OT the PIT - reincarnation

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would have remained publicly unknown except for a public statement she made after the Department of Justice (DOJ) rescinded its initial sentencing recommendation for Trump confidant Roger Stone.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

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.

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.

Here is the transcript.

www.scribd.com/document/446913716/Roger-Stone-jury-selection-transcript-Nov-5-2019

Just one of Tameka Hart's Tweets prior to trial:

Quick question for the #KlanPresident and the 64% of Republicans who agree with his remarks and behavior over... (link)

*************************





Transcript:

Judge Jackson, "Is there anything about his affiliation with the Trump campaign and the Republican party in general that gives you any reason to pause or hesitate or think that you couldn’t fairly evaluate the evidence against him?

Tameka Hart, "No."


and we have this. 

www.cnbc.com/2020/02/13/roger-stone-lawyers-evaluating-trump-posts-by-jury-forewoman.html

I am right there with you on that one, unfortunately the construction company i work for does a majority of their work in that shit hole doing T I work. The good thing is I start at 5 and out by 1, so most of the bums are still passed out when I start and there's to many of us leaving together for them to start something when we leave. I can't wait to retire and never go back to that place.

Trump needs to have this guy join the campaign

A New York City man who’s now been arrested 139 times thanked Democrats for guaranteeing his immediate release despite repeatedly swiping hundreds of dollars from unsuspecting subway commuters since the state’s new bail reform law went into effect Jan. 1.

Charles Barry, 56, has been arrested six times since the start of this year. He’s been released each time without having to post bail under New York’s new bail reform law since his alleged offenses were nonviolent, the New York Daily News reported. In the past, Barry’s served several stints in state prison and has a lengthy record, including six felonies, 87 misdemeanors and 21 missed court hearings, the newspaper reported, citing court records.

“Bail reform, it’s lit!” Barry yelled to reporters Thursday outside the NYPD Transit District 1 headquarters in the Columbus Circle station before officers transported him to Manhattan Central Booking. “It’s the Democrats! The Democrats know me and the Republicans fear me. You can’t touch me! I can’t be stopped!”

A protestor recorded threatening to harm a San Francisco GOP chairman in a viral video has been identified as a local hip-hop DJ and public school social worker.

Stefan Goldstone, who performs as “DJ Sake-1,” accosted John Dennis, 56, last Saturday at the Civic Center in downtown San Francisco during a cleanup event organized by Trump-supporting activist, Scott Pressler. Mr. Dennis is running as the Republican candidate against Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.

Mr. Goldstone performs frequently in the Bay Area as a DJ and has reportedly been the opening act for hip-hop stars Mos Def and Kanye West. He currently works as a social worker for the San Francisco Unified School District. On social media, he expresses support for left-wing revolutions.

Bloom really trying to win the black vote. Most his ads clearly targeting this demographic.

FEBRUARY 18--An Iowa man held a female acquaintance captive and forced her to watch “Roots” so that she “could better understand her racism,” according to a criminal complaint.

Investigators allege that Robert Lee Noye, 52, yesterday forced Jill Shelton, 37, to sit with him and watch the program about slavery. Shelton allegedly was held against her will inside a small Cedar Rapids home (seen below) she has shared with Noye.

Shelton told police that when she tried to move, Noye “threatened her to remain seated and watch the movie with him” or else he would “kill her and spread her body parts across I-380 on the way to Chicago,” the complaint charges.

Noye, pictured at right, was arrested for felony harassment and false imprisonment, a misdemeanor. He was booked into the Linn County jail and released from custody last night. A judge has ordered Noye to have no contact with Shelton.

Another rapper shot and killed? Shocking.

Pop Smoke was shot at a Hollywood Hills home at about 4.30am Wednesday
Between two and six masked men broke into the home and opened fire on the 20-year-old rapper, according to law enforcement sources
He was transported to a hospital and later pronounced dead
The suspects are still at large and the motive for the shooting is unknown
The house is owned by Real Housewives of Beverly Hills star Teddi Mellencamp and her husband, actor and producer Edwin Arroyave
Pop Smoke was believed to have been renting the $2.5million property
He shared a video on Facebook which showed the address hours before he died
Sources say people inside the home deadbolted the front door 10 minutes before the masked men arrived
Several artists including Nicki Minaj, Quavo, Chance the Rapper and 50 Cent have paid tribute to Pop Smoke on social media

mental health my ass.

Which community, blacks after they commit crimes or white republicans after another mass shooting?

I suppose imitation is flattery and republicans did it first.

TRO

RP. I am all for universal background checks and measures to make sure criminals don’t have access to guns. Come up with a policy that you think would work and you may just find an ally. Taking guns away from law abiding citizens is a no go for me.

The DNC excuse train for the crazy stats of young black male violence is not helping anyone most certainly other young black males.

The best I’ve come up with is requiring cradle to grave tracking of all firearms by serial number. When a manufacturer makes a firearm that manufacturer is required to, by reasonable means, uniquely mark that firearm to make it distinguishable from all other firearms. That manufacturer is also then fiscally responsible for that firearm until they have documented proof of a transfer of that firearm (not unlike a vehicle title). That transfer does not need to be reported anywhere, just documented. In the event something illegal was to occur via that firearm, the manufacturer could be charged with that crime (along with any other parties) with the guaranteed affirmative defense of a documented transfer of the firearm, and all parties who have legally possessed that firearm have the same responsibilities and affirmative defense.

Yes, this puts a greater financial onus on all firearm owners - firearm owners become equally responsible legally for any illegal act committed with their firearm unless they can (1) show a documented transfer of the firearm or (2) have reported the firearm lost or stolen to law enforcement.

I would also remove all firing restrictions and magazine size restrictions.

Another interesting option would be to eliminate background checks and instead require firearm owners to carry private insurance on their firearms.

I suppose ultimately my solution is to make firearm ownership a more expensive experience - not prohibitively - such that firearm owners care more for the disposition and use of their firearms than they do now.

Problem is my ideas don’t solve firearm problems for at least 30-40 years after implementation.

TRO

Edit: much like crime and criminals, the overwhelming minority of irresponsible firearm owners are ruining things for the rest of us, both firearm owners and non-firearm owners alike.

Problem: if the gummint can track any firearm, the gummint can confiscate any firearm.