Juror 1261: Was Justice Undone In The Trial Of Roger Stone

Twitter Photo

Below is my column in the Hill newspaper on the controversy surrounding the foreperson on the Stone trial and the discovery of biased public comments made before she was called as a juror. The comments raise very serious questions about not just the inclusion of Tomeka Hart on the jury but the legitimacy of the conviction in light of her participation. Courts are extremely reluctant to set aside verdicts and often deny motions for new trials like the two filed by Stone. However, such disclosures make a mockery of the process — and ultimately the court — if undisclosed bias does not have a remedy for a defendant. No defendant can prove conclusively that such bias made the difference, but no prosecutor can prove that it did not. What remains is a dangerous element of doubt in a criminal trial.

Here is the column:

She was Juror No. 1261, and her examination by the federal court and counsel before the trial was anything but notable. And that is precisely the problem.

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would have remained publicly unknown except for a public statement she made after the Department of Justice (DOJ) rescinded its initial sentencing recommendation for Trump confidant Roger Stone.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.

I have previously written about how I believe that the DOJ was correct in its rejection of the absurdly high recommendation of seven to nine years in prison for Stone. However, there are legitimate questions that must still be addressed on how the Justice Department came to that decision. Yet while cable shows exhaustively cover that story, there is an equally serious question as to whether the conviction itself, rather than the sentencing recommendation, should be reevaluated.


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.

Jackson seemed unaware of anything more than Hart’s following the news and asked if anything that Hart saw would affect her views. Hart again did not mention her protesting or public commentary and said she could not think of anything that would cause bias — “nothing that I can recall specifically. I do watch, sometimes paying attention but sometimes in the background, CNN. So, I recall just hearing about him being part of the campaign and some belief or reporting around interaction with the Russian probe and interaction with him and people in the country, but I don’t have a whole lot of details. I don’t pay that close attention or watch C-SPAN.”

She never mentioned that she specifically discussed Stone’s arrest and the objections to his treatment during that arrest as well as denouncing all of the associates of Trump as a virtual criminal enterprise.

Stone’s counsel, Robert Buschel, also asked a few questions but was either entirely uninformed or utterly incompetent. Buschel only asked about Hart being a Democrat who ran for Congress. The examination by the defense amounted to less than two pages and roughly 250 words of exchange with Hart. It seems most likely that Buschel did not have a clue about Hart’s actual political activism and commentary.

That lack of knowledge is not surprising since multiple questions on the jury questionnaire allowed her to reveal her past protests and postings. For example, Question 30 asked whether she had any opinion about figures such Donald Trump. There also was Question 23 that asked whether she had “written or posted anything for public consumption about the defendant, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, or the investigation conducted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller?” Questions 34 and 35 specifically ask about her prior knowledge or opinions of the Stone case, which she referenced on social media. It is hard to believe that she disclosed these public statements in her answer and was not questioned about them.

If this information was withheld by Hart, it raises a question about the veracity of her testimony and, more importantly, the fairness of the trial.

It certainly seems Hart had no place on the Stone jury. The Supreme Court has repeatedly declared that the “minimal standards of due process” demand “a panel of impartial, indifferent jurors.” Hart’s record suggests little that is impartial or indifferent. She was perfectly within her right to engage in such commentary and protests — but she had no right to sit in judgment of an associate of the president after her public declarations. Her participation raises serious arguments for setting aside the verdict from the possibility of ineffective counsel to the denial of due process.

The burden now is on Judge Jackson to hold a hearing on this matter and address the possible need for a mistrial. And one thing will be clear: Judge Jackson, in the words of Juror No. 1261, does not “gotta love” any of this.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law for George Washington University and served as the last lead counsel during a Senate impeachment trial. He testified as a witness expert in the House Judiciary Committee hearing during the impeachment inquiry of President Trump.

162 thoughts on “Juror 1261: Was Justice Undone In The Trial Of Roger Stone”

  1. Juror 1261’s act was racist racism.

    African-Americans are racist against Americans.

    Why do Americans allow hyphenates to continuously accuse them of racism without demonstrating that, in fact, African-Americans are racist?

    1. African Americans are Americans. The 1st question you posed seemed to suggest that you didn’t know this. Yes Black Americans just like every other group in the country has a certain amount of Doctors, engineers, criminals and racist. This should not be surprising. The Talented Tenth, a term made popular in a book by W. E. B. Du Bois, applies to all Americans.
      But I prefer the words of President Teddy Rooselvelt.
      ” There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag … We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language … and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”
      His words are a deserved slap in the face to All advocates of Diversity.

