Judge Andrew Napolitano commented on the remarkable revelations coming out of the Roger Stone trial, namely that the jury foreperson had a significant anti-Trump and anti-Stone bias.

Facts regarding Tomeka Hart, the juror in question, have been coming out of late, facts that probably should have been known by the judge or prosecutors in the case long before now.

Hart, it has been revealed, donated to Democrat candidates rather frequently (she donated $100 to Kamala Harris during the trial), actually ran for Congress as a Democrat, posted on social media that supporters of the President are racists, and even shared a post mocking Stone for decrying the ‘excessive force’ used in his arrest.

“Then stop being racists,” she wrote in response to one article about Trump supporters growing weary of being called the term.

“Co-signing and defending a racist and his racist rhetoric makes you racist,” Hart continued. “Point blank.”

Which begs the question, how in the hell was this woman, who very clearly has an animus towards Stone and anybody involved with President Trump, allowed to serve on the jury period, much less as foreperson?

Napolitano has some opinions and if they’re right, suggests Hart could be looking at being charged with a crime.

RELATED: Gowdy to Dems Calling For Barr Resignation: “Dumbest Damn Thing I’ve Ever Heard”

Did She Hide Her Bias?

Judge Napolitano appeared with Fox News personality Tucker Carlson to discuss the case which has ignited Democrats to pursue new impeachment charges and investigations against the President and Attorney General Bill Barr.

“Why was someone like this allowed to remain on the jury?” Carlson asked.

Hart, Napolitano believes, has a very serious problem if it is determined that she intentionally hid her bias.

“This is information that she must have hidden from the lawyers and the judge who interrogated her before she was put on the jury,” he explained, noting that federal cases require a judge interrogate the jurors.

“The purpose of the interrogation is to weed out people that have a bias, prejudice, and knowledge of case or interest in the outcome,” Napolitano continued.

“She obviously had a prejudice against Roger Stone, a bias in favor of his prosecution, and an interest in seeing him convicted.”

There is another scenario though less likely – that the judge and prosecutors knew of Hart’s mindset and were okay with it.

RELATED: Juanita Broaddrick Whacks ‘Bottom Dwelling Slug’ Hillary After She Calls Trump a ‘Failed-State Fascist’

Bring Her Back In

The reality is, in most courts in America this would be grounds for a mistrial.

Napolitano believes the judge in this trial needs to bring Hart back in, along with the prosecutors who recently attempted to resign in protest over perceived interference by the President, and interrogate her again.

If it is determined Hart lied about bias or prior knowledge of Stone in her initial interrogation, said Napolitano, “It would be catastrophic for her.”

“First of all, she is a lawyer,” he said. “So she would be prosecuted for perjury since the statements are given under oath.”

“And if convicted she would lose her license to practice law but that would be the least of her concerns,” Napolitano continued. “She probably would serve jail time if she lied in order to affect the outcome of a case.”

He also proposed that if it is determined that Hart falsely represented herself, the conviction would be vacated and a new trial ordered.

Considering Democrats are hell-bent on taking down President Trump and AG Bill Barr over this, imagine their rage when one of their own resistance footsoldiers ends up getting Stone off.