Thursday, February 13, 2020

UPDATED: About The Stone Jury

I've been looking around for a good summary of what's been coming out about several members of the Stone jury empaneled by Judge Amy Berman Jackson. A good, brief, but informative post can be found at Zerohedge: Lead Juror In Roger Stone Trial Was Left-Wing Former Political Candidate Who Despises Trump.

Here are a few important points--which you can read more about at the link. Techno-Fog notes that much will center around how the jurors answered the court questionnaire, which asks questions about things like ... political activity (running for office), social media activity, interest in the Russia Hoax (Mueller), etc. At this point we don't know how the jurors--and especially the foreman, Tomeka Hart, a leftwing activist who participated in anti-Trump protests--answered those questions.

However, Mike Cernovich offers what should be highly relevant information:

Meanwhile, Hart - who was a Democratic congressional candidate in Tennessee in 2012 [photo with Donna Brazile at the time], has a Twitter history littered with anti-Trump propaganda and was actively posting on social media during the trial. This, as attorney and journalist @Techno_Fog points out, raises questions over how she responded to the juror questionnaire which asked specific questions regarding social media, the Mueller investigation, and running for public office. 
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. -Daily Caller

In a trial that was strongly focused on Trump, this is important, because Hart's during-the-trial tweets were strongly anti-Trump. A Hart tweet on the day of Stone's guilty verdict also suggests that her political biases played an important role--the tweet is nothing but four emoticons: two red hearts (denoting joy?) and two clenched fists appearing to belong to "people of color." So, political bias and racial bias, all in one tweet. For Hart the verdict seems to have been viewed as a blow against the white GOP Klan presidency klique, as it were.

Am I reading too much into that? Almost certainly not. Three months before the start of the trial Hart tweeted a picture of an African-American woman holding up a T-Shirt with the caption: "Trump And Republicans Are Not Racist". Hart's tweet reads:

Then stop being racists. Co-signing and defending a racist [Trump] and his racist rhetoric makes you racist. Point blank.

Stone is a noted defender of Trump. By Hart's SJW logic Stone is a racist--thus the two person-of-color clenched fist emoticons suggest the verdict being, in her eyes, a victory over racism.

This regarding another juror seems rather remarkable:

Yossi Gestetner
One of the jurors on the Roger Stone show trial is the wife of an official who still works at the DOJ division that took down Stone!
The Oabama-appointed judge Amy Jackson says this is ok!

That juror admitted to negative views of Trump and to "following" the Mueller Witchhunt. Here's what Fox News tells us about that juror and another juror:

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.

Here's what we all know, but concerning which there was a Deep State/MSM conspiracy of silence:

It’s worth noting Robert Mueller knew Russian collusion was a farce when he went after Roger Stone. His goal was to catch Stone in a process crime to feed the media hysteria of a hoax Mueller knew to be untrue. Roger Stone was PERSECUTED. 
It’s Mueller who belongs in prison.

Keep that in mind when you read that Durham, following Horowitz, is focusing on the fact that the FBI--and therefore Mueller--knew NO LATER THAN JANUARY, 2017, that Russian collusion was a HOAX. This dynamic has Team Mueller and the Deep State quaking in their jack boots.

As for what could happen in the Stone case going forward, the same Fox story notes:

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.

Two possible problems that I see with Jackson's reasoning:

It isn't Stone's fault that his lawyers should have caught something that they missed;
At least some of the evidence of bias became clear during the trial itself, via Hart's obsessive tweeting. The Stone lawyers would presumably have been occupied with the trial to be monitoring juror social media accounts.

A motion for a new trial is a steep hill to climb, steeper even than Flynn's motion to withdraw his plea. This could get interesting, especially in light of Barr's forthcoming declassification of Team Mueller FD-302s.

