Did Hate-Trump Jury Forewoman Give Stone an Appeal?

Did Hate-Trump Jury Forewoman Give Stone an Appeal?

Written by  

The jury forewoman in the trial of Roger Stone was a hate-Trump Democrat and former congressional candidate who never should have been allowed on the jury.

But prosecutors and federal Judge Amy Berman Jackson either didn’t know or didn’t care that jury chief Tomeka Hart (shown) had a history of tweets that show she could not possibly have been an impartial juror.

Upshot: Stone, the top Trump advisor and veteran GOP legman who was convicted of obstruction, witness tampering, and lying to Congress on November 15, might well have a ready-made appeal or motion for mistrial.

Heart Emojis and a Twitter Finger

A failed congressional candidate in 2012, Hart has a long history of hate-Trump tweets that also verge on outright hatred of Trump’s supporters, Fox News reported.

Conservative writer Mike Cernovich and others mined Hart’s Twitter feed for the evidence.

“Marched by 45’s hotel … and the crowd went boooooo!!! Then yelled shame, shame, shame as we walked by!” she tweeted on August 13, 2017.

Days later, she tweeted that Trump was the “#KlanPresident,” and months later tweeted her joy that someone had projected the word “sh*thole” on Trump’s hotel in Washington, D.C.

“Defending a racist and his racist rhetoric make you a racist,” she tweeted of Trump supporters just months ago. “Point blank.”

As for Trump, Stone, and the hoked-up Russia “collusion” probe, Hart has been nothing if not voluble. In November 2017, she tweeted that “leaked documents show Trump aide concealed ties to Putin cronies.”

“Ignoring the numerous indictments, guilty pleas, and convictions of people in 45’s inner-circle, some Republicans are asserting that the Mueller investigation was a waste of time because he hasn’t found evidence of …,” she tweeted in March with a link to a deleted Facebook post.

Tweeted Sean Davis of The Federalist, “This certainly looks like evidence that the jury foreman in Roger Stone’s case determined long before she was tapped as a juror that anyone indicted by Mueller must be guilty.”

Even worse, Hart tweeted two heart and two black-fist emojis the day she voted to convict Stone, November 15.

And Hart wasn’t the only hard-left Democrat on the jury. Another was Seth Cousins, Fox reported, a contributor to child-murder fantasist and failed Democrat president candidate Beto O’Rourke.

Cernovich Did the Digging

Hart’s hate-Trump activity on Twitter might not have surfaced had she not blabbed on Facebook. The Democrat wrote that she backed federal prosecutors who quit the case because their superiors in the Justice Department thought the original sentencing recommendation of seven to nine years in prison was ridiculous.

CNN reported on the Facebook post:

“I want to stand up for Aaron Zelinsky, Adam Jed, Michael Marando, and Jonathan Kravis — the prosecutors on the Roger Stone trial,” she wrote in the post that was shared with CNN. “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.”

That post invited a condemnatory tweet from Trump. “Now it looks like the fore person in the jury, in the Roger Stone case, had significant bias,” the president wrote. “Add that to everything else, and this is not looking good for the ‘Justice’ Department.”

But the CNN story led Cernovich to dig up her Twitter history. “There are dozens of posts expressing hatred for Trump, which is her right as a citizen,” he wrote. “But how did she get on a jury involving Trump’s longtime close friend? How did a federal court judge ever allow a far left wing activist to sit on a case where a close Trump associate faced trial?”

Does Stone have an appeal or case for mistrial? Possibly, on the grounds of juror bias. “Actual bias is defined as the existence of a state of mind on the part of the juror in reference to the case, or to any of the parties, which will prevent the juror from acting with entire impartiality, and without prejudice to the substantial rights of any party,” wrote Lori Quick, a lawyer who works with the Sixth District Appellate Program.

Implicit bias includes “the existence of a state of mind in the juror evincing enmity against, or bias towards, either party.”

Both, it appears, apply to the angry, hate-Trump forewoman of the jury.

Courtesy of The New American