Thread by @GonzoNewsNinja

Good afternoon 🗣

We’re back in federal court in DC today for an expected 1:30 PM hearing in the Roger Stone case.

First noteworthy sighting of the day outside court:

Paul Kemaner, attorney for Andrew Miller, a Roger Stone aide who tried to avoid appearing before the grand jury in the case.

(Miller eventually did testify to the grand jury investigating Stone.)

Roger Stone and 3 attorneys have arrived on the second floor of the courthouse, outside Judge Jackson’s courtroom.

Stone’s wife Nidya, usually with him throughout his the case, does not seem to be present.

Hearing whispers that there may be arguments calling for the sealed portions of today’s upcoming hearing to be opened to the media/public.

Judge Jackson is in our view unlikely to play along with Roger Stone’s latest attempts to get a new trial based on accusing both the Judge and a juror of bias. We’ll see what happens when the hearing gets underway in about 40 mins

Stone’s lawyers had a chance to screen and try to remove jurors during the jury selection process, casting doubt on their sudden fixation on social media posts by the jury foreman that they say mean Roger needs a new trial.

A portion of the hearing starting at 1:30 PM will be public.

Another hearing scheduled for 2 PM is currently sealed, but attorneys for some media groups will attempt to argue to unseal it.

As the hearing inches closer to starting time, it seems like Stone’s usual entourage of supporters isn’t here today, just his lawyers.

InfoWars founder Alex Jones, who employed Stone for a some time, is reportedly in DC, so maybe we’ll see him later.

Also no sign of Milo and Proud Boys chairman Enrique Tarrio, both of whom had been regular fixtures throughout Stone’s trial and sentencing.

Reminder: Roger Stone has technically been initiated as a member of the Proud Boys.

Something to consider when noting the presence of the far-right street fighting club in the gallery throughout his court case

Roger Stone and his attorneys are now seated inside Judge Jackson’s courtroom (Jackson not seated yet.)

Michael Marando, one of the DOJ prosecutors who brought the case against Stone only to resign from the case, was seen entering the court just now as wall.

Current view on the monitors in the media room:

Roger Stone looks down, apparently intently studying some legal filings, leaning his head into his clenched fist. Suddenly, he hands the paper packet back to his lawyer, then clasps his hands & closes his eyes in a pensive moment

Stone is now fidgeting with a pen as his team of five defense counsel stare blankly at laptops, sip water, read printouts, or in the case of lawyer Bruce Rogow, stare intently at nothing in particular for prolonged periods

Judge Jackson just entered the court, today's hearing in the Roger Stone case is now officially in session.

Judge Jackson notes for the record that Randy Credico's testimony was already entered into the docket in the Stone case (Stone's defense had claimed that it wasn't.)

Judge Jackson is now discussing a media attorney's motion to unseal the 2 PM sealed hearing in the Stone case. Jackson hints at sealed evidence filed in a motion that the DOJ filed to oppose the motion to unseal the sealed hearing.

Bruce Rogow for the Stone defense is arguing that Stone has the right to a public hearing based on 1st, 4th and 5th Amendment grounds

Seems like Judge Jackson won't be unseal today's 2 PM hearing.

Notably, she cites case law re sensitive personal information that came up in cases involving evidence collected via wiretaps. Also other case law about safety concerns for jurors justifying sealing certain hearings

Case law says that to seal a hearing a Judge must find an "overriding interest based on findings that closure is essential"

Jackson says this precedent can be "applied to a hearing on the potential of juror taint... no 1st Amendment violations when sealing hearings in which "jurors would be questioned". She also specifically quoted pasages of case law discussing "harassment of jurors"

DC District Court policy re "Widely publicized and sensational cases" allows Jackson "to issue a special order" when she deems it necessary.

"The President of the United States used his twitter to share opinions about a juror in the case." and repeated this at a televised rally.

Jackson also cites Tucker Carlson targeting the juror foreperson on his FOX program. She read through a timeline of Carlson's statements re jurors in the Stone trial, going out of her way to illustrate how certain statements he made can be proven false.

Judge Jackson cites statements made by Alex Jones of InfoWars, as well as Proud Boys affiliate Jacob Engels during appearances on InfoWars. Engels has been attending Stone's court hearings alongside other Proud Boys but is not present today.