      1. In this, Theodore Roosevelt was wrong. My father’s parents were Norwegian-Americans. I know some so-called Native Americans and locally we encourage that culture. But we also have Asian Americans, so-called Latinos, and even some African Americans. Oh yes, there are also those from the Middle-East. And India.

        Earlier this tonight I went to a concert of choral music from Hong Kong and Taiwan, also Thailand. Sung by a chorus of 100% Americans.

        1. He was not wrong. In today’s world Hyphenated Americans (DIVERSITY) Balkiniz our country , laying the ground work for dissolution. Examples :. Divided loyalty , we allow Dual citizenship that is a divided loyalty.
          Room for one language ENGLISH,. Near every government agency and school district in the United States caters to Spanish speakers . Solution by law make English the official language of the United States. No license radio or TV or government business in any language other than English. Pourto Rico has been “American for 120+ years and a very large part of the population have problems with English
          One flag the American flag. In Fort worth, Texas a certain school carries a Mexican flag onto the field every football game..
          Rooselvelt. Pushed Assimilation become Americans in every way. Assemilation makes us all Americans a United States ànd people. Diversity gives us Canada, , a nationd and unequal, one French speaking one English under one flag.

    1. Jeff Bezos is the face of hypocrisy with the cult of Democrats

      ”Bernie Sanders strikes back at Amazon, calling the retail giant’s treatment of employees ‘absurd’”

      Bob Bryan



    2. M J Michael’s, are you saying that Trump’s tax cuts for billionaires was unnecessary? Because it sure looks that way. Or are you only concerned with Bezos and Amazon?

      We dont know how much Trump saved in taxes because he has no mind to show us.

    3. The dirty little secret – corporations don’t pay tax, their customers do. I can tell that you are very intelligent. Why, if I may ask, do you covet other people’s money? Did you know that it is a sin to covet? Wouldn’t you be happier spending money that you have earned rather than money you have stolen from others after communist (liberal, progressive, socialist, democrat) money-laundering?

  2. Tempest in a teapot is nearly every story circulating in the US news today…. as the biggest quarantine in human history is in its third week.

    Here’s my report from source inside the PRC quarantine zone, short call from major city near the Yellow River:

    -stores resupplied with some basic foods….. huge lines…. 4 come in and shop, hustle out, 4 more come in.

    -nobody going to work, police barricades still up. where-ever you were at the end of the Lunar Year break, you’re still there! that means a lot of people are actually stuck in somebody else’s place.

    -got a cold in your locked up apartment? then you’re scared as hell, you don’t know if you have it, and you dont want to go to the hospital to find out, because the hospital is clogged with sick people who definitely do probably have that or the flu.

    -the official count is 1,868 dead,. that’s a joke! nobody inside the zone believes these lies.
    people have wireless and use VPNs to get around the bamboo curtain. stuff that has come out from citizen journalists was not fake news, not staged, the body bags stacked up were real.

    -first tier businessmen in China already have split if they could….. but now second and third tier businessmen eager to skedaddle once this disaster runs its course. some of them will have no choice as their businesses will have failed while things thing lingers on. The West can expect a major exodus when the crisis abates. the weakness of the PRC health system has been totally exposed.


    which reminds me. If you want a socialist for a President or any of these wacky schemes the Democrats are pushing for health care, why not move to China and give the communist worker’s paradise a try? just don’t plan on coming home if you survive!

  3. It’s pretty funny, your calling out the Stone juror for being biased. Somehow, bias didn’t enter into your support for the recent Trump whitewash even though dozens of the “jurors” admitted that nothing the Dems could say would lead them to vote to convict—yet they all took an oath to be “impartial.” Isn’t that perjury???

    1. @markkernes

      “I think this is about electing the jury that will impeach him, and I would be a heck of a juror!”
      -H. Rep Candidate Rashida Tlaib March 14, 2018

      “We’re gonna go in there and impeach the motherf****r,”
      -Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D. Mich.) January 3, 2019

  4. Roger Stone, Wikileaks And The Trump Campaign 

    Three senior Trump campaign officials told Mr. Mueller’s team that Mr. Stone created the impression that he was a conduit for inside information from WikiLeaks, according to people familiar with their witness interviews. One of them told investigators that Mr. Stone not only seemed to predict WikiLeaks’ actions, but also that he took credit afterward for the timing of its disclosures that damaged Mrs. Clinton’s candidacy.

    In October 2016, Mr. Stone exchanged emails with Stephen K. Bannon, then the chief executive of Mr. Trump’s campaign. In one exchange, Mr. Stone wrote that more WikiLeaks disclosures were forthcoming, “a load every week going forward,” according to the indictment. Mr. Bannon appears to be the official described in the court document as “the high-ranking Trump Campaign official,” based on previous disclosures about the email exchange.

