,
6 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
For one thing, it characterizes the Special Counsel's investigation and the warrants they have obtained--following the trail of the stolen emails point to point from hacking to dissemination. They might have taken other avenues to Stone's doorstep, e.g. Manafort's communications.
For another, it includes the first SCO confirmation of @NatashaBertrand's report that Stone communicated directly with Assange. It also firmly ties Stone to paragraph 44 of the Netyshko indictment, which quoted his DMs with Guccifer 2.0 but didn't name him.
But the main thing for me is a puzzle: The Stone indictment doesn't include any actual communications between Assange or Guccifer 2.0 and Stone or his intermediaries (other than Credico's public radio interview). It's all about what Stone, Corsi, and Credico said to each other...
So why is it necessary to use evidence from "accounts that contained Stone's communications with Guccifer 2.0 and with [Wikileaks]" to prove the Stone indictment? Those communications aren't part of the Stone indictment. justice.gov/file/1080281/d…
I put this question to Peter Carr and he "declined to comment beyond the court filings," of course.
Here's @natashabertrand's article on Stone's communications with Wikileaks from a year ago. theatlantic.com/politics/archi… 