Judge Jackson says "risk of harassment and intimidation" of jurors today "is extremely high".

Judge Jackson says she "shouldn't have to explain this, but any attempts to invade the privacy of the jurors or to harass and intimidate them is completely antithetical to our process of justice."

Jackson cites a potential future "chilling effect" if she allows jurors in Stone case to be targeted. She says she will now receive "additional information under seal" - this may involve the sealed govt evidence she referenced earlier.

Judge Jackson turned the husher on and is allowing one attorney from each side to approach the bench to go over the mystery sealed thingy.

Not sure if we got the full quote earlier, but Judge Jackson specifically cited President Trump repeatedly shining a "spotlight" on the juror in this case.

Motion to unseal the 2 PM Stone hearing has been granted in part and denied in part. We'll see soon enough exactly what this means...

Judge Jackson says making juror names or physical appearances public today "would place them at substantial risk of harm." She also cites certain news outlets making "false statements" about the juror process in her court since before the trial even began.

Citing sealed evidence from the govt, Judge Jackson says that "even a juror number" being revealed today could be used to threaten, harass or harm jurors.

Jackson is now reading her own customized rules for the 2 PM hearing.

Stone and lawyers are now forbidden from referring to any juror by name or juror number.

"Parties may not refer to [Facebook] profile or profile name..." Juror social media can only be identified by "exhibit number" now

"Pleadings will remain sealed for now" but redacted versions that protect juror information can be publicly docketed "as soon as possible", Judge Jackson says.

2 PM hearing "will be open to the public in part" subject to "considerations" to protect the jury

Audio will be broadcast to media room in real time and overflow room will be available as well for non-media interested public. Transcript of today's hearings will not be sealed but may be reacted to protect juror identities.

The actual court will be closed shortly and video feeds to media room/overflow room shut off. So the hearing will be fairly public, but in audio form only, to protect jurors from harassment and threats that would be enabled by their identification.

Govt prosecutors ask for 5 minute break to get their exhibits ready, saying what exhibits they will introduce "depends on what is said during the hearing".

Judge Jackson's court is now being cleared by the marshall, court will resume shortly with audio feeds only (no video, to hide jurors) available to observers in the overflow room and media room.

Judge Jackson has not resumed court yet, the break before the sealed hearing (now semi-unsealed)is stretching on a bit longer than the five minutes DOJ requested to get their exhibits sorted. What happens next is anyone's guess

Judge Jackson is re-entering her courtroom now, we will tweet updates as we hear them on the audio feed being broadcast in the media room.

Judge Jackson says she has some questions about Stone's motions for new trial/recusal:

-what info was to be made available to defendant Roger Stone and when?

Govt: we do not intend to call a witness but have personal and objective knowledge of a "transmission"

Judge Jackson asks about the copying of juror questionnaires and them being delivered to the defense.

Jury questionnaires were copied and electronically sent to the Stone defense in September.

context - (Far-right conspiracy theorists have recently indicated they have received these jury questionnaires and may publish them this week to retaliate against the court/jurors)

DOJ lawyers continue to describe the minute details of how they uploaded and stored digital copies of juror questionnaires on Sept 12.

On Sept 13, Stone defense downloaded copies of these files.

These include signature pages with juror names and juror numbers.

Govt lawyers going over exhibits by number, which is pages of juror questionnaires.

Judge has Stone defense confirm that they received juror questionnaires that included "signature pages" that identify jurors.

Govt now mentions another exhibit, a snapshot of a "share drive where the juror questionnaires were uploaded"

DOJ points to a specific juror number "that is at issue" in an electronic juror questionnaire PDF.

File was uploaded to share drive on Sept 12.

Next exhibit DOJ points to is exhibit 5, 'discovery report', a 3-page document referring to another document showing "the trail of documents that were uploaded...to USA file exchange..."

2nd page of the exhibit shows that Grant Smith, for Stone defense, downloaded it on Sept 13.

The file was auto-deleted in November as is normal for the "USA File Exchange" system used by the court.

Govt says it only has "one paper copy of all the juror questionnaires" right now but they believe "other copies were made during the process" of preparing for trial.

