Stone — who was not charged with any crimes related to communicating with WikiLeaks about its activities and has repeatedly denied that he conspired with the group — had sought an unredacted copy of the Mueller report as part of a flurry of motions to dismiss his seven-count indictment, brought during the now-concluded probe of Russian election interference.

AD

AD

Federal prosecutors are due to reply more fully to Stone’s requests by Friday, but ahead of that deadline, Assistant U.S. Attorney Jonathan Kravis of the District of Columbia, the lead prosecutor, stated the government’s intent during a brief status hearing Stone attended Tuesday in Washington.

Stone, 66, has pleaded not guilty and faces trial Nov. 5 in Washington before U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson. He was indicted Jan. 25, and his prosecution has transferred to the U.S. attorney’s office for the District.

In motions filed April 12, Stone’s defense team asked the court to declare Mueller’s appointment as special counsel invalid and his office unconstitutionally funded and to give the defense Mueller’s report. Days later, the Justice Department separately made public a redacted version of the 448-page report.

Jackson is set to hear oral arguments on those matters and Stone’s request to dismiss the indictment on May 30.

AD

AD

In court Tuesday, Kravis said the government does not intend to give Stone’s attorneys further unredacted portions of Mueller’s report “absent an order from the court to do so.”

Kravis said the government has turned over materials to help Stone prepare his case, such as FBI interview reports and grand-jury testimony that could be used to challenge the credibility of government witnesses and other evidence that could be favorable to the defense.

But Kravis said that the government believes portions of Mueller’s report that “relate to mental impressions and conclusions of government attorneys” about the underlying evidence against Stone are exempt from disclosure under federal criminal rules of procedure.

AD

“So you’re saying if there’s information that bears on the credibility of witnesses such as [FBI] statements and grand jury testimony, you have an obligation to turn that over, but if the report contains a [government] assessment of their credibility, that you're not obligated to turn that over, essentially the lawyers’ views on that?” Jackson asked.

Kravis said that was correct, adding that the government would show the judge redacted language in private for her review if ordered but that it should be withheld from the defense in the same manner that prosecutors withhold written memos that discuss their decision-making on whether to bring charges in a case or decide not to charge.

AD

When his turn came to speak, Stone defense attorney Bruce S. Rogow demurred, saying, “I think we need to see the government’s reasoning and file our reply so we can focus in on it.”

AD