USA v Roger J. Stone, Jr., USDC-DC, Obstruction, False Statements, Witness Tampering

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 32560
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: USA v Roger J. Stone, Jr., USDC-DC, Obstruction, False Statements, Witness Tampering

#676

Post by Addie » Thu May 09, 2019 12:55 pm

Cross-posting

Politico
Judge demands unredacted Mueller report in Roger Stone case

Federal prosecutors handling Roger Stone’s case were ordered on Thursday to turn over to a judge any unredacted sections of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report relating to the longtime GOP operative that could help prepare his defense for their upcoming trial.

U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson in a one-paragraph order gave the U.S. attorneys handling the Stone case until Monday to provide her with portions of Mueller’s report that deal with Stone “and/or ‘the dissemination of hacked materials’” that were leaked during the 2016 presidential campaign to the detriment of Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.

Jackson said she wants to review in private those blacked-out sections of the Mueller report as she weighs several motions from Stone’s lawyers requesting access as part of a larger bid to dismiss the case. Mueller charged Stone in January with lying to Congress and obstructing the House Intelligence Committee’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, with a trial in Washington scheduled to begin Nov. 5.

Stone’s lawyers last month asked for the entire Mueller report as they pressed Jackson to toss out the case before trial. His attorneys are also trying to get the case transferred from Jackson, who presided over the guilty plea and sentencing of former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, as well as several other Mueller-related matters.

User avatar
Chilidog
Posts: 9700
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 11:36 am

Re: USA v Roger J. Stone, Jr., USDC-DC, Obstruction, False Statements, Witness Tampering

#677

Post by Chilidog » Thu May 09, 2019 5:57 pm

She just wants to read it. :rotflmao:

User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 13258
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 7:53 am

Re: USA v Roger J. Stone, Jr., USDC-DC, Obstruction, False Statements, Witness Tampering

#678

Post by Kendra » Thu May 09, 2019 7:11 pm

Chilidog wrote:
Thu May 09, 2019 5:57 pm
She just wants to read it. :rotflmao:
Judge Amy gets to read all the good stuff.

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 10393
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: USA v Roger J. Stone, Jr., USDC-DC, Obstruction, False Statements, Witness Tampering

#679

Post by Mikedunford » Thu May 09, 2019 7:15 pm

They'll refuse to comply and Stone will walk.
"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

Jcolvin2
Posts: 208
Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2017 12:40 am

Re: USA v Roger J. Stone, Jr., USDC-DC, Obstruction, False Statements, Witness Tampering

#680

Post by Jcolvin2 » Thu May 09, 2019 11:57 pm

Mikedunford wrote:
Thu May 09, 2019 7:15 pm
They'll refuse to comply and Stone will walk.
I would think that most Stone-related grand jury material would have to be turned over to Stone at some point in criminal discovery.

User avatar
fierceredpanda
Posts: 1809
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2016 3:04 pm
Location: BAR Headquarters - Turn left past the picture of King George III

Re: USA v Roger J. Stone, Jr., USDC-DC, Obstruction, False Statements, Witness Tampering

#681

Post by fierceredpanda » Fri May 10, 2019 6:30 am

Jcolvin2 wrote:
Thu May 09, 2019 11:57 pm
Mikedunford wrote:
Thu May 09, 2019 7:15 pm
They'll refuse to comply and Stone will walk.
I would think that most Stone-related grand jury material would have to be turned over to Stone at some point in criminal discovery.
Federal criminal discovery is limited (basically) to exculpatory evidence, evidence the Government intends to use at trial, and evidence going to the credibility of witnesses the Government intends to put on the stand. And, in most cases, the Government gets to decide what qualifies as discoverable, leading to motions to compel from the defense. Discovery litigation in federal criminal cases can take months, and are one of many reasons why I as a practicing defense lawyer wouldn't think of taking on a federal case for less than $20,000 up-front, and likely much more than that.