"USA File Exchange" is available to all US Attorneys, but each US Attorney has their own separate instance of the program that each run separately, DOJ tells Judge Jackson.

Judge Jackson asks who else would have been able to access the sealed juror questionaries in this case - DOJ says Grant Smith (Stone defense).

Moving on to another DOJ exhibit now - record of "transmission of the jury questionnaires to the defense". Some mentions of emails to the defense from DOJ regarding redactions to these documents

Other exhibits from DOJ mentioned just now include:

-exhibit 4: copy of "jury panel sheet" dated 10/4/2019

-exhibit 3: table outlining tweets sent by "the juror at issue" Nov 6-15 during the course of trial ("none of which relate to this case" - DOJ)

US attorney outlines the process of electronically reviewing, retrieving, re-typing, and verifying tweets from the juror. He says that going back to check the twitter handle again since this, some of the tweets have disappeared .

Tweets were publicly available as of Feb 17, 2020, US Atty clarifies

Michael Marando, US Attorney who had previously worked the Stone case until removing himself after Trump's tweets re: sentencing, is going to testify briefly, presumably about the chain of custody of the juror documents.

Marando's testimony so far is very bland matter-of-fact recitation of the process of receiving jury sheets.

Asked about his specific recollections about when he received and shared jury sheets, Marando makes a comment that could be considered a joke about him recusing himself from the case after Trump attacked his sentencing memo - "its coming back to me, a lot has happened"

The jury panel sheet "showed the order in which the jury would be called", Judge Jackson has USAO Marando confirm.

Jackson is now going over an email that was used to share the jury panel sheet w both parties in the Stone trial.

DOJ prosecutor has Marando identify another item, exhibit 9, which is the list of the order of the jurors provided by court staff, essentially showing how jurors would be seated in the courtroom.

Its a handwritten list which Marando described as "low tech" with a brief chuckle. It was then transmitted to the defense but Marando doesn't know specifically how - "he probably PDF'd it..."

Seth Ginsberg, defense for Roger Stone, asks Marando if he recalls the exact date the juror list document was sent to the defense. Marando says he doesn't recall the exact dates.

Marando has now been excused as a witness.

Judge Jackson has Stone defense confirm they made paper copies of jury questionnaires (they say they did make a paper set) 🧐

Judge Jackson now asking about "who had access to the PDFs"

Additional attorneys "had access" to juror related documents "for a limited period of time", the Stone defense tells Judge Jackson.

Judge Jackson is asking about a jury consultant who sat at the defense counsel table earlier in Stone's case. She seems particularly concerned with who had access to the juror-related documents.

The fact that the jury docs have been posted online to threaten jurors hasn't been mentioned out loud yet. Seems like that is bound to come up soon enough here, but we aren't attorneys so it's anyone's guess.

Judge Jackson asks if anyone else had access to jury docs who also had internet access.

Judge Jackson asking if anyone working for Stone defense was tasked with googling jurors

"Its a regular practice by trial lawyers to google jurors on the juror list, wouldn'tt you agree?" - Judge Jackson

Stone defense replies that govt also had access to the jury docs, perhaps indirectly implying that govt is source of jury document leak

Judge Jackson asks Stone defense if they know if Roger Stone gave anyone access to jury documents or directed anyone else to look into jurors. Stone lawyer says he doesn't know but doesn't think so.

Judge Jackson now goes over timeline of juror selection process in early Nov '19

Judge has Stone defense confirm that as of early Nov, they knew who the jurors were and in which order they were seated, and that they all had internet access at the time.

Ginsberg from Stone defense is talking now, saying "the decision not to do internet research...was not based on a prohibition imposed by this court, but was a cost or strategic decision"

Judge Jackson agrees that defense was not prohibited from looking up info about jurors.

Judge Jackson now directly addressing the latest motion from Stone, says its "marked by a tone I haven't seen previously in this case" and says "underneath all the hyperbole" she sees issues being raised - such as the allegations that jury foreperson had bias.

Judge Jackson reminds everyone that they are ordered to not refer to the jury foreperson by name or juror number.

She also says Stone defense latest motion raised an additional issue of allegations of misconduct during the trial.

Judge Jackson points out that all jurors were excused, at the end of the trial, from any restrictions from making any public statements about the trial.

