Thread by @ClimateAudit

Thread. Nov 27, 2018: CNN cited quotes from emails between Stone and Person 1 [Corsi] quoted in Stone indictment. CNN gloated over possibility of Stone and others being charged with conspiracy for "for seeking stolen documents". No such charge by Mueller
cnn.com/2018/11/27/pol…

2/ in DECEMBER 2018, Mueller asked House committee for transcript of Stone's interview with Intelligence Committee. Committee agreed on or about Dec 19, 2018. cnn.com/2018/12/19/pol… So, as of Dec 19, 2018, Mueller didn't (legally) have Stone transcript.

3/ none of the charges against Stone pertain to lying to FBI. All charges relate to Stone's testimony to House Intel Committee obtained by Mueller on Dec 19. I.e. charges derive from Mueller's parsing of Stone testimony obtained ~30 days ago. As of Dec 19, Mueller had nothing.

4/ one has to read carefully to determine whether Mueller charges are substantive or over-wrought pearl clutching. First, Mueller stated that HPSCI requested documents “that reasonably could lead to discovery of any facts within the investigation’s publicly announced parameters”

5/ Stone replied to HSPCI that he didn’t have any documents that could “reasonably lead to the discovery of any facts within the investigation's PUBLICLY ANNOUNCED PARAMETERS” (my caps). This appears to be true. Perhaps this is why Mueller failed to list these parameters.

6/ Stone's opening statement, cited by Mueller, using near-identical language to his statement to CNN, denied that he had "advanced notice that anyone had stolen Podesta's emails" or that he had "advanced knowledge of the source or actual content" of the WikiLeaks disclosures

7/ Mueller listed 5 counts of lying to HPSCI, as shown below, all related to issues in Stone's description of his contacts with Corsi and Credico, none of which ultimately amount to anything remotely relevant to Russian collusion.

8/ in respect to Count 2, note that Stone was asked a compound question, the first part of which pertained to "hacked documents", the second to discussions about Assange. In respect to hacked documents, Stone's answer was correct, but not in respect to second leg of compound.

9/ Mueller listed several texts, emails referring to Assange. None showed anything untoward. To inflate misstatement, Mueller falsely stated that Stone prevented HPSCI from "subpoena[ing] records that could have shown that other aspects of his testimony were false&misleading"

10/ Count 3 was that Stone falsely stated to Intel Cmte that there was a "single" go-between, when there were actually two go-betweens: Corsi in early August and Credico in late August and September.

11/ one presumes that Stone told FBI and Mueller about both Corsi and Credico. Issue arises only in evidence to IntelCmte. Indictment says that Stone was asked to explain his public (somewhat inflated) comments in early August 2016 about being in contact with Assange

12/ according to Mueller, Stone told IntelCmte that his reference to having a means of contacting WL "referred exclusively" to his contact via Credico. Indictment did not give a direct quotation in which Stone used word "exclusively" or "single". Stone might have, but no quote.

13/ later Stone identified Credico as the person who "confirmed" that WL had Hillary emails "pending publication". This identification was true.

14/ Mueller charged that Stone didn't mention Corsi to IntelCmte. Mueller didn't offer any reason why Stone would disclose Credico, but conceal Corsi. There isn't anything wrong in Stone's as-reported exchanges with Corsi. Did Stone have motive for concealing Corsi, or just omit

15/ Count 4. Stone was asked by IntelCmte about "extent" of comms with Credico and whether he asked Credico to communicate anything to Assange other than seeking confirmation that they had "Clinton emails" and "would release them".

16/ Mueller says that this was a lie because a) Stone had asked Corsi (not Credico) on July 25 to try to get WL emails that "deal with Foundation allegedly". Note that this subparagraph doesn't show a lie in respect to a question about comms with CREDICO.

17/ Mueller's other gotcha: on Sep 18, Stone sent article on Hillary and (presumably) Libya to Credico and asked Credico to ask Assange for "State or HRC email" from ~Aug 20, 2011. Credico forwarded request, but nothing materialized. Easy to see how this could be forgotten.

18/ Stone's failure to remember this unimportant request was totally immaterial to HPSCI investigation. Both Hillary and Comey purported to forget everything. Hard to understand why Stone (or anyone) else voluntarily answers anything if charged for such trifles.

19/ Stone was asked by HPSCI whether he had communicated with Credico by text or email.

20/ Stone foolishly denied that he had communicated with Credico by text or email. Mueller pointed out that, on the day prior to his testimony, Credico and Stone had "exchanged over thirty text messages".

What an idiotic lie.

21/ after exposing Stone's lie on Credico texts, Mueller then lied in Indictment about materiality. (a) Email to Corsi didn't involve Credico and doesn't go anywhere. (b) Email requesting Libya emails didn't go anywhere either. Neither "would have been material to HPSCI".

22/ Similarly, Mueller lied when he claimed that the other cited email (Jan 6, 2017 after election) was material to HPSCI investigation of Russian collusion.

23/ the last false statement count. Stone was asked "did you discuss your conversations with [Credico] with anyone involved in the Trump campaign?” and answered No.

24/ Mueller charged that this was a lie citing, for example, an email in which Stone said that he "spoke to my friend in London last night" - implying Assange and an email in which Assange was worried about security. None mention "conversations with" CREDICO.

