JEANINE PIRRO: First of all, the thing that is most concerning to me right now is why the judge made a decision to sentence Roger Stone when there was a question as to what the legitimacy of the verdict based upon juror bias. Understand, Sean, that they had a juror questionnaire that asked all the potential jurors, as they did when I was a judge, is there anything in your background which would cause you to be unfair to Roger Stone. Now, this woman had a Facebook page that I understand was personal. But she apparently was a Democratic candidate for Congress. She was an activist. She was someone who commented on Stone's arrest. She is someone who should never have been on that jury. So one of two things is going on. She either lied when she was being chosen as a juror for that case or someone already knew about her and skipped over it. Plus, why was she so interested that she objected to the attorneys and the prosecutors withdrawing from the case? She has nothing to do with sentencing. Her job was to assess the facts.
So, everything about this stinks. There needs to be another trial. They shouldn't have even gone to sentencing. And I'm telling you, Sean, there's not a judge in this country that would not demand another trial. And if she doesn't, you have to say to this judge, what did you know? And why would you not at least recuse yourself when you came out and said that this jury has served with integrity under difficult circumstances, judge? Why are you standing up for this jury? Why?