Judge Jackson is now going over the juror questionnaire, asking Stone defense to point out any answers from the juror that the believe was false.

Stone defense points to Qs 15 & 16 that asks if they had any opinions about DOJ/FBI that would prevent them from being impartial.

Judge Jackson: did you put in your pleading that those answers were false?

Stone defense: no, we did not.

Jackson: But you're telling me that they are now?

Stone defense: yes we are

Judge Jackson: Do you think Qs 15 and 16 are statements of fact, statement of personal belief, and you do not believe that 15 and 16 accurately set forth her belief at that time, based on other evidence?

Stone defense: based on her social media posts it doesn't appear those answers were truthful. It may be she believed them to be truthful but she concealed evidence regarding her views that would be important to the court

Judge Jackson: are you saying she deliberately lied?

Stone defense: the answers are at best misleading

Jackson: Intentionally misleading?

Stone defense: at this point I don't know

Stone defense: "based on the social media posts, it appears to me that they were misleading, intentionally"

Judge Jackson: you are not alleging that Qs 21-22 [on jury questionnaire] are false?

Stone defense: I am not

Stone defense points to a Jan 25 2019 post the juror made about the "lock her up peanut gallery" and references the Mueller investigation. They say the article attached as a link to this post references Roger Stone

(An NPR article)

Judge Jackson asks the defense if any other social media posts from this juror referenced Roger Stone.

Defense takes a moment to add:
"The motions that were filed were in no way meant to disparage the court personally, they were meant to protect our client's interests..."

Judge Jackson said she didn't take the motions personally but found that the "New York style" language used was "distracting" and "undercuts" the arguments made by Stone's defense.

Judge Jackson points to comment on the juror's questionnaire saying she "might have made" earlier posts referencing Stone but she wasn't sure.

Stone defense pulls up retweet made by jury foreperson of a tweet by Bakari Sellers that said the use of force complaints by right-wingers in regards to the nature of Roger Stone's arrest were ironic given the lack of outcry of police killings of Sandra Bland & a list of others

Stone defense is now going over Aug 2 2019 tweet from the jury foreperson calling Donald Trump "racist", claiming that Stone's relationship w Roger Stone means that this tweet shows prejudice against Stone.

Judge Jackson seems to say that any posts about Donald Trump do not automatically mean the juror was posting about Roger Stone.

"Equating being a supporter of Trump with being a racist is an implication of Mr. Stone directly... implies a bias against Mr. Stone" - Stone defense to Judge Jackson

Judge Jackson says Stone defense is trying to "lump together" all the juror foreperson's tweets re: Trump but she wants "to break it apart" to see if there are any specific examples proving the juror lied on her jury questionairre.

Stone defense is going over a timeline of tweets by this juror mentioning Trump and the Mueller investigation.

Judge Jackson is now going over a part of the jury questionnaire that includes list of potential witnesses or people related to the case (including Donald Trump), asking if they had opinions about officials on the list. The juror answered that she had opinions about some of them.

Judge Jackson asks for any other answers to jury questionnaire they think are false.

Stone defense: Q 31 - whether she has made posts expressing opinions about Stone, answer is false

Stone defense is still going over the juror questionnaire - "her extremely strong views...could lead to a bias and a personal interest"

Judge Jackson: "your primary argument...is that she is an opinionated Democrat who is opposed to the pres..."

Stone defense: "...she failed to disclose evidence regarding her opinions"

Judge: "you always link them together [Trump and Stone]... you talk a lot about implied bias"

Judge Jackson: are you saying her opinions about the president make her biased against Roger Stone?...She didn't hide... that she had opinions... do you think there's a legal or factual basis...that if I find these posts show an anti-Trump opinion, she was biased against Stone?

Judge Jackson angrily raises her voice when reminding the Stone defense that she did not stop them from asking more questions about this juror during voir dire.

Judge to Stone defense:

Are you gonna answer my Q or do you just not have an answer? I understand you're saying...opinions were understated..let's get back to..your motion...that her views of [Trump] infected her w bias against Stone...what is legal support for why that counts?"

Judge Jackson getting really snippy w Stone defense: "Are you going to point out which posts are the best example? Ok I guess I'll figure it out"

Jackson says she will grant a future hearing about posts made by this juror.

