Hi, and welcome back to Trump Watch! I hope you're all staying safe and well. What kind of quarantine person have you turned into: A baker, an exercise enthusiast, a redecorator, a Netflix binger, none of the above? Tell me about it at [email protected] and follow me on Twitter at @jacq_thomsen.

Roger Stone Isn't Getting a New Trial. We're Wondering About A Trump Pardon, Again.

You didn't think we could go this long without some Roger Stone news, did you? Thanks to U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson, the longtime GOP associate is back in the news, after the federal judge rejected his request for a new trial.

In arguing to Stone's jury that they should convict Stone, the DOJ prosecutors on the case at the time said the longtime GOP operative lied to Congress to protect Trump. On Thursday, Jackson—who reiterated DOJ's arguments in sentencing Stone—said Stone couldn't take negative comments about Trump and make them about him in trying to get a new trial.

Stone's lawyers had pointed to posts made by his jury's foreperson, Tomeka Hart, that were negative about Trump as evidence she was biased against Stone. Not so fast, Jackson replied.

"In the absence of any explicit statements of opinion about Stone, the defense casts its arguments about bias in terms of some sort of blend of "anti-Stone and anti-Trump sentiment,'" Jackson wrote. "But linking them together in a sentence does not make them one and the same; there is zero evidence of 'explicit bias' against Stone, and defendant's attempts to gain a new trial based on implied or inferred bias fail."

It didn't stop there.

"At bottom, the motion appears to be based on the defendant's assumption that the juror must have known who he was, what his relationship with Donald Trump has been over time, and what role he played in the campaign, and that since he was so central to the election, one could not possibly view him independently from the President. But there is no basis to conclude that Roger Stone was a household name in either Washington, D.C. or in the foreperson's home state, particularly given his short and informal association with the campaign." Ouch!

Jackson also didn't hold back from criticizing Stone's defense team. They had argued, in part, that their client deserved a new trial because Hart's social media posts were "newly discovered evidence."

Her response: Don't you have Google?

"Defendant states that he became aware of the foreperson's social media comments after the trial, following her February 12, 2020 Facebook post about the prosecutors. But the defense could have discovered the posts as early as September 12, 2019, the day counsel received access to the completed juror questionnaires, including the foreperson's, which had her name printed legibly on the signature page," Jackson wrote.

"So, the problem is not that the material could not be discovered; it was not discovered. And it was not discovered because no one was looking for it," she added.

Again—not fun.

Jackson's order came one day after Stone's jurors pleaded with her to not release their juror questionnaires, after right wing figure Mike Cernovich petitioned the court for the documents.

In declarations filed in court Thursday, the jurors all said they included personal and identifiable information in the questionnaires. And, pointing to Trump's tweets that attacked the jury's foreperson, the jurors said they feared they too could face that level of public harassment. Some said they've already been threatened.

"It is intimidating when the President of the United States attacks the foreperson of a jury by name," one juror told the court.

So Jackson's docket isn't Stone-free just yet—she'll have to make that ruling on the release of the questionnaires soon enough.

I know what you're wondering: Will Roger Stone go to federal prison during a pandemic? I'm going to guess not. Jackson's order Thursday gave him two weeks to file an appeal, and put it on prison officials to set the date of Stone's arrival at a correctional facility. I don't think they'll want to add to the federal prison population at this moment.

Some people aren't reading into those two weeks as a chance for an appeal, but rather the amount of time Trump has to pardon his friend. The president has already suggested he could pardon Stone—alongside fellow Trump World figure Michael Flynn—but said he thought Stone could be cleared in the court proceedings.

Do you know what else Jackson did? She lifted Stone's gag order, which has been in place since the days of him posting a photo of her on Instagram with a crosshairs in the corner. Oh, memories.

Stone's a talker. I can only imagine what he has to say about all of this.

What We're Reading

>> Jenner & Block Joins House's Push to Convince En Banc Circuit of Right to Sue Trump Admin: Matthew Hellman, co-chair of the firm's appellate and Supreme Court practice, and Elizabeth Deutsch, formerly a fellow with the ACLU, filed a notice of appearance in the case Thursday. Their names were also both included on a brief filed by House lawyers later that afternoon. The House has regularly received pro bono assistance from Big Law in its litigation against the Trump administration….The House is now seeking a ruling from the en banc D.C. Circuit that lawmakers do have standing to go to court to enforce subpoenas, after a divided panel found earlier this year they did not. The D.C. Circuit vacated the panel opinion in granting the en banc argument." [National Law Journal]

>> Can Trump Force Congress to Adjourn? Theoretically, Legal Experts Say, but Not Now: "The Constitution does say a president can, 'on extraordinary occasions' convene both chambers of Congress, or if the chambers can't agree on adjourning, 'he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper.' That means, if the Republican-controlled Senate moves to adjourn and the Democratic-held House refuses, Trump can step in to end the current session of Congress….However, Congress has already agreed to adjourn the current session on Jan. 3, 2021, meaning there is no disagreement between the chambers—which could prove to be a substantial hurdle for Trump to clear if he chooses to push forward with the effort." [National Law Journal]

>> DOJ Said Judges Can't Stop Immigration Hearings Over COVID-19. Cleary Gottlieb Called That a 'Death Trap.': "'If EOIR issued guidance to immigration judges directing them to never grant a request for continuance based on the coronavirus, is it your view that directive would be unreviewable because of the INA provisions, except in connection with the individual case' brought through the immigration court system, Nichols asked, referring to the Immigration and Nationality Law. DOJ attorney Brian Ward said that was the case…. Matthew Slater, a partner with Cleary who argued for the motion Wednesday, rebutted the Justice Department's interpretation of the statute. He said in blocking judicial review tied to immigrant removal hearings, 'Congress should not have believed to have adopted … a suicide pact or a death trap.'" [National Law Journal]

>> US Justice Dept. Opposes Hillary Clinton's Challenge to Rare Deposition Order: The Trump administration has declined to back Hillary Clinton as she tries to block a rare court order requiring the former high-ranking cabinet official to sit for a deposition in a public-records lawsuit that confronts her email practices during her time as the U.S. secretary of state….The U.S. State Department, represented by the Justice Department, said in a recent filing at the D.C. Circuit that the government 'does not support the extraordinary relief of mandamus due to the unique circumstances of this case.' The Justice Department historically has resisted efforts by plaintiffs to depose high-ranking officials." [National Law Journal]

Thanks for reading. I'll be back next week with more Trump Watch!