Hi from a rainy morning outside the DC courthouse, where there’s a crowd waiting to get inside. Roger Stone’s trial is set to start at 9:30, with testimony from a still unknown government witness, although prosecutors have said Rick Gates will testify.

Federal prosecutors said they're going to rest their case today, per @hneidig (I was still trapped in the security line).

Rick Gates is up next on the witness stand.

Aaron Zelinsky, the former Mueller prosecutor, will question Gates.

They're going over Gates background, including his jobs as a political consultant. He mentions that he worked at a firm called Black, Manafort and Stone.

Gates said he and Stone did not interact during his work there.

Gates says he first got involved with the Trump campaign in March 2016, as deputy convention manager. Paul Manafort was the convention manager.

Gates was working at Manafort's consulting firm at the time.

"Before joining the Trump campaign, did you commit crimes with Paul Manafort?" Zelinsky asks.

Gates said he did.

They're going over Gates plea agreement with the government, after he pleaded guilty on fraud-related charges.

One of those charges was lying to the government.

"Were there consequences to lying to the government?" Zelinsky asks. Gates says yes, in that he was charged with that crime, and could face prison time as a result.

Up to 10 years, per all of the charges he pleaded guilty to.

This line of questioning is all aimed at building Gate's credibility as a witness.

"If you lie during your testimony today would that violate your plea agreement?" Zelinsky asks.

"Yes it would," Gates says, adding he could face further charges.

Gates says he met with the government twice to prepare for his testimony today.

Gates says he and Stone interacted in May 2016, when Stone was no longer formally part of the campaign.

He said things were "somewhat tense" b/w Stone and Trump at the time, bc of Stone previously leaving the campaign, but that they had a 30+ year long relationship

Gates says that Stone told him at that time that he had information about forthcoming WikiLeaks releases, but that Stone didn't provide dates etc on those releases.

Zelinsky asks what the Trump campaign's reax was to an announcement from Assange about an info dump in June 2016. Stone's lawyers object, they're at the bench now.

Gates says that the Trump campaign was happy about the WikiLeaks' announcement they had dirt on the Clinton campaign. He said there was also "disbelief" bc they had heard about the emails for so long, since April.

Gates says he had heard from Stone about the emails back in April.

He says Stone was "happy" that what Stone said would happen previously was happening then.

One day after the announcement, Stone emailed Gates, saying: "Need guidance on many things. Call me."

Gates says that WikiLeaks was "one of many things" in the conversation b/w him and Stone.

Gates says sr. campaign aides were again happy and in disbelief when the DNC announced it was hacked by Russia.

He said there was a "number of us who felt it would give our campaign a leg up."

He said that he and Stone spoke after that.

"He said more information would be coming out of the DNC hack," Gates said of Stone.

One day after their call, Stone emailed Gates saying, "I need contact info for Jared."

Gates says that's Jared Kushner.

Gates says Stone wanted to call Kushner and "debrief" him on the developments of the DNC hack announcement.

When the info still wasn't released in June, Gates says Manafort asked him to periodically check in with Stone about whether the WikiLeaks information was still coming out.

Gates says he, Manafort, Jason Miller and Stephen Miller held "brainstorming sessions" in early July about how the campaign would respond if any info was leaked. But he said that info hadn't come out yet, so they didn't act on anything yet.

Gates says that after WikiLeaks dumped the emails, the Trump campaign was in a "state of happiness." He said that anything time damaging information comes out on a competitor, it's "helpful."

Manafort and Stone then had a conversation that Gates overheard, Gates says. Stone told Manafort that even more information would be coming out, and Gates says Manafort was surprised, especially after that first information came out after Stone had promised it for so long.

Gates says that he and Stone spoke from time to time about forthcoming WikiLeaks info. He passed along that info to Manafort, who said he would be updating Trump, "among others" about those updates.

Gates says he heard a phone call b/w Stone and Trump in late July, but that he couldn't hear the conversation .

"Immediately after the phone call with Mr. Stone ended, what did Mr. Trump say to you," Zelinsky asks.

Stone's attorney Bruce Rogow objects, they're at the bench.

"He indicated that more information would be coming," Gates says of Trump's comments to him, after Trump's phone call with Stone.

Gates says that Stone never told him where he got the information from, but that he believed it to be "non-public" information.

Zelinsky's questioning is over, Stone attorney Bruce Rogow is up next.

Rogow asks Gates if he ever told the govt that Stone never talked about WikiLeaks with him or Manafort. Gates says he hasn't, Rogow says "let me show you something" and brings a piece of paper to the stand.

Govt objects, they're at the bench with Judge Jackson.

Rogow is going through charges dropped against Gates, including misreporting his personal tax returns and money laundering.

Rogow asks if Gates had "committed other crimes" than the ones he's been prosecuted for/had dropped. Govt objects, they're back at the bench with Jackson.