Jude Jackson: which posts are in violation of my instructions?

Stone defense: we don't say that any of them are in violation

Jackson: Other than the posts on the day the verdict was returned, are there any other posts that violate instructions not to post or blog about the case?

Stone defense: we don't contest that she wrote or blogged about the case. We claim...it seems likely she came across info about the case on social media during the case given the fact that she failed to disclose her previous social media posts

Judge Jackson asks for clear proof that the juror failed to follow jury instructions during the trial. Stone defense says they don't allege this but allege that she failed to properly disclose her social media posts during voir dire.

Stone defense motion had claimed that they could infer the juror had been "reading news related to Trump and presidential politics during the trial" because her Twitter account follows different news outlets and reporters.

Judge Jackson; "so you assume that she read them and then told the jury about them? where in that link of causation is a fact, instead of an assumption?"

Judge Jackson: so you dont have any facts to say that she was reading or tweeting things during the trial that she wasn't supposed to?

Stone defense: no, and we didn't say we did.

Judge Jackson: you certainly did

Stone defense: Its a possibility

Jackson: am i suposed to grant a hearing based on a possibility?

Judge Jackson: I don't think you have come forward with any facts that supply any grounds into inquiring whether any extraneous prejudicial info was brought to the jury's attention.

Judge Jackson says she doesn't see enough reason to grant a hearing about issue #2 (alleged jury misconduct). She cites special circumstances about threats and harassment against jurors in this case. Says jurors and foreperson were directed to be present today to maybe testify.

Judge Jackson: I will inform you at a sealed bench conference what jurors are present today in the jury room.

Judge Jackson: given the "Unprecedented unique nature of the situation" we are going to ask two non-foreperson jurors some questions about whether there was improper influence or extrajudicial info in the jury room. But this will not be a fishing expedition

Judge Jackson:

Defense has made no allegations of bias...re: any of the other jurors... questioning them about their views will not be permitted... you have that opportunity before trial began...

Judge Jackson now has the husher on for a private bench conference. Unclear if the husher will be used to hide questioning of jurors or if we'll be able to hear that portion in the media room.

Judge Jackson says the two jurors to be questioned will only be referred to in court as "Juror A" or "Juror B" and that any reference to them otherwise (e.g. by name or jury number) will be punished by contempt (presumably immediate arrest)

Worth noting that President Trump has posted more tweets targeting a juror in this case during the same hearing in which Judge Jackson noted previous Trump tweets targeting jurors have encouraged people to identify, harass, and threaten jurors.

Pizzagate conspiracy theorist Jack Posibiec, a close associate of some of the people threatening to identify more jurors in this case, is currently in the courthouse media room.

Posobiec was just seen exiting the court media room while taking a phone call. Unclear if he has followed the court’s required sign in process to use the media room

Judge Jackson is back in court, audio in the media room is cutting in and out, unclear if this is intentional or not. Either way, the hearing is back in session and the two jurors will be brought in and questioned shortly

"Juror A" is now in court and is about to be questioned.

Judge Jackson: Prior to this case being submitted to you for deliberation, did anyone, including fellow juror try to discuss the case w you?

Juror A: No

Judge: Did anyone bring any social media posts or news regarding the case to you before or during deliberations?

Juror A: No

Judge: during deliberations did anyone talk about something they had read or heard on social media or the news re the case?

Juror A: No

Judge Jackson: describe how you chose the jury foreperson

Juror A: We solicited volunteers, one person put their hand up to volunteer, there were several seconds of silence... 4 people were nominated, we chose a foreperson w a secret ballot

Judge Jackson: Can you generally describe how the foreperson went about organizing/facilitating your discussions?

Juror A: We took a secret poll to get a pulse of the room where each person indiciated how they were leaning on each charge.

Juror A:...we established a process where we looked at each element of each charge in isolation. We then reached unanimity on each element of each charge.

Judge Jackson: did you ever have any concerns about the foreperson?

Juror A: no

Judge: Did you feel pressed or have any concerns at the time you delivered a verdict?

Juror A: no

Judge: how did the jury get along?

Juror A: We got along well

Judge: did anyone try to bulldoze the others?

