108 months in prison on false statements and obstruction charges related to the House Intelligence Committee’s Russia investigation.

Trump weighed in Tuesday, and said the recommendation was “disgraceful” and a “miscarriage of justice.”

Soon after, a senior Justice Department official told reporters that  leaders at the agency were “shocked” by the hefty prison recommendation .

Later on Tuesday, after the four prosecutors resigned, the U.S. attorney’s office recommended that Stone receive a prison sentence, but one “far less” than the 87-108 months that was initially proposed.

Prosecutors said in their revised filing that the initial recommendation was “excessive.”

“It pains me to see the DOJ now interfere with the hard work of the prosecutors,” Hart wrote on Facebook. “They acted with the utmost intelligence, integrity, and respect for our system of justice,”

She said the prosecutors did a “masterful job” presenting their case.

“As foreperson, I made sure we went through every element, of every charge, matching the evidence presented in the case that led us to return a conviction of guilty on all 7 counts,” she wrote.


Article is Locked


 

Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
Vic Eldred
1  seeder  Vic Eldred    2 months ago

We have often talked about biased jurors and the current state of the jury pool in DC. This is the case of the Weissmann team prosecuting Roger Stone with attitude!

Tucker Carlson summed it up best last night; Brennan & Clapper as well as other high ranking intelligence officials have all lied. None have been indicted and they never will. Roger Stone ended up with a (hidden) recommended sentence of 9 years for one reason only - he was a supporter of Donald Trump


Rules of civility apply

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2  seeder  Vic Eldred    2 months ago

24683382-7998815-image-m-7_1581578177538
Tomeka Hart revealed on Wednesday that she was foreperson on the Roger Stone jury

Stone supporters were shocked when a review of Hart's social media posts showed that she posted on Twitter mocking Stone's dramatic arrest prior to being seated on the jury, and frequently denounced Trump, including calling the president and his supporters racists. 


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7998815/Tomeka-Hart-Roger-Stone-jury-foreperson-revealed-anti-Trump-activist.html

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1  Texan1211  replied to  Vic Eldred @2    2 months ago

Sounds like possible grounds for a mistrial.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1    2 months ago

I would think so....We have a prosecution with an agenda, at least one biased juror and an Obama Judge winging it!

 
 
 
Ozzwald
2.1.2  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1    2 months ago
Sounds like possible grounds for a mistrial.

Sounds like Stone's defense attorneys failed to properly vet a juror prior to accepting her. 

Why would it qualify as a mistrial?  The defense attorneys accepted her as a juror.

 
 
 
Ender
2.1.3  Ender  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1.2    2 months ago

That little fact seems to escape their grasp.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1.2    2 months ago

It might qualify as a mistrial because the juror was prejudiced toward the defendant.

There have been mistrials declared for less.

 
 
 
lady in black
2.1.5  lady in black  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1    2 months ago

You obviously know nothing about the law.  Just because said juror is a democrat doesn't disqualify her for jury duty.  The defense didn't do their due diligence during voir dire.  

 
 
 
lady in black
2.1.6  lady in black  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.4    2 months ago

Nope

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.7  Texan1211  replied to  lady in black @2.1.5    2 months ago
You obviously know nothing about the law.  Just because said juror is a democrat doesn't disqualify her for jury duty.  

Clearly you misunderstood what I wrote.

I mentioned nothing about her being a Democrat.

I said nothing about disqualifying her because she is a Democrat.

Why don't you argue what I write instead of what you think I wrote?

 The defense didn't do their due diligence during voir dire.  

Maybe they didn't. Doesn't have a thing to do with a possible mistrial.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.8  Texan1211  replied to  lady in black @2.1.5    2 months ago

I am a little curious. Did you intentionally misunderstand what I wrote?

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
2.1.9  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  lady in black @2.1.5    2 months ago
The defense didn't do their due diligence during voir dire.

If someone WANTS to be on a jury there are ways to disguise any bias you may have. Hell, I was selected for jury duty last year in a robbery through intimidation case. I thought it would be a great experience so, on the first day of vetting, I gave all the right answers to the prosecution as to my views. The second day, which I hadn't counted on, wasn't near as much of an experience as I had hoped and I deliberately made some bias statements to get me out of it. I could very well have done what I needed to do to be on that jury but decided against it by simply saying that I thought LEO's were right 95% of the time. Defense dismissed me........for that. But trust me, had I wanted to stay I could have.

And she is a damned lawyer and knows damned well how to twist if she truly wanted 15 minutes of fame to help with a possible future run for office with a conviction. As well as she was the jury foreperson and it is no secret to anyone with a brain that lawyers can twist people into saying/believing what they want you to..

