ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2019 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Sunday, February 16, 2020

Juror 1261

The Roger Stone trial demonstrates how the Prometheans pervert the U.S. justice system:
Juror 1261, we now know, was Tomeka Hart. Her identity would have remained publicly unknown except for a public statement she made after the Department of Justice (DOJ) rescinded its initial sentencing recommendation for Trump confidant Roger Stone. In the midst of the firestorm of allegations of political interference, Hart disclosed that she was the foreperson on the Stone jury and gave a full-throated defense of the trial prosecutors: “It pains me to see the DOJ now interfere with the hard work of the prosecutors.”

That statement led many people to Google her name, and what they found was a litany of postings not only hostile to President Trump and his administration but also specifically commenting on Stone and his arrest — before she ever appeared for jury duty.... Hart is a Democratic activist and critic of the Trump administration. She was the Memphis City Schools board president. Not surprisingly, given her political background (including a run for Congress), Hart has been vocal in public on her views of Trump and his associates.

She referred to the President with a hashtag of “klanpresident” and spoke out against “Trump and the white supremacist racists.” She posted about how she and others protested outside a Trump hotel and shouted, “Shame, shame, shame!” When profanities were projected on the Trump hotel, she exclaimed on Jan. 13, 2018, “Gotta love it.” On March 24, 2019, she shared a Facebook post — no longer public — while calling attention to “the numerous indictments, guilty pleas, and convictions of people in 45’s inner-circle.”

More worrisome are her direct references to Stone, including a retweeted post, in January 2019, from Bakari Sellers, again raising racist associations and stating that “Roger Stone has y’all talking about reviewing use of force guidelines.” She also described Trump supporters such as Stone as racists and Putin cronies.

In addition to her prior statements about Trump, his associates and this case, Hart is a lawyer. That only magnifies concerns that any bias on her part may have had a more pronounced influence on her fellow jurors.

In fact, except for a jury pool composed entirely of House impeachment managers, Hart would appear to be a standout for a peremptory challenge by the defense team over bias. That is why the most surprising aspect of this story is not the review of her public statements but the review of her examination before trial. The brief examination in the voir dire hearing shows that Hart did disclose her ties to the Democratic Party. U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson asked if Hart’s political history would prevent her from being fair, and Hart assured her it would not.

While Hart’s answers on the jury questionnaire remain sealed, Judge Jackson noted, “You've also indicated a fair amount of paying attention to news and social media, including about political things?” Hart does not volunteer that she did far more than “pay attention to news and social media” and was, in fact, an anti-Trump protester and social media critic.
The exposure of a jury plant demonstrates the same technique used in the media narrative, in town meetings, in political caucuses, in science propaganda, and every other type of collective activity in which the illusion of a majority consensus is required or deemed desirable.

Labels: ,

81 Comments:

Blogger Dole February 16, 2020 9:38 AM  

Leftists giving a middle finger to due process as usual. Lock them up.

Blogger Brant Thacker February 16, 2020 9:43 AM  

I’m curious why this is getting so much attention now. Gavin McGinnis and a few others were talking about it at the time but now it’s getting traction.

Blogger JG February 16, 2020 9:45 AM  

I've been on three juries. On two of the three trials, one juror, not necessarily the foreman, dominated the deliberations. I do believe that the correct verdict was rendered on all three cases (one conviction, one conviction of lesser charge, one acquittal).

Blogger Mr.MantraMan February 16, 2020 9:51 AM  

Do you think they knew about her and Trump and team smoked her out using her weak spot of TDS against her?

Blogger Dave February 16, 2020 9:57 AM  

This was legal malpractice by Stone's representation. They should have challenged her just on the fact she was a lawyer, to say nothing of her biases. FFS lawyers have been dumbing down juries forever, how did they pass on this c*nt?

Blogger Wayne February 16, 2020 10:11 AM  

Not being a lawyer, I can speculate that a change of venue should be pursued. Stone will never have access to a fair and impartial jury or judge in DC. The swamp extends beyond the bureaucracy into the judicial system there.

Blogger Stilicho February 16, 2020 10:24 AM  

Hart should have been challenged for cause by defense attorney. If judge wouldnt dismiss her, objections should have been put on the record for appeal and the defense should have then used a peremptory challenge to get rid of her, not only was she biased and tainted by having formed an opinion orior to voir dire, she was likely to be an advocate and argument leader in the jury room.

As it stands, this is overwhelming evidence in favor of overturning the verdict and granting a new trial (with a new judge as well).

Blogger MichaelJMaier February 16, 2020 10:36 AM  

Sounds like a slam dunk perjury case.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd February 16, 2020 10:40 AM  

Dave wrote:FFS lawyers have been dumbing down juries forever, how did they pass on this c*nt?
Odds are good the jury pool was stacked with c*nts like this.

Could they have been banking on her being an insane c*unt who couldn't keep her mouth shut, and would cause a re-trial? That would mean more fees for the lawyers, so it would be an attractive strategy.

Blogger Doktor Jeep February 16, 2020 10:42 AM  

Just tampering and election tampering deserve hanging.
Finally what I and my fellow wingnuts have been saying for decades has gone mainstream.
Meanwhile, NOTHING is going to happen to her. To be a law abiding citizen is to be a cuck of the highest order. No, no "muh just run away" admonition. Sabatoge the system at every chance, even ones that seem small and insignificant.

Blogger Section 8A February 16, 2020 10:44 AM  

As they never feel required to play by the rules, eventually others will not feel obligated to play by the rules. Then it's time for the boogaloo.

Blogger BriarRabbit February 16, 2020 10:46 AM  

"Why is this not a headline and a scandal being pursued by appropriate authorities?" - the question to which I already know the answer.

I've been a Federal agent and a Fortune 100 manager and I'm only now starting to see how the world is constructed and how TheNarrative(tm) is pushed.

This is in no small way because I found a sci-fi writer and a comedian who doggedly seek out and speak truth while simultaneously exposing the mechanizations of those who press TheNarrative(tm).

Blogger gunner451 February 16, 2020 10:52 AM  

@Dave,

From what I've heard, Stone's lawyers did challenge some of these but was overruled by the Judge. But this is nothing new the DC courts are packed with democrats in both the judges and the juries (I think over 90% are democrats in the DC area) so you are never going to convict a democrat and a republican will always get screwed. I remember Scooter Libby, the evidence against him was about as weak as could be but they convicted him, and GW didn't even have the balls to pardon him, he only commuted his sentence. So even if they bring charges against Hillery, McCab, etc, none of them will ever get convicted since this is DC and the Democrats will protect their own. Only chance would be if they somehow managed to move to a different court outside of DC which is unlikely.

Blogger IAMSpartacus0000 February 16, 2020 10:58 AM  

My understanding is Stone's Lawyerd did want her removed but Judge denied it.

Blogger Rakshasa February 16, 2020 11:01 AM  

Watching this I can't help but think "these people are stupid, and they're going to make us suffer until it all eventually fails".

The last thing someone nominally on the left would want to do, in this era of total control over both the state and media, is to completely destroy the trust that right-wingers inherently have for the judiciary.

Why? Why are they so stupid.

Blogger Rakshasa February 16, 2020 11:03 AM  

> FFS lawyers have been dumbing down juries forever, how did they pass on this c*nt?

Roger Stone had to leave the jury selection due to food poisoning, another guy got taken out on a stretcher.

Very rotten fishy.

Blogger IAMSpartacus0000 February 16, 2020 11:10 AM  

For further reading see. https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/02/dc_law.html


Honorable mention of Cernovich in digging up the Juriors tweet history.

Blogger Salt February 16, 2020 11:11 AM  

Dave wrote:This was legal malpractice by Stone's representation.

Don't know if she was one of them, but ...



https://dailycaller.com/2019/11/05/roger-stone-judge-anti-trump-juror/

Blogger Lazarus February 16, 2020 11:14 AM  

What Dave said.

Odd thing is his lead council is Bruce S. Rogow who has an extensive and exemplary career.

He is, however, a resident of BROWARD COUNTY.

Blogger Sean February 16, 2020 11:24 AM  

I'm no lawyer so I dunno, but is this kind of thing appealable?

Blogger Linda Fox February 16, 2020 11:27 AM  

Naive people will not realize that this was likely a planned attack. There had to be some coordination between examining those in the jury pool, and maneuvering to get them seated. The judge had to be in on it to make sure that a woman would be picked, who would be likely to be made foreman. She says, herself, that she exerted some degree of leadership to guide the others to the conclusion she wanted to reach.

Blogger Nathan Hornok February 16, 2020 11:30 AM  

I served on a jury once and talked to some lawyer friends of mine about the jury selection process, they told me that them being lawyers would automatically disqualify them from serving on a jury. The fact that Judge Amy Berman Jackson let Tomeka Hart not only be on the jury, but be the foreperson is unbelievable.

Even more astounding is that Tomeka was stupid enough to make a public statement and give cause Stone's attorneys strong ground to appeal the whole thing (the Promethean's aren't sending their best).

The take home lesson from all this is that Trump's tweeting is ABSOLUTLEY the correct play here, despite Barr's opinion to the contrary. If Trump wasn't tweeting, the Promethean's wouldn't be letting the mask slip and revealing themselves. I'm not sure if Trump is playing some 4d-chess strategic long game or not. What I do know is that Trump has an instinctive ability to make the other side so angry that they commit unforced errors. Justice doesn't happen without political will. And there will be no political will to drain the swamp without the swamp creatures showing who they are and showing just how repulsive and deceptive their actions have been.

Blogger Homesteader February 16, 2020 11:35 AM  

And, in line with today's other post-

The Runaway Jury, by John Grisham.

Blogger Gettimothy February 16, 2020 11:38 AM  

The judge is a jew

Blogger Seeingsights February 16, 2020 11:51 AM  

'What I do know is that Trump has an instinctive ability to make the other side so angry that they commit unforced errors.'

Its more than instinctive. It is well thought out tactics by Trump. Trump has a way of getting in the heads of his opponents (Pelosi, Biden, MiniMike, etc).

Blogger Unknownsailor February 16, 2020 11:52 AM  

I am mystified why Trump has not just pardoned Stone and Flynn yet. Both of them are obvious victims of political hit jobs, and the legal system is being used here in part as part of the punishment. Flynn is broke as a result of his persecution, and I'm sure Stone is pretty close to it, and neither seem to be getting any sort of relief from the courts.

Blogger The Depolrable Podunk Ken Ramsey February 16, 2020 11:59 AM  

The judge has been caught out. Questions about the suitability of jurors did arise, the judge would take the potential jurors' word for it. Well what do you know if the this jury wasn't stacked, how could you tell? This jury foreman is only one of several questionable jurors, including one whose husband worked on the very case against the defendant.

In this situation the judge is expected to act to protect the integrity of the court. Action should not reach the DoJ, matters are not supposed to get that far. Swift action by the judge, that's the usual and the first remedy.

We don't see that happening, do we? That is a tell that judge herself is in on it.

Blogger Dave February 16, 2020 12:49 PM  

IAMSpartacus0000 wrote:My understanding is Stone's Lawyerd did want her removed but Judge denied it.

I've seen references they didn't challenge Hart.

Blogger Statix February 16, 2020 1:03 PM  

Let's allow a barren, middle-aged POC/POS woman to be a juror on a high profile trial of national import. What could go wrong?

Blogger Boomer55 February 16, 2020 1:09 PM  

@27
It's amazing how much discretion judges have in general, especially in Federal Courts. All the remedies appear slow and reactive, rather than preventive.

@2
There is evidence of corruption, from the dumb horses' mouth.

Blogger jkmack February 16, 2020 1:13 PM  

Look, I have no doubt that Roger Stone lied. He should pay a fine and be barred from testifying before congress. When you have him reccommended for NINE YEARS, when you cant even get an indictment for Clapper and Brennan lying TO Congress as members of Intelligence community, it is not justice. When a Bob Menendez gets off, or a Jon Corzine gets off and they just go back to business as usual. It is not justice.

Blogger Stilicho February 16, 2020 1:31 PM  

@gunner if the judge wouldnt grant a for cause challenge, the the defense should ha ve used a peremptory challenge.

@maier ive never seated a juror who didnt lie to me at least once in voir dire. They all lie, even the ones you want on the jury.

Blogger Stilicho February 16, 2020 1:34 PM  

But to vox's main point: it certainly does look like the entire jury pool was tainted or so heavily salted with deep state/DNC plants that a few were going to make it onto the jury one way or another.

Berman herself is suspect, but I cannot tell you more without at least seeing the. Voir dire and trial transcripts as well as rulings on motions in limine.

Blogger Stilicho February 16, 2020 1:38 PM  

@ken ramsey: if this info was available to the judge, then the entire panel of potwntial jurors should have been stricken and replaced. Failure to do so would be an impeachable offense and potentially criminal as well. Otherwise, the judge is stuck with whate ver answers are given by jurors in the courtroom unless one of the attorneys has other evidence available.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine February 16, 2020 1:44 PM  

The jury was all stacked, and the Judge is an even bigger c*** than this juror, and this is far from the only trial she's stacked.

Blogger R.G. Camara February 16, 2020 1:50 PM  

Just found out that not only was the Judge appointed by Obama but....

her son is creepy Jeopardy champion Matt Jackson:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1x9F4P0-0oE

(The judge is ((white)) but apparently burned coal and produced that autistic soon-to-be-found-with-compromising-evidence-in-his home).

Blogger Lance E February 16, 2020 1:52 PM  

The part that's still amazing to me is that this woman outed herself, completely voluntarily and for no particular gain. Just pure derangement.

Further proof that as the Democratic party continues shedding its old Jewish and Irish Boomer roots and branches and embracing its new woke brown and black millennial identity, it will exhibit more and more signs of low IQ and high time preference.

Let's hope that Trump and the Republican party know how to capitalize on this dysfunction and have the stones (no pun intended) to do it.

Blogger The Pitchfork Rebel February 16, 2020 1:53 PM  

@3


I served on a jury (maternal infanticide) where I was the foreman. The trial was complicated because of the nature of the crime, the advance knowledge that the defendant would not testify and the fact that her attorney was a local celebrity of sorts-being a regular "expert" guest on a dominant local talk show.


One other juror openly coveted the job of foreman and for the first couple of hours, spent his time being disputatious and pedantic, which wasn't helpful when it was necessary to remind other jurors that no, they could not have "no opinion" and they could not speculate about matters that weren't presented as evidence.

I quickly realized that to ensure verdicts on charges, I needed to do something about the other juror's pedantic obstruction. Guessing he was attention-seeking, I waited until he said something intelligent about another juror's contention and simply said "that's an interesting point".

Once the rest of the jury was discussing his contention a couple of times at my direction, he was happy to be the center of attention periodically.

It's an interesting job to be a jury foreman. You very quickly have to read individual jurors as well as the dynamics of the group. Some people will be garrulous and cocksure, others quiet and unsure. Of course the other eleven will be virtual strangers to you-and yet you have to propose some process that is logical and agreeable to the rest of the jury that is designed and directed to a verdict-when some jurors will be inclined to philosophical vainglory and understand instinctively that is the first order of business.

I'd bet a great many foremen are chosen without regard to any skills that might allow them to understand and accomplish this-and so it would be no surprise that deliberations will be dominated by another juror, who may or may not have "justice" as their primary objective.

