Prosecutors: No need to prove Russian conspiracy to charge Stone with obstruction

[UpInArms]

Source: Politico

Federal prosecutors argued Friday that special counsel Robert Mueller did not need to prove conspiracy between the Russian government and the Trump campaign to show that longtime Trump ally Roger Stone obstructed Congress' investigation of the matter.

"To establish the defendant’s guilt of the crimes with which he is charged, the government is not required to prove the existence of a conspiracy with the Russian government to interfere in the U.S. presidential election," Mueller’s team, along with the U.S. attorney in Washington D.C., wrote in response to filings Stone submitted on March 28.

That argument has been the subject of controversy in recent weeks, following Attorney General Bill Barr's suggestion that evidence collected by Mueller implicating President Donald Trump for multiple efforts to thwart his probe fell short, in part because Mueller didn't establish the existence of a criminal conspiracy.

... snip ...

In support of his argument to dismiss the case against him, Stone pointed to a 19-page memo Barr wrote and forwarded to Justice Department leaders when he was outside of government. Barr argued at the time for a sharply narrowed definition of obstruction crimes when related to the president. But Mueller's team said Stone misrepresented Barr's memo.

"The memorandum does not argue that every obstruction statute should be interpreted to require proof of the crime that gave rise to the investigation that was obstructed," they wrote.

Read more: https://www.politico.com/amp/story/2019/05/03/roger-stone-obstruction-1301631

[KPN]

1. WTF is Barr's 19 page memo even a consider-

action at all? It was memo written by a private citizen — not a statute, federal regulation, agency executive policy, or legal precedent.

We are truly in the Twilight Zone.

[Igel]

2. Probably because the same can be said for any other kind of document.

For example, when a private citizen submits a case with an argument. Sometimes that private citizen is called an "attorney", sometimes not.

There are amicus briefs. Legal arguments get imported from published papers.

The argument being challenged is a legal filing, not Barr's memo itself. It's being used as the basis of a legal filing, and the filing has to be addressed, and that means taking on the argument in the filing.

[FBaggins]

6. He's currently the Attorney General

A defendant could reasonably expect federal prosecutors to give some weight to the opinion of the current AG.

However, as the prosecutors pointed out, even Barr doesn't argue what Stone's defense is claiming.

[handmade34]

3. there should not even be a discussion...

obstructing an investigation could very well obscure the path to finding the evidence that would prove that a crime had been committed

[KPN]

7. That's exactly what has occurred throughout

this whole “investigation”. No honor, no decency. But as long as 35% of the voting public likes them, who cares, it feels honorable. Just another application of the alternative facts mindset.

[Perseus]

4. I am confused, are they exonerating Stone?

If someone can explain. Thank you

[BumRushDaShow]

8. No

the Prosecutors are only arguing that they can still charge Stone with "obstruction" regardless of whether he did it with the help of Russia (as a "conspiracy" ) or not. I.e., Assange was actually a big part of what happened with Stone (with Stone lying about contacts with him). If Assange is under sealed indictment somewhere in the current ongoing investigations, then that is where one might find the direct "conspiracy" with Russia piece, with Stone as a middle man, whether as part of a purposeful conspiracy (which might be harder to prove) or just as a recipient of foreknowledge of the contents of stolen materials to pass on to the campaign and directing their disposition.

[Perseus]

10. Thank you

I understand now.

[turbinetree]

5. You know what bring this asshole in front of a commitee and watch him plead the fifth,

and then watch him squirm when a member asks him, were you in conversation with.....................(add name) and then when he lies at some point throw the fucking book at him..............................because the members can then bring in the individual that he had conversations with.........................sitting right next to him or in the next row back up and if they lie, throw the book at them also.......................

[Opel_Justwax]

9. Stone's Attorney is grasping at any straw they can find to beat the charge.