The state where I practice (Wisconsin), in contrast, has discovery rules that are far less open to interpretation, not to mention prosecutors who are generally indoctrinated to take a "full disclosure" approach in order to speed litigation. Getting bogged down in the weeds of discovery motions doesn't work for Assistant DAs with hundreds of cases on their desks the same way it works for an Assistant US Attorney who maybe only handles a couple dozen cases at a time.

This is all a long way of saying the Government has a lot of wiggle room to say that Stone-related grand jury material isn't going to be used at trial, and therefore isn't discoverable. This sort of litigation happens all the time, and it's why Rule 6e has provisions for defendants to go to the judge with a motion to obtain 6e material - which the Government always always always fights.
"There's no play here. There's no angle. There's no champagne room. I'm not a miracle worker, I'm a janitor. The math on this is simple; the smaller the mess, the easier it is for me to clean up." -Michael Clayton

User avatar
Volkonski
Posts: 22100
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2013 4:44 pm
Location: Texas Gulf Coast and North Fork of Long Island
Occupation: Retired Mechanical Engineer

Re: USA v Roger J. Stone, Jr., USDC-DC, Obstruction, False Statements, Witness Tampering

#682

Post by Volkonski » Fri May 10, 2019 5:06 pm

Zoe Tillman

Verified account

@ZoeTillman
6m6 minutes ago
More
Here's Roger Stone's motion to suppress evidence in his case: https://assets.documentcloud.org/docume ... ppress.pdf … He's arguing the search warrants were based on claims that Russians were involved in hacking the DNC, and he's questioning the legitimacy of the info offered by prosecutors in support of that
Image“If everyone fought for their own convictions there would be no war.”
― Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace

User avatar
woodworker
Posts: 2760
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 2:54 pm

Re: USA v Roger J. Stone, Jr., USDC-DC, Obstruction, False Statements, Witness Tampering

#683

Post by woodworker » Fri May 10, 2019 5:45 pm

fierceredpanda wrote:
Fri May 10, 2019 6:30 am
Jcolvin2 wrote:
Thu May 09, 2019 11:57 pm
Mikedunford wrote:
Thu May 09, 2019 7:15 pm
They'll refuse to comply and Stone will walk.
I would think that most Stone-related grand jury material would have to be turned over to Stone at some point in criminal discovery.
Federal criminal discovery is limited (basically) to exculpatory evidence, evidence the Government intends to use at trial, and evidence going to the credibility of witnesses the Government intends to put on the stand. And, in most cases, the Government gets to decide what qualifies as discoverable, leading to motions to compel from the defense. Discovery litigation in federal criminal cases can take months, and are one of many reasons why I as a practicing defense lawyer wouldn't think of taking on a federal case for less than $20,000 up-front, and likely much more than that.

The state where I practice (Wisconsin), in contrast, has discovery rules that are far less open to interpretation, not to mention prosecutors who are generally indoctrinated to take a "full disclosure" approach in order to speed litigation. Getting bogged down in the weeds of discovery motions doesn't work for Assistant DAs with hundreds of cases on their desks the same way it works for an Assistant US Attorney who maybe only handles a couple dozen cases at a time.

This is all a long way of saying the Government has a lot of wiggle room to say that Stone-related grand jury material isn't going to be used at trial, and therefore isn't discoverable. This sort of litigation happens all the time, and it's why Rule 6e has provisions for defendants to go to the judge with a motion to obtain 6e material - which the Government always always always fights.

AACL (as a California lawyer), ditto with one qualification. Although I haven't read any of Stone's recent filings, I suspect that his attorneys are going to argue that the non-disclosed portions contain exculpatory evidence and that the only way the judge can see that is if the complete unredacted materials are provided to her for her review. If the DOJ says no, Stone's attorneys get to argue that the government is preventing a fair trial for Stone.
Pence / Haley -- 2020 "I Won't Call Her Mother" and "We Will Be The Best Team Ever, But Never Alone Together"

User avatar
woodworker
Posts: 2760
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 2:54 pm

Re: USA v Roger J. Stone, Jr., USDC-DC, Obstruction, False Statements, Witness Tampering