Jury foremen can communicate with the judge about matters that affect the jury and its deliberations. If this woman betrayed her biases and the foreman didn't advise the judge of her lack of impartiality, the foreman was derelict.

Blogger Avalanche February 16, 2020 1:54 PM  

@12 "I'm only now starting to see how the world is constructed and how TheNarrative(tm) is pushed."

Welcome to the "Dark" side; are you ready to polish some skulls with us? The Dark Lord always wants more skull polishers!

Blogger R.G. Camara February 16, 2020 1:57 PM  

It's unclear how much of this evidence was available to defense counsel at the time.

If this evidence was available, and defense counsel didn't move to remove the juror, defense counsel very well could be ineffective as a matter of law, and Stone would get a reversal.

If defense counsel did move to remove her but the judge blocked it, then there would be another strong case for reversal.

If this was hidden by the juror from both the judge and lawyers, it would also be grounds for reversal.

But if the judge and defense counsel didn't probe hard enough, and the juror simply didn't volunteer the info, reversal might not be in the cards. Basically, a cursory questioning is all that is required by legal ethics. Many lawyers don't bother with much jury selection, and I know at least one who merely takes the first 12 people presented to him without questioning---and he wins a lot.

Blogger The Pitchfork Rebel February 16, 2020 1:59 PM  

Errata: She WAS the foreman, I see.

Blogger Avalanche February 16, 2020 2:03 PM  

@13 "So even if they bring charges against Hillery, McCab, etc, none of them will ever get convicted since this is DC and the Democrats will protect their own. Only chance would be if they somehow managed to move to a different court outside of DC which is unlikely."

Guess you missed this little educational interlude from a couple years ago? ("Conjunction Junction, what's your function?") Just a little 3-minute skit between now Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh and Miss Lindsay Graham? Huh. And HOW, out of the massive corpus of United States law, did Justice Kavanaugh just happen to have the exact complete names of these decided cases right on his tongue tip?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOAkU_4iPYA

Blogger Avalanche February 16, 2020 2:04 PM  

@15 "Why? Why are they so stupid."

Because God loves us.

Blogger Avalanche February 16, 2020 2:18 PM  

@26 "I am mystified why Trump has not just pardoned Stone and Flynn yet."

Pardon them so soon? When they keep "accidentally" exposing to the normie-voters JUST how rigged and dirty the system is? Why do you think Gen. Flynn's excellent spokeswoman Powell is regularly on TV describing the unbelievable maltreatment on this honorable man; and arousing empathy -- and a sense of horrified identification with the general?

If he'd pardoned Stone already, how would be learn of the forewoman being a lying plant? And the JUDGE being a totally evil party to it, and the no doubt soon-to-come 'outing' of the entire jury selection process in DC?

Never interfere with your legion of enemies while they are making visible mistakes!

I will admit to hoping that lawsuits resulting in MASSIVE reparations for Flynn and Stone -- and a good few others -- will help make up for their suffering during their service!

Blogger tublecane February 16, 2020 2:37 PM  

"foreperson"

There's your problem right there.

Blogger Rough Carrigan February 16, 2020 3:14 PM  

#13. I'm pretty sure that Huber is in Utah and Durham is in northwest Connecticut for this very reason.

Blogger The Lab Manager February 16, 2020 3:22 PM  

Roger Stone is on record of attacking establishment hacks in both parties like the Bushes and Clintons. That's why he was prosecuted. And I always laugh at this asinine charge of 'lying to Congress'. What a crock of $*((.

Blogger Johnny February 16, 2020 3:29 PM  

That they do it so casually is the tell as to how common it is.

Blogger Unknown February 16, 2020 3:59 PM  

If this was a test to see if we've finished our duty in cleaning out the deep state from the courts, looks like we have our answer. There yet remains a lot of work to be done.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine February 16, 2020 4:16 PM  

""foreperson"

There's your problem right there."


True.

Blogger Unknownsailor February 16, 2020 4:55 PM  

Avalanche wrote:@26 "I am mystified why Trump has not just pardoned Stone and Flynn yet."

Pardon them so soon? When they keep "accidentally" exposing to the normie-voters JUST how rigged and dirty the system is? Why do you think Gen. Flynn's excellent spokeswoman Powell is regularly on TV describing the unbelievable maltreatment on this honorable man; and arousing empathy -- and a sense of horrified identification with the general?

If he'd pardoned Stone already, how would be learn of the forewoman being a lying plant? And the JUDGE being a totally evil party to it, and the no doubt soon-to-come 'outing' of the entire jury selection process in DC?

Never interfere with your legion of enemies while they are making visible mistakes!

I will admit to hoping that lawsuits resulting in MASSIVE reparations for Flynn and Stone -- and a good few others -- will help make up for their suffering during their service!

I see your point, and I sincerely hope that someone from the Trump campaign has communicated this to Stone and Flynn, if this in fact the strategy, because what they are going through would be hard to deal with even with that knowledge.

Blogger Poster Child February 16, 2020 5:08 PM  

The pattern of corruption is being made apparent to the American people so that when the hammer falls, and it will though the timing is uncertain, the public will see it as justified. It IS justified, obviously.

Blogger Stilicho February 16, 2020 5:12 PM  

More often than not, the first juror seated is elected foreman by default. The voir dire of potential jurors is typically controlled by the judge who may limit what counsel are allowed to ask jurors about.

Blogger Uncompliant February 16, 2020 6:19 PM  

Um... gonna offer a potentially unpopular view here.

It has been some years now that lawyers have known about social media ("yeah, d'uh").

Most trial lawyers now have a team of good internet sleuths back at the office. This is routine now. When the juror's name is revealed, the name is immediately texted to the office team for an internet, facebook, twitter, etc., search. There is not too much time, so a good team has 6-8 people at the office. They text back good and bad stuff helping the in-court lawyers ask questions and decide on challenges. (Now maybe the names of the Stone juorors were not revealed or something like that ... but that is unusual. Calling her "Juror 1261" is for the public -- the lawyers get the name and a bit of history on on the juror card/printout).

If this now-normal trial voir dire procedure was not forbidden, Stone's lawyers should have done it. By not doing it, Stone's lawyers may not succeed on a claim of prejudice in an attempt to get a reversal/new trial.

Remember, this is the DC swamp. Give the swamp creatures ANY plausible hook/excuse and they'll do what they want. The Judge can deny a new trial by saying: "You could have found out about Juror 1261's background by quickly checking the internet. You failed to avail yourself of all available resources; I will not correct your mistake after-the-fact." "But she lied!," the lawyers will continue. "And she'll be subject to discipline, but what evidence do you have that her lies affected the outcome?" the Judge might reply. There is solid induction and logic, but the Judge will ignore that and say there is only speculation. And that will be enough for swamp creatures to get what they want. No new trial.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash February 16, 2020 6:19 PM  

Nathan Hornok wrote:(the Promethean's aren't sending their best).
Sadly for them, they are. These people are stupid.

Blogger Don't Call Me Len February 16, 2020 6:51 PM  

Hart is a lawyer.

So what we need is a debt jubilee and helotry for lawyers.

Blogger Rough Carrigan February 16, 2020 7:33 PM  

Helotry for those in upscale harlotry?

Blogger JovianStorm February 16, 2020 7:36 PM  

I'm pretty sure that Stone and Flynn could be pardoned without any trouble but they are willing to go through the system to expose the corruption inherent in it.

The fact that Deep Staters can't ever be tried or convicted while Flynn is naked to the wall does more damage to the Leftist brand than 1000 pink hat - wearing protesters.

Guys like Flynn are deliberately doing what they're doing with the knowledge that GEOTUS can bail them out if it gets too deep. Meanwhile, the idea of a 2-tiered justice system pervades working class America and drives them to vote for GEOTUS.