 
 
 
lady in black
2.1.10  lady in black  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @2.1.9    2 months ago

Once again, blame the defense team during voir dire, if they missed the fact that she's an attorney well shame on them, if they knew she's an attorney and seated her anyway too bad.

  

 
 
 
Ozzwald
2.1.11  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.4    2 months ago
It might qualify as a mistrial because the juror was prejudiced toward the defendant.

Did the defense attorneys accept her as a juror?

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.12  Texan1211  replied to  lady in black @2.1.10    2 months ago
Once again, blame the defense team during voir dire, if they missed the fact that she's an attorney well shame on them, if they knew she's an attorney and seated her anyway too bad.

I am almost positive that if a member of the KKK managed to get seated on a jury which convicted a black man, you would be perfectly fine with it because the defense team didn't do its job well enough.

Right?

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.13  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1.11    2 months ago
Did the defense attorneys accept her as a juror?

The answer is rather obvious.

If a member of the KKK got onto a jury which convicted a black man of murder, I am positive you would be okay with that because, after all, his defense team accepted said juror, right?

SMMFH at sheer lunacy!

 
 
 
Tacos!
2.1.14  Tacos!  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1.2    2 months ago
Sounds like Stone's defense attorneys failed to properly vet a juror prior to accepting her. Why would it qualify as a mistrial?

Inaffective Assistance of Counsel could be grounds for a mistrial. Or, if she lied or deliberately hid information relevant to a complete answer to a question in void dire, that also could be grounds for a mistrial.

 
 
 
lady in black
2.1.15  lady in black  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.12    2 months ago

Due to my job, where I work and that the prosecutor was married to someone where I work, which the defense attorney brought out in voir dire, I was excused from jury duty.

I guess you think the defense had their heads in their butts that day.  

So please don't tell me about the juries.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.16  Texan1211  replied to  lady in black @2.1.15    2 months ago

If you can not see the simple point that the juror was prejudiced, then I can't help you.

If a member of the KKK sat on a jury which convicted a black man of murder, would you simply say that the defense had its chance and should have done a better job, so tough cookies for the defendant, right?

 
 
 
lady in black
2.1.17  lady in black  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.16    2 months ago

You obviously don't know the legal community very well, hello, most attorneys know other attorneys, hello, hello, hello. 

Too bad, the juror was seated and he was found guilty, as he is guilty.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.18  Texan1211  replied to  lady in black @2.1.17    2 months ago
You obviously don't know the legal community very well, hello, most attorneys know other attorneys, hello, hello, hello. 
Too bad, the juror was seated and he was found guilty, as he is guilty.  

Perhaps you aren't as well-versed in the law as you would like to believe,

Mistrials:

Reasons for a Mistrial
There are a number of reasons a judge may declare a mistrial, most of which involve a fundamental error in the proceedings that cannot be overcome by special instructions given to the jury. Reasons for a mistrial may include such things as:
Lack of court jurisdiction over the subject
Error in, or unfair, jury selection
Inadmissible evidence being allowed, or presented in opening or closing remarks
Unfair comments made within the jury’s hearing
A deadlocked, or “hung” jury (one of the most common reasons for a mistrial)
Death or long-term illness of a judge, attorney, juror, or even witness
Misconduct by an attorney, or the jury

https://legaldictionary.net/mistrial

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.1.19  Tessylo  replied to  lady in black @2.1.17    2 months ago

They think because they don't like the outcome is reason for a mistrial.  

 
 
 
It Is ME
2.1.20  It Is ME  replied to  Tessylo @2.1.19    2 months ago
They think because they don't like the outcome is reason for a mistrial.  

Oh, what I could say on that comment. jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

2016 comes to mind. jrSmiley_98_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.21  Texan1211  replied to  It Is ME @2.1.20    2 months ago

Isn't silly when no one here has said squat about his innocence or guilt?

 
 
 
Dulay
2.1.22  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.13    2 months ago
The answer is rather obvious.

Actually, it isn't. Each side gets a limited number of dismissals. Stone's lawyers could have used all of their dismissals prior to this juror being chosen. 

If a member of the KKK got onto a jury which convicted a black man of murder, I am positive you would be okay with that because, after all, his defense team accepted said juror, right? SMMFH at sheer lunacy!

Are you claiming that being a Democrat is akin to being a member of the KKK. It sure looks like it. 

It may surprise you that political party affiliation is NOT a cause to dismiss a juror. 

It may also surprise you that political party affiliation does NOT in and of itself connote an inability to be an impartial juror. 

As a funny little side note, Stone's lawyers have already filed a motion for a new trial because one of the jurors is an IRS lawyer. They claimed that the Judge should have disqualified that juror based solely on that fact. The Judge denied the motion. 

