-How does Judge Jackson respond to all the recent drama at DOJ?
-How does the new prosecution team explain what happened?
-Stone has a new lawyer here today. Was he brought in to take a more confrontational approach?
"I note that the initial memorandum has not been withdrawn."
But, she adds, they don’t usually succeed in persuading the government to agree.
ABJ: “Do you have a case that suggests that the victim’s subjective understanding is the linchpin of that analysis?” (No)
Argues an 8-level increase is a blunt instrument.
Crabb: “Our position is that this enhancement applies.” Asks the government to apply the 8-level enhancement.
Notes that in Credico’s grand jury testimony, he said he was not living at home and wearing a disguise, bc he was worried about what Stone’s friends might do
Says that, because Stone falsely told the House Intel Committee he had no emails or texts re: Assange, committee never pursued them. Committee was also diverted by Stone into focusing on Credico instead.
Ginsberg arguing that none of this obstructed the prosecution's case.
Stone "willfully increased the risk that someone with even poorer judgment than he has" would impede things
(Note: We are still just calculating the guidelines. ABJ can now depart from them as she wishes for the actual sentence.)
ABJ: “I fear that you know less about the case, saw less of the testimony, and saw less of the exhibits than just about any other person in this courtroom” (with the possible exception of Stone’s new attorney who just joined the team)
Did it get up to the US Attorney?
Yes, Crabb said.
ABJ: Did it have to go up to Main Justice?
Crabb: There were consultations with Main Justice.
Crabb: My understanding is "there was a miscommunication between the Attorney General and the United States Attorney," as to the AG's expectations on an appropriate filing
Doesn't have further details.
ABJ: It’s not about bad faith. It was fully consistent with current DOJ policy, wasn’t that true?
Crabb: I’m not at liberty to discuss the internal deliberations in DOJ.
ABJ: Were you directed to write it by someone else?
Crabb: I can’t answer.
Now Ginsberg is up for Stone’s team. Urges ABJ not to focus on “all the many things that are going on outside this courtroom.”
Says Stone's family has suffered quite a lot, including in what he calls the "horrific" circumstances of Stone's arrest.
(Can't imagine this will go over well.)
Stone says he won't speak.
And we’re at a break.
Judge Jackson: "Unsurprisingly, I have a lot to say..."
Walking through the timeline of WikiLeaks and Stone’s emails with Corsi.
“It was all false. And afterwards, he endeavored mightily to make sure” Credico didn’t mess up his story. Says that’s why Stone was indicted, not for his political activities.
"This is not mere equivocation. This is not the product of confusion. The exhibits alone establish" many texts and emails with Corsi and Credico on this
“Whether Stone was ever truly in communication with Assange or not,” he knew it would reflect badly on the campaign if his emails came to light.
But all of that “reflects more on Mr. Credico than Mr. Stone.”
“Certain themes emerge.” Quotes letters sent by Stone’s friends saying Stone was referred to as a provocateur and dirty trickster. Points out these were letters sent *on his behalf.*
But "I am not passing judgment on Mr. Stone as a man. That falls to a higher authority."
“Any suggestion that the prosecutors in this case did anything untoward” is incorrect.
Also says she will not be influenced by pressure from the left from those who want a stiffer sentence.
“There was nothing unfair, phony, or disgraceful about the investigation or the prosecution."
“The dismay and disgust at the defendant’s belligerence should transcend party.”