, 11 tweets, 3 min read Read on Twitter
Trump defenders are claiming that the Stone indictments are further evidence that Mueller has no collusion case to make against Trump or his campaign team. If he did, they say, that would show up in his indictments, including the latest ones against Stone. 1/11
There are a number of reasons for rejecting this claim.

One is that there are reasons for thinking that the Stone indictments do provide evidence that Mueller has a collusion case that he will eventually make against Trump and Stone. 2/11
.@emptywheel points to two such pieces of evidence. One is a new detail in the Stone indictment that indicates that the Trump campaign believed that Stone was in touch with Wikileaks (WL). 3/11 tinyurl.com/y8f5rhdc
There is also evidence, in this connection, that Stone took credit for getting WL to release the Podesta emails when it did.

(A useful article in the Daily Caller, which emptywheel cites, gives some useful details about this.) 4/11 tinyurl.com/ya4b6u5v
The second piece of evidence that would be relevant to a collusion case is that Stone figures in Mueller’s indictment of the GRU hackers. (Stone is described there, but not named.) 5/11
This suggests that Mueller might have wiretap or other evidence tying together Stone, WL, and the hackers that he has not yet revealed. 6/11
The third reason for discounting the claim that the Stone indictment shows Mueller has no evidence for collusion is that, even if it were true that there is no evidence of collusion therein, that would mean nothing-- 7/11
because including something of that nature would have exposed Mueller’s investigation and evidence to discovery rules, and Mueller wouldn’t want such details to be exposed--yet. Joyce Alene has made this argument. 8/11 tinyurl.com/ycct7t8x
This is the very point I made when Manafort’s attorneys exulted when Mueller responded to an inquiry from them, saying that he had no evidence that Manafort had engaged in collusion. 9/11
As I pointed out then, this denial meant nothing, because Mueller had been very careful to withhold collusion charges in his indictments (as he has to this very day). The indictments against Manafort were only about tax and financial fraud. 10/11
So the federal rules of discovery did not Mueller to hand over any evidence about possible collusion by Manafort (which Mueller undoubtedly does have). See my thread of Aug 24. 11/11 tinyurl.com/ydawwsny
Missing some Tweet in this thread?
You can try to force a refresh.

Like this thread? Get email updates or save it to PDF!

Subscribe to Thomas Wood 🌊
Profile picture

Get real-time email alerts when new unrolls are available from this author!

This content may be removed anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime, convert it as a PDF, save and print for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video

1) Follow Thread Reader App on Twitter so you can easily mention us!

2) Go to a Twitter thread (series of Tweets by the same owner) and mention us with a keyword "unroll" @threadreaderapp unroll

You can practice here first or read more on our help page!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just three indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3.00/month or $30.00/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!