UPDATE 1: This looks very bad to me. Chuck Ross has the scoop at the Daily Caller--Here’s What The Lead Roger Stone Juror Said During Jury Selection:

* A former Democratic congressional candidate revealed Wednesday that she was the foreperson on the jury that convicted Roger Stone. 
* Tomeka Hart said during the jury selection process that she did not “pay that close attention” to developments in the Russia investigation. She also said that Stone’s links to President Donald Trump would “absolutely not” affect her views at trial.  
* But Hart’s social media posts show that she was closely tuned in to the Russia probe and that she considered Trump and his supporters to be racist.  
* She retweeted a post that downplayed conservative concerns about the heavy handed arrest of Stone--a clear indication that she had developed views on the case before she was called to the jury.

Follow the link for lots more details that show she was closely following everything to do with Mueller and was obsessively tweeting about all things anti-Trump and anti-Trump supporters.

UPDATE 2: Undercover Huber has some good additional material on Tomeka Hart's lies:

ROGER STONE JUROR: I don’t watch C-Span.
ALSO ROGER STONE JUROR: I watch C-Span and then tweet politicians about it.
ROGER STONE JUROR: “I don’t pay that close attention” to political developments in the news.
ALSO ROGER STONE JUROR: I watch Meet the Press *re*-runs and CNN in the airport.* 
*(Not even Chuck Todd and Brian Stelter do that)

Undercover Huber also has a long "inside baseball" type thread re Roger Stone:

Some thoughts on Roger Stone
Warning: this won’t be popular with many of my followers, but I’m gonna call balls and strikes anyway


  1. Which is to say that if Barr ever indicts anyone, said anyone better not be tried in DC or Virginia because he is going to walk. And that's even if he confesses and they have him on videotape.

    Today's DOJ finding on the FISA report in the Flynn case doesn't exactly load me with confidence either. So far, Powell has been swinging for the fences--and missing.

    She's maybe got one strike left.

    Sidebar: Am I to take it that AG Barr has no control or input whatsoever into what, at least technically speaking, his underlings are doing? Does the left hand even know what the right hand is doing?

    1. It's frustrating that we're not truly getting a clear account of what happened with Shea and the prosecutors. It sounds like for sure:

      The prosecutors submitted their memo to the court without clearing the specifics with Shea.

      OTOH, it also sounds from other things I've read that Shea discussed sentencing with them and thought there was *general* agreement. So he was double-crossed. These were very experienced prosecutors, so presumably Shea wanted to treat them as professionals, who would stick to a verbal commitment or come back and tell him that they had had second thoughts. That was a mistake--a big mistake. He's the boss and he shoulda told them, Show the memo to me before you file it.

      "DOJ finding on the FISA report"?

      What's that about?

    2. The DOJ finding I got from here:

      2/12, Washington Examiner.

    3. OK, I see what you mean, I think--Barr apparently had to intervene re the Flynn prosecutor asking for prison time after initially suggesting probation. I believe that happened when Liu was still USA in DC. That might explain Trump axing Liu the way he did.

    4. Now I get it--that's what I thought you meant before I was distracted by another story.

      No, that's just the Examiner being really stupid.

      That's NOT DoJ speaking. That's Brandon van Grack, speaking as an AUSA in the District of Columbia. And it's not a "finding" as you say. It's simply an argument that van Grack is presenting to the court. It's his opinion, not DoJ's.

      Margot Cleveland has a very thorough article about that today, which I was planning on writing about briefly, but I'm having to deal with some other matters--weather and such.

    5. " presumably Shea wanted to treat them as professionals, who would stick to a verbal commitment...."

      After 4 years of this crap????
      This is what is soooo disheartening about all this. Why can't team deplorable LEARN.
      Tom S.

    6. Color me stupid on that one. Thanks for the clarification. It's much better the way you describe it.

    7. "I agree" was @Anon

      @Titan: These are the kinds of things that happen after 8 years of Obama staffing the Fed bureaucracy--it's whackamole time, and there simply aren't enough mole hunters. OTOH, Shea should be having a heart to heart with van Grack over that pathetic response. Like, consider other career options.

  2. Damned computer just ate my brilliantly conceived and argued point ... grrrr.

    1. People have said that, but the comments turn up later. Weird.

    2. .. it was on my end, not your blog software. "Bad computer; no cookie."

