Jury Foreperson's Anti-Trump Soc. Media Posts Surface In R.Stone Case

catkinZ8a

Published 23 hours agoLast Update 19 hours ago

Roger Stone jury foreperson's anti-Trump social media posts surface after she defends DOJ prosecutors

By Gregg Re


Former Memphis City Schools Board President Tomeka Hart revealed Wednesday that she was the foreperson of the jury that convicted former Trump adviser Roger 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.


Hart even posted specifically about the Stone case before she was selected to sit on the jury, as she retweeted an argument mocking those who considered Stone's dramatic arrest in a predawn raid by a federal tactical team to be excessive force. She also suggested President Trump and his supporters are racist and praised the investigation conducted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, which ultimately led to Stone's prosecution.


Meanwhile, it emerged that U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson had denied a defense request to strike a potential juror who was Obama-era press official with admitted anti-Trump views -- and whose husband worked at the same Justice Department division that handled the probe leading to Stone's arrest. And, another Stone juror, Seth Cousins, donated to former Democratic presidential candidate Beto O'Rourke and other progressive causes, federal election records reviewed by Fox News show.


The revelations came as Trump has called the handling of Stone's prosecution "ridiculous" and a demonstrably unfair "insult to our country." They raised the prospect that Stone's team could again seek a new trial, especially if Hart provided inaccurate responses under oath on her pretrial questionnaires concerning social media activity.


The drama began when Hart confirmed to CNN and other media organizations Wednesday that she had written a Facebook post supporting the Justice Department prosecutors in the Stone case who abruptly stepped down from their posts on Tuesday, saying she "can't keep quiet any longer." The prosecutors apparently objected after senior DOJ officials overrode their recommendation to Jackson that Stone face up to 9 years in prison.


"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 the post. "It pains me to see the DOJ now interfere with the hard work of the prosecutors. They acted with the utmost intelligence, integrity, and respect for our system of justice."


Hart added: "As foreperson [of the jury], 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."


Independent journalist Mike Cernovich, not CNN, then first reported that a slew of Hart's other publicly available Twitter and Facebook posts readily suggested a strong political bias. Some of Hart's posts were written as Stone's trial was in progress.


Hart, who unsuccessfully ran for Congress as a Democrat in 2012, quoted someone in an August 2017 tweet referring to Trump as a member of the KKK.


In January 2019, she retweeted a post by pundit Bakari Sellers, who noted that "Roger Stone has y'all talking about reviewing use of force guidelines," before suggesting that racism was the reason for all the attention Stone's arrest had received from conservatives.


In August 2019, Hart called all Trump supporters "racist."


"Gotta love it!" Hart wrote on Jan. 13, 2018, in response to a news report that a vulgarity had been projected onto the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C.


A week later, on Jan. 21, 2018, she shared an opinion piece entitled, "What’s so extremely, uniquely wrong about Trump’s presidency."


On March 24, 2019, Hart shared a Facebook post saying that Republicans who complained about Mueller's probe were deliberately "ignoring the numerous indictments, guilty pleas, and convictions of people in 45’s inner-circle," referring to Trump.


Most of Hart's posts were from before she was selected to sit on the Stone jury late 2019. But, on Nov. 15, 2019 -- the day she voted to convict Stone on seven counts of obstruction, witness tampering and making false statements to Congress -- Hart tweeted two "heart" emojis, followed by two pump-fist emojis.


(None of Stone's charges accused him of engaging in a criminal conspiracy with Russia or any other actors concerning election interference; instead, his offenses related to his statements concerning his contacts with WikiLeaks and others.)


Hart's tweet linked to a Facebook post that has since been taken down from public view.

If Hart have provided misleading answers on her jury form concerning her political or social media activity, her views on Trump and the Russia probe, or other related matters, there could be grounds for Stone's team to seek a new trial, legal experts told Fox News.


FLASHBACK: FORMER FBI DIRECTOR MCCABE ADMITS LYING TO INVESTIGATORS, STILL NO CHARGES


Hart did not immediately respond to Fox News' request for comment. The Memphis Commercial Appeal noted that she was a native of the city and had served a term as the president of its school board.


Hart's posts surfaced the same day that Jackson, who oversaw the Stone case, unsealed her order from earlier this month denying Stone's request for a new trial.


Stone's team argued that an unnamed juror had misled the court concerning his or her exposure to the media during the case, and also had some potential bias because of his or her work with the IRS, which sometimes has interfaced with the DOJ on criminal matters.