25/ On this particular count - on whether Stone discussed his "conversations with Credico" with Trump officials, Mueller didn't provide any evidence that Stone had discussed "conversations with Credico" and it would have been false if he had claimed to do so.

26/ in Oct 2017, Credico reminded Stone that Credico was not the source for his early August information and urged Stone to correct his evidence to IntelCmte on this point.

27/ Stone then tried to get Credico to avoid contradicting Stone's evidence to IntelCmte, eventually succeeding in persuading Credico not to appear.

28/ Credico was subpoenaed by IntelCmte. Stone then tried to get Corsi to write something about Credico, but Corsi recommended holding off until they saw what Credico said.

29/ then there were further unsalubrious exchanges between Stone and Credico, in which Stone tried to persuade Credico not to contradict Stone's previous testimony

30/ Credico then told IntelCmte that he (like Combetta and others in Hillary investigation) would plead the Fifth

31/ correspondence between Stone and Credico continued to degenerate. Credico urged Stone to correct testimony, Stone told Credico not to talk to FBI

32/ Stone's communications with Credico degenerated into foul threats by Stone against Credico's dog and against an attorney friend of Credico's.

33/ what a gong show.

34/ looking at full record, it seems to be a huge fight about nothing. There doesn't seem to have been any reason for Stone to conceal Corsi as being his early August source (as opposed to Credico). None of the emails/texts between Corsi and Stone are illegal.

35/ why didn't Stone correct his testimony when he had a chance to? He could have easily said that he misunderstood question - easy enough with compound questions - and, on reflection, clarified his answer.

36/ nor does Mueller seem much better than Stone. None of this stuff matters to Russian collusion. It's all absurd gong show. Yet Mueller grossly inflated supposed significance of gong show, claiming it was "material". It wasn't.

32/ Stone was on Tucker Carlson tonight and denied all charges. He said that he had rebuttals at his website stonecoldtruth.com. I've just looked at a relevant Oct 30, 2018 article stonecoldtruth.com/wall-street-jo…. Inter alia, it discussed Sep 18 request to WL cited in Indictment

37/ upthread I referred to Mueller's charge that Stone had lied to IntelCmte by denying that he had asked Credico to do anything else on his own behalf, when he had asked Credico to obtain emails relating to Libya on or about Aug 20, 2011. Separately, I wondered about details.

38/ Stone gave answer in Oct 30, 2018 article stonecoldtruth.com/wall-street-jo…. Using info from Walter Fauntroy, Stone noticed Assange interview claiming documents reflecting disagreement over whether to take out Quaddafi. Stone asked Credico if he knew if they had been posted.

39/ Stone said that Credico replied “I can’t be asking them for things every day….I’ll ask one of the lawyers”. Mueller failed to disclose this, but Indictment slyly said in 15b(ii) that Credico sent request "to a friend who was an attorney with the ability to contact" Assange

40/ Stone unequivocally stated that Credico, not Corsi, was Stone's source in early August. Stone said that Credico told him that Assange would drop "bombshell in October" and that Credico had 30 year relationship with WL lawyer who arranged his Assange meeting

41/ Mueller chronology dated first Credico exchange with Stone about Assange to text and email on Aug 19, 2016, shortly before scheduled Credico-Assange interview

42/ Aug 19 is first written exchange, but Stone testified that his discussions with Credico were by telephone. Mueller failed to disclose dates of telephone calls in this period between Stone and Credico, records of which Mueller could easily obtain and almost certainly did.

42/ thinking about it, Stone and Credico almost certainly had telephone discussions in late July and early August PRIOR to the Aug 19 text. If so, it's very plausible that Credico was source for Stone about Assange in early August - based on Credico connection to lawyer.

43/ this is not nearly as straightforward as my upthread comments suggested. Mueller said that "first time [Credico] interviewed [Assange] was .. Aug 25, 2016, after STONE made his Aug 8 and Aug 12, 2016 public statements". But Stone observed Credico also had info from WL lawyer

44/ so Mueller has to prove that Credico-Stone telephone conversations in early August didn't touch on Stone's early August comments about Assange, but a still unattested Corsi communication did. How does Mueller do this without surveillance transcripts of all telephone calls?

45/ this is very important because obstruction of justice allegations all pertain to this single issue of whether it was Credico or Corsi that was source of Stone's early August comments. Stone's statement prior to Indictment firmly re-iterate his position that it was Credico.

46/ if Stone is right about Credico being the source, and perhaps even if Stone truly believed that Credico was source (as seems to be the case), then Stone's emails urging Credico to so testify, however vulgar, wouldn't be "obstruction" of justice, but a desire for justice.

47/ BTW, Sol Wisenberg, a very smart lawyer, told Laura Ingraham that obstruction charges were weak on their face and that lying charges were more substantial. This surprised me. But I'll defer to someone so knowledgeable.

48/ all in all, Stone's article stonecoldtruth.com/wall-street-jo… provides much of what will be his defence. Most of the defense points in this article seem plausible. And certainly plausible enough to provide reasonable doubt.

49/ as Mueller's allegations appear increasingly flimsy, one gets the impression that Stone's main offense was a facecrime - smirking at Mueller. Next thing we know, Mueller will charge the Covington teenagers with facecrimes - multiple counts.