#684

Post by woodworker » Fri May 10, 2019 5:48 pm

Volkonski wrote:
Fri May 10, 2019 5:06 pm
Zoe Tillman

Verified account

@ZoeTillman
6m6 minutes ago
More
Here's Roger Stone's motion to suppress evidence in his case: https://assets.documentcloud.org/docume ... ppress.pdf … He's arguing the search warrants were based on claims that Russians were involved in hacking the DNC, and he's questioning the legitimacy of the info offered by prosecutors in support of that
He questioning whether or not the Russians were interfering??? Someone remind me quickly: is this before the judge that asked the prosecution whether they had considered treason charges for the of the Trumpkins?
Pence / Haley -- 2020 "I Won't Call Her Mother" and "We Will Be The Best Team Ever, But Never Alone Together"


User avatar
Addie
Posts: 32560
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: USA v Roger J. Stone, Jr., USDC-DC, Obstruction, False Statements, Witness Tampering

#686

Post by Addie » Sat May 11, 2019 11:34 am

CNN: Roger Stone was being investigated by Mueller for far more crimes than he now faces charges for, attorneys say

User avatar
Maybenaut
Posts: 5473
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:58 am
Location: Maybelot

Re: USA v Roger J. Stone, Jr., USDC-DC, Obstruction, False Statements, Witness Tampering

#687

Post by Maybenaut » Sat May 11, 2019 2:04 pm

Volkonski wrote:
Fri May 10, 2019 5:06 pm
Zoe Tillman

Verified account

@ZoeTillman
6m6 minutes ago
More
Here's Roger Stone's motion to suppress evidence in his case: https://assets.documentcloud.org/docume ... ppress.pdf … He's arguing the search warrants were based on claims that Russians were involved in hacking the DNC, and he's questioning the legitimacy of the info offered by prosecutors in support of that
From what I can gather, this is the argument:

1. The feds were investigating Stone for a bunch of stuff they ultimately never charged him with.
2. The FBI has certain computer forensic methodologies it must follow before computer data can be authenticated.
3. They didn’t follow those methodologies.
4. Computer data that cannot be authenticated is inadmissible.

[Hole in the argument]

5. Therefore, there was no probable cause to issue the search warrant.

Here’s (a not-necessarily-complete list of) what’s in the hole:

a. Probable cause need not be based on admissible evidence (it can be based on the hearsay statement of an anonymous informant, for example).
b. A search pursuant to a warrant need not result in the charges suspected at the time of the search. The plain view doctrine is a good example — “we was searchin’ for drugs... we didn’t find no drugs, but there was child pornography sittin’ smack in the middle of the coffee table for anyone to see!”
c. If the cops are searching pursuant to a facially valid warrant, the good-faith doctrine [usually] applies (last time I researched this was over a year ago, and it appeared - to me, at least - that the federal courts have been inconsistent in deciding whether the good-faith exception should apply to a search where the warrant was facially valid but not supported by probable cause).

What’s interesting about this pleading is the remedy they’re requesting, which is not suppression, but an evidentiary hearing. I think they know that this issue wouldn’t survive a suppression motion, but they’re raising it so they can get access to evidence earlier than they otherwise might, I think.
"Hey! You know, we left this England place because it was bogus. So if we don't get some cool rules ourselves, pronto, we'll just be bogus too." - Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26659
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: USA v Roger J. Stone, Jr., USDC-DC, Obstruction, False Statements, Witness Tampering

#688

Post by bob » Sat May 11, 2019 2:35 pm

Maybenaut wrote:
Sat May 11, 2019 2:04 pm
What’s interesting about this pleading is the remedy they’re requesting, which is not suppression, but an evidentiary hearing. I think they know that this issue wouldn’t survive a suppression motion, but they’re raising it so they can get access to evidence earlier than they otherwise might, I think.
Too also: Pulling a Klayman -- litigating for the sake of embarrassing the other side.

