Roger Stone's time in the barrel, and it's mighty uncomfortable.
Shortish diary — well, except for the very long blockquote. Well, OK, it started out shortish. :) Mostly I wanted all of us to be able to see, easily, the epic beat-down Roger Ratf***er Stone (whom I’ll sometimes abbreviate as RRS) got from Judge Berman Jackson yesterday. HUGE hat tip to greenbird for finding it and posting a link. And another huge hat tip to Janice Dickman, the court reporter, who got the transcript out before she went home for the day. That’s dedication. Hat’s off to both of you.
And, finally, hat’s off to Judge Amy Berman Jackson.
Roger R. Stone remains free today. So far. But yesterday was not a good day for Roger R. Stone. Not. At. All.
Let me explain just a little. I’m sure lots of us wanted her to Lock Him Up!Certainly he deserves that, and far more. But remember that Stone is playing a little game here, or trying to, and part of that game is to get Judge Berman Jackson off the case if he can. An easy way to do that would be if he could show sufficient bias on the part of the judge. It’s also possible that he (or his lawyers, if they are stupid enough) could claim that the mere fact that he threatened her is enough to bias her and get her removed.
Fat chance. This ruling shows, as if there were any doubt, that that Judge Berman Jackson knows exactly what she’s doing. She stays squarely within the law and within the parameters for giving the ruling she gives. No reasonable court of appeal could find bias here. (Note, as well, that the government did not ask for his bail to be revoked. What they asked for was exactly what they got, and at this stage it was 100% appropriate without being over the top.)
But beyond that, she lays out the facts, methodically and forcefully. And she damns RRS repeatedly, with a simple, concise statement of facts, in the context of controlling law. I would not want to be either RRS or his counsel, not today, not yesterday, not ever.
As far as I know this transcript is completely in the public domain and thus can be reproduced in full, which is what I’m doing. If somebody knows different, please let me know in comments or Kosmail and I’ll take the transcript down.
The full transcript is 54 pages, monospaced, double spaced, in pleading paper format. It’s a shorter read than it seems. If you want to see RRS’s “testimony” and the rest of the hijinks, please, read the whole thing. You won’t regret it. Lots of nuggets in there, like where the judge notes that he was reporting $47,000 per month from his consulting business (p.9), yet the poor guy whines (p. 14) that he’s under terrible stress, in part because he’s — I am not making this up — “having trouble putting food on the table and paying the rent. I've exhausted my little savings.”
Yes, he actually said that. In open court. Minutes after the court observed that he was reporting $47,000 a month in income.
One last thing. Copying and pasting from PDFs can be a bear. Words are copied out of order, or not copied at all. I have tried my best to go through the text and eliminate those occurrences, but I may have missed some. My apologies in advance.
Dramatis Personae: THE COURT is, of course, Judge Berman Jackson. MR. KRAVIS is the Government’s attorney, and MR. ROGOW is RRS’s lawyer, for whom I play my tiny violin today.
And now, the Judge’s ruling. Bolding the parts I think are most important (or the sweetest).
***
THE COURTROOM DEPUTY: Your Honor, recalling criminal case No. 19-18, United States of America v. Roger Stone, Jr.
THE COURT: All right. Under the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S. Code Section 3142(c), If the judicial officer determines that release on personal recognizance or with an unsecured appearance bond will not reasonably ensure the appearance of the person as required -- which isn't an issue here -- or will endanger the safety of any other person or the community, such judicial officer shall order the pretrial release of the person: (A), subject to the condition that the person not commit a federal, state, or local crime, and subject to the least restrictive further condition, or combination of conditions, that the judge determines will reasonably assure the appearance of the person and the safety of any other person and the community.
Those conditions can include any of 13 possible conditions listed. Among them are restrictions on associations, which has First Amendment implications; restrictions on contacts with witnesses, which has First Amendment implications, and, also; (xiv) says the judge may include an order that he satisfy any other condition that is reasonably necessary to assure the safety of any other person and the community.
Under Section 3142(g), in determining whether there are conditions that will reasonably assure the safety of other persons or the community, I'm supposed to take into account a number of things, including the nature and circumstances of the charged offenses, the weight of the evidence against the defendant, the history and characteristics of the defendant, and the nature and seriousness of the danger to any person, or to the community, that would be posed by the defendant's release.
In connection with that assessment, you can't overlook the fact that this indictment does not charge the defendant with financial or regulatory irregularities in connection with some business deal a long time ago. It's not even limited to the allegations that he lied to the United States Congress. It specifically charges him with threatening witnesses, within the past year.
Now, it's true those allegations have yet to be proven. But for purposes of Section 3142, the evidence detailed in the indictment alone is quite compelling. And the evidence of the past few days indicates that this defendant has not been chastened by the pendency of those charges, and that in connection with this matter, he has decided to pursue a strategy of attacking others.
