When the dam bursts, a lot of water is released. The Roger Stone dam has burst and we have a flood of new information that should absolutely result in a mistrial.
Desperate to find something to hang Trump and justify its existence, the Mueller team had been investigating Roger Stone for some time. Mueller’s crew fabricated all sorts of charges but then limited them to something that sounded vaguely justifiable. With that in hand, on January 25, 2019 Mueller had the FBI conduct a pre-dawn raid to apprehend the dangerous 67 year old in ill health and no criminal record and with a deaf wife, automatic weapons at the ready to shoot and yell “tango down!” should Stone have suddenly reached for a nitroglycerin tab or some Imodium.
Imagine his wife not being able to hear any of this and disobeying a command to hit the floor hands behind her.
Boom
CNN was given prior notice of the raid and had its cameras rolling as the Bin Ladenesque operation unfolded.
Makes you proud of the FBI.
The dam has burst on the Roger Stone jury and it’s inundating everything. Turns out the foreperson in the jury has ax to grind.
A HUGE ax. To make this easily digestible I’ll post the highlights
From the Daily Mail
- Tomeka Hart revealed on Wednesday that she was foreperson on Stone jury
- Hart unsuccessfully ran for Congress in Tennessee as a Democrat in 2012
- She is also a former Memphis City Schools Board President
- Her social media shows a long history of anti-Trump comments
- She called Trump supporters racists and tweeted about Stone case before trial
From Chuck Ross at the Daily Caller
- 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.
There is a terrific thread reader here from Shem Horne on Twitter. A couple of samples
She was also tweeting about Roger Stone’s arrest:
Trump began tweeting about this miscarriage of justice back in November, but it appears that an early Tuesday tweet from Trump that prompted Hart to open her mouth.
But such expectations were challenged by a 1:48 a.m. Tuesday tweet from Donald Trump, who suggested his eccentric ally has been mistreated by the criminal justice system. “This is a horrible and very unfair situation,” the president wrote. “The real crimes were on the other side, as nothing happens to them. Cannot allow this miscarriage of justice!”
Hart went to Facebook to vent her feelings
‘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 said in her Facebook post on Wednesday.
‘But I can’t keep quiet any longer. I want to stand up for Aaron Zelinsky, Adam Jed, Michael Marando, and Jonathan Kravis – the prosecutors on the Roger Stone trial,’ Hart wrote, referring to the prosecutors who resigned in protest.
‘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. For that, I wanted to speak up for them and ask you to join me in thanking them for their service,’ she said.
She outed herself. Thing is, she has been posting out anti-Trump and anti-Stone tweets almost non-stop since 2017, which makes one wonder how she got by this:
How this jury forewoman Tomeka Hart answered THESE TWO PARTICULAR QUESTIONS on the jury pool questionnaire is going to be of intense interest to all real journalists everywhere: pic.twitter.com/QcRwVrXY6g
— Brian Cates – Political Columnist & Pundit (@drawandstrike) February 13, 2020
As noted, this should immediately have disqualified her for the jury. One reason it might have gone unchallenged is Judge Amy Berman Jackson.
You have to hand it to Donald Trump. Trump had the press falling all over itself when he started Tweeting about Mike Bloomberg, fact checking the box theory for days. I think Trump smoked her out by tweeting about the trial and provoking her.
democrats are all hot and bothered about Barr reducing sentence for Stone, which was obscene. They are already ginning this up as grounds for a new impeachment.
They’re going to have wait until the new trial, when we find out that Stone was set up. Stone was found guilty of process crimes stemming from a hoax- and Mueller knew it was a hoax the day after he took on the case.
DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education.
DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed.
Except for liberals being foolish.
Judge Amy Berman Jackson, an Obama-appointee. Stone claimed that the Court failed “to strike a juror from the jury pool for bias because (the person) is employed in a division of the Internal Revenue Service” that had worked with the Department of Justice on multiple cases.
In the ruling, which was made last week but was only released publicly on Wednesday, Jackson said Stone failed to establish “inherent bias.”
There was nothing in the juror’s questionnaire or in-court testimony to support the dissertation that the juror worked “hand-in-hand” with lawyers from the Department of Justice, she said.
“The fact that the juror was just one of these approximately 1,400 lawyers [at the IRS] does not begin to establish the sort of inherent bias that should have prompted the Court to strike [the person] in its discretion,” Jackson wrote in the ruling.
