Judge Rules Roger Stone 'Has Not Identified Any Legal Grounds' to Dismiss Indictment

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Law and Crime


by Matt Naham | 1:55 pm, August 1st, 2019

A federal judge has denied Roger Stone’s motions to dismiss the indictment brought against him by former Special Counsel Robert Mueller, saying that Stone and his legal team did not demonstrate any legal grounds to achieve that.

U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson, who has admonished Stone on numerous occasions over the course of the legal proceedings, denied Stone’s motions to dismiss, denied a motion for discovery based on selective prosecution, and denied a motion to enjoin the prosecution. The only thing Judge Jackson did grant, in part, was access to some redacted portions of the Mueller Report pertaining to Stone.

“Defendant Roger J. Stone, Jr. has filed a number of motions attacking the validity of the indictment pending against him. He asks the Court to dismiss the indictment, to enjoin the prosecution, and to order the government to provide discovery related to the decision to bring this case in the first place,” the judge began. “While the Court will require the government to provide the defendant with the bulk of the material redacted from the Report of the Special Counsel that relates to him, it concludes that the defense has not identified any legal grounds that would support dismissing or enjoining this action or authorizing discovery into the prosecutors’ internal deliberations.”

“Thus, with the limited exception of the motion to compel the production of the Report of the Special Counsel, which will be granted in part, the motions will be denied,” Jackson added. “This opinion does not assess, and it should not be interpreted as expressing any point of view about, the strength of the government’s case.”

Read more: https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/judge-rules-roger-stone-has-not-identified-any-legal-grounds-to-dismiss-indictment/

[no_hypocrisy]

1. Rog, here's some friendly legal advice:

1. Shut up and sit down.
2. Don't spend another dime of depositions and stuff. Just accept the guilty decision.
3. Your boy, Trump, is going to pardon you anyway.

[mr_lebowski]

2. ABJ FTMFW!!! nt

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

3. The judge kicks Roger's butt:

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. In August 2016, on various occasions, Stone
publicly stated that he has “communicated with [the head of Organization 1].” Indictment ¶ 14.
From August to October 2016, Stone sent a number of text messages and emails with Person 2
about Organization 1, and what the head of Organization 1 planned to do. Id. ¶¶ 14–16. And in
October 2016, Stone allegedly made statements about Organization 1’s future releases to
members or supporters of the Trump Campaign. Id. ¶ 16. 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. 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.

(Footnote 30, p. 51)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1z32CnEgCitkQfn91A5GWWHsLpY1M05pp/view

[UpInArms]

4. Thank you

These maroons thought they were above the law for far too long ...

I hope the wheels of justice grind them into very tiny pieces

[Delmette2.0]

8. Yes, Thank you for the detail

[old guy]

5. They got what they wanted which was the redacted material from the report.

The rest was just a dance routine.

[EveHammond13]

6. so "But MAGA" was not considered valid legal grounds

[ffr]

7. What about because he said so. Good enough now, judge?

[JudyM]

9. "I'm above the law" doesn't count as grounds for dismissal?

[Marcuse]

10. Two down, one to go.