In this snippet, which for some reason does not include a link to the primary source, she never denies knowing who Roger Stone is.
That's the difference between Cernovich and a journalist.
That's the difference between Cernovich and a journalist.
In fact, she specifically testified that she knew who Roger Stone is, and that she had run for Congress. 
Stone's lawyer has some follow-up questions, specifically telling her that Roger Stone is a Republican.
He asks her how she feels about that, there's an objection.
Stone's lawyer absolutely knows that she's a lifelong Democrat who has political aspirations. He's asked if he wants to strike for cause.
He says no.
Stone's lawyer absolutely knows that she's a lifelong Democrat who has political aspirations. He's asked if he wants to strike for cause.
He says no.
Now, was Ms. Hart the ONLY potential juror not to love Trump?
Nope. The judge actually struck at least one juror for cause for her dislike of Trump, even though she said she could be fair and impartial.
Nope. The judge actually struck at least one juror for cause for her dislike of Trump, even though she said she could be fair and impartial.
God, tough jury pool for Roger Stone.
I mean, damn.
Truly, I almost never think a defamation suit is called for. But Cernovich, a trained lawyer, snipped out the part of the transcript that would clear this juror and accused her of a crime, and now she's going to spend the next few years checking over her shoulder.
It's a really crappy, callous thing to do and I hope he comes to reckon with these choices he's making.
This new take is probably not defamatory.
