Rumors regarding the make-up of the jury that voted to convict Roger Stone floated around, but no reporter would publicly identify the juror. One juror has revealed herself in a CNN story:

(CNN) A juror on the Roger Stone trial said she wants to “stand up” for the four prosecutors who withdrew from the case in response to their sentencing recommendation being changed by Department of Justice leadership.

Tomeka Hart said she had remained silent about the case for months out of concern for her safety and “politicizing the matter.”

Tomeka Hart has an active social media profile.

Here are some of her Tweets about Trump and those close to Trump

There are dozens of posts expressing hatred for Trump, which is her right as a citizen.

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?

This juror also had political aspirations.

The Roger Stone prosecution is a disgrace, it’s lawless, and it was rigged from the beginning.

Who is Mike Cernovich?

30 Replies to “Roger Stone Jury Forewoman was a Far Left Wing Activist, Social Media Posts Prove”

  1. Thank you for revealing this. I dont know if you or your friends can get this out to the airwaves to the point where media is FORCED to address the issue, but better, to Trump, Pompeo and Bar. I’m really stuck of the cheating. The 2016 Election and Hillary/Podesta emails has really destroyed my faith in our government and Intelligence communities. I expect it from attorneys, I’ve seen it in judges, now the whole, U.S. ‘City on a Hill’ is destroyed for me. But I am thankful you and others have reported on this fiasco.

      1. Nice work Mike! Saw this on mailonline giving Cerno credit for uncovering it.Potentially explosive implications for the injustice perpetrated on Roger Stone.

      2. Totally agree downtoearthtinking.

        Unfortunately, in keeping with the current policy of double standards, arbitrarily bending/suspending the law, and moving the goalposts whenever it suits them, the DOJ just released their new criteria for tossing out a verdict:

        “… Effective 12 Feb 2020; Consideration of overturning a verdict will require an appeal that presents no less than an ELEVEN bagger…”

  2. Jurors must fill out forms which typically include questions about bias or other reasons why a juror might not be able to render a fair verdict. They are then interrogated as a group and also individually by both the prosecutor and defense attorneys in a process called “voir dire” (French for “to see, to speak”). The jurors are under oath when they go through this process. There could be repercussions if “Tomeka” was not truthful.

    1. Just maybe the process for selecting the jury worked as it should and both sides considered possible biases and accepted each juror would still make informed decisions on evidence presented. We all have a bias but it is our duty to be impartial during a trial. The trial is over so it is OK for jurors to express opinions as they are no longer jurors. I am sure there would have been other jurors with opposing biases at some point.

      1. It is up to the legal teams to do their research. They have access to possible juror list and social media for checking people out.

        1. The defense team requested that she not be on the jury but the judge did it anyway. Judge is crooked, look at some of the other cases that she was over.

          1. That’s simply not true, the defense team didn’t make any request about keeping her off the jury. The transcripts show this.

  3. Andrea Mitchell tweeted on Nov 5th: “The judge has questioned 4 potential jurors, 3 of whom work for the federal government. One said she had a negative impression of Pres Trump, nonetheless the judge dismissed objections by the defense and allowed those jurors to go forward.”

    The one with the “negative impression of Trump” was “a former Obama-era press secretary for the Office of Management and Budget whose husband still works at the Justice Department division that played a role in the Russia probe that ultimately snagged Stone.”(

  4. Did the defense request to strike her? Did the judge deny a request to strike her for cause, then the defense object to it, and not have enough peremptory strikes to exclude her? It is up to the defense to keep her off the jury, not the judge.

  5. A nasty piece of work is correct!
    Amen to the writer…
    Tomeka Hart is a bad example for Memphis and our children…pure hatred!
    Very sad

  6. the deep state is everywhere. we need to look at every obammy appointee and investigate them. how could this “lady” get on this jury !!!!! VOTE RED & PRAY


  8. This is typical of the leftist movement in America that does not care, nor understand fair play, due process, much less the rule of law. Even 40 years ago our colleges were often telling minority students that they were free to do whatever they want, unconstrained by law or convention. This woman is an prime example.

  9. Let me see if I understand this logic, so when a person dislikes Trump, they are inherently unfit to be a juror in any case that involves Trump or his doings? Okay. Then the reverse must also be true; if a person favors Trump, he then can’t serve as a juror in any case that involves Trump or his doings. Agreed. That would eliminate every Republican senator from Trump’s impeachment trial. Let’s declare both the Stone and impeachment trials as mistrials. We will remove all jurors who are not Trumpers in the Stone trial. And in the impeachment, we exclude all jurors who are Trumpers. Would you accept those terms? Of course not. You expect all matters to favor your beliefs and your thinking. Fortunately for the reasonable among us, it doesn’t work that way. Whether it be November 2020 or November 2024, the cult of Trump will end. Tragically.

    1. In the Trump impeachment trial is it fair to say that senators who are running for president should not have had a vote because of political gain? Example…Bernie Sanders,Elizabeth Warren. seems kinda unfair and biased.

  10. This is an absolute disgrace! One Judicial System for friends, allies and supporters of Republicans, and something totally different for left-wing activists. ALL Americans should be outraged!

  11. In Roger Stone’s case there could be a mistrial for a tainted jury as it is an actual judicial trial based on laws that he was accused of breaking. The Senate Impeachment trial is not a judicial trial but a political process based on the articles of impeachment. The facts presented by the House are being judged and no new facts are required to judge those Articles of Impeachment. The ruling is not from the presiding supreme court justice in the impeachment trial but from the opinions of all Senators present to vote at the impeachment trial. Their opinions are politically prejudicial and are not based solely on judging the facts presented making an impeachment political and not judicial. I expect any future Impeachment claims against President Trump to be tied up in real trials within the judicial branch, I don’t see another Impeachment coming after the 2020 election.

  12. Im glad justice was served…and am ot a juror..what he did was wrong ..what trump is doing is wrong..we didn’t choose trump for president..the electoral collage wanting yo kiss trumps asss in exchange for favors of a (rich man) choose him..if they choose whos to become president then why vote? Why go through the charade..through the clown show? If ultimately they put in the white house who they want ..and not who the (we the people) choose! Trump dhoild be on jail to..but everyone’s to scare to stand up to that whinnee.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.