Stone’s lawyers didn’t include the juror in a list of jurors to strike or in a renewed request for strikes, Jackson said.
From epoch times
The Dems keep attacking the very foundation of our nation: the rule of law.
Trump and the right-wing disinformation network have successfully attacked the foundations of your brain.
@Greg: What is disinformation ?
When they did not follow protcol of their division they all tucked tail.
“. . . democrats are all hot and bothered about Barr reducing sentence for Stone . . .”
The Attorney General did not reduce Stone’s sentence. He does not have the power either to sentence or to reduce sentence. What the Attorney General did was reduce the sentencing recommendation. The decision on what sentence to impose rests solely with Judge Jackson. The Judge can disregard the DOJ and the defense recommendations, if she wishes to do so. If, after sentencing, Stone believes the sentence was unreasonable, he has a right to appeal the sentence to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. The DOJ would then have the right to respond to the appeal. However, neither the President nor the AG have the power to determine whether or not the sentence should be upheld. That issue, if it arises, will be decided by the appeals court.
There’s a wise saying from the Bible that says:
Apparently Donald J Trump has mastered how to use his words to incite people to expose their own heart’s motives.
(Most really good fathers all know how to do the same thing.)
But, in this case, Trump’s simple Tweet incited this juror into exposing her disqualification for even being sat on this jury.
So, good for him.
@Greg: Says the paid agent of the Leftist disinformation network.
@Greg: Funny though, you don’t disagree. Imagine if you were on trial under such circumstances…circumstances that we actively avoid so that fair justice is met.
You’re welcome
@Jack:
True, but dems don’t understand the system.
@Nathan Blue, #7:
A persistent delusion that surely someone must be paid to criticize The Leader might be an argument in favor of my observation.
Do you require payment to defend this self-aggrandizing blowhard?
@Nathan Blue: The purpose of my comment was not to agree or disagree with what happened to Roger Stone. Rather it was simply to explain the process by which a sentence is imposed in federal court. I have been a criminal defense lawyer for more than 40 years, so I felt comfortable with my comment. I also am a Trump supporter and have been since he first announced his candidacy. My comment does not mean that I think Roger Stone was treated fairly, I do not. I thought Stone was treated unfairly in the way he was arrested, and I did not think his trial was fair. Now that the information has come out about the jury foreman, it highlights the unfairness to me.
One final observation is how easy it is to misconstrue what I said to mean something other than what I actually intended.
@Jack:
If ever there was a case for a mistrial, the Stone trial meets the standard. Also, I have to wonder, did Stone’s legal counsel not vet these jurors which, I would think, would include their previous political history (running for office as a Democrat) and their social media history? Seems to be dereliction of duty if they did not.
Add to that the judge’s absolute violation of Stone’s First Amendment rights. That was the first warning bell.
Voir dire demands, under penalty of perjury, that the prospective juror is telling the truth when they fill out all the answers to all the questions, along with additional info.
This one juror who ended up as foreman lied repeatedly on her voir dire form.
As such, she was seated improperly.
Lawyers have UNLIMITED numbers of rejecting prospective jurors FOR CAUSE. They also have a limited number of excusing potential jurors pre-emptorally (for no cause.)
If she had been honest UNDER OATH she would have been dismissed.
@Greg: Awwww poor little bitch
@Jack: That is always greggie’s purpose, to purposely misunderstand. greggie suffers from a lack of knowledge and the ability to understand simple issues.
@Nan G:
I cannot say she lied as I have not seen her responses to voir dire.
But one thing is clear, if she did lie, she cannot claim ignorance of the law as she, herself, is an attorney. And if she did lie, she should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law and be disbarred. Surely she knows about Irvin v. Dowd and United States v. Tegzes,
None the less, this information is definitely grounds for dismissal/mistrial. If the judge, an Obama appointee, does not grant either one, remember, judges can, and have been, impeached and removed from office.
Meanwhile, federal prosecutors want only five years for wire fraud, conspiracy to defraud the U.S., and two counts of tax evasion.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/federal-prosecutors-recommend-5-year-jail-term-corrupt-former-baltimore-mayor
@retire05, #12:
I was wondering how long it would take Napolitano’s b.s. statement about Stone being “absolutely entitled” to a new trial to make it’s way from FOX and Friends to here.
Having an opinion about the Mueller investigation doesn’t mean someone can’t evaluate evidence in a trial and come to a fari and reasoned conclusion. Anyone attentive to the news most likely has an opinion. Unless Napolitano has become an idiot, he knows jurors are disqualified if they state that their biases are such that they could not render an honest verdict despite them. No one is free of biases.