Too also in addition: Stone is charged with witness intimidation and lying to Congress; there's an alternative argument that the evidence of those crimes would have been inevitably discovered, regardless of the validity of the search warrant.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Maybenaut
Posts: 5473
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:58 am
Location: Maybelot

Re: USA v Roger J. Stone, Jr., USDC-DC, Obstruction, False Statements, Witness Tampering

#689

Post by Maybenaut » Sat May 11, 2019 3:01 pm

bob wrote:
Sat May 11, 2019 2:35 pm

Too also: Pulling a Klayman -- litigating for the sake of embarrassing the other side.
Or litigating for the sake of appearing to be doing something.
"Hey! You know, we left this England place because it was bogus. So if we don't get some cool rules ourselves, pronto, we'll just be bogus too." - Thomas Jefferson

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26659
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: USA v Roger J. Stone, Jr., USDC-DC, Obstruction, False Statements, Witness Tampering

#690

Post by bob » Tue May 14, 2019 7:47 pm

WaPo: U.S. confirms Rick Gates’s cooperation in pending Roger Stone, Gregory Craig trials:
Rick Gates, the former top deputy to onetime Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, continues to cooperate with the government in the pending prosecutions of Trump confidant Roger Stone and of former Obama White House counsel Gregory B. Craig, who worked with Manafort on Ukraine matters, according to a court filing.

The disclosure came in a joint filing Monday to delay Gates’s sentencing made by the office of U.S. Attorney Jessie K. Liu of the District and by Gates’s attorney, Thomas C. Green.

The filing departed from several similar joint requests since November by confirming two cases in which Gates’s cooperation had been expected. Previously, both sides referred only to his cooperation in “several ongoing investigations” without specification.

* * *

As Trump’s deputy campaign chairman and a top inauguration official, Gates had firsthand insight into several of the president’s senior aides and activities, including Stone. Before joining the campaign, Gates had worked for a decade under Manafort on undisclosed lobbying for a Russian-aligned politician in Ukraine.

* * *

In Monday’s filing, Liu and Green wrote, “To date . . . defendant Gates continues to cooperate with the government as required by his Plea Agreement.” They identified Craig’s and Stone’s pending trial dates, adding, “as a result the parties do not believe that a sentencing date should be set at this time” for Gates.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 32560
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: USA v Roger J. Stone, Jr., USDC-DC, Obstruction, False Statements, Witness Tampering

#691

Post by Addie » Thu May 16, 2019 4:04 pm

Law & Crime: Federal Prosecutors Suggest Robert Mueller’s Grand Jury Is Still Hard at Work

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 12221
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: USA v Roger J. Stone, Jr., USDC-DC, Obstruction, False Statements, Witness Tampering

#692

Post by Notorial Dissent » Thu May 16, 2019 5:05 pm

Addie wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 4:04 pm
Law & Crime: Federal Prosecutors Suggest Robert Mueller’s Grand Jury Is Still Hard at Work
Only lyin' Corsi, and LaRump, thinks he's in the clear now.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26659
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: USA v Roger J. Stone, Jr., USDC-DC, Obstruction, False Statements, Witness Tampering

#693

Post by bob » Thu May 16, 2019 7:09 pm

woodworker wrote:
Fri May 10, 2019 5:48 pm
He questioning whether or not the Russians were interfering???
Mother Jones: Roger Stone Is Relying on a Debunked Conspiracy Theory to Fight His Criminal Case:
A new filing by his legal team suggests the DNC hack was an inside job.

* * *

In a motion filed on Friday, Stone’s lawyers argued that evidence in his case should be thrown out because the government gathered it using search warrants that stated the FBI was investigating Stone for crimes, including conspiracy and wire fraud, that were based on “the assumption that the Russian state is responsible for hacking” the DNC and Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager, John Podesta. That is, Stone is suggesting Moscow was not behind the hack-and-dump operation against Democrats in 2016. And, in doing so, he is continuing to fuel a discredited conspiracy theory that exploited the tragic murder of 27-year old Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich to boost his legal case.