  3. Perhaps Ms Hart should stand before Congress, make a dramatic speech during which she sheds a tear, and talks about how difficult her decision to convict was. Indeed, it was the most difficult decision of her life but her religion dictated that she must convict. Bias magically disappears and she becomes a celebrity!

  4. Hart has no need to worry, as I write this, Facebook, Twitter, and Google employees are busily scrubbing all evidence from her social media accounts. By tomorrow, the NYTimes will be publishing stories that it is all conspiracy theory that Hart was a vehement Trump hater, and that she actually voted for Trump.

    1. I shouldn't even snigger at that. But internet researchers beat them to it.

  5. My argument is that we don't allow victims, their relatives, or their friends to sit on the jury of the defendant accused of making the victim a victim, because they have biases that will interfere with their objectivity to evaluate evidence, and may "smuggle" info they heard elsewhere into the deliberations, even if it wasn't presented in the court room.

    In the extant case, a juror who is an ardent anti-Trump Russiagate Conspiracy person -- who believes Trump illegitimately stole the election with help from Russia -- feels, in every sense of the word, like a "victim" as much as a person who got mugged is. Their vote was "cancelled out" (stolen) by Trump's campaign's collusion with shadowy Russians who help him win an election they do not believe he could ever win on his own. They feel the election was stolen FROM THEM.

    That's why you can't let anybody on a jury who has strong feelings/beliefs in conspiracies that form the context in which they think the defendant's actions took place, because their biases will alter how much evidence it will take to convince them the defendant is guilty. They lose their ability to objectively analyze the evidence, injecting their out-of court info, conspiracy contexts, and biases into the deliberations, potentially influencing other jurors, and allowing their own prejudices to influence their deliberations.

    Perjury for the juror, mistrial for Stone?

    1. Read the UCHuber update that I just added. I don't always agree with him--and I don't entirely this time--but it's still worth the read.

  6. This case reflects one of the most difficult problems that Barr must eventually address and remedy.

    It is now becoming abundantly clear that the Obama Administration seduced the DOJ/FBI/CIA into becoming de facto criminal enterprises as opposed to functioning as the nation's highest law enforcement institutions. And many subscribe to the "few bad apples" theory and still regard these institutions as substantially law abiding, but that ignores the reality that there were/are hundreds of participants in the various criminal acts, up to and including a coup to remove a duly elected president. This problem is serious, systemic, and persists to this very day.

    In all likelihood, the real housecleaning must wait until after the election, but that comes at a steep price. With each new revelation of extreme malfeasance and criminality by active members of these institutions, the public perception declines evermore. The Overton Window now includes serious discussion of dismantling and remaking these institutions as the only practical remedy.

    Reputations are easily lost and very, very difficult to repair. It will likely take decades for average citizens to view either the FBI or DOJ positively again. God help the next FBI field agent that has to ask a common citizen for help in solving a crime. Today, no sane person would utter a peep in their presence.

    1. I generally agree. However ...

      While I would certainly never downplay the role of the Obama administration in this, the road to where we are stretches way back. I know, because I was there at the beginning that Angelo Codevilla points out. Important read, even if you may not agree with all recommendations:

      The historical perspective is very important for understanding the big picture problems.

    2. I don't necessarily disagree with Unknown above, yet:
      --The public still turns to print and TV media for "news" when they have boatloads of evidence that media serves up propaganda. Media is entertainment, not news.
      --The public thinks schools/education do a poor job of developing basic skills so students are either job-ready or college-ready, yet most parents think their child's school is more than adequate. Meanwhile, schools similarly serve up propaganda.
      --J. Edgar Hoover was corrupt. The FBI has had periods of reform, with improvements in recruitment, training, and discipline. Yet, Deputy Director Mark Felt, during Watergate, used secretive and underhanded (corrupt) techniques that resulted in a serious crisis of confidence in government.
      --Comey and McCabe, essentially, testified that Flynn was set-up under a pretext--that he truthfully answered questions in his WH interview shortly after the inauguration.

