I just read the indictment of Roger Stone, the political "insider" who was connected to the Trump campaign in the 2016 election. What is remarkable about the indictment is not what it says, but what it doesn't say. The indictment says that Stone had many indirect communications with Julian Assange of Wikileaks in 2016 about the emails regarding Hillary Clinton and her campaign that Wikileaks released during the campaign. According to the indictment, Stone lied to federal investigators about his communications and what documents he had in connection with those communications with Assange. Stone is also charged with witness tampering because he convinced another witness to claim his fifth amendment right against self-incrimination and pleaded with the witness to lie if he did testify (which he did not.) These are all process crimes. They pertain to the investigation, not to the underlying events. What the indictment does not say is that anything Stone actually did was illegal. Indeed, when you read the summary of underlying events set forth in the indictment, it is pretty clear that the special counsel is not claiming that Stone or the Trump campaign did anything illegal.
The main thing missing in the indictment is any link to Russia. There are plenty of allegations about the release by Wikileaks of Clinton related emails. The indictment, however, only mentions Russia twice. The first time it alleges that "Company 1" (the security firm brought in by the DNC) stated that the DNC hack had been done by the Russians. The second time it quotes Stone as saying that despite media reports there is no proof that it actually was Russia that hacked the DNC. Interestingly, there is also no allegation that Stone knew or even had been told by Wikileaks or Assange that the Russians were the source of the emails. We do know that Assange has repeatedly state that the Russians were not his source.
This is important stuff and likely is a window into the final conclusions that the Mueller probe will reach. Remember, there is nothing wrong per se with an American. whether a journalist or a politician, communicating with Wikileaks. Anyone with Assange's email address could have asked Assange in 2016 about the Clinton emails without breaking the law in any way. And it doesn't matter that the emails Wikileaks released were improperly obtained through hacking. Indeed, we don't even know that they were obtained that way. The FBI was never able to see the DNC computer system that was supposedly hacked. There is only the statement of the security firm hired by the DNC which is hearsay that provides no actual proof of Russian involvement at all. There have always been those who believe that the documents obtained by Wikileaks came as a result of a DNC employee who leaked the info after realizing that the DNC had participated with Hillary Clinton in rigging the primary campaigns against Sanders and for Hillary. So there really is nothing wrong if the ultimate facts were to show that the Trump campaign tried to get advance info on what Wikileaks was going to release next. That is not proof of collusion, just of normal campaign practices. It would be like the Clinton campaign trying to get advance notice of the questions to be asked in a televised debate. That actually happened, and it was not a crime.
It is possible, of course, that Mueller has proof of some sort that the Russians really did hack the DNC computers, but it surely does not seem likely.
It is also worth reporting that if the allegations of the indictment are correct and there are no defenses raised by Stone, he is likely to be found guilty of lying to federal investigators. The witness tampering charge seems very weak. I do not think that advising someone to take the Fifth can be a crime. So the question, then, is whether or not it is criminal to ask a witness to lie if the witness never testifies and never lies. That's problematic at best for Mueller.
The main thing missing in the indictment is any link to Russia. There are plenty of allegations about the release by Wikileaks of Clinton related emails. The indictment, however, only mentions Russia twice. The first time it alleges that "Company 1" (the security firm brought in by the DNC) stated that the DNC hack had been done by the Russians. The second time it quotes Stone as saying that despite media reports there is no proof that it actually was Russia that hacked the DNC. Interestingly, there is also no allegation that Stone knew or even had been told by Wikileaks or Assange that the Russians were the source of the emails. We do know that Assange has repeatedly state that the Russians were not his source.
This is important stuff and likely is a window into the final conclusions that the Mueller probe will reach. Remember, there is nothing wrong per se with an American. whether a journalist or a politician, communicating with Wikileaks. Anyone with Assange's email address could have asked Assange in 2016 about the Clinton emails without breaking the law in any way. And it doesn't matter that the emails Wikileaks released were improperly obtained through hacking. Indeed, we don't even know that they were obtained that way. The FBI was never able to see the DNC computer system that was supposedly hacked. There is only the statement of the security firm hired by the DNC which is hearsay that provides no actual proof of Russian involvement at all. There have always been those who believe that the documents obtained by Wikileaks came as a result of a DNC employee who leaked the info after realizing that the DNC had participated with Hillary Clinton in rigging the primary campaigns against Sanders and for Hillary. So there really is nothing wrong if the ultimate facts were to show that the Trump campaign tried to get advance info on what Wikileaks was going to release next. That is not proof of collusion, just of normal campaign practices. It would be like the Clinton campaign trying to get advance notice of the questions to be asked in a televised debate. That actually happened, and it was not a crime.
It is possible, of course, that Mueller has proof of some sort that the Russians really did hack the DNC computers, but it surely does not seem likely.
It is also worth reporting that if the allegations of the indictment are correct and there are no defenses raised by Stone, he is likely to be found guilty of lying to federal investigators. The witness tampering charge seems very weak. I do not think that advising someone to take the Fifth can be a crime. So the question, then, is whether or not it is criminal to ask a witness to lie if the witness never testifies and never lies. That's problematic at best for Mueller.
No comments:
Post a Comment