Blogger Akulkis February 16, 2020 8:07 PM  

@3

"I’m curious why this is getting so much attention now. Gavin McGinnis and a few others were talking about it at the time but now it’s getting traction."


Timing.

If Trump had made a big deal about it earlier, there would be a litany of "You don't *KNOW* she won't be an impartial juror."

Now, the evidence is in ... not only was she not an impartial juror, she successfully pushed to be the jury foreman, specifically so that she could persecute a Trump associate.

It also gave her, and the judge, all the rope she needed to hang themselves. If Trump made an issue of it sooner, then either the judge could have kicked her off the jury and put in one of the spares, OR she could have voluntarily stepped down. Instead, Trump allowed her to put her determination to break the law on full display.

Bringing it up now makes maximum impact on the public.

And why is a Tennessean on a Washington, DC jury in the first place? Why is she even IN D.C? The Democrats aren't in power -- so for what reason did she move there to get on that jury? How long has she lived there...or does she even live there?

Blogger Ransom Smith February 16, 2020 8:49 PM  

I see your point, and I sincerely hope that someone from the Trump campaign has communicated this to Stone and Flynn
Flynn is an intel guy. If he isn't smart enough to figure out his own usefulness, then it raises a ton of questions.
Stone probably gets it too since he's an old weirdo who saw what happened to Reagan.

Blogger Don't Call Me Len February 16, 2020 8:53 PM  

@57 - Absolutely, and war declared on them once a year.

Blogger Robin February 16, 2020 9:03 PM  

The jury system in US Federal Court doesn’t work like we see on TV—that’s state court.

This livestream with defence lawyer Robert Barnes has a good discussion of it. The whole thing is pretty interesting, because Barnes is knowledgeable. The part discussing federal juries and just how deep the shenanigans go is between 34:30 and 50:00.

https://youtu.be/sqo12J90Rs4

Blogger Canada78Bear February 16, 2020 11:31 PM  

Canada and the UK do not permit Lawyers to serve as jury members (google search) with legislation explaining why. Stone was the Tank sent in to draw the fire to expose positions. Great example of "justice" for campaign ads as well.

Blogger Yukichi Sensei February 16, 2020 11:56 PM  

How do people not see that everything has plants? Polls are obviously narrative manipulation. The same always happens on TV.

Majoritarian ethics and government are a mistake.

Blogger Don't Call Me Len February 17, 2020 12:06 AM  

Well, some of the little fish are getting gutted:

https://www.espn.co.uk/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/28702857/jury-convicts-michael-avenatti-attempted-nike-extortion

Blogger Akulkis February 17, 2020 12:20 AM  

@37

"The part that's still amazing to me is that this woman outed herself, completely voluntarily and for no particular gain. Just pure derangement."

Low level Democrat functionaries aren't noted for being smart.

Remember: "The people are stupid!" -- Q

The day of judgement for the (((treasonous judge))) can't come soon enough.

Blogger Monotonous Languor February 17, 2020 3:24 AM  

@R.G.Camara
"But if the judge and defense counsel didn't probe hard enough, and the juror simply didn't volunteer the info, reversal might not be in the cards."

Proving once again how absurd, pointless complexities in process are able to preclude justice, and not one damn lawyer either recognizes it or gives a flying fuck if they do.

We don't have justice in this country, the lawyers all looked the other way while the left twisted it and distorted it and blew it completely apart. And all the while, 70% of the world's lawyers refuse to take even the smallest iota of a shred of responsibility for the outcome, as long as they can charge their exorbitant rates and get away with it.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine February 17, 2020 5:01 AM  

"Majoritarian ethics and government are a mistake."

An illusion.

Blogger Uncompliant February 17, 2020 7:38 AM  

@67 ... the lawyers didn't look the other way; they looked on with approval. 90% of the world's lawyers are leftists and are delighted with the outcome. destroying law and order is part of the process of destroying the West. and, um, contemplate the racial distribution of lawyers. that will hammer the point home.

