she repeatedly assured the court that she was totally not biased at all.
You must have read a different transcript.
They asked her in multiple ways if she could
set aside any bias and judge only based upon the facts of the case.
Can you kind of wipe the slate clean and learn what you need to learn in this case from the evidence presented in the courtroom and no other source?
is that something that you think that the nature of the allegations alone would make it hard for you to be fair?
Is there anything about his affiliation with the Trump campaign and the Republican party in general that gives you any reason to pause or hesitate or think that you couldn't fairly evaluate the evidence against him?
She said she could be fair. It's going to be hard to prove that as a lie.
Now, she could have lied/omitted something in her written responses and that would be pretty solid grounds for retrial.
But I still think that since they knew she ran for congress as a democrat and didn't question her any further, it was Stone's lawyers who dropped the ball if they want to come back and claim bias now.