@Greg: We will just have to see if this judge can either deal a fair sentence or will declare a mistrial based on what is placed before her.
Everyone is entitled an opinion only 1 counts at this time.
@Greg: Obviously you don’t understand much about the legal system here in the United States.
The stone case is a textbook example of a miscarriage of Justice.
It’s okay if you don’t understand this. Thankfully, those trained in administering it protecting the law do.
The Constitution was written to protect us from many things, including mobs comprised of half educated people….like you.
@Nathan Blue: Even if greggie did understand it, he would never accept it!
It appears the legal system in DC is rigged to persecute and punish people for daring to support Trump or Republicans. The same DC judge hears criminal cases against Manifort and Stone, and civil cases against Mueller and Hillary? How does that happen? Is Jackson the only federal judge in DC? Nevertheless, it is probably impossible to get an impartial judge or jury in DC who doesn’t want to get revenge on Republicans for electing Trump.
@Greg:
That’s pretty funny, Comrade Greggie; you accusing someone of parroting the opinion of someone on a show that I don’t watch when you are incapable of an original thought and only parrot what you are told by your handlers.
You really are stupid, aren’t you? Voir dire is explicitly to rule out any bias that is held by a prospective juror. It is clear the head juror in this case concealed her bias against not only Trump, and anything connected to Trump, but against Roger Stone, as well. Hart should know better; she is an attorney. Ooops, her social media comments outed her, bigly.
But you would defend anyone as long as they suffer from TDS as you do.
What a rotten piece of humanity you are, Comrade Greggie.
@Nathan Blue, #20:
Bullshit. Everything about this trial was done by the book, from the beginning through the sentencing recommendations, which are fully in accordance with Federal sentencing guidelines. The deviation from all normal procedure occurred when the ass-hat in the White House started ranting on Twitter about the gross unfairness of it all, and his boy in the DoJ then intervened to override the recommendations of his own federal prosecutors—something that is not routine, as he has suggested, but totally unprecedented. He then rolled out the lie during a televised interview that Trump’s tweets had complicated a perfectly normal and proper process by giving it the appearance of impropriety, when, in fact, Trump in no way influenced the course of events.
I’m sorry, but you obviously don’t have a clue how things are supposed to work. They are not supposed to work as they have been with the overturning of Roger Stone’s sentencing recommendation.
Trump, meanwhile, has been attacking the presiding judge ahead of Stone’s sentencing. That simply isn’t done, and shouldn’t be. And what’s this crap about putting Manafort in “solitary confinement”? Manafort is in “protective confinement”, which in his case means a private cell with access to a radio, television, books, a shower, a workroom, a personal laptop with an internet connection, and a personal telephone which may be used 12 hours per day. Calls are limited to 15 minutes before being cut off, but he can immediately dial back. He’s blocked from sending emails from his prison laptop, but can get around that by drafting emails on his legal counsels’ laptop, which can then be sent after they’ve left the facility.
Here’s a general rule: If Trump says it, there’s absolutely no reason to believe it before checking. Which, it would appear, his followers almost never bother to do.
@Nathan Blue:
Comrade Greggie likes mobs. He’s a Communist.
@retire05:
Here I thought greggie was just stupid!
@Greg:
That is a f**king lie.
No one should ever be denied their First Amendment rights. Stone was by a biased, Obama appointed judge.
@retire05, #27:
So tell me what was not done by the book, why don’t you. No doubt you’ve made a list, right?
This would be a put up or shut up moment, though I have no expectation that you will ever do either. I just wanted to point that out.
@Greg:
From the middle of the night swat team raid to the judge issuing a gag order on Stone AFTER the verdict (a violation of his First Amendment rights). But hey, you’re the self proclaimed legal eagle, you should know these things.
You really are delving into the realm of total hypocrisy, Comrade Greggie. When have you ever “put up or shut up?” When questions are asked of you, you just toddle off to some other thread pretending the questions were never asked.
Stop being an ass. You have really become a bore.
@Greg: .
the communist manifesto.
One of those attorneys left government service, they will be reviewing these lawyers cases, these types like to hide exculpatory evidence. They are the worst scum of the field, just Weissmans type, a perfect match for the dirty cops of the 7th floor FBI.
@retire05, #29:
The raid was to seize evidence before he could remove or destroy it. The limited gag order restricted Stone from running his mouth in the vicinity of the court house, where other hearings were going on concerning the Mueller investigation. He had already been convicted of lying and witness tampering.