Juror A: no, there was some impatience but we were able to slow down

Judge: did any juror say anything to you that would indicate they were basing their verdict based on anything other than evidence in the case?

Juror A: No

Both parties decline to ask Juror A more Qs when prompted by Judge Jackson.

Juror A has been dismissed, Juror B is now being sworn in.

Judge Jackson is asking Juror B the same sequence of Qs she asked Juror A - how they reached a verdict, whether they felt pressured to reach a certain verdict, whether any info (news, social media posts etc) other than court evidence was part of jury deliberations.

Just like Juror A, Juror B says none of these concerns occurred, answering 'No' to all the same questions Juror A answered 'No' to.

Judge Jackson said she would not be calling any more jurors to testify unless some sort of issue became apparent when questioning Jurors A and B.

"I don't believe there is any point in calling any other jurors to testify about this matter... I don't believe there is any factual basis... for the second Q raised about misconduct during deliberations... my plan now is to return to the first issue..." - Judge Jackson

Judge Jackson is now going to permit some "limited questioning" of the jury foreperson "to try to get to the bottom of" issues that have been raised by Stone's defense.

DOJ attorney complains "we are engaging in voir dire that was available... pre-trial"

Judge Jackson seems to agree w DOJ but says she is allowing jury foreperson to be questioned out of an "abundance of caution" and also mentions the appeals court, saying she wants to be as thorough as possible, "to give this a try"

"Given the hour and the fact that no other jury is going to be providing testimony", Judge Jackson will be releasing all the jurors for the day except the foreperson, who will testify shortly.

Jury foreperson is now being brought into court.

Judge Jackson now questioning the jury foreperson.

Q: How long have you been on Facebook?

A: since 2008

Q: Do you receive FB posts from news organizations, I gues there are news orgs you can follow or like on FB, do you get FB posts from news orgs?

A: ....

Juror foreperson appears confused by the question, which to be fair Judge Jackson also appears to be confused by - "maybe you got them on twitter?"

Juror foreperson says that since last November, she changed her Facebook privacy settings so her profile was only visible to friends. Her profile settings were "mostly public" before the trial, after which she shut down all social media for two weeks.

Juror foreperson says before Nov 15, her Facebook posts were auto cross posting to her Twitter. After Nov 15 she had disconnected her Twitter from her Facebook, with the last cross post being on Nov 15.

Judge Jackson: "After you posted on Feb 12 of this year, some of your other online posts become available online."

Jury foreperson: I made no settings changes since November

Judge: So prior to Sep 2019, did you delete any Facebook posts?

Foreperson: I deleted nothing, but I changed my settings.

Judge: did you delete or take down any posts?

Foreperson: absolutely not.

Judge is asking about a FB post the foreperson made around 3 AM after the verdict was announced in the Stone case, with heart and fist emojis. Foreperson says she doesn't remember posting it

Judge: Looking at the early AM Nov 15 tweet, does it have anything to do with the one below it?

Foreperson: I really don't remember.

Judge: were you celebrating the verdict that had yet to be decided in the Roger Stone case?

Foreperson: absolutely not

Judge: Your twitter bio reportedly says "tweets are my own retweets don't = agreement"... what does this mean?

Foreperson: when I created that years ago, it was always to state that I'm not speaking for my employer...

Judge: what makes you retweet things?

Foreperson: usually its something I find interesting, something I learn something from, sharing it with people who follow me on twitter

Foreperson says she doesn't pay a lot of attention to her Twitter.

Judge: did you subscribe to any news feeds on the internet at all?

Foreperson: I have news subscriptions, yes I have some news alerts that come, morning editions, things like that

Judge: during the trial, what did you do to comply with the instruction to not read information about the trial during the trial?

Foreperson: if I saw anything connected to this trial, I ignored it. Didn't read anything, if it was on the news I'd turn it off.

Judge: Info that you received came to you through twitter, or through Facebook? On an average day did you look at FB, or did you look at Twitter, on your phone or computer?

Foreperson: I normally look at FB, if I go to twitter someone has posted something to make me go there

Foreperson: if you're seeing something I tweeted its mostly likely something [auto cross-posted] from my facebook .