So it sure looks like Stone's lawyers vetted the hell out to of the jurors and CHOSE to hang their hats on the IRS lawyer and not the former Democratic candidate. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
2.1.23  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Dulay @2.1.22    2 months ago
Are you claiming that being a Democrat is akin to being a member of the KKK. It sure looks like it.

Not even close to what was meant. Again, putting words into someone's opinion just so you have something to argue. 

SMMFH

 
 
 
bugsy
2.1.24  bugsy  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1.2    2 months ago
Sounds like Stone's defense attorneys failed to properly vet a juror prior to accepting her. 

You failed to mention that much of her anti Trump postings happened DURING the trial, not before. Being a democrat had nothing to do with her being selected for the jury.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
2.1.25  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  lady in black @2.1.5    2 months ago

Hell, if I knew that all I had to say when I got picked for jury service that I was a Democrat, I would have said that.jrSmiley_9_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
It Is ME
2.1.26  It Is ME  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.21    2 months ago
Isn't silly when no one here has said squat about his innocence or guilt?

Trump should just pardon the guy. He wasn't any threat to "Society" for sure.

He was only a "Threat" to "Politicians", and we know what "Politicians" are. jrSmiley_19_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
SteevieGee
2.2  SteevieGee  replied to  Vic Eldred @2    2 months ago

We've all seen what passes for justice when you have too many Republicans on a jury.

 
 
 
bugsy
2.2.1  bugsy  replied to  SteevieGee @2.2    2 months ago

Such as, and how would you know the politics?

This woman came out and told the world who she is and posted anti Trump rants DURING the trial.

 
 
 
Tessylo
3  Tessylo    2 months ago

So what?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @3    2 months ago

So, she had an extreme deeply held opinion and knowledge of the case. She should not have been on the jury

 
 
 
Ender
3.1.1  Ender  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1    2 months ago

And Barr is a known republican donor.

 
 
 
katrix
3.1.2  katrix  replied to  Ender @3.1.1    2 months ago

Shh. Don't point out the abject hypocrisy. Barr has turned the AG - who is supposed to be the country's Attorney General, not the President's toadie - into a purely political office. He is disgusting and anti-American.

 
 
 
Sparty On
3.1.3  Sparty On  replied to  Ender @3.1.1    2 months ago

I don't remember Barr being on that jury

 
 
 
Ender
3.1.4  Ender  replied to  Sparty On @3.1.3    2 months ago

Yet he jumped into the fray didn't he.

 
 
 
Sparty On
3.1.5  Sparty On  replied to  katrix @3.1.2    2 months ago

Were you as critical of Obama's self professed AG toadie ..... wingman Holder?

 
 
 
Sparty On
3.1.6  Sparty On  replied to  Ender @3.1.4    2 months ago

Irrelevant.   The AG didn't find Stone guilty or innocent, the jury did.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.7  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ender @3.1.1    2 months ago

And Eric Holder was Obama's Wingman!   What does any of that have to do with jury integrity?

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.8  Texan1211  replied to  Sparty On @3.1.5    2 months ago
Were you as critical of Obama's self professed AG toadie ..... wingman Holder?

jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

jrSmiley_55_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.1.9  Tessylo  replied to  katrix @3.1.2    2 months ago

Yup, Barr is tRump's consigliere, no doubt about it.  

 
 
 
Ender
3.1.10  Ender  replied to  Sparty On @3.1.6    2 months ago

And Barr is trying to intervene for a trump crony.

Amazing you see nothing wrong with this as long as it is your guy.

 
 
 
Sparty On
3.1.11  Sparty On  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1    2 months ago

Some folks here are talking bias and hypocrisy ...... and in doing so are projecting their own behavior.   Not sure if that is intentional or just plan ignorant.

Jury selection 101, a juror should not have a bias against the party they are judging.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
3.1.12  Ozzwald  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.9    2 months ago
Yup, Barr is tRump's consigliere, no doubt about it.

Apparently right wingnuts believe that only rabid Trump supporters should be allowed to take part in any Trump toady trials.

 
 
 
Ender
3.1.13  Ender  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.7    2 months ago

Did holder jump into the fray of a sentencing of an Obama crony?

So instead of holding them accountable, the response is but, but, but Obama....

 
 
 
Sparty On
3.1.14  Sparty On  replied to  Ender @3.1.10    2 months ago

I'm amazed you seem to be willing to accept the clear bias that is coming out on some of these jurors ..... not surprised you are willing to give them a pass for partisan reasons but still  amazed just the same

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.1.15  XDm9mm  replied to  Ender @3.1.13    2 months ago
Did holder jump into the fray of a sentencing of an Obama crony?