    Tuesday, October 4, 2016
    FROM: Steve Bannon
    TO: Roger Stone
    What was that this morning???

    Tuesday, October 4, 2016
    FROM: Roger Stone
    TO: Steve Bannon
    Fear. Serious security concern. He thinks they are going to kill him and the London police are standing done.
    However —a load every week going forward.
    Roger stone

    Tuesday, October 4, 2016
    FROM: Steve Bannon
    TO: Roger Stone
    He didn’t cut deal w/ clintons???

    A day before Mr. Stone and Mr. Bannon emailed about WikiLeaks, Donald Trump Jr. exchanged messages on Twitter with the WikiLeaks account and asked, “What’s behind this Wednesday leak I keep reading about.

    Edited From: “Indicting Roger Stone, Mueller Shows Link Between Trump Campaign And Wikileaks”

    The New York Time, 1/25/19

    1. That’s ridiculous – everybody who was following the election knew about it. Julian had announced on Twitter that these disclosures were forthcoming. I read every word posted by ether one of them. Stone knew nothing, had met no one, was no more relevant than Twitter itself. And we all knew it. For this he was hauled before Congress?

      What kind of a country are we living in when Congress itself railroads innocents and then stacks and runs consecutively? The whole thing is bogus start to finish.

      1. “Amazon owes more than $1 billion in federal income taxes for 2019, according to SEC filings submitted last month. The online retail pioneer so far has paid $162 million on its 2019 bill, with the remaining $914 million owed in 2019 federal income taxes deferred, the filing noted.

        An Amazon representative declined to comment on Bezos’s property purchase or the company’s tax rates but referred to a previous company statement on Amazon’s tax bill.”

        Peter Shill’s favorite rag is beyond fake news. It’s pathetic

  5. Yes Gary infowars did have this & many other stories 1st.

    I would think P Turley would have noticed all the ole bullsh*t news outfits like McClatchy going BK. US Today has been on the ropes for some. Buffet just sold his losing positions in his Newspapers setting them up for BK, ie: like the crap rag Tulsa World.

    I find it amazing any politican would even talk to Wapo/NYT/CNN/MSNBC/etc., hell no reads them or watchs them. & Cable cutters are still increasing.

    I like what Jones has done. He’s know the American Hating Deep State has been out for sometime to shut him up so he assumed the position of a dandelion that bloomed in a wind storm & set seeds to replace him everywhere.

    BTW: If you get the chance listen to a peer of Turley’s, Robert Barns.

  6. Only an idiot suggests proving a negative–tsk, tsk for a law professor. And the verdict was unanimous. And the defense had full voir dire rights prior to the jury sitting. What a distasteful and bigoted article about the situation.

    1. In the run-of-the-mill county court trials I do, we get an extremely generic jury questionnaire mere minutes before the jury is brought in and then we start asking questions. I don’t know what was on the jury questionnaire in Stone’s case — I don’t know if she was identified by name or only number. If the latter, what’s the defense going to do? Google 1261?

      Hart (introduced to the court as “1261”) testified under oath and the presumption is that such sworn statements are true. You say Stone had full voir dire rights — Hart’s perjury stole those rights from him because what the court is going to follow is the evidence, and 1261 said she could be fair. Do you really think the judge would have allowed Hart on the jury if she saw those tweets during jury selection? I am 100% certain Hart would have been excluded for cause because the judge excused a juror for cause at a different part in the transcript merely because that juror paused for a long time before saying he/she could be fair. If the judge was excusing jurors based solely on demeanor, anyone with tweets like that would have been on their way home pronto.

      Last, let’s also not pretend that perjury such as Hart’s is usually discovered or even easy to find, rather, it is almost invariably discovered after the fact through random circumstance, just as here (if Trump had not tweeted, and Barr not intervened, and the prosecutors not quit, and Hart not responded, Hart would be enjoying seeing her political positions turned into a prison sentence). No matter how this turns out, we all owe Hart a debt of gratitude for outing herself and demonstrating that the institutions and processes we elevate to an almost religious level, are permeated with humans doing horrific things.

  7. Who wants to be on jury duty?

    People who want to get out of work.

    What was the motivation of this African-American woman desiring to be on the jury in the trial of an American and not seeking a way out of jury duty like normal people do? Her act was racist.

    Are black folks racist?

    Was the Orenthal James Simpson jury racist?

    Were the savage murders of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom acts of racism?


    Is the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People a racist organization? Well duuuuuuh! It “advances” colored people and retards white people.

