Roger Stone's Lawyers Were in Court Today. It Didn't Go Well
Attorneys for the longtime ally to President Donald Trump hoisted up several legal arguments on Thursday in a bid to dismiss his indictment.
May 30, 2019 at 03:16 PM
4 minute read
The federal judge overseeing the criminal case against Roger Stone, a longtime ally to President Donald Trump, appeared skeptical of his effort to get the charges tossed out.
The Republican operative and his legal team were in a Washington, D.C., federal courtroom on Thursday morning, offering up a menu of creative constitutional arguments to challenge the indictment. Stone was indicted in January on charges that he lied to a congressional committee and attempted to obstruct its investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election.
But Stone's arguments did not appear to sway Judge Amy Berman Jackson during the nearly three-hour hearing.
First up, lawyer Robert Buschel of Buschel & Gibbons contended the obstruction charges should be tossed because Congress never referred Stone's alleged false statements to Special Counsel Robert Mueller III. Instead, Buschel suggested, lawmakers encouraged the Justice Department to bring charges when they spoke publicly about his testimony in television appearances.
Jackson asked whether any court has adopted Buschel's argument, and the lawyer acknowledged he did not have any examples. But in all the cases he did review, Buschel said, Congress had indeed first made false statements referrals before prosecutors brought charges.
“That's the typical way the Justice Department would find out,” Buschel said.
Jackson noted the U.S. House Intelligence Committee provided Stone's testimony to Mueller with no restrictions on use. She questioned why lawmakers—if indeed they believed they had to first refer false statements for prosecution—wouldn't have included a referral requirement in laws related to false statements.
Next up was defense attorney Bruce Rogow, who challenged the indictment by alleging Mueller's work was improperly funded in violation of the Constitution's appropriations clause. Rogow said the probe was funded by a pot of money that Congress had reserved for independent counsels, not for Mueller, who instead serves as an inferior officer under the U.S. Constitution.
Stone's team of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, attorneys also includes Grant Smith of StrategySmith, and Tara Campion.
Again, Jackson appeared skeptical of the claim, noting Congress had funded other similar special prosecutors even after the Independent Counsel Act expired. She asked what distinction he drew between Mueller and former U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, for example, who led the leak investigation in the Valerie Plame affair. Rogow argued Fitzgerald, unlike Mueller, had more expansive and “plenary” powers and was thus truly independent.
Rogow also argued the Constitution's Vesting Clause meant the executive branch could not prosecute the president. But his argument largely relied on Justice Antonin Scalia's dissent in Morrison v. Olson, prompting Jackson to ask Rogow if there was any reason why she as a district judge should apply the law based on a dissent.
She also noted the Supreme Court in United States v. Nixon recognized the investigation of a president, which would end Rogow's argument.
Jackson did not issue any rulings at the end of Thursday's hearing, which also featured arguments over discovery in connection with Stone's claim that he is being selectively prosecuted. Stone's lawyers said in court Thursday they were seeking information about whether other individuals who have lied to Congress were similarly prosecuted.
“That's just not how this works,” said Jonathan Kravis, a federal prosecutor from the U.S. Attorney's Office in D.C. He argued that defendants have to meet a higher threshold of evidence before they're entitled to the type of discovery Stone is seeking.
The hearing was held a day after another federal judge in D.C. ordered Andrew Miller, an associate of Stone, to testify on Friday before the grand jury convened by Mueller.
The order came after a long legal saga in which Miller and his attorney, Paul Kamenar, mounted a legal campaign to challenge a subpoena issued to Miller, and challenged the validity of Mueller's appointment. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected that argument in February.
Stone's jury trial is set to take place in early November.
Read more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllDemocrats Give Up Circuit Court Picks for Trial Judges in Reported Deal with GOP
'Radical Left Judges'?: Trump Demands GOP Unity Against Biden's Judicial Picks
4 minute readHolland & Knight, Akin, Crowell, Barnes and Day Pitney Add to DC Practices
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250