Let me be clear, at the time of his post he was permitted to criticize the special counsel, the designation of the cases related, and the previous decisions of the judge to whom the case had been assigned. But I am not reassured by the defense suggestion that Mr. Stone is just all talk and no action and this was just a big mistake.
What concerns me is the fact that he chose to use his public platform, and chose to express himself in a manner that can incite others who may feel less constrained. The approach he chose posed a very real risk that others with extreme views and violent inclinations would be inflamed. You don't have to read the paper beyond today to know that that's a possibility.
And these were, let there be no mistake, deliberate choices. I do not find any of the evolving and contradictory explanations credible. Mr. Stone could not even keep his story straight on the stand, much less from one day to another.
There is some inconsistency in his telling me on the one hand that these public communications are an existential endeavor, essential not only to his income but his very identity, and then, on the other hand, telling us, It wasn't me.
There was no discernible purpose to be served by including any photograph in the post,if the full object of the communication was to challenge the Office of Special Counsel's related case filing, or to take issue with the Court's record in a previous matter, or to solicit donations to a defense fund.
But more to the point, the picture that was picked was not selected randomly.If the Judge's appearance alone was important to convey some message, a Google search brings up many unaltered photographs. And a perfectly neutral photograph can be found on the Court's website.
The defendant himself told me he had more than one to choose from. And so what he chose, particularly when paired with the sorts of incendiary comments included in the text, the comments that not only can lead to disrespect for the judiciary, but threats on the judiciary, the post had a more sinister message. As a man who, according to his own account, has made communication his forté, his raison d'être, his life's work, Roger Stone fully understands the power of words and the power of symbols. And there's nothing ambiguous about crosshairs.
And while, yes, it was appropriate that the post was replaced, in the world of social media there really is no such thing as a take-back. Given the business he's in, the defendant understands well that once you put something out there, it's out there.He's undoubtedly aware that even after other individuals who have propagated incendiary allegations have, quote, unquote, apologized for them, they have remained in the public domain and consciousness and they have been repeated and disseminated by others and they have inspired violent reactions.
Defendant tells me this was a momentary lapse in judgment, an egregious mistake. I can't believe I was so stupid. Took it down the instant it dawned on me it could possibly pose a problem, and I apologized right away. And it's true, yes, he signed the apology his lawyers wrote that day.
But he, admittedly, continued to adamantly defend the post, even after he took it down, thereby enhancing the risk that it would appeal to and stoke the passions of an angry crowd, and demonstrating to me that it was the lawyers and not Mr. Stone who were appalled. So thank you, but the apology rings quite hollow.
Now, the context of this behavior is important when considering what to do about it. Notwithstanding the overwrought inaccurate news accounts that followed my order last Friday, the order I imposed only prohibited lawyers from making public statements about the case. I did not impose an order on the defendant, or the witnesses, restricting them from making public statements about the case. With the very limited exception of a ban on pronouncements from the courthouse steps and a gentle reminder that contacting witnesses and threats fell outside the range of permissible speech in this case.
And, as he noted, I then accorded the defendant some respect. I gave him the chance to demonstrate that he recognized the seriousness of these proceedings and the need for them to proceed fairly and unimpeded. The defendant himself acknowledged this, stating publicly in an email that I believe he sent to Politico.com: I am pleased that the Judge's order leaves my First Amendment right to defend myself in public intact. I will, of course, continue to be judicious about my comments regarding the case.
That didn't last three days. The privilege, the liberty he was afforded was promptly abused.
You were right about that, Mr. Stone.
If the conduct of the past weekend is what Mr. Stone would call judicious, it would be foolhardy for the Court to take no action and wait around to see what injudicious looks like.
For all these reasons, then, I find, pursuant to 18 U.S. Code Section 3142(c)(1), based on this record and the Instagram post that will be entered under seal as part of the record, that released under the current set of conditions without modification does pose a danger to the safety of other persons associated with this case or the community.
In addition, as the case law set forth in the February 15 media communications order, at docket 36, explains, I have a number of duties and responsibilities. I have the duty -- notwithstanding any steps that defendant takes to frustrate this goal -- to preserve his right to a fair trial by an impartial jury.
The publicity generated by the defendant's own actions had precisely the effect I warned him about. The attempt to stoke up his followers also stoked up those who disagree with his views. And by continuing to ensure that he would be the subject of a story, he provoked a series of unflattering posts and comments in response to those stories.
When the defense asked me not to impose any restrictions on the defendant, it assured me, on page 7 of its submission, that, quote, the first wave of publicity, close quote, considering the indictment and the execution of the search warrant, quote, will subside, close quote. And that the Court's ability to seat a fair jury will not be compromised by the press or by Mr. Stone.
That turned out quickly to be a highly inaccurate prediction. The publicity cannot possibly subside if it's the defendant out there fanning the flames. The Supreme Court case law cited in my order also makes it clear that the responsibility lies with me in the first instance to craft appropriate rules to ensure that the trial does not devolve into a circus.
