,
10 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
Roger Stone's motion for an order to show cause attempting to get the court to set an evidentiary hearing on why CNN was in front of his house. documentcloud.org/documents/5736…
Stone's lawyer's text chain with a CNN producer that morning. 
Stone's argument here is deeply, deeply stupid. So stupid that making the effort to rebut it makes you feel like you're stupid.
For you though, reader, I'll jump in. First off, for public consumption, the allegation against the prosecutors/FBI has been that they let CNN know about Stone's arrest in advance so that they could be there and film it. This document does not make that allegation. At all.
Instead, the document essentially accuses the Special Counsel of a ticky-tack foul: Making Stone's indictment public *shortly AFTER he'd been arrested* but while they think indictment was still formally under seal.
It's pretty straightforward to show this is wrong, but the most important point is it's trivial--a formalistic dispute about document handling after Stone's arrest that has nothing to do with how CNN was able to position a camera crew at Stone's house before his arrest.
CNN has explained, repeatedly, how carefully watching activity outside the grand jury room and the Special Counsel's office the day before led them to correctly bet on a Stone stake out that morning. They say they didn't get a tip. cnn.com/2019/01/25/pol…
Stone says CNN sent his lawyer a copy of the indictment at 6:22a the day of his arrest, when--he alleges--it was still under seal. He tries to waft this into a conspiracy theory that CNN had special access to the indictment that enabled the stakeout without directly alleging it.
But that timing, 6:22a, is consistent with when *everyone* in the media learned of the indictment. Peter Carr sent an email out at 6:16a (per my inbox) to let people know the indictment had been posted on the Special Counsel's website. It doesn't show CNN had special access.
And what about this argument that the indictment was still under seal after Stone's arrest? It doesn't hold up. The court's sealing order expressly says it lasts "until the defendant named in the Indictment is in custody, AT WHICH TIME THE FOREGOING MATERIALS SHALL BE UNSEALED."