As Rogow keeps asking about Gates's finances and taxes and loans that he may or may not have taken out, Gates looks confused and the government has been objecting. Jackson has called everyone back up to the bench to apparently talk it out.

Rogow notes that Gates has testified in other cases.

"And what was the outcome..." Rogow begins to ask, before he's cut off by an objection. Jackson sustains the objection.

Gates again says that he didn't know what Stone's source of information was on WikiLeaks.

He says it was less than 30 seconds b/w the end of Trump's call he overheard w/ Stone and Trump making his comment to him.

Rogow asks if Stone continually asked Gates about voter registration lists, which Rogow says was Stone's responsibility when he worked on the campaign. Gates said he did.

Gates said that campaign officials found out about WikiLeaks releases through media reporting, "through the TV." He says he didn't learn about the contents of the releases from Stone prior to that.

Rogow ends his questioning.

"Did Mr Stone tell you that more information was coming?" Zelinsky asks.

"He did," Gates said.

Gates said he had "assumed" that Stone's source was WikiLeaks, and that it was non-public information.

And Gates questioning is over. There's one more government witness coming, but trial is taking a brief break.

And we're back. Government recalls Michelle Taylor, the FBI agent for Stone's case.

They're talking about Guccifer 2.0, an online persona who claimed credit for the release of hacked DNC emails. And they're going back to Stone's testimony with the House Intel Committee, where Stone said he wasn't sure if the persona was tied to Russian intel.

Fed prosecutor Jonathan Kravis gives Taylor a transcript of the Frank Pentangeli scene from The Godfather: Part II.

She said she's "definitely" seen this scene "more than once," the last time being last night.

The transcript of the scene is in evidence. Kravis ends his questioning.

Rogow is up; he asks Taylor if she knows "independently" if Guccifer is Russian. She says she doesn't.

After asking if Stone handed over his contacts with Guccifer, Taylor says he did.

Rogow says he's done with his questioning, and so is the government.

Kravis says there's no more witnesses from the government, but there is some evidence they want to submit into the record.

He reads a stipulation about where Stone's testimony took place (DC) and another on identification, that Stone is the defendant listed in the trial docs.

Kravis also moves into evidence stipulations about phone numbers/email address listed in the evidence. That was unintentionally released earlier this year, including numbers for Trump, https://at.law.com/X8XWcy?cmp=share_twitter

Kravis also wants to submit Steve Bannon's testimony with Mueller's grand jury into evidence. Attorneys are now at the bench, discussing it with Jackson.

And the government rests its case.

Jackson says that there's some legal/logistical issues they need to discuss before they move onto the next part of the trial. She's sending the jury out of the room for the next two hours while those are ironed out.

Stone attorney Robert Buschel lays out the rest of the defense strategy. He says they will enter some govt exhibits and some of their own exhibits, play 50 minutes of audio from Stone's House Intel testimony, and then rest their case.

Jackson says she doesn't see why closing statements wouldn't be held tomorrow.

The judge does say there needs to be some "tinkering" with the verdict form, more in line with the govt's idea of the form. She says she's not sending the indictment back to the jury, so it needs to be more clear about what they have to find Stone guilty/not guilty of.

Jackson also touches on potential jury instructions. She says it needs to be clear on what the jury needs to agree upon, whether it's Stone obstructed or if he obstructed on one point etc.

And we’re on a break now, while Stone’s team finalizes something they want the judge to read.

And we're back, but not with the jury.

Jackson says she's reviewed the defense's memorandum for a motion for acquittal, which they filed during the break. She says she'll hear arguments, break, and then rule "or say whatever I'm going to say." And then the defense will continue.

Jackson wants the defense to rest today, and have a conference on jury instructions tomorrow with closings tomorrow afternoon. She says she'll give each party "up to an hour" -- the government asks for an hour and 15 minutes instead.

Jackson says there's "been a lot of repetition" in the case, and urges the government to keep that in mind while they review their closing.

She says that if the govt goes over an hour and 15, she'll probably call someone up to the bench to ask them how much longer it'll be.

So, as a final overview:

Jury instructions conference at 10 am tomorrow.
Break.
Closing arguments in the case at 1 pm tomorrow, with time afterwards to give the jury the instructions as agreed upon during the morning conference.

Buschel is up arguing for the motion for acquittal.

He says the govt has failed to prove there was an intermediary b/w Stone and WikiLeaks. Jackson asks which charges that's needed to be proven, Buschel refers to some of the charges on Stone's false statements.

Jackson says that Stone is not charged with lying about who his intermediary is, but he's charged with being "deliberately evasive" about who he was referring to when he said he had an intermediary with WikiLeaks.

She asks why the govt has to prove there was an intermediary.

Buschel says the charge is Stone lied about the identity of his intermediary, but that was no intermediary.

"I just don't understand where there's any count that actually turns on proof beyond a reasonable doubt on the existence of an actual intermediary" Jackson replies.