Judge: during the trial , you weren't looking at twitter every day...?

Foreperson: no, absolutely not.

Judge: when you filled out jury questionnaire, were you trying to end up on the jury, making an effort?

Foreperson: No

Judge: looking back, you were asked...hve you written or posted anything for public consumption about the defendant, the house committee, or Mueller investigat

Judge to foreperson (cont'd): In response to this jury Q, you didn't check Yes or No, you answered that you may have made a post on facebook but you don't remember and you weren't sure.

Judge Jackson shows Twitter post from foreperson that goes to NPR article mentioning Roger Stone.

This appears, what made it appear in your twitter feed, you did something w it on FB?

Foreperson: No, so I would have likely posted this on twitter bc you don't see the FB link

Foreperson confirms when questioned by Judge Jackson that she herself typed the "lock her up peanut gallery" comment in the Twitter post that included the NPR link. Foreperson also agrees that she retweeted an article about Roger Stone's arrest.

The court is being treated to an extensive repeating explanation of what a retweet is.

Foreperson's Facebook posts that have mentioned Michael Cohen, Mueller etc are now mentioned by Judge Jackson.

Judge: were you aware that you had sent those when you filled out the questionnaire?

Foreperson: in that Q I was zeroed in about Roger Stone but I didn't remember, said I wasn't sure. Wasn't comfortable saying yes or no

Judge: were you making any attempt to downplay your activity on social media?

Foreperson: no, thats why I tried to be clear that I wasn't sure, because I post a lot of stuff

Stone defense now being given the chance to question jury foreperson.

Ginsberg for Stone defense is asking Qs

Stone defense is going over foreperson's tweets that mentioned Hilary Clinton and Russia, haven't gotten to an actual Q yet

Brief sidebar happening due to confusion over exhibits. Judge Jackson: "I don't think anybody numbered them"

Stone defense pulls up a post that mentions "Trump, Putin and the new Cold War.'

"Did you post that?"

"It appears I did, yes."

Stone defense now mentioning other posts that seem to reference anti-Trump protests (but not Roger Stone).

Stone defense asked about tweets foreperson made using the following hashtags: #ChuckDTriedToTellUs #FearOfABlackPlanet #FightThePower

"Chuck D, that's from the rap group Public Enemy?"

"Yes"

"What do you think he's trying to tell us?"

" I don't know"

Judge Jackson interrupts to say these hashtags "do not bear on any bias towards Roger Stone" beyond the implication the foreperson may have an opinion related to Trump policies.

"Having an opinion about the president...does not mean she cannot fairly and impartially judge the evidence against Roger Stone" - Judge Jackson

"But the hashtag is hers and in the context of the entirety of the postings that we've found we think it does paint a certain picture" - Stone defense

Stone defense stubbornly returns to the Q "What does #ChuckDTriedToTellUs mean to you?"

Foreperson refers to a lack of racial justice in the US.

Stone defense is continuing to refer to social media posts by the foreperson that seem to indirectly refer to President Trump. None of them seem to mention Roger Stone at all

Stone defense again fixates on a twitter comment on NPR article "brought to you by the lock her up peanut gallery" as well as a retweet of a Bakari Sellers tweet comparing police use of force on Roger Stone to police use of force on black people killed by police.

Stone defense pulls up a tweet in which the foreperson seems to have called Trump's former lawyer Michael Cohen a liar

Stone defense quickly going through the list of social media posts by the foreperson, like a post about Michael Flynn and Mueller.

Judge Jackson interrupts to ask "how many posts did you post on Facebook a day?"

"It depends, sometimes very active, I wouldn't know a number, but quite a bit sometimes"

Judge Jackson asks for an average per day/per week of how many posts she would post. Foreperson says she can't really say but that she's been very active on Facebook and often shares things and makes posts that aren't related to news.

Stone defense resumes questioning, again asking about posts the foreperson made that included news about Trump and Mueller and Russia investigations.

Stone defense pulls up a tweet from foreperson calling Trump & supporters racists.

Judge interrupts: Was this a comment about Roger Stone?

Foreperson: No

Stone defense: did you understand Roger Stone to be an associate of Trump?

Foreperson: yes but this post wasn't about him

Judge Jackson: prior to the trial did you know who Roger Stone was?