The Gentile case and cases cited by the Office of Special Counsel in its submission support the Court's ability to impose restrictions on all participants, not just attorneys. And the Supreme Court and the D.C. Circuit have also emphasized the Court's responsibility. It notes that order and decorum and dignity are not just old fashioned pleasantries, they're fundamental to the fair administration of justice, which enures to the benefit of everyone, including the defendant. And it's my responsibility to uphold that order. And it includes making sure that the people who work in this building, the people who need to access the building for their own cases, and prosecutors, jurors, witnesses, parties -- and, yes, judges -- can come and go from this building safely.
So, no, Mr. Stone, I am not giving you another chance. I have serious doubts about whether you've learned any lesson at all. Therefore, the conditions of the defendant's pretrial release are hereby modified to include the condition that, and the February 15th, 2019 media communications order is hereby modified to provide that, from this moment on, the defendant may not speak publicly about the investigation or the case or any of the participants in the investigation or the case. Period.
The prohibition includes, but is not limited to, no statements about the case during radio broadcasts of his own. No statements about the case during interviews on TV, on the radio, with print reporters or on internet-based media. No press releases or press conferences. No blogs or letters to the editor. No posts on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat or any other form of social media. And the defendant may not comment publicly about the case indirectly, by having statements made on his behalf by surrogates, family members, spokespersons, representatives, or his, quote, many volunteers, close quote.
You may send out as many emails, Tweets, posts as you choose that say, Please donate to the Roger Stone defense fund to help me defend myself against these charges. And you may add that you deny or are innocent of the charges, but that's the extent of it. You apparently need clear boundaries, so there they are.
Please note that I am not prohibiting you from being part of the public discourse or from earning a living. You told me yourself that you will not lose a cent of income if I bar you from speaking about this case. You may continue to publish, to write, and to speak, and to be, as your lawyer put it, a voice about any other matter of public interest; not this case, not the people in it. Not while you're under my supervision.
Under U.S. Code Section 3142(c)(1) and (3), I find that this additional condition is necessary and that it is the least restrictive means possible to reasonably assure the safety of persons associated with the case and the community. I also find that the order is supported by all the reasons and authority set out in my original media communication order.
Under Local Rule 57.7(c), I find that extrajudicial statements by the defendant are likely to interfere with his right to have a fair trial by an impartial jury. And I further find, based on this record, that additional public comments about the case by this defendant pose a substantial risk of material prejudice to the case and the due administration of justice.
I agree with the special counsel that the effect and very likely the intent of the post was to denigrate this process and taint the jury pool.
What all this means, Mr. Stone, is that any violation of this order will be a basis for revoking your bond and detaining you pending trial. So I want to be clear, today I gave you a second chance. But this is not baseball. There will not be a third chance. If you cannot or will not or do not comply with today's orders, I will find it necessary to adjust your environment so that you don't have access to the temptations posed by cameras, phones, computers and microphones.
I fully recognize that you have, as you've emphasized, the right to defend yourself. But the charges are not pending out there; they're pending in here. I was told that the government turned over a large volume of material, a huge volume of material to the defense team, and there's a considerable amount to review and it's going to take a lot of effort. Engaging with your lawyers in that effort is fundamental to defending yourself. So there's plenty of that that you can do. I will set a schedule for the filing of motions and a trial date at the next status conference and that should help you focus your attention on activities that do not run afoul of my order.
Is there anything else I need to take up today on behalf of the government?
MR. KRAVIS: Nothing from the government, Your Honor. Thank you.
THE COURT: Anything further on behalf of the defendant?
MR. ROGOW: Nothing, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. Thank you very much.
Ouch.
RRS’s tuchis may not recover for weeks. Nor should it.
If he doesn’t know where he stands now, he never will, and he will deserve everything that’s coming to him.
RRS is a little shit who’s spent his life getting away with ratf*king and worse. Not any more. Not while he’s under this judge’s supervision.
Final note: During the hearing, RRS noted (transcript, p. 14) his fear of being ”raped in prison.” Prison rape (any rape) is never funny and is not to be joked about. And I don’t think RRS was joking. I think he was actually scared.
Good. Let that be a warning and a lesson to you, Rog. Learn from the fear. That’s what it’s for. Realize that you've spent your "adult" life getting away with shit, egregious, ratfucking shit, and that that is now over. Fail to learn these lessons at your own peril. For once in your misbegotten life, if you know what’s good for you, shut your fucking yap and keep your thumbs off your goddamn phone. You and your “volunteers”.
(I hope to be back online by about 1PM PST or so to attend to comments. Meanwhile, thanks for reading.)
Update: Thanks to Don midwest in the comments for posting this.
Marcy Wheeler (emptywheel) has an excellent post up on how Judge Berman Jackson handled this hearing. The title pretty much speaks for itself.
How Amy Berman Jackson Got Roger Stone to Step in It and Then Step in It Again
Read it. You won’t be sorry.
