A federal judge has rejected arguments from political consultant Roger Stone that he was indicted on charges of obstructing a Congressional investigation and witness tampering because of his role as a longtime adviser to President Donald Trump.
U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson said motions filed by Stone’s defense were entirely devoid of evidence that Stone was singled out as an act of political retribution because of his support for Trump.
Stone’s “supposition is made up out of whole cloth,” Jackson wrote in a 56-page ruling issued Thursday morning. “To support this proposition, he marshals no facts….Stone points to nothing that would substantiate his attribution of his indictment to his political views. ”
A grand jury in Washington indicted Stone in January at the request of Special Counsel Robert Mueller.
The seven-count indictment accused Stone of obstruction of justice, false statements and witness tampering for allegedly trying to deceive the House Intelligence Committee and the FBI about his actions related WikiLeaks during the 2016 presidential campaign.
Jackson said Stone’s claims that he was picked out for special or unusual scrutiny overlook the way in which the publicity-loving consultant and provocateur drew attention to himself in connection with WikiLeaks’ disclosures of politically-damaging emails in the lead-up to the 2016 election.
“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,” the judge wrote in a footnote to her ruling.
Jackson noted that in August 2016 Stone claimed to be in touch with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, sent text messages to get details about planned releases and allegedly commented to Trump campaign officials about those plans.
“It may well be that the defendant was being more truthful in his later disavowal of those statements than in his original braggadocio,” the judge wrote. “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.”
“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,” she added.
Jackson also suggested that if Mueller was engaged in a political vendetta, charges might have been filed against people caught up in the investigations who were closer to Trump than Stone, including Trump’s relatives.
“The defendant’s assertion is inconsistent with the fact that there were numerous supporters, associates, and family members of the President who have provided testimony or information and were not charged with making false statements,” she wrote.
Jackson, an appointee of President Barack Obama, also rejected arguments that Mueller’s bias was displayed by his decision not to indict two specific Stone associates: conservative writer Jerome Corsi and liberal radio host Randy Credico. She said their cases were not analogous to Stone’s. She also said it was hard to see political bias in Mueller’s decision not to charge Corsi, given that his Twitter account, Facebook page and website all indicated he is an ardent Trump supporter.
Stone’s defense leveled a series of legal attacks on his indictment, including claims that Mueller was illegally appointed and that his office was never legally funded by Congress.
Stone’s lawyers acknowledged that several of their arguments were effectively foreclosed by Supreme Court or appeals court precedent that Jackson is bound to follow. They may have raised those arguments to bring them up with higher courts if Stone is convicted, or to re-air grievances Trump supporters hold about Mueller’s conduct.
The judge noted that in February, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a series of challenges to Mueller’s appointment and authority brought by Andrew Miller, a former aide to Stone who’d been subpoenaed to the grand jury.
Stone’s lawyers also put forward some long-shot arguments against Muller, like a claim that the Justice Department can’t even investigate the president.
That prompted a pithy retort from the judge: “There are several problems with this attack on the prosecution. First of all, Roger Stone is not the President of the United States. So it is not clear how any prohibition against investigating the chief executive would apply him [sic].”
The judge also said the Supreme Court’s decision upholding a special counsel’s subpoena for President Richard Nixon’s tapes in Watergate indicated that the Justice Department does have power to probe the president.
Stone’s team did score one small victory in the new court decision. While Jackson denied the defense the right to obtain documents or take testimony exploring the prosecutors’ motivations, she did rule that Stone’s lawyers should be permitted to see some portions of Mueller’s final report that have not been made public.
Lawyers for Stone did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the ruling. Jackson has imposed and repeatedly strengthened a gag order limiting comments by lawyers and Stone about the case.
The indictment against Stone was the last brought by Mueller’s office before it shut down in May. The case is now being handled by prosecutors from the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington. Stone’s trial is set to open Nov. 5.
Article originally published on POLITICO Magazine