Fuck no.   He simply looked the other way and didn't prosecute.  Hell, he was likely in on any shit they cooked up like Lynch was.

 
 
 
Sparty On
3.1.16  Sparty On  replied to  XDm9mm @3.1.15    2 months ago

Yeah he just had his toadies plead the fifth to protect him and was held in contempt for not releasing  Fat and Furious documents.

You or i did something like that and they would be throwing away the key on our jail cell

 
 
 
Ender
3.1.17  Ender  replied to  Sparty On @3.1.14    2 months ago

I am amazed that some will do anything and jump up and down for a man that flaunted breaking the law just because donald said so.

This is only looking for any excuse to make it seem like the whole trial was unfair, just to get him off. I am surprised the other jurors and not being followed around and looked into...

 
 
 
Ender
3.1.18  Ender  replied to  XDm9mm @3.1.15    2 months ago

So in other words, no proof of any wrong doing, just conjecture.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.19  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ender @3.1.17    2 months ago
for a man that flaunted breaking the law

Whatever he did, he deserves a fair trial - even in progressive America!

 
 
 
lady in black
3.1.20  lady in black  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.19    2 months ago

He received a fair trial

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.1.21  Tessylo  replied to  Ender @3.1.18    2 months ago
'So in other words, no proof of any wrong doing, just conjecture.'

Yup, as usual.  

 
 
 
Sparty On
3.1.22  Sparty On  replied to  Ender @3.1.17    2 months ago

Once again irrelevant ..... as you are WAY OUT in left field and clearly not interested in a rational discussion.  

TDS seems to do that to people these days.

Sad

 
 
 
Sparty On
3.1.23  Sparty On  replied to  lady in black @3.1.20    2 months ago

Considering what is starting to come out about this jury and the clearly extreme sentencing, that is one of the saddest comments i've read on NT in a long time.

I guess everybody gets justice as long as that justice meets your partisan parameters.

Unbelievable!

 
 
 
lady in black
3.1.24  lady in black  replied to  Sparty On @3.1.23    2 months ago

The man is guilty, unbelievable that people can't accept it.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.1.25  Tessylo  replied to  Sparty On @3.1.23    2 months ago

Nothing extreme about the sentencing whatsoever.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.26  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  lady in black @3.1.24    2 months ago

"All civil libertarians who care about non partisan justice should support a new trial for Roger Stone based on this new information about a biased juror. Let’s hear from real, non partisan, civil libertarians."......Alan Dershowitz

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.27  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  lady in black @3.1.20    2 months ago
He received a fair trial

Have you ever heard of the concept of contradiction?  You cannot be both biased and fair!

 
 
 
Ender
3.1.28  Ender  replied to  Sparty On @3.1.22    2 months ago

What is irrelevant is saying this lone juror, obviously approved by the defence team, corrupted the whole process.

Look, normally I would agree with you. People shouldn't have preconceived notions. Yet when we have donald and barr jumping into this, making it political, obviously trying to change the outcome, others points become mute. If she is guilty, so are they.

Somehow I doubt she forced the other jurors to vote guilty.

I bet donald pardons him anyway.

Also, so she posted negative things about donald. So what. Name me one person that hasn't heard of him and/or have an opinion either way.

Are you all digging to see if any republicans were on the jury?

Imo this is grasping at straws. Looking for anything just to be able for donald to say, see they are against me. Unfair, we should let him off.

Then...pardon.

I am sure you all will be jumping for joy then. Even though most of you could care less about the man. Only care because he is a donald crony.

 
 
 
lady in black
3.1.29  lady in black  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.27    2 months ago

You can whine and cry all you want, she was seated on the jury and you can't cry foul because you didn't get the outcome you desired.

 
 
 
Ender
3.1.30  Ender  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.27    2 months ago

So then half the donald judicial appointments cannot be fair. Some are very bias and some even rated terrible by other justices.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.31  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ender @3.1.30    2 months ago

The topic is jury integrity, not Judicial appointments

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.32  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  lady in black @3.1.29    2 months ago
she was seated on the jury and you can't cry foul

It doesn't work that way. It goes right to the heart of Stone's complaint going in. We could just as easily blame the Judge for not granting a change of venue. Iv'e said all along that it was because of these DC juries that the DOJ most likely didn't indict McCabe. Now the entire country is seeing it.

I want to thank Ms Hart for putting it right out there!

Now we shall see what little integrity the judge has

 
 
 
Ozzwald
3.1.33  Ozzwald  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.27    2 months ago

Have you ever heard of the concept of contradiction?  You cannot be both biased and fair!