      Significant institutional reform may result, or not. It's the humans who occupy positions of trust that matter. Unfortunately, some of them will demonstrate The Peter Principle, and some will be clowns.

      We don't live in a perfect world. We have to do the best we can--and sometimes that's not very good.

  7. Can juror's furious scrubbing of social media as this story broke be used as evidence of her "guilty mind" relative to lying in Voir Dire?

    1. Certainly. It's probative. Same as it can be used as evidence of stupidity. :-)

    2. What was it Dean Wormer said in "Animal House"?

      "Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life, son."

  8. UPDATE:


    I think that game, set, and match point.

    1. To me very curious that this particular person just happened to be in the jury pool, upper levels of said pool, was seated and ended up being foreman. Once again a perfect storm of fortuitous coincidences.
      Would really love to here from some of the other jurors. Think it might have been a bit chilly for a deplorable?
      Tom S.

    2. Epstein didn't kill himself! :-)

    3. Those perfect storms are a perfect b*tch.

  9. The problem is she was a resident of Memphis, but was on a DC jury.

    She reportedly worked for Gates Foundation in DC, but appears to have maintained her residence in Memphis.

    there's something very, very fishy about this.

    MW: is there enough predication for FBI to open an investigation into this juror, and get subpoena to get her social media history, and email and text messages?

    I want to know whether or not she was in communication with prosecutors.

    My hunch is this is going to blow up thermonuclear. This explains the fury of MSM , DEEP STATE, and DEMS demanding Barr resign, commit seppiku on steps of Lincoln Memorial.

    It's all about trying to PREVENT the obviously needed investigation into this juror, the judge, and the prosecutors in the Stone case.

    Remember to "duck and cover" when you see the bright flash.

    1. The residency thing is very interesting. For example, did she vote in both locales?

      Re who would investigate, I simply don't know. Obviously there could conceivably be a number of violations beyond simply lying to the court. For example, it might be possible to frame a civil rights violation. FBI definitely handles civil rights violations, but I don't know how juror misconduct pure and simple is typically handled. It's possible the US Marshall Service would be involved.

    2. I was thinking lying to court is perjury; when it is a Federal Court, it's a federal perjury crime, and this ought to be within FBI jurisdiction.

      Somebody needs to issue a preservation order to her Social media/ISP/phone company, and they need to do it fast.

    3. EZ, it's spelled seppUku.

      How could this crap not be seen as Jury Tampering, albeit of a rather odd sort?
      I'd have thought, that stuff like this would've been old hat to the Outfit.

    4. Yes, it's perjury, but I'm simply not aware of another case in which this--lying during voirdire--became an issue to the level of a criminal investigation. I've done some searching and haven't found FBI involvement and can't recall any off the top of my head. Maybe it's just me.

    5. Mark writes: "The residency thing is very interesting. For example, did she vote in both locales?"

      Oh, count on it. This is a very purposeful and engaged activist.

    6. I'd be a bit surprised if she didn't. It's a type of reparations.

    7. Mr Wauck, here's one example:

    8. I was looking for a federal example, with the FBI involved in investigating the juror. I simply don't know, but may perfectly well be wrong.

    9. @EZ

      Not unless FBI had good cause to believe it was a component of a much larger crime. Unfortunately, as far as the U.S.C. is concerned, that level of perjury is pretty much the federal equivalent of jaywalking. If it was more sternly enforced, there might be fewer people willing to risk it in judicial proceedings. Alas...

  10. MORE:


  11. Just saw Judge Andrew Napolitano on Tucker Carlson railing about this juror. Says there is no way someone like this should have been allowed to be a juror, let alone the foreman.

    Yes, the same Judge Napolitano who for the last 3 years has made a raving anti-Trump fool of himself, has suddenly flipped.

    He even opined that the judge needs to interview this juror in court to determine if she was influenced by her own bias, and whether her bias infected other jurors, before sentencing can take place. He further opined that if the juror lied to the court about her prior knowledge of the case and her political biases, it would be an "automatic vacation of the verdict." She would lose her law license, and she would likely see jail time for perjury, Judge Napolitano added.

