Judge says Roger Stone can see parts of unredacted Mueller report ahead of trial
The federal judge overseeing Roger Stone's case said lawyers for the former Trump adviser can review portions of unredacted material from Robert Mueller's report, but denied several of Stone's last-ditch efforts to have the charges against him dismissed ahead of his trial.
In Washington on Thursday, U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson ruled that Stone could see the "bulk" of content in the former special counsel's report "that was withheld solely on the basis that its release could affect the ongoing prosecution of this case." The material will not be made public — Jackson, who has reviewed the relevant portions, specified in her order that Stone and his attorneys are still bound by a protective order.
Jackson denied four other motions from Stone contesting his prosecution, writing she was ultimately unpersuaded by the defense's arguments. Her decision clears the way for the Stone to go on trial, currently scheduled for November 5.
Stone, who was indicted in January on seven charges of lying to Congress, witness tampering and obstruction, had argued through his lawyers that the court should dismiss the charges because of a procedural violation, alleging Congress did not refer his false statements before the House Intelligence Committee to the executive branch for prosecution. Jackson wrote that Stone's argument showed he "misunderstands the law."
In another unfulfilled request, Stone claimed he was the victim of selective prosecution by Mueller's office and was targeted because of his public support for President Trump. In her opinion, Jackson noted 11 other individuals who were charged by the special counsel's office for making false statements, writing that Stone failed to show "he has been singled out of a group of similarly situated individuals or that he was charged for an improper reason."
"Based on the allegations in the indictment which are assumed to be true for purposes of these motions, it is fair to say that Roger Stone has no one but himself to blame for the fact that he was investigated by the Department of Justice," Jackson added in a footnote.
"It may well be that the defendant was being more truthful in his later disavowal of those statements than in his original braggadocio. But there is no question that when he chose to take credit for the Wikileaks release and to tantalize the public with hints that he had inside information about more to come, he chose to place himself directly in the vortex of the issues that became the focus of multiple law enforcement, counterintelligence, and congressional investigations," Jackson wrote. "And he can hardly complain that under those circumstances, once he appeared before the Committee, his veracity, along with the veracity of other witnesses, was subject to scrutiny."
Stone's lawyers have brought several challenges before the court that have elicited stinging rebukes from Jackson, who has been at the center of a handful of criminal cases stemming from Mueller's probe. In her opinion Thursday, she said several of his claims were "novel" and "unsupported," like his argument that his indictment should be dismissed since it came during investigation into the president of the United States, which he maintained is unconstitutional.
"First of all, Roger Stone is not the President of the United States. So it is not clear how any prohibition against investigating the chief executive would apply him," Jackson said.