Not sure how it works in your country, but in America there is more than 1 member on a jury.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.34  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1.33    2 months ago

You may be very surprised, but I think the crazies on the left have done it again! They grabbed the spotlight and put it right on themselves!

Tex called it right away - MISTRIAL!

 
 
 
MUVA
3.1.35  MUVA  replied to  Ender @3.1.30    2 months ago

Name all the unfair justices and the judges that have called them unfair.

 
 
 
Ender
3.1.36  Ender  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.31    2 months ago

The topic was bias. Why would one bias be ok yet not another....

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.37  Texan1211  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.34    2 months ago

What cracks me up the most is that some folks actually seem to think that because a juror is seated, then there can be no mistrial based on any information which comes out about the juror or their actions.
Where do these folks live, anyways, to be so blind to what has happened time and time again?

Can you imagine if a black person was on trial for murder, found guilty, and then later on it comes out that one juror was a member of the KKK?

 
 
 
Ender
3.1.38  Ender  replied to  MUVA @3.1.35    2 months ago

They are rated by the American Bar Association.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.39  Texan1211  replied to  Ender @3.1.38    2 months ago

That ABA rating didn't seem to matter to Democrats during the Kavanaugh hearings.

Or is the rating only good when you like the judge?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.40  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.37    2 months ago
Where do these folks live, anyways, to be so blind to what has happened time and time again?

I suspect they share Ms Hart's view that the end justifies the means. Deep down I think everyone knows it was wrong and violates a defendants rights to a fair trial.

Can you imagine if a black person was on trial for murder, found guilty, and then later on it comes out that one juror was a member of the KKK?

No thinking there - automatic mistrial!

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
3.1.41  Sean Treacy  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.39    2 months ago

That ABA rating didn't seem to matter to Democrats during the Kavanaugh hearing

And the ABA ratings are extremely biased towards Democrats.  A comparison of similarly situated nominees based on experience, education etc.. shows that Democratic nominees with the same qualifications is 15% more likely to be rated highly qualified by the ABA. 

 
 
 
Ender
3.1.42  Ender  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.39    2 months ago

I am going to pull your shtick. Where did I say that?

 
 
 
Ender
3.1.43  Ender  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.40    2 months ago

So says hannity and carlson...so says I....

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
3.1.44  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Ender @3.1.1    2 months ago
And Barr is a known republican donor

And wrote about how his opinion was that the President could not be indicted and pushed for nearly unlimited executive power before he was chosen by Trump to be his AG.

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/william-barrs-troubling-view-presidential-power

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/06/bill-barrs-dangerous-pursuit-executive-power/592951/

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/14/us/politics/william-barr-executive-power.html

But we're supposed to doubt the judgement of this juror because she is a Democrat and tweeted about how she thinks Trump is a racist, which any sane person can see for themselves so it's not like she was a lone voice expressing that opinion. There were far more people expressing her opinion that Trump is a blatant racist than those who agree with Brownnose Barr and his belief in an unchecked unindictable executive.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.45  Texan1211  replied to  Ender @3.1.42    2 months ago
I am going to pull your shtick. Where did I say that?

Why such an inane question?

Here is exactly what you responded to:

That ABA rating didn't seem to matter to Democrats during the Kavanaugh hearings.
Or is the rating only good when you like the judge?

Please do note that no where in that post do I say you stated anything at all.

So why again did you ask such an inane question that has nothing to do with the discussion?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
3.1.46  Ozzwald  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.34    2 months ago

Tex called it right away - MISTRIAL!

Based on????????

 
 
 
Ender
3.1.47  Ender  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.45    2 months ago

You asked if a rating is only good if I like the judge. Nothing I said implied that.

Then try to accuse of asking inane questions? Laughable.

Everyday I see a post from you where you post something just barely enough to state the obvious yet not completely say it. Then post you did not say that and people are saying things you didn't say. It is like a game with you.

Everyday I see the same thing.

You imply something and then say you didn't outright say it.

Someone called you out on it the other day. Implying things and then turn around and say you did not.

 
 
 
Tacos!
3.1.48  Tacos!  replied to  Ender @3.1.4    2 months ago
Yet he jumped into the fray didn't he.

Did he? I haven't seen evidence that Barr himself had anything to do with the review of the sentencing recommendation. There are many layers of supervision in DOJ before you get all the way up to the AG himself.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.49  Texan1211  replied to  Ender @3.1.47    2 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Ender
3.1.50  Ender  replied to  Tacos! @3.1.48    2 months ago

So you think he knew nothing about it? Hell even donald thanked him for taking charge of it.

I would tend to think he knows exactly what is going on in a high profile case.