* * *

In their motion, Stone’s lawyers argue that Special Counsel Robert Mueller has failed to make the case that Russia was behind the hacks and asserts that his conclusions rely on an initial analysis by CrowdStrike, a cybersecurity firm hired by the DNC that produced a report on the hack. But US intelligence agencies concluded in 2017 that Russian government hackers pulled off the operation. And in a detailed indictment last year of 12 alleged members of a Russian military intelligence agency, the GRU, the special counsel described how they executed the scheme. Mueller’s report says the special counsel’s office “was able to identify when the GRU (operating through its personas Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks) transferred some of the stolen documents to WikiLeaks through online archives set up by the GRU.” It cites a July 14 email in which Guccifer 2.0 sent WikiLeaks a file believed to contain Democratic emails. Redactions in Mueller’s report indicate the methods investigators used to gain this knowledge remain secret.

* * *

The lawyers cite affidavits by two men, William Binney and Peter Clay, who question the conclusion that the GRU carried out the DNC hack. In 2017, Binney, a former National Security Agency official, co-wrote an analysis suggesting that the DNC documents were pilfered by an insider. Clay, who describes himself as a cybersecurity expert, has offered a similar analysis. Binney’s argument helped fueled the unfounded conspiracy theory that the DNC documents were stolen by Rich, a DNC staffer who was murdered in July 2016 during a suspected robbery attempt. At Trump’s behest, Binney met in October 2017 with then-CIA Director Mike Pompeo to promote his theory. Binney told the Intercept that he mentioned Rich during the meeting.

* * *

In the summer of 2016, even as Russian hacking efforts continued, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange promoted the Rich conspiracy theory. Mueller’s final report notes that Assange’s statements implying Rich was WikiLeaks’ source for the purloined DNC emails were “apparently designed to obscure the source of the materials that WikiLeaks was releasing.” Stone was also an early and aggressive promotor of the Rich theory. On August 9, 2016, Stone shared an image that alleged, without any evidence, that Rich was killed “on his way to meet with the FBI to discuss election fraud.” Stone tweeted the next day that Rich had “ties to DNC heist.”

Fox News, which hyped the Rich theory in 2017, retracted an article falsely reporting that the FBI had found evidence that Rich had corresponded with WikiLeaks prior to his murder. And even arch conspiracy theorist Jerome Corsi apologized to Rich’s family for promoting the conspiracy theory. But Stone has not abandoned the claim.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26659
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: USA v Roger J. Stone, Jr., USDC-DC, Obstruction, False Statements, Witness Tampering

#694

Post by bob » Mon May 20, 2019 9:02 pm

Mother Jones: Roger Stone Seeks Judge’s Permission to Appear at a Strip Club:
It’s not what you think.
Actually, it is what I thought; I'm disappointed that it isn't:
On Thursday, lawyers for Roger Stone, whose travel is restricted ahead of his November trial on obstruction of justice and perjury charges, requested a judge’s permission to visit Tennessee and Illinois “for business opportunities.”

One of those opportunities is at the Pony, an adult entertainment club in Memphis, where Stone is scheduled to appear June 5-7. A longtime political adviser to President Donald Trump, Stone “is coming out to judge the national exotic dancer competition that we’re hosting,” the club’s owner, Jerry Westlund, tells Mother Jones. The appearance is on brand for Stone, who touts himself as a libertine—he once took a New Yorker reporter to a swinger’s club that he said he frequented. “He’s been very open about his appreciation for beautiful women,” Westlund says. (Stone’s lawyer did not respond to questions about the purpose of the Illinois visit.)

In a Facebook post, the club said Stone will judge dancers alongside Kristin Davis, who is known as the “Manhattan Madam” for her role running a high-end prostitution ring in New York City in the early 2000s. Stone has previously employed Davis, and they are close friends. They shared a New York City apartment for a time, and he is her son’s godfather. He also advised Davis’ 2010 bid for New York governor on a libertarian platform.