    I do not believe in coincidences when it comes to major political issues; the sudden reversal of Judge Napolitano's legal opinions -- which is symmetric with his original switch to being a raving anti-Trumper for the last three years -- comes at a very pivotal moment in the course of the whole Russia Collusion Hoax and Conspiracy to commit a Coup. I do not believe this sudden switch is a coincidence at all.

    It remains to be seen if Napolitano remains consistently on this side of the issues, or whether he will waffle back and forth.

    But if the switch is permanent, it may betoken major events that are about to take place, and the Judge does not want to be on the wrong side when *The Reckoning* happens.

    I had assumed for the last 3 years that he was being blackmailed into being an anti-Trumper legal analyst, but now I am wondering if his 3 year stint supporting the Other Side was voluntary ploy to gain knowledge of what the Anti-Trump Conspiracy was up to.

    In short, was Judge Napolitano an undercover asset -- a mole -- the whole time, and he has finally, at long last, come in from the Cold?

    My head is still spinning in shock...

    1. I saw an article this afternoon quoting him, and was pretty surprised, too.

  12. Here's something that we can all agree on. Obama appointed a lot of hacks to the bench.

    1. Judicial activism. Part of their master plan to "fundamentally transform" America. Amazing how many didn't seem to grasp what the Obama-nation was really saying.

  13. Apologies if I have previously related this story here (I have told it elsewhere over the years).

    I was a student at Columbia Law School in the early 1970s. I took a course in Constitutional Law in the Spring of 1975.

    Professor Herbert Wechsler was 65 years old when I innocently sat down in his classroom. He was at the top of his game. He was “one of the greatest scholars in the history of American legal education.” Acclaimed by his entire world. Standing up there majestically at the lectern above us. Other admiring faculty joined the class to hear the great man speak. Roe v Wade had been recently decided…on the basis of masterful lawyering and prescriptions found nowhere in the actual words of the Constitution. A triumph of 20th century constitutional advocacy. A template for cases to come.

    Wechsler had wavy silver hair. Ruddy cheeks and jowls. A gravelly voice. Appropriately overweight which lent a compelling power and gravitas to his bearing. A three piece dark grey suit with gold watch chain and Phi Beta Kappa key. In an audience of acolytes with no iPhone voice recorders in 1975, Wechsler felt free to openly speak his mind.

    And so he exhorted us credulous students…don’t mind that stupid legislature…The U.S. Congress…elected by small-minded farmers, union members, rednecks, businessmen, and little people…disproportionately empowered by the federal system. In effect, never mind what the Framers’ wrote…Our legislative process…the rightness of our civilization… is paralyzed by democracy…but don’t fear! You…the elite, the up and coming elite…the best of the best…you lawyers…you Columbia lawyers…can make needed change which otherwise would not occur using the power of your intelligence.

    He went on: You can use the court system and sympathetic judges and a malleable Constitution to achieve what we cannot achieve in the legislature. I’m sure a large number of my classmates sitting in the room thirstily drank the kool-aid he was serving. How empowering! Certainly Ruth Bader Ginsburg (on the faculty at the time) did. In all likelihood my classmate Eric Holder was in the room. In all likelihood my classmate Scooter Libby was in the room.

    Wechsler told us in no uncertain terms that the smart people (as measured, I guess by grades and board scores sufficiently high to be admitted to Columbia Law School and its peer schools) should rule the country because we know better. It seemed all innocent and idealistic then.

    No longer.

    1. The 2nd Amendment is looking better all the time.

    2. Color me utterly unsurprised. Smart people can be remarkably stupid. That's what conservatism hopefully limits--the stupidity of smart people. But the progressive movement, stretching back to the late 19th century, put paid to that.

      Another part of making the necessary changes is removing the people who disagree with the really smart people from positions of influence. That's where creative prosecutors come into play. In league with compliant LE.

    3. I think 'political correctness' also makes it very hard to complain about the orthodoxy of the elites...