Jackson is getting a bit frustrated with Buschel's argument. She says the charge isn't about the identity of the actual intermediary, but whether Stone lied about the person he had suggested was his intermediary.

Buschel also says that bc the House probe was about Russian interference, Stone's emails/comments fell outside the scope of the investigation.

Jackson says, "I don't understand that." She says that WikiLeaks pubbing the info is part of interference, bc it disrupted a campaign.

"The question is, were these questions to Mr Stone, who were you talking to when you claimed to know publicly what WikiLeaks was going to do? Why didn't that fall squarely within the four corners" of the House probe, Jackson asks.

Buschel says that Stone rejected that notion.

"Why is not a fair question that they're looking into?" Jackson asks.

"The Russian active measures include how they got public," she adds.

She asks how WikiLeaks "could not be material to their investigation."

Buschel says that assumes that Russian transferred the information to WikiLeaks.

Jackson doesn't sound like she'll rule in favor of the motion for acquittal, based on her tone.

DOJ prosecutor Jonathan Kravis is up. He says the definition of the word, which Buschel cited, is irrelevant and is more dependent on the way it's used in the transcript. Kravis says Stone was the first person during his House Intel interview to use the word "intermediary."

"Whether the person meets the term that Mr. Stone is using is not the issue here," Kravis says. He says what's more important is if Stone lied about the person he was referring to, w/ the question being about past statements from Stone that referenced an "intermediary."

In sum -- Kravis says the government didn't have to prove there was an intermediary, just that Stone lied.

On Buschel's second point re: Russian interference, Kravis says the argument assumes members added the phrase "as it pertains to Russian election interference" at the end of each question. Kravis says that's not the case, and that the questions were clearly about WikiLeaks.

Kravis says Stone "knew full well" that WikiLeaks would touch upon the Russian election interference, noting that Stone brought up WikiLeaks in his opening statement before the House Intelligence Committee.

Jackson brings up the charge that Stone lied about telling the Trump campaign about his contacts with the "intermediary," ask what evidence backs that up.

Kravis points to emails b/w Stone and Bannon after the "dud" WikiLeaks presser. He says Stone was giving "non public" info.

The judge says DOJ will have to make those claims more clear on a verdict form/jury instructions, that it wants the jury to find that Stone lied about not sharing info he discussed w/ the intermediary w/ the Trump campaign.

Jackson breaks, back at 2 + she'll likely rule then.

And we're back. Jackson says she's going to hold off on ruling on the motion for acquittal, but notes that she can only rule based on the evidence submitted at the time the motion was filed.

Jackson is raising some questions about evidence Stone's attorneys want to admit this afternoon. They're going through the list, and she notes she's already ruled against a couple of them, so they'll be excluded.

She's questioning the relevance of a pre-interview letter sent to Bannon that Stone's attorneys want to include. Jackson says they need to "characterize it correctly," noting it says in all caps "THIS IS NOT A COOPERATION AGREEMENT" and that it doesn't include immunity etc.

DOJ prosecutor Jonathan Kravis says they object, saying he also doesn't get the relevance because the defense didn't question Bannon about that interview specifically.

"I'm just not sure how it bears on these proceedings," Jackson says.

Jackson and Buschel go over the exhibits they want to submit for the jury. She notes that she had already ruled against some of them, so they should be excluded, and that others she had ordered to be redacted, so they need to be redacted.

Funny moment, as Buschel asks if he can sit down while they play about 50 minutes of Stone's testimony with House Intel for the jury. Jackson laughs and says he can. "It's the court's rules," Buschel notes.

Buschel has now moved ~69 defense exhibits into evidence, as well as 3 government exhibits. They aren't publishing them for the jury right now

They're now starting to play excerpts of Stone's testimony with the House Intel Committee, during which he is alleged to have lied.

Some of the exchanges are difficult to hear from the media room (not a high quality recording), but some of the segments that are being aired are Stone saying he didn't coordinate with Russia/he didn't know of the Trump campaign coordinating w/ Russia.

One exchange is about a tweet Stone sent to @RVAwonk where he called her a "stupid bitch." Swalwell asks why Stone deleted it, noting that Stone referenced having a back-channel to Assange in it. Stone said it was probably bc calling her a "stupid bitch" was "intemperate."

And the recording is over.

Stone's defense team rests. The government has also rested.

Jackson tells the jury that the case hasn't been submitted to them, and that closing arguments won't be until tomorrow.

She also tells them that they won't get the legal instructions on their deliberations until tomorrow, and that they'll be called back in at 1 pm tomorrow.

The jury is dismissed for the rest of the day.

Jackson says the parties will convene tomorrow at 10 am to talk about jury instructions.

Jackson asks Stone about his decision to not testify in the trial. She explains that it's his right to testify if he wishes, but that he would be cross-examined.

He says he fully understands his rights and that he has decided not to testify.

And we're done for the day, with the trial moving on a faster track than initially expected. Back at 10 am tomorrow for the conference on jury instructions.