    Is racism unconstitutional? Did the men who wrote the Constitution engage in racism? If they did, racism is constitutional as is the freedom of discrimination – to choose a house, a route on a highway, a hobby, a suit, a car, a dinner, a vacation, a wife, a movie, a career, a pet etc., etc., etc.

    1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFvyOitYNz4

      How deep must you go…to be qualified as the Deep State?

      How many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie-Roll pop?

      The owl says 3….I don’t think Prof JT is at 3, so that’s a “no-go.” Some may argue he might be at 1 1/2, but certainly not 3, so you’re notion fails on its face.

      1. How many babies are women capable of producing by nature?

        How many Chinese, Southeast Asians, Africans and Arabistanis are there?

        And American women need to vote?

        “That dudn’t make any sense.”

        – George W. Bush.

        I hope those guys don’t get mad at us or, otherwise, aggressive.

  8. It clear Stone made false statements to HPSCI. It is also clear that HPSCI had possession all of Stone’s communications before the Sept.2017 hearing. How HPSCI got possession of the communications have not been disclosed. The HPSCI requested:
    Any documents, records, electronically stored information including e-mail, communication, recordings, data and tangible things (including, but not limited to, graphs, charts, photographs, images and other documents) regardless of form, other than those widely available (e.g., newspaper articles) that reasonably could lead to the discovery of any facts within the investigation’s publicly-announced parameters The scope document is still classified, but these are what is public:

    What Russian cyber activity and other active measures were directed against the United States and its allies?
    Did the Russian active measures include links between Russia and individuals associated with political campaigns or any other U.S. Persons?
    What was the U.S. Government’s response to these Russian active measures and what do we need to do to protect ourselves and our allies in the future?
    What possible leaks of classified information took place related to the Intelligence Community Assessment of these matters?


    Unless the DNC and Podesta are equal to the United States and its allies, and/or their emails are classified, No classified Clinton emails were released by Wikileaks after March 2016. The government’s case against Stone is after September 2017. Stone’s connection with wikileaks begins in June/July 2016.

    So, why was Stone even called to testify? And was the confiscation of his documents a violation of the 5th amendment?

  9. Under-Reported:

    Roger Stone Was Contact To Wikileaks

    President Trump’s former deputy campaign manager told a jury on Tuesday that Roger Stone was giving the campaign updates on WikiLeaks’s plans to release damaging emails stolen from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman.

    Richard Gates, who is facing up to ten years in prison under a plea agreement for various fraud charges, testified in Stone’s criminal trial on Tuesday, saying that the longtime Trump associate was telling the campaign about WikiLeaks’s plans as early as April 2016, months before the DNC had announced it was hacked.

    It had not been previously known that Stone was updating the campaign about WikiLeaks that early.

    Stone is facing charges of lying to Congress about his role as an intermediary between WikiLeaks and the Trump campaign. He has pleaded not guilty.

    According to Gates, Stone’s main point of contact with the campaign was Paul Manafort, the former campaign manager who has been sentenced to more than seven years in prison over a variety of fraud charges, though Gates said he spoke with Stone himself as well.

    Edited From: “Ex-Trump Campaign Official Testifies Stone Gave Updates On Wikileaks Email Dumps”

    The Hill, 11/12/20

    1. once published by wikileaks, this was open source stuff. stone was watching it closely and speculating in accurate ways. that was basically it.

      all that’s gumshoe stuff is all just a hill of beans

  10. Roger Stone Was Conduit Between Trump Campaign And Wikileaks

    The Roger Stone trial is no longer just about Roger Stone.

    Despite the profane Stone texts and caustic friendships that have dominated chatter about the case, the Republican provocateur’s court battle will likely be remembered for something far different: It revealed that Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign aides knew more about WikiLeaks’ plans than they have let on, and the president may have later misled Robert Mueller about it.


    Buried amid days of blasphemy and bombast were quieter new details that collectively showed Trump and his aides discussed WikiLeaks with Stone months earlier than anyone has acknowledged. The revelations have immediately raised questions about Trump’s claims — made months later under oath to the special counsel — that he did not recall any such conversations with Stone.

    According to direct testimony and dozens of email and text messages introduced over the last week, the Trump campaign got its first heads up about Julian Assange’s ability to upend U.S. politics as far back as April 2016. The timing is months earlier than any Trump aide has previously described, and months before WikiLeaks published its first cache of damaging materials that would go on to cripple Hillary Clinton’s White House bid.

