Tuesday, July 16, 2019

Stone's motion hearing is underway — they'll be talking about Stone's motion to suppress evidence and a discovery motion re: redactions in CrowdStrike report provided by govt. Judge Amy Berman Jackson is on the bench.









  1.  3 hours ago
    Jackson says she "may or may not" get to the govt's motion to modify Stone's release conditions re: compliance with the gag order, sounds like it'll depend on how long args take on the other motions. Judge also says she plans to rule soon in writing on Stone's motions to dismiss.
    2 replies55 retweets293 likes










  2.  3 hours ago
    Re: motion to suppress evidence seized, Jackson asks why SCOTUS precedent doesn't apply that says evidence is okay if taken in good faith. Stone atty Robert Buschel says they want a hearing on that, arguing if there was "reckless misrepresentation," there can't be good faith
    4 replies44 retweets251 likes










  3.  3 hours ago
    Buschel is arguing that govt/warrant affiants should have known that it was false that WikiLeaks received hacked DNC materials from the Russians, which formed basis for warrants. Jackson asks how that's possible when the govt was relying on the US intel community report on this
    10 replies52 retweets327 likes










  4.  3 hours ago
    Buschel acknowledges that the US intel report speaks to "high confidence" in assessment that Russians were involved in election interference, but he argues that's "double speak" and it means it's not a definite fact and could be wrong
    9 replies41 retweets267 likes










  5.  3 hours ago
    But Jackson goes back to her original Q, asking what in the warrant applications — which say they rely on the US intel community assessment — were false, setting aside arguments about the underlying validity of the US intel community's assessment
    2 replies48 retweets319 likes










  6.  3 hours ago
    Pressed by Jackson, Buschel says what they're arguing is it was reckless for the government, in seeking search warrant applications for Stone, to rely on the US intelligence community's report
    25 replies81 retweets323 likes










  7.  3 hours ago
    Buschel recites their theories questioning the IC's assessment of Russia's involvement, but Jackson keeps coming back to what evidence they have that the FBI agent lied or made misrepresentations to a judge in *citing* the IC report — she does not appear convinced at all
    5 replies90 retweets428 likes










  8.  3 hours ago
    Govt atty Aaron Zelinsky is up. Jackson asks if the govt plans to prove, or needs to prove, that Russia was involved in the DNC hack. Zelinsky says no — Stone isn't charged in the hack, the govt only needs to show that Stone lied about a matter related to an investigation







  1.  3 hours ago
    Zelinsky: "It is a sideshow and it is an attempt to throw smoke up on the underlying issues of this case" — the underlying issues being the false statements, witness tampering, and obstruction of justice that Stone is charged with
    6 replies104 retweets452 likes









  2.  3 hours ago
    Re: Stone's motion to discover the unredacted CrowdStrike report, Stone's atty Bruce Rogow concedes govt represented they don't have it, so the motion is moot. Judge notes Stone could seek a subpoena to CrowdStrike, but his lawyer says they haven't sought one. So that's done.
    4 replies67 retweets333 likes




  1. Judge is still listing Instagram posts. She asks about a 5/8 post about an order to see unredacted parts of the Mueller report. Rogow says he was just noting a public filing. Jackson asks if she said he could comment on public filings, and notes it was accompanied by commentary
    8 replies86 retweets396 likes
     
     
     
  2.  2 hours ago
    A bit surreal to hear the judge read these posts aloud. From 5/8: "The Judge has ruled but gets most of the story wrong because they are biased elitist snot-nosed fake news shitheads who’s specialty is distortion by omitting key facts to create a false narrative."
    28 replies155 retweets536 likes
     
     
     
  3.  2 hours ago
    Rogow says that, yes, Stone is using social media to communicate about what is happening in his case, but argues he's not doing so in a way that would "affect or infect" it. He says the judge's order was very broad, but admits he hasn't challenged it
    24 replies69 retweets320 likes
     
     
     
  4.  2 hours ago
    Jackson asks about Stone's reposting of an article about his case, and Rogow says that shouldn't violate the order, to republish. Jackson questions that, asking: Isn't that the power of social media, the ability of something to be spread and go viral?
    4 replies79 retweets363 likes
     
     
     
  5.  2 hours ago
    Rogow says Stone isn't doing anything that would impact the ability to get a fair trial. Jackson says that's not the question right now — the Q is whether Stone violated her order. The impact of a violation would affect what she should do about it, but not the underlying question
    12 replies100 retweets435 likes
     
     
     
  6.  2 hours ago
    Jackson asks what she should do in light of everything she's presented that Stone has posted. Rogow says to let the hearing "speak for itself," and going forward Stone will have to vet what he wants to send out with counsel
    44 replies54 retweets291 likes
     
     
     
  7.  2 hours ago
    Rogow is done. He concludes: "I undersand how one can look at them and come to a conclusion that, yes, they were either at the line or crossed the line. But Mr. Stone has tried to hew to that line." He says the lawyers will make sure this isn't an issue in the future
    41 replies48 retweets230 likes
     
     
     
  8.  2 hours ago
    AUSA Jonathan Kravis is up. Jackson asks what he thinks she should do. Kravis says at least clarify the original order to be very specific, and he asks the judge to consider prohibiting Stone from using social media at all. He says they are *not* seeking a contempt finding
    53 replies65 retweets280 likes
     
     
     
  9.  2 hours ago
    Rogow in his reply says he'd like the judge to consider doing away with the gag order entirely, and Jackson says he's welcome to put something in writing, but "you’ve got a tough road to go there." She's recessing until 12:30pm.
    30 replies89 retweets361 likes
     
     
     
  10.  45 minutes ago
    Roger Stone's hearing is back in session after a roughly hour-long recess, Judge Amy Berman Jackson is on the bench
    6 replies49 retweets188 likes
     
     
     
  11.  43 minutes ago
    Jackson says the clarity of her Feb. 21 order is "undisputed," but "it didn’t take a week before the defendant was emailing BuzzFeed calling a witness in this investigation a liar” (NB: It was a text message)
    7 replies55 retweets253 likes
     
     
     
  12.  41 minutes ago
    The judge then notes that Stone and his lawyers were arguing against a gag order in February at a time when they knew Stone was preparing to release an updated version of his book that addressed Mueller's investigation, and nobody told the judge about it
    9 replies60 retweets235 likes
     
     
     
  13.  39 minutes ago
    Jackson says the book flap didn't "augur well" for Stone's future compliace. She said the "Who framed Roger Stone post" nudged the line, and then made a series of statements/other Instagram posts that were clearly about his case and people in, incl. Michael Cohen and Adam Schiff
    3 replies37 retweets212 likes
     
     
     
  14.  39 minutes ago
    NOW: The judge has found that Roger Stone is in violation of his release conditions and her media contacts order
    51 replies304 retweets841 likes
     
     
     
  15.  36 minutes ago
    Jackson says Stone "plainly" is seeking attention, and potentially trying to prompt a reaction from the judge: "It seems he is determined to make himself the subject of the story."She will not hold contempt proceedings and will not revoke his bond, however
    92 replies143 retweets360 likes
     
     
     
  16.  34 minutes ago
    NOW: Finding a violation of her previous order, the judge has ordered that Roger Stone may no longer post on Instagram, Facebook, or Twitter — at all.
    140 replies401 retweets1,030 likes