SEAN HANNITY (HOST): I would think Stone has -- this is a slam dunk case considering this juror had preconceived notion and political views that were stated and were hostile to Roger Stone specifically and the president specifically. And I think this is pretty outrageous - ran for Congress, we have transcripts from the jury selection process indicating Stone's defense team was aware of her congressional bid but they were not aware of her comments on social media. Now, I guess an argument could be made that they should've known that. I think the bigger argument is the juror should've disclosed that. Why wouldn't that be brought up? Um, your honor, I just need you to know I'm willing to sit on the jury but I had tweeted out about this case. Because any judge would've said dismissed.
I know everybody that works for me, when they get called for jury duty, they just mention they work for me and the next thing that happens is dismissed.
This should be a slam dunk. This should be a slam dunk. And at the hearing unsealing the proceedings the judge brings up the president's tweets. You know, going after a juror. Why shouldn't he? Now he's the top law enforcement officer.
She noted claims by Tucker Carlson saying she's an anti-Trump zealot sitting on the jury, she says that's incendiary and false information. About the jury, etc. etc. She warned individuals angry about Stone's conviction may choose to take it out on members of the jury personally. Attempts to invade the privacy of the juror. Linda, am I mistaken here, did the juror not our herself on social media, Facebook if I'm not mistaken?