As you pointed out yourself, that was after his verdict was rendered, so it obviously had nothing whatsoever to do with his trial not being conducted properly. You’ve got nothing to back up your bullshit allegation.
@Greg:
Roger Stone, through his attorney, had cooperated fully with the investigation. There was no need for Gestapo actions. None. It was all for show with even someone leaking to CNN about the middle of the night raid. But I am sure you believe the reporter who claims he was just lucky to be at the right place at the right time that night as you really are that stupid.
The judge, the same judge who slow walked orders to the Obama administration over Fast and Furious (two damn years) does not control the entire world. She can control what goes on in her court room. She doesn’t even have control over the rest of the court house. Since you are such a legal expert, can you provide me with another case where a defendant had a gag order placed on them AFTER verdict?
@retire05: Witness intimidation ,,that witness that wrote a letter asking for no time for Stone. Stones buddy that he was carping at like buds do?
“Prepare to die”, sounds like an old movie line. The Princess Bride, I think.
@Midwestern Viewpoint:
Sockpuppet?
The reality of this being a miscarriage of justice precludes even addressing the “Midwestern Viewpoint”‘s (more like a Communist’s viewpoint) ridiculous question.
@retire05, #32:
Sure he did. That’s how he was caught lying under oath on six specific occasions. Lying while being questioned under oath isn’t generally viewed as cooperation. Neither is witness tampering.
There was enough buzz about Roger Stone’s involvement that it was a good bet something might happen. Somebody may well have heard something and tipped off a reporter. But it doesn’t really matter whether it was luck or not. It would have been in the morning news one way or the other.
@Nathan Blue: Yup
@Curt: How tragic…lol.
@Greg: What exactly were the lies? The whole witness tampering has been mostly debunked. The guy had no fear of Stone.
That he had back channels to Assange?
Credico also acknowledged having lied to Stone.
“There were exaggerations. There were lies. There were ripoffs, yes,” he said.
Stone isnt a dangerous criminal and in no way deserves more than a fine.
He didnt destroy evidence, leak classified documents or information.
Obstructing? Like making servers vanish so they couldnt verify a damn thing about Russia? Since this is the case, there is no way the Mueller team can claim the server was hacked.
Sadly, Judge Jackson has a horrible far left record on the bench. In 2013 Judge Jackson rejected arguments from the Catholic Church that Obamacare’s requirements that employers provide cost free coverage of contraceptive services in spite of being contrary to their religious beliefs. This was overturned by the Supreme Court.
I feel this case will go to appeals, if Stone has any money left for defense.
@Greg:
No, Greg.
– We have a juror who lied in voir dier. Grossly.
– We have a judge who allowed it
– We have four prosecutors who misled their bosses about what they were going to recommend
– Barr and his DOJ had already decided to act on this when Trump tweeted.
Berman Jackson and the Mueller team prosecutors wanted Stone’s head on a pike
Nothing about this was normal or reasonable
@Greg:
From Twitter
I imagine they would have killed both Stone and his wife had he done what Clinton did
Yes, she would have to protect her safety. If they didn’t decide Stone guilty and give him a sentence 10 times what is usually administered, her home would be fire bombed by angry Democrats.
@Greg:
What part about a biased judge and tainted jury pool is disinformation? Why does the left NEVER do anything that they don’t stack the deck in their own favor? You can’t WAIT for the police state to be in control of the entire nation, can you?
How about publicly cheering on Stone’s arrest by invasion and declaring him guilty prior to the trial? You think that might influence a juror? If you were on trial, would YOU want someone like that judging you? How about an honest answer?
How the F**K do YOU know? Don’t you SEE the evidence of bias? Are you THAT ignorant and blind? Well…. I guess you are.
But they didn’t stop people from marching and protesting around the courthouse during the trial, right? Because everything was “by the book”… right? Maybe “Mein Kampf”
Re-read the article. Several times, if necessary.
@kitt: SHE won’t declare a mistrial and will probably administer the maximum sentence. Democrats fear no laws or penalties; they are used to getting away with their crimes.
@Angel Artiste:
That is exactly the message the Democrats are establishing. It’s called fascism; no one better dare challenge their authority.
I was once excused from jury service because I had EMT training. The case was about someone that dropped dead of a heart attack while at work. I was asked if I could “forget” everything I had learned about what causes heart attacks. (???) I said, no, I can’t just “forget” what I know, so they released me.
