Roger Stone didn't have to take the Fifth in response to a request from the ranking Democratic member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California. It wasn't a subpoena and Feinstein doesn't have subpoena power anyway. So Stone could have just declined to cooperate with the Senator's invitation to appear before the panel and provide documents related to 2016 Russian interference. But someone seems to be feeling a tad ballsy these days. In rejecting Feinstein's request, Stone's lawyer accused Feinstein of going on a "fishing expedition" that was "far too overbroad, far too overreaching, far too wide ranging."
"The production of documents that may be responsive to the unreasonably broad scope of the imprecise, fishing expedition, request would unquestionably be a testimonial act protected by the U.S. Constitution," wrote Grant Smith in a letter dated Dec. 3. "The United States Supreme Court has held that the production of documents is subject to Fifth Amendment protection."
While that may be true, according to former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti, pleading the Fifth on document production is very rare.
But whatever the case, Stone's move appears to be more a matter of signal sending than one of pure substance. First, he and Trump are engaging in a classic call and response tactic, with Trump praising Stone in a tweet also sent Dec. 3 as having "guts" for refusing to testify against him. Second, Stone is likely letting House Democrats know what he plans to do next year should he ultimately be subpoenaed to appear before any committees on the House side.