 
 
 
Ender
3.1.51  Ender  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.49    2 months ago

You only ever get the answer you want to hear.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.52  Texan1211  replied to  Ender @3.1.51    2 months ago

uh, huh.

Sure.

 
 
 
Sparty On
3.1.53  Sparty On  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.25    2 months ago

Shows what you know [ ....deleted ]

Average time (rounded) served in USA, 2016:

  • Rape/Sexual assault - 6 yrs
  • Manslaughter - 5 yrs
  • Robbery - 5 yrs
  • Assault - 3 yrs
  • Other violent crime - 3 yrs

Lying gets you 7-9 only in the wackadoodle world of liberal TDS la-la land.

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/tssp16.pdf

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.1.54  Tessylo  replied to  Sparty On @3.1.53    2 months ago

Nothing extreme about the sentence whatsoever.  

 
 
 
Sparty On
3.1.55  Sparty On  replied to  Ender @3.1.28    2 months ago
Look, normally I would agree with you. People shouldn't have preconceived notions. Yet when we have donald and barr jumping into this, making it political, obviously trying to change the outcome, others points become mute. If she is guilty, so are they.

If this were turned around you probably would be agreeing with me.   You seem to think i'm defending Stone.   I'm not but his treatment was far from fair as i and others here have pointed out multiple time in this article.   The partisans here aren't listening .... i get it and nothing new.

This isn't about partisanship for me and frankly i don't think it is for Barr either.   It's a simple case of the sentence doesn't fit the crime.

Nothing more, nothing less.

 
 
 
Sparty On
3.1.56  Sparty On  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.54    2 months ago
Nothing extreme about the sentence whatsoever.

Thats nice to know for a second time ..... it just solidifies for me how correct i am on the matter.

Thx!

 
 
 
Sparty On
3.1.57  Sparty On  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.32    2 months ago
Now we shall see what little integrity the judge has

Don't hold your breath waiting for that to come out ....

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.1.58  Tessylo  replied to  Sparty On @3.1.56    2 months ago

Nothing extreme about the sentence whatsoever.  

 
 
 
Sparty On
3.1.59  Sparty On  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.45    2 months ago
So why again did you ask such an inane question that has nothing to do with the discussion?

The old shell game, the switcharoo, the redirect and/or just a good old fashioned obfuscation.

Chapter one in the resist movement operating manual

 
 
 
Tessylo
4  Tessylo    2 months ago

So they should all be 'tRump' judges, whatever that is?  

 
 
 
Ender
4.1  Ender  replied to  Tessylo @4    2 months ago

That is what I am getting out of this. All the jurors should have been republicans and voted to acquit him.

It is a sad day when donald tweets about wanting his long time friend to get out of trouble and his followers jump.

Doesn't matter that he broke the law...

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.1.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ender @4.1    2 months ago
All the jurors should have been republicans and voted to acquit him.

How about people do what they are supposed to and not accept Jury duty if they have an opinion on the case. 

BTW this piece of shit was head of the school board in Tennessee!

 
 
 
Ender
4.1.2  Ender  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.1    2 months ago

Are you trying to say no juror ever has an opinion? That is what they are supposed to do...form an opinion..Would you rather a jury pool of brain dead morons...

So this lone woman makes the whole thing unjust and he should be let go...

Uh huh, sure.

I am starting to think one needs to take a break from fox commentary. Broaden horizons instead of only watching trump tv propaganda.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
4.1.3  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Ender @4.1.2    2 months ago
That is what they are supposed to do...form an opinion.

Based solely upon the evidence presented AT trial.......not preconceived notions. Or, did you forget the sequestration process in high profile crime trials with no outside communication/influence? I would posit she went in with extreme bias against anyone or anything to do with Mr. Trump.

 
 
 
Ender
4.1.4  Ender  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @4.1.3    2 months ago

Do you have any proof that she had outside influence during trial? Or just throwing things out there....

 
 
 
Ozzwald
4.1.5  Ozzwald  replied to  Ender @4.1.2    2 months ago
Would you rather a jury pool of brain dead morons...

Speaking of which...

maxresdefault.jpg

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.1.6  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ender @4.1.2    2 months ago
Are you trying to say no juror ever has an opinion? That is what they are supposed to do...form an opinion.

They are not supposed to already have an opinion of the case. They are instructed about that when jury selection begins. As a matter of fact one of the best ways to get out of jury duty is to tell the judge that you have been following the case and have a strong opinion.  I'm sure you know all that.

form an opinion

Which has nothing to do with coming in with an opinion before the case is even heard.


So this lone woman makes the whole thing unjust and he should be let go...