I don’t imagine that sort of concern was expressed by Jackson or the prosecuting attorneys, except to make sure there was no opposing bias… or even anyone that DIDN’T HAVE a liberal bias. This was a totally rigged operation, just like Schiff’s “hearings”, one designed to reach an already pre-determined outcome.
Who would have ever thought, looks like DJ wants to help Trump and Fox News turn the Stone conviction into another Ukraine gaslight nonsense show.
Obstruction and witness tampering really ain’t that bad and even if it is, Fox News says the jurors were just picking on him.
I mean, look at how unsettling it was on the Stone family to be awaken at such an hour. It’s no wonder Roger showed such contempt of the court that prompted him to defy court orders that would have locked any lowly American away.
A Trump loyalist such a Stone doesn’t deserve this. This whole thing was simply about Russian election interference (which has been confirmed and is continuing unchecked due to Trump and the Republican Party). It’s not like he was some poor black man on a street corner selling loose cigarettes.
@Ronald J. Ward: Did somebody rattle their zipper, beta-boy?
Thanks for delivering the Leftist propaganda points plucked from your “news” outlets. Way to think for yourself.
The issue is idiots like you take a “side” instead of being objective. The Stone case is just a textbook miscarriage of justice. Indoctrinated fools like you would allow the very foundation of our country, the Law, to be warped and relatively administered based on what corrupt politicians want in the moment.
I’m glad you understand that the Dems are masters of gaslighting. They rely on half-educated halfwits like you to do their work.
How’s it feel to be part of a dwindling minority of haters, little dog? Getting lonely, thus the need to prattle on here at FA.
Is that a call for help? Did you see the therapist this week, little guy? I think you should before you hurt yourself, or others.
@Ronald J. Ward: When something is wrong, it is wrong regardless of party. Democrats support violating due process to settle political scores. Good old fascism, huh?
Remember this instruction to me from Comrade Greggie?
And remember my response?
Of course, Comrade Greggie only applies his rules to others, not himself, consequently, there are crickets coming from him.
Why anyone would even bother with this pos is beyond logic. Comrade Greggie is here only to spew left wing talking points all over this blog. He is anti-justice, anti-Constitution, anti-Christian and anti-American. Perhaps we should start a GoFundMe account to help him buy a one way ticket to Cuba or Venezuela. Remember, he loves to tout how he “was in Vietnam” but never would answer me when I asked him what side he fought for.
@Deplorable Me:
You are liar.
Let me repeat. You are a liar.
There is nothing Trump or his cronies could do that you would disavow and even more so if it had a partisan slant.
You are a liar.
Bot then, that’s what you’ve been instructed to follow.
@retire05:
You can contract that by simply saying, “He’s a Democrat.” That happens to be what they believe in.
@Ronald J. Ward: Stalking.
You are liar.
————————————–
So, AJ believes criminal behavior is OK under Democrats. Not surprising.
Maybe a new 2020 hat slogan is in order: Team Trump…Defending the Indefensible, 24/7.
Apparently they had nothing on McCabe. Nor will they find anything on McComey. There was nothing to find on Clinton, and there will nothing to find on Joe Biden. And in none of these cases is it for want of trying.
Trump & Co, however, requires a round-the-clock, multi-faceted cover-up effort, in both personal and public life, involving an army of lawyers and compromised elected and appointed officials, and it’s still like trying to sweep back the tide with a broom.
@Greg: They all lied while under oath, even if they get indicted you still wont admit you have been wrong all along.
I dont know who McComey is.
Durham Investigating If Obama Admin and CIA under John Brennan Hid or Manipulated Evidence of Russian Meddling.
@Greg:
Or maybe McCabe is singing like a coal mine canary to save his own hide.
Who is McComey?
Of course not. Obama made sure of that when he defended Hillary even before the investigation was complete.
Obama told Chris Wallace while the email investigation was still being conducted:
““I guarantee that there is no political influence in any investigation conducted by the Justice Department, or the FBI, not just in this case, but in any case. … Guaranteed. Full stop.”
Obama later said:
“I can tell that you this is not a situation in which America’s national security was endangered,”
Odd how you had no issue with Obama “injecting” himself into an active FBI investigation but oh my, if Trump tweets on Stone you go into apoplexy.
If it is proven that Joe Biden or his son, crackhead Hunter, are dirty, will you promise to leave this blog to never return? Are you that confident in their cleanliness?