Foreperson: yes.

Judge: what did you know about him?

Foreperson: sort of thought he was arrested for his connection to stuff with Russia and Trump

Judge Jackson: before the trial did you know how long Stone and Trump had known each other, and what Stone did for the Trump campaign?

Foreperson: no

Stone defense: you posted "will MAGA crowd denounce or condone this affiliation" with a picture of a Klan rally, is that correct?

Foreperson: yes

Stone defense pulls up the tweet the foreperson made (but doesn't remember making) with two emoji fists and two emoji hearts, asking what its in reference to.

Foreperson: I don't remember so I can't say

Judge: is it a fist bump, sort of like its a high five?

Stone defense: when you wrote about the "lock her up peanut gallery" what was that about?

foreperson: the irony of people saying others should be jailed, and them themselves being arrested

Stone defense: your facebook was set to private correct?

foreperson: yes, around november/thanksgving 2019, after the trial was over.

Stone defense: we've just covered a series of posts you made in 2019 before the trial..Q 23 on jury questionnaire, you were asked...

DOJ interrupts to ask that the foreperson have the same copy of her social media posts the Stone defense is asking her about (she didn't have one)

Stone defense: Q 23 asks, have you written any posts about the defendant, house investigation into Russian interference in 2016 election, or Mueller investigations?.... your answer was "Can't remember if I did, might have posted an article on FB, not sure"

foreperson: yes

Stone defense: is it fair to say you made more than one post, you said you only made one...

DOJ interrupts saying the Q is argumentative, Judge Jackson agrees.

foreperson: like I said, I said I couldn't remember.

"I said I'm honestly not sure, and that was the honest answer on Sept 12 [on jury form]... when I wrote #23 I meant all of that to be about Roger Stone, so even in my reading of that [post] I was thinking in terms of Roger Stone. "

Stone defense is now nitpicking about whether a given post was cross posted from Facebook or was composed in twitter itself. Defense counsel tone sounds a shade more hostile now, but not a lot.

Foreperson is now explaining details about twitter character limits and how that could truncate Facebook posts that were automatically cross-posted to her twitter.

Why Stone's defense cares about this, we can't say

Stone defense asking about her appearance in voir dire on Nov 5. "Do you recall being asked by the court... do you understand that [Stone] was involved in Trump's campaign in some way?"

Judge interrupts : "if you're reading from the transcript, you ought to give [a copy] to her"

Judge gives the foreperson her transcript copy, govt gives the Judge DOJ's copy. Musical transcripts

Stone defense now asking jury foreperson about her answers to voir dire questions asked by the judge, namely establishing her awareness that Roger Stone was connected to and affiliated with Donald Trump.

Stone defense: during voir dire, do you maintain that you weren't paying much attention to news involving Roger Stone?

Judge Jackson interrupts: that wasn't what she said.

Foreperson: "My whole response to this was about Roger Stone, what have I read or head about him. I still stand by that, that I'd heard he was somehow involved in the Trump campaign or with the Russia probe"

Stone defense is now done questioning the jury foreperson, who was just excused after the DOJ declined to question her.

DOJ declines to introduce additional evidence when asked by Judge Jackson. Jackson says "I'll take it under advisement, thanks everyone for coming." Unclear if court is done for the day or not or if Judge Jackson will rule from the bench soon

Ok, we were confused and court is now in fact done for the day here in DC District Court. Judge Jackson has not ruled on Roger Stone's amended motion for a new trial but certainly appears to be suspicious of the logic employed by Stone and his defense team.

To recap, today’s hearing covered such legal jurisprudence issues such as:

What message does Public Enemy’s music convey?

What do fist emojis mean? What’s a fist bump, is it like a high five?

How does twitter work?

What a day. Thanks for following along with us everyone

Roger Stone and his lawyers leave court after attempting to convince a federal judge that a juror’s tweets about Trump-related news mean he needs a new trial.

Roger Stone came here to try to get a new trial, and chew bubblegum. Looks like he’s not all out of bubblegum yet(?)

Media presence was still sizable but much smaller compared to trial and sentencing. Stone’s supporters didn’t appear to show, perhaps due to some of them being associated with recent threats to expose and harass jurors.