I’ve been intentionally limiting my internet time lately because, well, we’re in hell. So I missed Roger Stone threatening via Instagram the federal judge who is presiding over his case.
He must have finally picked up the calls from his lawyer and issued an apology to the judge today:
A formal apology from Roger Stone filed in court this evening. Stone seems to recognize how much trouble he got himself into by attacking the judge in his case on Instagram. pic.twitter.com/tWQUMSbqu2
— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) February 19, 2019
More on this at The Atlantic:
Roger Stone, the trash-talking Nixon-tattooed Trump advisor recently indicted for lying to Congress and threatening a witness, had an eventful Presidents Day. In the space of time you or I might enjoy a leisurely brunch, Stone posted an online attack on United States District Judge Amy Berman Jackson, who is presiding in his case, then altered the post, deleted the post, offered a defense for the post, and finally had his lawyers file a “Notice of Apology” for the post in federal court. None of this is normal, not even in 2019.
Federal criminal defendants are not, as a rule, famed for self-control. But Stone’s attack on the judge presiding over his case is reckless even by his standards. Some have speculated that Stone, always fumbling for an angle, may have wanted to force Jackson to withdraw from the case. That won’t work. Federal courts have long held that a party can’t insult or antagonize a judge and then demand her recusal on the theory that the insults have biased her. That’s why President Trump couldn’t force United States District Judge Gonzalo Curiel off his case by his bigoted and boorish claims that Curiel’s ethnic background disqualified him from hearing the Trump University case. In fact, a party can’t even force a judge off a case by threatening her—and some have tried. The reason is obvious: If a litigant could force a judge to drop a case with deliberate misbehavior, then insults and threats would fly and dockets would descend into chaos.