In The NewsUS News

Judge On Roger Stone Case Goes After Tucker Carlson, Trump Over Comments About Juror

A federal judge on Tuesday criticized Fox News anchor Tucker Carlson for calling the lead juror in Roger Stone’s trial an “anti-Trump zealot,” though the juror in question has referred to President Donald Trump on social media as “#KlanPresident” and asserted in a Twitter post in August 2019 that Trump’s supporters are racist.

Judge Amy Berman Jackson leveled the criticism against Carlson and Trump for their recent remarks about the juror, Tomeka Hart, during a hearing on whether to grant Stone a retrial. Jackson sentenced Stone on Feb. 20 to 40 months in prison in a case stemming from the special counsel’s probe.

Stone, 67, has asserted in a secret court filing that Hart provided misleading answers in a written jury questionnaire, as well as during a voir dire interview on Nov. 5, 2019.

Those documents, obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation, show that Hart acknowledged having some knowledge of the Trump-Russia investigation and of Stone. She said in her questionnaire that she was not certain whether she had commented publicly on the topics. Her Twitter feed shows that she did post multiple times about the investigations, including negative stories about Trump.

She also retweeted a post several days after Stone was arrested that criticized some of Stone’s conservative defenders.

Stone contends that Hart would have been removed from the potential jury pool if she had disclosed her full opinion of the Russia investigation and Trump on her jury questionnaire.

Stone lawyer Robert Buschel said at Tuesday’s hearing that the legal team did not conduct research on Hart before the trial started.

Trump and Carlson, who co-founded the Daily Caller, have rallied around Stone, while criticizing both Jackson and Hart.

Trump said on Feb. 20 that Hart “tainted” the Stone jury pool. Carlson has used his show to criticize Jackson’s handling of Stone’s case and to assert that Hart was biased against Trump.

Jackson said Tuesday that Carlson and Trump were trying to intimidate Hart.

“Tucker Carlson accused the foreperson of the jury of being an anti-Trump zealot,” Jackson said, according to reporters at the hearing. “Any attempts to invade the privacy of the jurors or to harass or intimidate them is completely antithetical to our system of justice.”

“This is indisputably a highly publicized case in which the president himself shone a spotlight on the jury,” she continued, according to The Washington Post. “The risk of harassment and intimidation of any jurors who may testify in the hearing later today is is extremely high, and individually who may be angry about Mr. Stone’s conviction may chose to take it out on them personally.”

Hart came forward earlier in February to defend four prosecutors who withdrew from the Stone case in protest after Justice Department officials revised a recommendation for how much time Stone should spend in prison.

Prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington, D.C., initially recommended that Stone serve between 87 months and 108 months in prison.

After Trump criticized the recommendation, the Justice Department issued a statement signaling that it would revise the recommendation. In the new proposal, prosecutors said that Stone deserved “substantial” prison time, but “far less” than the 7-9 year recommendation.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact

Support Conservative Daily News with a small donation via Paypal or credit card that will go towards supporting the news and commentary you've come to appreciate.

Related Articles


  1. I’m sure she was happy to have a kiondred juror on the case. She has made major bad judgments and should be removed, regardless of his guilt. She’s pathetic.

  2. Another Jurist who is a partisan hack, has no respect for the “Rule of Law” and is immersing the Judiciary Branch into politics.

    Without even discussing her blatant violations of Stone’s (and his families) Civil Rights and elimination of Free Speech, she now feels compelled and even authorized (she’s not) to trample on the rights of other Americans who are not even before her in her courtroom.

    Recusal isn’t satisfactory for Jackson, only full impeachment will suffice.

    With members of the Judiciary like Jackson, this Country, it’s Laws and Constitution are in grave jeopardy.

  3. The leftist judges appointed by Obama are out of the Marxist Critical Theory School, every one. Critical Theory mandates that every person , regardless of their position in life, use every bit of their influence to foment discontent by undermining every institution that keeps us together. The aim is a socialist revolution. This judge has used her power now to undermine our justice system. She has gaged Roger Stone with threat of imprisonment. He cannot defend himself against her and her anti Trump jury foreman. She has congratulated the forewoman and jury. The forewoman lied to the defense and to the judge …. what is so difficult to understand? The judge is a disgrace. The judge should be removed from case and the bench. She is a hard core ideologue and brings her ideology into rulings and behavior every day she serves like a good little Critical Theorist.

  4. Judge Amy Berman Jackson’s own words, “Any attempts to invade the privacy of the jurors […]”, contradicts the whole reason for the juror questionnaire. Judge Jackson, should step down as remedy for her failure to perform due diligence regarding juror selection.

    Condemning the messenger, Tucker Carlson, is typical democrat action[s].

  5. Justice is blind. Carlson unlike many of his brethren is doing his job as designed by our Constitution. Monitoring and reporting on Federal officials. Lady Justice is supposedly blind as described below;
    Why is Lady Justice blindfolded?

    The blindfold covering the eyes of lady justice represents objectivity. This means that justice is objective. When you are blind, you cannot see a person’s identity, beauty, wealth, power, race, etc. And this is how justice is supposed to be; it should be blind.

    Clearly this judge is not following that code of conduct and is being taken to to task by a member of the press and rightly so. She has removed those blinders and lost any and all objectivity in this case because of her political bias. The foreman shouldl be charged with lying on a federal court document and fined appropriately. Judge if you can’t stand the eye of the press on you it’s time to get out of the business of law.

Back to top button