* * *

Judge Amy Berman Jackson has not yet ruled on Stone’s travel request.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Chilidog
Posts: 9700
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 11:36 am

Re: USA v Roger J. Stone, Jr., USDC-DC, Obstruction, False Statements, Witness Tampering

#695

Post by Chilidog » Wed May 29, 2019 4:14 pm

Andrew Miller’s attorney confirmed to Fox News Wednesday that he is scheduled to appear Friday before the grand jury in Washington at 9:30 a.m. ET.
From fox

User avatar
Volkonski
Posts: 22100
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2013 4:44 pm
Location: Texas Gulf Coast and North Fork of Long Island
Occupation: Retired Mechanical Engineer

Re: USA v Roger J. Stone, Jr., USDC-DC, Obstruction, False Statements, Witness Tampering

#696

Post by Volkonski » Thu May 30, 2019 9:41 am

Zoe Tillman

Verified account

@ZoeTillman
10m10 minutes ago
More
Hello on this fast-warming day from the DC federal courthouse, where Roger Stone just arrived for a motions hearing at 10am. He's wearing a dark gray double breasted suit, light gray or white shirt, silver and black tie, and a gray and white patterned pocket square
Image“If everyone fought for their own convictions there would be no war.”
― Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace

User avatar
Slim Cognito
Posts: 6117
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2014 8:37 am

Re: USA v Roger J. Stone, Jr., USDC-DC, Obstruction, False Statements, Witness Tampering

#697

Post by Slim Cognito » Thu May 30, 2019 10:02 am

Volkonski wrote:
Thu May 30, 2019 9:41 am
Zoe Tillman

Verified account

@ZoeTillman
10m10 minutes ago
More
Hello on this fast-warming day from the DC federal courthouse, where Roger Stone just arrived for a motions hearing at 10am. He's wearing a dark gray double breasted suit, light gray or white shirt, silver and black tie, and a gray and white patterned pocket square
Sorry, Zoe, but unless he's wearing a prison jumpsuit and shackles, I'm not interested in his attire.
ImageImageImage x4

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 44248
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: USA v Roger J. Stone, Jr., USDC-DC, Obstruction, False Statements, Witness Tampering

#698

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Thu May 30, 2019 10:21 am

Slim Cognito wrote:
Thu May 30, 2019 10:02 am
Volkonski wrote:
Thu May 30, 2019 9:41 am
Zoe Tillman

Verified account

@ZoeTillman
10m10 minutes ago
More
Hello on this fast-warming day from the DC federal courthouse, where Roger Stone just arrived for a motions hearing at 10am. He's wearing a dark gray double breasted suit, light gray or white shirt, silver and black tie, and a gray and white patterned pocket square
Sorry, Zoe, but unless he's wearing a prison jumpsuit and shackles, I'm not interested in his attire.
:like:

User avatar
Volkonski
Posts: 22100
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2013 4:44 pm
Location: Texas Gulf Coast and North Fork of Long Island
Occupation: Retired Mechanical Engineer

Re: USA v Roger J. Stone, Jr., USDC-DC, Obstruction, False Statements, Witness Tampering

#699

Post by Volkonski » Thu May 30, 2019 11:58 am

Zoe Tillman

Verified account

@ZoeTillman
2h2 hours ago
More
Judge Amy Berman Jackson has taken the bench for Roger Stone's motions hearing — Stone has multiple pending motions, several challenging the prosecution based on Mueller-related objections. Stay tuned.

(Stone's motion to suppress evidence, which is still being briefed, is for another day, Jackson notes)

The judge starts with Stone's arg that there's a separation of powers problem b/c Congress didn't make a formal referral re: allegations that he lied. Jackson presses Stone's atty Robert Buschel for legal authority for that. Buschel acknowledges he couldn't find a specific case.

Buschel says there's a distinction between lying to Congress v. lying to Mueller. Jackson says she doesn't understand how sep of powers is implicated when Congress didn't include a requirement of a criminal referral to prosecute someone for lying to Congress.

Jackson notes that former House Intel chair Devin Nunes gave Mueller's office the entire Stone transcript and told them he was doing so with "no restrictions." Buschel says that doesn't mean they could indict for perjury. Jackson: "They gave it to a prosecutor."