Maybe, that's not my call. But it was clearly wrong for this activist to take a seat on the jury

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.1.7  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ender @4.1.4    2 months ago

How about her own words?

 
 
 
Ender
4.1.8  Ender  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.6    2 months ago

Try to find any potential juror that has not heard about donald.

 
 
 
Ender
4.1.9  Ender  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.7    2 months ago

Was she tweeting during the trial?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.1.10  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ender @4.1.8    2 months ago

Donald was not on trial

 
 
 
Ender
4.1.11  Ender  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.10    2 months ago

Then this whole point trying to be made is mute?

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
4.1.12  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Ender @4.1.9    2 months ago

Did you read the article? There was plenty of "anti" prior to the trial.

And the proper term is "moot"...............You're welcome

 
 
 
Ozzwald
4.1.13  Ozzwald  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @4.1.12    2 months ago
There was plenty of "anti" prior to the trial.

Anti-Trump, or anti-Stone?  Or are you claiming that if a potential juror is anti anyone on the right, they should not be allowed?

 
 
 
Ender
4.1.14  Ender  replied to  Ozzwald @4.1.13    2 months ago

You beat me to it. Did she tweet about stone or just donald....

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.1.15  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ender @4.1.11    2 months ago
Then this whole point trying to be made is mute?

It's quite valid. Everyone from Napolitano to Dershowitz is talking MISTRIAL!

 
 
 
Ender
4.1.16  Ender  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.15    2 months ago

Funny that you all are going to believe Napolitano now, yet didn't when he was saying trump was at fault. Dershowitzis losing it in his old age.

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.17  Texan1211  replied to  Ender @4.1.16    2 months ago
Funny that you all are going to believe Napolitano now, yet didn't when he was saying trump was at fault. 

Is it as funny to you as when Democrats largely jumped on the Napolitano bandwagon when he said Trump deserved to be impeached, and now discount his words because they don't like them?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.1.18  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ender @4.1.16    2 months ago
Funny that you all are going to believe Napolitano now

Believe?  I am only stating his view. Based on what I have seen of this judge, I don't think she has the rectitude to declare a mistrial. And the people will note that too!

 
 
 
Ender
4.1.20  Ender  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.18    2 months ago

There is not going to be a mistrial. Don't tell me, because of this and you all taking 'notes' she will be on donalds hit list.

 
 
 
katrix
4.2  katrix  replied to  Tessylo @4    2 months ago

Of course. Bias is fine by them - just as immorality, lies, and unethical behavior - as long as it's done by their team. It's only bad when the other side does those things.

They have no common decency.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.2.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  katrix @4.2    2 months ago

Kat, why don't you just admit that Ms Hart should not have been on that jury?

 
 
 
Ender
4.2.2  Ender  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.2.1    2 months ago

Then why not blame the stone defence team. Are they not around during jury selection....

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.2.3  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ender @4.2.2    2 months ago
Then why not blame the stone defence team

I'm putting the blame on the person who accepted jury duty with a political agenda!

 
 
 
Ozzwald
4.2.4  Ozzwald  replied to  Ender @4.2.2    2 months ago
Then why not blame the stone defence team. Are they not around during jury selection....

Don't you understand Ender?  Defense attorneys for Trump toadies, SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT to replace any juror that disagrees with those attorneys at any point in the trial.

ab5ede1371f2959cd3a8361f5e4b3e49.jpg

 
 
 
Ender
4.2.5  Ender  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.2.3    2 months ago

So in other words it is all her fault. The shit stone should be cleared, he is innocent and was railroaded....

Not the fault of stone lawyers that they supposedly vetted these people....

Please.

 
 
 
Ender
4.2.6  Ender  replied to  Ozzwald @4.2.4    2 months ago

The lengths some go to just to protect a convicted donald crony is astounding.

Talk about lemmings. He says jump and they find something to hold onto and dangle in the air. After all, he didn't say to come back down.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
4.2.7  Ozzwald  replied to  Ender @4.2.6    2 months ago
He says jump and they find something to hold onto and dangle in the air. After all, he didn't say to come back down.

Apparently they don't believe they can get Pence to obey them well enough, so they are doing everything to protect Trump and move us into a GOP controlled autocracy.

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.2.8  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @4.2.7    2 months ago
Apparently they don't believe they can get Pence to obey them well enough, so they are doing everything to protect Trump and move us into a GOP controlled autocracy.

OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You found us out!! 

You have exposed our little conspiracy for all the world to see!

Whatever shall we do now?

Here's a gold star for you for saving the world!

 
 
 
katrix
4.2.9  katrix  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.2.1    2 months ago
Kat, why don't you just admit that Ms Hart should not have been on that jury?

