A federal judge cleared the way Thursday for Roger Stone to stand trial in November on charges of lying to Congress and obstructing justice, denying his motions to dismiss his indictment or find selective prosecution by former special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s Russia probe.

U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson of Washington granted Stone’s request for more access to unredacted portions of Mueller’s 448-page report regarding his case but otherwise rejected his challenges to Mueller’s authorization as special counsel, the legality of the funding for Mueller’s office and his contention he should not have been prosecuted without a referral from Congress seeking that action.

“While the Court will require the government to provide the defendant with the bulk of the material redacted from the Report of the Special Counsel that relates to him, it concludes that the defense has not identified any legal grounds that would support dismissing or enjoining this action,” Jackson wrote.

AD
AD

The judge concluded, “It is fair to say that Roger Stone has no one but himself to blame for the fact that he was investigated by the Department of Justice.”

Stone, 66, has pleaded not guilty to charges that he lied about his efforts to gather information about Democratic Party emails hacked by Russian operatives during the presidential campaign and released through the anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks and others.

He has been released on ­personal recognizance pending trial Nov. 5 scheduled in Washington.

Stone’s attorneys sought to toss a seven-count January indictment in which Mueller prosecutors alleged Stone was in frequent contact with members of Trump’s campaign about the WikiLeaks effort to release materials damaging to Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton before the 2016 election.

AD
AD

A focus of Mueller’s probe was whether Stone coordinated with WikiLeaks or its founder, Julian Assange, as it published thousands of hacked Democratic emails. Mueller’s report said investigators were “unable to resolve” aspects of the WikiLeaks release.

Stone was not charged with any crimes related to communicating with WikiLeaks about its activities, and he has repeatedly denied that he conspired with the group.

Jackson’s ruling said she found no merit in Stone’s argument that he needed the full Mueller report because it would show he had been singled out for prosecution due to his political views. Jackson wrote that “Stone puts forth absolutely no evidence that his relationship to the campaign or the candidate motivated the Special Counsel’s decision to investigate and prosecute him.”

AD

Jackson said she also reviewed the Mueller report passages in question in chambers, which “revealed that the material defendant hoped to find under the redactions was not there.”

AD

She added that many Trump supporters, associates and family members testified or gave information to House Intelligence Committee investigators without being charged, and that the special counsel’s specific charter was to look into links between the campaign and the Russian interference effort.

Jackson noted that Stone himself stated in public and private during the 2016 election that he was in contact with the head of WikiLeaks about its release of materials damaging to Clinton.

AD

“There is no question that when he [Stone] chose to take credit for the WikiLeaks release and to tantalize the public with hints that he had inside information about more to come, he chose to place himself directly in the vortex of the issues that became the focus of multiple law enforcement, counterintelligence, and congressional investigations,” Jackson wrote.

AD

Stone “can hardly complain that under those circumstances, once he appeared before the Committee, his veracity, along with the veracity of other witnesses, was subject to scrutiny,” she wrote.