But, Jackson shot down the motion for a new trial, saying the juror's potential bias was not demonstrated -- and even if it were, it wasn't significant enough to warrant the drastic step of calling for a new trial.


Courts allow for a new trial, Jackson noted, when "a serious miscarriage of justice may have occured." Bias is a permissible reason to remove a juror or call for a new trial only in "extreme situations where the relationship between a prospective juror and some aspect of the litigation is such that it is highly unlikely that the average person could remain impartial in his deliberations under the circumstances."


Jackson, who was appointed to the bench by President Barack Obama, also took a shot at Stone's team for failing to uncover the information sooner.


"The defense could have easily conducted the same Internet search included in the instant motion and could have raised concerns at that time," Jackson wrote.


Fox News reported earlier Tuesday that top brass at the DOJ were "shocked" that prosecutors handling the Stone case had recommended Monday night that Jackson sentence the 67-year-old Stone to between 87 and 108 months in prison. The prosecutors asserted in the Monday filing that Stone's conduct post-indictment -- including violating the judge's social media gag orders -- merited a sentence much longer than the 15 to 21 months that the defense said was actually advisable under the federal sentencing guidelines.


https://www.foxnews.com/politics/roger-stone-juror-justice-department-anti-trump-social-media

SaveComment46Like
Comments (46)
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
catkinZ8a

Here's BIASED jury foreperson on Roger Stone case with Dem operative Donna Brazile.


Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
catkinZ8a


Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
catkinZ8a


Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
catkinZ8a


Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
catkinZ8a

Meanwhile, it emerged that U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson had denied a defense request to strike a potential juror on the case, who was an Obama-era press official with admitted anti-Trump views.

That juror's husband worked at the same Justice Department division that handled the probe leading to Stone's prosecution.

Another Stone juror, Seth Cousins, donated to former Democratic presidential candidate Beto O'Rourke and other progressive causes, federal election records reviewed by Fox News show.

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

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Chi

Guess his lawyers didn't do a very good job if a basic internet search would have found that out. Unless she outright lied about her experiences/opinions, then it's 100% on them.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
nancy_in_venice_ca Sunset 24 z10

Independent journalist Mike Cernovich


The Pizzagate guy!

5 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
miss lindsey (stillmissesSophie,chase,others)(8a)

I thought Donald Trump was exonerated by the Mueller Report?

I thought he had no knowledge of anything anyone was doing on his behalf?

So why would her opinion about Donald Trump matter in Roger Stone's trial? Donald Trump isn't on trial there and according to him, he had nothing to do with anything anyone did.

Show me some pre-trial messages that say "Roger Stone is guilty" and I'll agree that she was biased. Until then, I'll think that like everyone else in this country she has an opinion about Donald Trump, she has the right to express it, and that doesn't translate automatically into an opinion about the guilt of Roger Stone.

8 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Nana H

Well if I was Stone I would be demanding a retrial baed on the incompetence of my legal team! Could you imagine a defense team not vetting jurors in such a high profile case, especially one involving Trump ? Neither can I....

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Stan Areted

Legal team?

The juror/foreman should be brought forth for not disclosing, you are asked as a juror in several instances if you have prejudices, or specific prejudices, etc. in different ways, about the defendant.

A legal team usually does not have the resources or the responsibility to do a background check on potential jurors. They can, some do and no one should HAVE to!

THIS was NOT the responsibility of the legal team--this JUROR is responsible, and voir dire should have brought this out.

The judge also asks questions at voir dire.

This is inexcusable and he certainly should be able to get a new trial.

This should not happen, but liberalism will not hold people to the same standards because, well, race and votes.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Nana H

Nonsense , legal teams do research all the time . They regularly higher specialist to assist in the selection especially in a high profile case. if this "reporter" could find this material any two bit lawyer could. They absolutely have the responsibility of ensuring the selection of a jury that they feel is most sympathetic to their client.

Besides which they also are the ones asking the questions. You have no idea what they asked her or how she responded.

ETA This is nothing more than Trump setting this up for his buddie's pardon and it's working. Funnily enough though he doesn't have to . His supporters would be happy with the pardon no matter what. It's Trump and his supporters not holding everyone to the same legal standards...not liberals.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Stan Areted

NANA H

Nonsense , legal teams do research all the time . They kregularly higher specialist to assist in the selection especially in a high profile case. if this "reporter" could find this material any two bit lawyer could. They absolutely have the responsibility of ensuring the selection of a jury that they feel is most sympathetic to their client.

Besides which they also are the ones asking the questions. You have no idea what they asked her or how she responded.


Stan Areted:

A legal team usually does not have the resources or the responsibility to do a background check on potential jurors. They can, some do and no one should HAVE to!


It is not a "legal team's" responsibiity to scour social media on every prospective or seated juror.

They should if they can afford it, but it was the responsibiity of this JUROR FIRST to disclose her prejudices, they have opportunities--more than one--to do that.

I see in the post above that if they don't find out it's their fault is an apparenty acceptable position too bad they did not find out the jurors were liars.

Jurors are to take an oath, and do before deliberations, to be fair and impartial, and are asked if anything they know, feel, have said or done will prevent them from doing so. There is enough evidence that we already know that certainly this juror, much less a foreman, forewoman, would have recused herself from consideration.

It's good to know there are people that think it's okay to "get by" with something like this because the "legal team" didn't do due diligence.

But, that's how the democrats and liberals tend to do things.




Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Nana H

We have no idea that anyone " got by" with anything. The juror disclosed her political affiation and said she was able to separate her political views from the case. evidence. Of course the arm chair quarterbacks can' t accept that. Maybe because they are incapable of it themselves.

Let' s see if there is a legal challenge. If it is so obvious there was a corrupt juror I' m sure that will happen.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Stan Areted

Time will tell, I agree.

One thing for sure, there certainly is no shortage of "armchair quarterbacks."

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Nana H

As one would expect on a forum like this.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
paprikash

Thought I heard this morning that in a federal case the judge questions and selects the jury not the lawyers. If so, i think the judge involved may also be a problem. Looks like Stone got shafted which, since he’s a Republican and Trump supporter, will be fine with the democrats.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Nana H

I did some looking into the process and in federal courts both the defense and the prosecution submit written question to the judge who over sees the creation of the questionnaire. The defense has the right to chalenge or dismiss any juror based on reasonable grounds.

From the attached article.......


"Defense attorneys and prosecutors submit questions to the judge, who creates a questionnaire for jurors designed to suss out aspects of their background, information diet, and views related to the case at hand.

“The whole process is designed to flag potential bias,” Timothy Heaphy, a former U.S. Attorney who is now general counsel for the University of Virginia, told TPM.

This occurred in the Stone case. Defense attorneys were also granted peremptory strikes, which allows jurors to be stricken for any permissible reason."

"The process, rather, is designed to remove those who cannot fairly judge evidence and make decisions on the law before them.

In the Stone case, his defense attorneys reportedly interviewed several of the jurors during selection, and submitted interrogatories for the jury questionnaire.

“They should have had ample opportunity to ferret out any bias and remove a juror,” said Bennett.

His attorneys could have appealed any ruling made by the judge at that stage of the case, but there’s no evidence that they did so. Once the jury pool was finalized, that was Stone’s last opportunity to contest issues like the composition of those set to judge him."


https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/all-the-ways-trump-is-dead-wrong-about-juror-bias-in-roger-stone-case

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
catspa_zone9sunset14
  1. Lawyers still have challenges, etc. in federal criminal trials, even if it's the judge doing the questioning. source

    Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure

Rule 24. Trial Jurors

(a) Examination.

(1) In General. The court may examine prospective jurors or may permit the attorneys for the parties to do so.

(2) Court Examination. If the court examines the jurors, it must permit the attorneys for the parties to:

(A) ask further questions that the court considers proper; or

(B) submit further questions that the court may ask if it considers them proper.

(b) Peremptory Challenges. Each side is entitled to the number of peremptory challenges to prospective jurors specified below. The court may allow additional peremptory challenges to multiple defendants, and may allow the defendants to exercise those challenges separately or jointly.

(1) Capital Case. Each side has 20 peremptory challenges when the government seeks the death penalty.

(2) Other Felony Case. The government has 6 peremptory challenges and the defendant or defendants jointly have 10 peremptory challenges when the defendant is charged with a crime punishable by imprisonment of more than one year.

(3) Misdemeanor Case. Each side has 3 peremptory challenges when the defendant is charged with a crime punishable by fine, imprisonment of one year or less, or both.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
paprikash

Also heard, Judge Amy Berman Jackson may not be as impartial as she should be.

eta But, I am sure that will be okay with the dems, too

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Nana H

Of course you did.....want to share where and what facts were presented ?

I doubt that jury rigging and corrupt judges are OK with any Democrat or liberal. However, they do require facts befire making such accusationa which is how it should be.

Edited

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Chi

I don't see any reference or evidence that she lied. That would be a problem, but all I'm seeing are assumptions.

Everyone has opinions and bias, but I'm sure we all believe we can put it aside and do the job. I've seen much stronger opinions here on HT than what this woman said.

I'm curious if the people here who think she should have recused herself would have recused themselves too for their prejudices in her position.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Nana H

Barr said he was happy with the Stone trial AND the verdict but not the sentence. I' ll see if I can find the exact words

Edited

From the actual transcript...

"What happened, sir, and what was your role?

BARR: Well, as you know, the Stone case was prosecuted while I was attorney general. And I supported it. I think it was established, he was convicted of obstructing Congress and witness tampering. And I thought that was a righteous prosecution. And I was happy that he was convicted."

Who you going to believe Barr or some rw blogger?

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Stan Areted

ABSOLUTELY!

This was a particular case this woman commented on herself, publicly.

ABSOLUTELY.

If I knew I could not and/or would not be fair, I would tell the judge and both parties that at voir dire.

There are those of us that put integrity above one's personal feelings, as judges should and most of the time, do.

I find the liberal mindset more often succumbs to their emotions and need for vengeance.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Chi

"If I knew I could not and/or would not be fair, I would tell the judge and both parties that at voir dire."

Ah but the difference here is you say *if* you couldn't be fair you would tell the judge. But with her, you're saying she should have recused herself. Why can't she have the same "if*?

By the standard the right has for her, every single one of us should have stood up and announced that we are too prejudiced for this trial. Most of us have commented on Stone here on HT and all of us have made comments about Trump.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lurker111

The crats can't be trusted to evaluate evidence. We witnessed it first hand in the bogus Impeachment hearings. The crats hear one word and run with their imagination. They even run with words that were never said. "Us" magically turned into "me".

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
miss lindsey (stillmissesSophie,chase,others)(8a)

What did she say about the *trial*?

I see a tweet commenting on the double standard of people complaining about the nature of his *arrest*.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Nana H

Barr's comments about it being a righteous prosecution and that he was happy that he was convicted is going to make Trump' s pardon look very bad.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
vgkg (Va Z-7)

^^^The crats can't be trusted to evaluate evidence.

Is Barr a crat?........ "I think it was established, he was convicted of obstructing Congress and witness tampering. And I thought that was a righteous prosecution. And I was happy that he was convicted."

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
dublinbay z6 (KS)

Here is a post I posted on another thread--perhaps more appropriate here, however.

-------

"Back to the juror issue--

Why do some posters believe political affiliation is damaging to the juror system (or a federal investigation, etc.) if the juror or investigator is a Democrat, but no one ever brings up or objects to the juror or investigator being Republican?

Am I supposed to believe that only Democrats are biased (part of the the "swamp") and that Republicans/Trumpsters are totally unbiased and their objectivity is not to be questioned at all? Pro-Trump people are objective? Pro-Biden people are biased?

Or are you saying that anyone who has any partisan leaning (left or right) should be considered incapable of objectivity and thus automatically disqualified for jury duty ( or fed. investigations, etc.)? Check voter registrations and throw out everyone who has a political preference?

I'll bet we would get a lot of potential jurors registering for a political party if that were a bar to serving on a jury."

Kate

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lurker111

Is Barr a crat?

Was I talking about Barr?

You did raise an interesting question...

Is Barr a crat?

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
bleusblue2

I suppose the next thing to do is to examine ALL of the jurors' social media posts. If any of them wrote pro-Stone or pro-Trump they would be considered biased. In any case, I have no problem with a retrial if it's found necessary because of juror bias. I do NOT think that being antiTrump or proTrump per se is proof of inability to make a fair judgement in an individual trial. Isn't it up to the lawyers to make those decisions? And I'm sure lawyers try to get jurors who are more liable to see the client's side even as they claim to be unbiased.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Chi

I think it would be very difficult in today's political climate to find someone who doesn't have strong political views one way or another.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
vgkg (Va Z-7)

You did raise an interesting question...

Is Barr a crat?

A conspiracy wrapped in a conspiracy eh' lurker?