As for Stone's arg that prosecutors couldn't roam Congress looking for violations (absent a referral), prosecutor Aaron Zelinsky noted Stone was the one who held a press conference drawing attention to the fact that he was testifying and that some people might not believe him

Another Stone lawyer, Bruce Rogow, is up, arguing that Mueller was operating without lawful funding — that the statute he was being funded under was for "independent" counsels, and, as courts have held, Mueller was an inferior officer in DOJ

Jackson Qs Rogow's narrower reading of "independent" in the context of the permanent congressional appropriation for independent counsels. She notes Congress kept approving it even after the old "independent counsel" law expired. Rogow says Congress can't assent through silence.

Jackson says she realizes the reference to "independent counsel" in the funding law isn't "super clear" but questions why Rogow's interpretation makes sense when it also references that such a counsel could be appointed by "other law" besides the expired IC statute

Prosecutor Adam Jed (who, like Zelinsky, is formerly of Mueller's office) argues the use of "an independent counsel" is meant to be generic in the funding law, noting that it is lower case, whereas references to independent counsels specifically under the old law are upper case

Jed says even if the appropriation wasn't okay, DOJ has flexiblity in funding investigations and could simply say, okay, we're actually going to fund the special counsel's expenses this year against a different source. Stone's lawyer, unsurprisingly, argues that would't be okay

This is a great example of what covering courts is like: Two sides arguing over whether "independent" is different from "Independent" and whether one type of independence is similar enough to another type of independence

Re: Stone's sep of powers argument, Jackson challenges Stone's reliance on a Scalia dissent criticizing invesitigations into presidents. Jackson questions why she should apply a dissent, no matter how well it's written — didn't US v. Nixon end it? Rogow admits she's bound by that

US v. Nixon est'd that presidents weren't immune from investigation. Jackson then Q'd what any of this has to do with Stone - even if Scalia's dissent re: investigations into presidents applied, what did that have to do with a campaign, esp. someone who didn't join the admin?

Rogow acknowledges Jackson is bound by Nixon, but ends by basically saying that the judge could still write in her opinion that she thinks it's wrong while still adhering to it (so, basically, conceding that they can't win that argument)

Next getting into substance of the indictment — Stone atty argued under case law (Safavian), couldn't be charged with obstruction for withholding docs. Jackson Qs the govt about this, Zelinsky argues that it's two-part — he didn't turn over docs AND lied about their existence

But Zelinsky argues that regardless, that's an issue that could be dealt with in jury instructions, and isn't something that would knock out counts in an indictment

The judge is now taking a break before getting into Stone's arguments of selective prosecution and for discovery, back at 11:40am

Break is over and the Stone motion hearing is back on

Jackson asks about Stone's separate motion to enjoin the prosecution given the Appropriations Clause issue, since he's also arguing for dismissal of the indictment for the same reasons. Rogow says they're arguing that in case the judge didn't agree re: dismissal

Jackson says that doesn't make sense - the criminal rules provide for a legal remedy (motion to dismiss), and precedent says that courts should not restrain a prosecution if a remedy exists.

Moving on to Stone's motion for discovery re: his selective prosecution claim. Jackson asks what they want. Stone's atty Buschel says they think there might be more about who else Mueller considered for prosecution beyond the report, but isn't sure

Buschel starts to talk about how they need to see unredacted reports from CrowdStrike, the cybersecurity company that worked with the DNC. Jackson puts her head in her hands and says that's a motion she already said she isn't addressing today because it hasn't been briefed
Image“If everyone fought for their own convictions there would be no war.”
― Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace

User avatar
Chilidog
Posts: 9700
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 11:36 am

Re: USA v Roger J. Stone, Jr., USDC-DC, Obstruction, False Statements, Witness Tampering

#700

Post by Chilidog » Thu May 30, 2019 12:33 pm

Ooooh

A double face palm.


That's not good

Post Reply

Return to “Courts, Law, and Legal Issues”