Blogger Harry_the_Horrible February 17, 2020 8:19 AM  

Apparently Stone's lawyers objected to juror after juror because of their political leanings only to overruled by the judge who, herself, was a left-wing political activisty.
The trial was rigged against Roger Stone from the first second.

Blogger tuberman February 17, 2020 9:03 AM  

"Well, some of the little fish are getting gutted:"

A year or so ago Avenatti was a contender for DNC nomination, and now just a little fish? Will other top leftists become little fish as they are destroyed? Was Epstein a little fish? Hmm! No Name a small fry? Died of cancer right?

Blogger Tars Tarkas February 17, 2020 10:01 AM  

One of the Charlottesville trials for the guys who got into a fight with DeAndre Harris, they actually allowed one of Harris' co-workers/friends to be on the jury. They allowed a friend of the alleged "victim" to serve on the criminal jury of the alleged perp. It should be grounds for a new trial, but it won't be.

Blogger Up from the pond February 17, 2020 10:59 AM  

Amy Berman.

Just from seeing a name like that, you know you there won't be a fair trial.

Blogger Dyspeptic February 17, 2020 11:41 AM  

The judge, Amy (((Berman))) Jackson is an Hussein Obama appointee, a member of the tribe and a stone cold Trump hater with quite a nasty track record. Stone never had a chance at acquittal. The swamp rat jurors would have gladly convicted him on any conceivable charge.

Anyone who thinks we still have a functioning justice system is a complete and hopeless fool.

Blogger Boomer55 February 17, 2020 2:09 PM  

@74
I saw some of that Robert Barnes video @62 . It appears the US federal courts are more like a coded/civil law system. The judges dominate the trials and the jurors are even more controlled than in state courts. This is not supposed to happen in a "common law" system, at least in ideal.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine February 17, 2020 3:47 PM  

"Will other top leftists become little fish as they are destroyed?"

Yes, or they will suddenly have always been evil and no one knew, even though really everyone knew. Standard dissociation after the fact. It's a matter of where the Overton window ends up.

Blogger Kilo4/11 February 17, 2020 5:55 PM  

The way I got out of jury duty one time was precisely by telling the truth. Counsel asked me if I believed police are honest. I replied: "Sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't, just like everyone else." NEXT!

Blogger Avalanche February 18, 2020 6:36 AM  

@51 "hope someone from the Trump campaign has communicated this to Stone and Flynn, if this in fact the strategy, because what they are going through would be hard to deal with even with that knowledge."

Oh, I'm sure they were/are in it from the start! Flynn was HEAD of DIA -- I expect he was ON Trump's team from the beginning, and I would be totally UN-surprised if Flynn was involved in recruiting the God Emperor to avoid the military coup!

Flynn and was ... evicted and 'charged' -- which makes him SEEM to have a good reason to dislike Trump, which would reassure the Deep State. And Stone has been a friend of Trump's for years, has he not?

In war, do you not "take the hit" personally to protect the team/nation? Flynn, near as we can tell, is in good-enough spirits all along -- as his life is disassembled and torn to shreds... There must be a helluva decent payoff for him coming in the end.

Q says: ACTORS!

Blogger Ominous Cowherd February 18, 2020 10:25 AM  

tuberman wrote:A year or so ago Avenatti was a contender for DNC nomination, and now just a little fish? Will other top leftists become little fish as they are destroyed? Was Epstein a little fish? Hmm! No Name a small fry? Died of cancer right?
No Name and Avenatti were political class, small fry but not the smallest. Epstein was one of their blackmailers/handlers, a little bigger fish, but still layers below the ruling class.

Blogger Nostra Dame Us February 18, 2020 11:25 PM  

Or...was it a means of exposure....smoking out the oppositions tactics and methodology? Maybe I'm just feeling optimistic tonight.

Blogger Nostra Dame Us February 18, 2020 11:29 PM  

Not sure if I can plug here...but some here would benefit from reading the blog...Anonymous Conservative. Articles....tweets
...conjecture aplenty...

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts