,
13 tweets,
5 min read
Read on Twitter
Roger Stone's lawyers filed a bunch of - well, let's call them creative - motions late last night. Up first, Stone says the charges that he lied to Congress have to be dismissed because Congress didn't officially complain about his having lied. 
The real culprits, Stone's lawyers say, are House Democrats who drew attention to his allegedly false statements in violation of committee rules.
Stone's lawyers argue that he can't be charged with obstructing the Russia investigation because it didn't conclude that Americans conspired with Russia to sway the election. (That's not an element of the statute.)
Exhibit one to Stone's motion to dismiss is the memo Barr wrote in 2018 - before he was named attorney general - criticizing what he thought was the special counsel's obstruction theory. Its relevance isn't immediately clear.
Stone's lawyers also say he has a constitutional right to see the complete Mueller report, because they think it will contain exculpatory evidence about him.
Stone's lawyers also say it is unconstitutional for the Justice Department to prosecute people for lying to Congress unless Congress specifically complains about he lie.
Stone's lawyers also say he is being selectively prosecuted, in that he is "being punished for supporting and maintaining political support for President Donald Trump."
As evidence that he was selectively prosecuted for supporting Trump, Stone's lawyers point to the fact that the government didn't charge Jerome Corsi or Randy Credico (who were part of the same outreach to WikiLeaks on behalf of Trump's campaign).
Stone's lawyers also argue that it is unconstitutional for the Justice Department to investigate a president or a presidential campaign.
Stone's lawyers also say that investigating a president or a presidential campaign violates the Constitution's Take Care Clause. The only authority they cite for this is the memo Barr wrote before he was named attorney general, which didn't address this question.
They also throw various other strands of spaghetti at the wall, including a bunch that were specifically rejected by a recent (binding) D.C. Circuit opinion.
And they'd like to present this spaghetti to a different judge.
More:
