(Thread) Why Roger Stone’s testimony matters
Stone wrote an Op Ed called “The Treachery of Steve Bannon.”
And the NYT released Stone-Bannon email indicating that Stone was the contact between the Trump campaign and Wikileaks.
1/ The articles are dissecting whether Stone had advance knowledge that Wikileaks planned to publish stolen emails. Remember: This is Wikileaks and not Guccifer.
The emails & Op Ed piece doesn’t add much to what we know.
2/ It’s already clear that Trump was an accessory after the fact to the cyber crime of disseminating stolen emails.
More on that here:
3/ The underlying crime was described in Mueller’s 7-13-18 indictment, available here: https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download …
My summary is here: https://russia-investigation-summary.com
The Russians hacked, stole and disseminated “weaponized” stolen emails to alter the outcome of the election.
4/ We already also know (pretty much) that Trump and possibly other members of the campaign aided and abetted the computer crime. (This is a separate crime. You can be charged with aiding and abetting)
5/ The elements of aiding and abetting are:
1. aided, counseled, commanded, induced or procured the person committing the crime;
2. acted with the intent to facilitate the crime;
3. acted before the crime was completed; &
4. the crime was committed.
6/ To get a conviction, a prosecutor must prove each of those elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
The only tricky element is the first.
The presidential campaign, and Trump himself, gave [at least a tacit] nod of approval before the emails were disseminated.
7/ According to the 7-13-18 indictment, for example, the computer crimes occurred AFTER the Russians communicated with the campaign about “dirt” in the form of “emails” via Papadopolous in April.
8/ Moreover, in July 19, 2016 FBI met with the campaign, warned them the Russians would try to infiltrate the campaign, and urged them to alert the FBI about any “suspicious overtures” to his campaign.
They (obviously) didn't do this.
9/ Keeping quiet under the circumstances can also be read as aiding and abetting.
There are other possible crimes, depending on the extent of the communication: Were they enough involved in the planning to be charged as principles?
10/ Did they conspire to defraud the US? Did they conspire to commit cyber crimes? (probably yes and yes)
What’s interesting about the Op Ed piece and statements Bannon, Stone, and Randy Credico have made is that the possible defendants are pointing fingers at each other.
11/First Stone bragged that he was in touch with Wikileaks. Now he said he was lying when he bragged.
Stone says he got info from Credico. Credico says Stone is lying. Stone responded to Bannon's statements by saying that Bannon has a motive for framing him.
12/ Defendants pointing their fingers at each other, giving press interviews, and writing Op Ed pieces, must be a prosecutor’s dream.
The prosectutors just have to watch them fight & see what falls out of their pockets.
I can tell you it would be a defense lawyer’s nightmare.
13/ It looks like Mueller is pressuring Stone into flipping. I know Stone insists that he won't. Manafort said the same thing.
Oh, and by the way: Accessory after the fact is a form of colluding.
And so is aiding and abetting.
You can follow @Teri_Kanefield.