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
patriciae_gw(07)

I keep wondering what Trump has to do with this.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
soupgirl53

Nothing but that would be using logic. You cannot let logic get in the way of right wing outrage! The only fair jurors would be Trump supporters.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ziemia(6a)

Good golly --- so many Americans have such strong views on Trump ---- finding someone unfit for Stone's jury because of their view on the president means most would not qualify. It's coming from folks like Cernovich.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Izzy Mn(4)

I suppose they only wanted Trump minions/supporters on the jury. I think it would be difficult to find a whole jury that is neutral on Trump and his minions. I'm sure they asked if she could be impartial and make a decision based solely on evidence presented.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Wants to Grow

Hi wants to grow, mind popping over to the thread about roger stones jury foreperson and repeating this: “ These crimes had nothing to do with President Trump.”

TIA

Hi miss lindsey, I stand by my post on the "More people of integrity leave in the face of Trump corruption" thread, where another poster made a misrepresentation about the nature of Stone's crimes.

Now that I'm here, I see prime examples of the two-tiered justice system we have between Democrats and Republicans. Roger Stone gets hauled off after a show of force and recommended for a 9 year sentence, while Clapper, Brennan, Comey and McCabe, who also lied to congress, get book deals and become fake news contributors on cable TV.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Kathy

Stone has asked for a retrial. I guess he didn’t trust DJT to pardon him. Who will even want to prosecute him now? They will have Trump and Barr on their back.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lurker111

Here's BIASED jury foreperson on Roger Stone case with Dem operative Donna Brazile.

Figures. A picture is worth a thousand words.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
miss lindsey (stillmissesSophie,chase,others)(8a)

Hi miss lindsey, I stand by my post on the "More people of integrity leave in the face of Trump corruption" thread, where another poster made a misrepresentation about the nature of Stone's crimes.

Now that I'm here, I see prime examples of the two-tiered justice system we have between Democrats and Republicans.

———

Be that as it may, the salient point as I see it is the fairly common Trump supporter opinion that these crimes had nothing to do with President Trump. If so, the jury forewoman’s opinion of him should be irrelevant.

Yet here we see so many people saying that she must be biased in this case because she doesn’t like Trump.

It’s curious.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
ubro(2a)

Yet here we see so many people saying that she must be biased in this case because she doesn’t like Trump.

It is because there is a need to defend Trump's view that the AG should decrease Roger Stone's sentence. They cannot support any negativity towards Trump so they need to find a way to make his words valid in their minds. If they cannot they will have to admit that Trump is wrong and that they will not do.

So smear the jury!!!!!!!!! cause then Trump's interference is vindicated and just.

ETA

I wonder how many of the jury are pro Trump, should they be removed as well?


Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
ubro(2a)

Here's BIASED jury foreperson on Roger Stone case with Dem operative Donna Brazile.

Figures. A picture is worth a thousand words.

And? A good lawyer when making jury selections would know this, they do look at FB and social media etc. to gauge the person. So it is entirely possible that Stone's lawyers gave her a pass hoping for this very smear campaign afterwards giving Stone a reason to claim bias. I highly doubt a good lawyer would have missed something like this.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
bob_cville

So..... If a juror who expresses opinions in some public forum that may indicate a bias concerning the defendant is a major serious problem. But a group of Senators who are effectively serving as jurors, who openly declare that they will be working in lockstep with the defendant's legal team is nothing to be concerned about.

Got it. More Republican pretzel logic at work.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
nancy_in_venice_ca Sunset 24 z10

Roger Stone gets hauled off after a show of force and recommended for a 9 year sentence, while Clapper, Brennan, Comey and McCabe, who also lied to congress

Stone *repeatedly* lied to Congress, and had additional charges of obstruction of proceeding and witness tampering. See charges beginning on page 21 of the linked indictment. https://www.justice.gov/file/1124706/download

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
lurker111

42 years for your "future president" lol

Save    
Browse Gardening and Landscaping Stories on Houzz See all Stories
The Polite House The Polite House: On ‘No Shoes’ Rules and Breaking Up With Contractors
Emily Post’s great-great-granddaughter gives us advice on no-shoes policies and how to graciously decline a contractor’s bid
Full Story
Decorating Guides Design Debate: Is It OK to Hang the TV Over the Fireplace?
In the spirit of the upcoming political debates, we kick off a series of conversations on hotly contested design topics
Full Story
Most Popular Interior Design Trends Expected to Take Hold in 2018
Get the lowdown on the colors, materials and other design decisions gaining steam now
Full Story