Lead Juror In Roger Stone Case Ran For Congress As A Democrat In 2012
By: Chuck Ross
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 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.
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
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.
Sounds like possible grounds for a mistrial.
I would think so....We have a prosecution with an agenda, at least one biased juror and an Obama Judge winging it!
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.
That little fact seems to escape their grasp.
It might qualify as a mistrial because the juror was prejudiced toward the defendant.
There have been mistrials declared for less.
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.
Nope
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?
Maybe they didn't. Doesn't have a thing to do with a possible mistrial.
I am a little curious. Did you intentionally misunderstand what I wrote?
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..
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.
Did the defense attorneys accept her as a juror?
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?
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!
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.
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.
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?
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
They think because they don't like the outcome is reason for a mistrial.
Oh, what I could say on that comment.
2016 comes to mind.
Isn't silly when no one here has said squat about his innocence or guilt?
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.
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.
Not even close to what was meant. Again, putting words into someone's opinion just so you have something to argue.
SMMFH
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.
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.
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.
We've all seen what passes for justice when you have too many Republicans on a jury.
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.
So what?
So, she had an extreme deeply held opinion and knowledge of the case. She should not have been on the jury
And Barr is a known republican donor.
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.
I don't remember Barr being on that jury
Yet he jumped into the fray didn't he.
Were you as critical of Obama's self professed AG toadie ..... wingman Holder?
Irrelevant. The AG didn't find Stone guilty or innocent, the jury did.
And Eric Holder was Obama's Wingman! What does any of that have to do with jury integrity?
Yup, Barr is tRump's consigliere, no doubt about it.
And Barr is trying to intervene for a trump crony.
Amazing you see nothing wrong with this as long as it is your guy.
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.
Apparently right wingnuts believe that only rabid Trump supporters should be allowed to take part in any Trump toady trials.
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....
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
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
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...
So in other words, no proof of any wrong doing, just conjecture.
Whatever he did, he deserves a fair trial - even in progressive America!
He received a fair trial
Yup, as usual.
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
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!
The man is guilty, unbelievable that people can't accept it.
Nothing extreme about the sentencing whatsoever.
"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
Have you ever heard of the concept of contradiction? You cannot be both biased and fair!
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.
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.
So then half the donald judicial appointments cannot be fair. Some are very bias and some even rated terrible by other justices.
The topic is jury integrity, not Judicial appointments
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
Not sure how it works in your country, but in America there is more than 1 member on a jury.
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!
The topic was bias. Why would one bias be ok yet not another....
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?
They are rated by the American Bar Association.
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?
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!
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.
I am going to pull your shtick. Where did I say that?
So says hannity and carlson...so says I....
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.
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.
Why such an inane question?
Here is exactly what you responded to:
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?
Based on????????
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.
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.
[deleted]
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.
You only ever get the answer you want to hear.
uh, huh.
Sure.
Shows what you know [ ....deleted ]
Average time (rounded) served in USA, 2016:
Lying gets you 7-9 only in the wackadoodle world of liberal TDS la-la land.
Nothing extreme about the sentence whatsoever.
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.
Thats nice to know for a second time ..... it just solidifies for me how correct i am on the matter.
Thx!
Don't hold your breath waiting for that to come out ....
Nothing extreme about the sentence whatsoever.
The old shell game, the switcharoo, the redirect and/or just a good old fashioned obfuscation.
Chapter one in the resist movement operating manual
So they should all be 'tRump' judges, whatever that is?
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...
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!
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.
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.
Do you have any proof that she had outside influence during trial? Or just throwing things out there....
Speaking of which...
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
How about her own words?
Try to find any potential juror that has not heard about donald.
Was she tweeting during the trial?
Donald was not on trial
Then this whole point trying to be made is mute?
Did you read the article? There was plenty of "anti" prior to the trial.
And the proper term is "moot"...............You're welcome
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?
You beat me to it. Did she tweet about stone or just donald....
It's quite valid. Everyone from Napolitano to Dershowitz is talking MISTRIAL!
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.
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?
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!
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.
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.
Kat, why don't you just admit that Ms Hart should not have been on that jury?
Then why not blame the stone defence team. Are they not around during jury selection....
I'm putting the blame on the person who accepted jury duty with a political agenda!
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
Sooooo….Questioning procedures and the results based on those questionable procedures, is NOW called …… Biased ?
Hum, interesting idea!
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
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.
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 .”
Nope, just because you don't like the outcome, doesn't mean any laws were broken.
I think we have a mistrial
mis·tri·al
/ˈmisˌtrī(ə)l/
noun
Won't happen, you can cry all you want
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.
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!
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 ......
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.
Yep, I spit my coffee out when I read that myself!
I hear "The Squad" is looking for a 5th member...
[deleted]
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.