By your own argument, Barr should not be the AG, because he made his bias very clear from the start. Why don't you just admit that? He is incapable of being impartial.

 
 
 
It Is ME
4.2.10  It Is ME  replied to  katrix @4.2.9    2 months ago
because he made his bias very clear from the start.

Sooooo….Questioning procedures and the results based on those questionable procedures, is NOW called …… Biased ? jrSmiley_97_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.3  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @4    2 months ago
So they should all be 'tRump' judges

Hum, interesting idea!

 
 
 
XDm9mm
4.3.1  XDm9mm  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.3    2 months ago
Hum, interesting idea!

Give the Senate time.   McConnell will get there.

 
 
 
Tessylo
5  Tessylo    2 months ago

9et98rvmk6e41.jpg?width=640&height=563&c

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
6  seeder  Vic Eldred    2 months ago

Just in:

How on earth did the judge—who gagged Roger Stone himself during his trial—allow a Russian collusion hoaxer who ran for Congress as a Democrat, was a practicing attorney, and was posting about Trump during the trial to sit on the jury as its foreman?.....Sean Davis

 
 
 
lady in black
6.1  lady in black  replied to  Vic Eldred @6    2 months ago

Blame it on the defense, they didn't object to her being on the jury, you know that legal thing called voir dire where they can challenge a potential juror.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
7  seeder  Vic Eldred    2 months ago

And this:

Judge Napolitano: Roger Stone should get new trial in light of juror's anti-Trump tweets

Judge Andrew Napolitano said on Thursday that former Trump adviser Roger Stone  deserves a new trial in light of resurfaced  tweets  that indicate partisanship and “inherent bias” from a jury member against Stone.

Former Memphis City Schools Board President Tomeka Hart revealed Wednesday that she was the foreperson of the jury that convicted Stone on obstruction charges last year -- and soon afterward, her history of Democratic activism and a string of her anti-Trump, left-wing social media posts came to light.

“[Stone is] absolutely entitled to a new trial with a member of a jury making these types of revelations about the politics involved in the decisions to prosecute him,” Napolitano told “ Fox & Friends .”


https://www.foxnews.com/media/judge-napolitano-roger-stone-new-trial-juror-tweets.amp

 
 
 
lady in black
7.1  lady in black  replied to  Vic Eldred @7    2 months ago

Nope, just because you don't like the outcome, doesn't mean any laws were broken.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
7.1.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  lady in black @7.1    2 months ago

I think we have a mistrial

mis·tri·al

/ˈmisˌtrī(ə)l/

noun

  • 1.a trial rendered invalid through an error in the proceedings:"the judge dismissed the charge and declared a mistrial"
 
 
 
lady in black
7.1.2  lady in black  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1.1    2 months ago

Won't happen, you can cry all you want

 
 
 
evilgenius
8  evilgenius    2 months ago

Stone is allowed to appeal on anything his lawyers thing are relevant. Of course it won't make any difference when The Teflon Don pardons his little butt buddy. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
9  seeder  Vic Eldred    2 months ago

Stone, who was indicted Jan. 24, 2019, argued in the lead up to his trial that he would be unable to receive a fair trial in Washington, D.C., due to its left-leaning populace. 


And it looks like he was right!

 
 
 
Tessylo
10  Tessylo    2 months ago

86350334_1058299907844269_55581566871577

 
 
 
Sparty On
10.1  Sparty On  replied to  Tessylo @10    2 months ago

The DC US Attorney, Timothy Shea disagrees with Jill Wine Banks ...... whoever the hell she is.  

But hey, she must be smart, she goes with a hyphenated name after all ......

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/doj-walks-back-unduly-high-sentencing-recommendation-for-roger-stone

 
 
 
Tacos!
11  Tacos!    2 months ago
I have kept my silence for months. Initially, it was for my safety.

Her safety? I just eye-rolled so hard, I saw my own brain. Talk about a drama queen. She would have been perfect for Congress.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
11.1  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Tacos! @11    2 months ago

Yep, I spit my coffee out when I read that myself!

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
11.2  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Tacos! @11    2 months ago

I hear "The Squad" is looking for a 5th member...

 
 
 
Tessylo
12  Tessylo    2 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Dragon
13  Dragon    2 months ago

I haven't read through the 100+ comments so don't know if anyone else stated this. Maybe, just maybe, the defense wanted the woman on the jury so Trump could declare is unfair, he is already whining about the conviction and sentencing, and pardon his partner in crime. 

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Trout Giggles
bugsy
loki12
r.t..b...
MUVA
cjcold
Nerm_L
Ozzwald
Jasper2529


54 visitors