    Edited from: “What Rger Stone,’s Trial Revealed About Donald Trump And Wikileaks

    Politico, 11/12/19

    1. it never was about just roger stone. it was designed to discourage and intimidate political operatives from using the full range of free speech in support of a campaign.

      like so many other clever persecutions, it was designed to make conservatives, republicans, etc. crawl back in their hole and keep on losing quietly, without acting up

      when stone is silenced, another 100 stones will take his place. by persecuting him, he’s been struck down but like Obi Wan his spirit becomes stronger than ever

    2. More From Politico Link Above

      In all, Stone’s phone records showed more than 150 calls between Stone and Manafort from February to November 2016. During that same time period, Stone contacted Gates more than 120 times and connected with Trump 60 times, according to the federal prosecutors trying the case.

      To Mueller watchers, the Stone trial has offered — belatedly — the granular picture that the Russia special counsel described only in broad strokes.

      “Mueller’s failure to lay out this testimony in the detail in which it is emerging at the Stone trial allowed Trump and [Attorney General William] Barr to distort the narrative by proclaiming ‘No Collusion,’” said Philip Allen Lacovara, a former top counsel to two Watergate special prosecutors.

      He added that Mueller could have made a clearer distinction between collusion and the limited reach of existing law that prohibits such conduct but opted to “wear blinders on the issue in which the country was really interested.”

      All of the details coming out of the Stone trial has also added to a long-standing mystery around the wider Mueller probe. Why did it close shop back in April when a trial loomed later in the year?

      1. You are missing the point, it is not about the facts of the case, but due process. Insufficient counsel may or may not be an issue depending on How Hart answered the questionnaire. She may be looking at a perjury charge.

  11. Justice Roberts is looking the other way on all he can. He hates Trump as much as the Democrats on the Court. If he didn’t he would have stopped the FISA abuse. He thinks we’re not paying attention. The Deplorables are watching you Roberts.

    1. Yes we are Linda.

      With all the bad with this Wuhan China Bio-weapon virus the up side is it’ll hit the blue commie/nazi areas like DC/NYC/etc., the worst.

      Black robes won’t make any difference

  12. All Americans should be outraged on how the justice department treats Trump supporters.How many of the FBI have been charged or arrested in the FBI scandal. Lying, leaking, destroying evidence, changing evidence. 0 Why are they treated different? The American people should insist that everyone be treated equally. It seems the FBI always get a pass to do whatever they want and no charges are recommended

  13. So, Turley, are you trying to make the case that Stone didn’t lie and that he didn’t threaten to kill a witness. and is, therefore not guilty? Those were the charges. How strong was the evidence? Why would you question the juror’s oath that she could be fair? That is a serious disservice to the rule of law and Judge Jackson, Turley, and you have no evidence that she was not fair. The evidence of his guilt was overwhelming.

    No matter how repulsive someone might believe Trump is, that does not mean that she cannot be a fair juror in regard to whether Roger Stone lied to Congress. In fact, in this country, it would be difficult to find someone who didn’t have strong opinions about Trump. Most Americans: 1. did not vote for Trump; 2. disapprove of him, in historic numbers and for an historic length of time; 3. believe he is guilty of the charges the Republicans acquitted him of, and 4. want him gone from office. What does Trump’s unpopularity have to do with the evidence of Stone’s lying? How did the other jurors feel? Would they have voted to acquit but for this woman? There are very good and valid reasons why it is difficult to set aside jury verdicts. The fact that you are supporting the Fox News narrative that Stone got railroaded is beneath someone purporting to be a scholar of the law. Trump isn’t worth it.

    1. Perhaps you read a different article than I did, but you put arguments in Turley’s mouth that he did not make. Turley is only writing about the trial process, not the outcome. An unfair trial may very well have come to the correct conclusion, but it does not make it a fair trial just because the correct outcome was reached. I find it concerning that someone who comments publicly about you could end up being the foreperson on your jury.

          1. i think i have seen that one before. she has been elevated because she is shrill and ugly, not in spite of it. this tells us a lot about our supposed “culture”

    2. How much time did Orenthal James Simpson get for savagely disarticulating two people; a”verdict” based purely on racism?

  14. Turley must have looked at the calendar thinking this was April 1st. The outrage from him and Trump supporters about juror 1261 is laughable and just sad. Did she state the verdict before trial, like Republicans did for Trump? Oh my she’s a lawyer, there were alot of republican lawyers in the impeachment case that dismissed all evidence before they heard it. Did she stand in front of TV cameras and declare that the trial was a witch-hunt before sitting in judgement? In the eyes of Trump enablers they want a new trial for Stone, how about a new trial on Trump with witnesses and documents like she had with Stone. I know, I know she had bias, end of story. So what does that make of republican senators that did too. She showed bias after the trial, republican senators showed bias before trial.

Leave a Reply