Thread by @SethAbramson

IMPORTANT: Mueller testified Trump gave "hope" to "criminal activity" when he spoke glowingly of WikiLeaks *after* he'd been briefed on Kremlin election interference on August 17, 2016. Does anyone realize this begins to make out an aiding/abetting charge? Attn: @FrankFigliuzzi1

@FrankFigliuzzi1 1/ Under federal law, you can't take any action that "induces" a crime once you have knowledge with "high likelihood" that crime has been committed or is being committed. I've long argued Trump may be guilty of aiding and abetting. Mueller's testimony seems to bolster that view.

@FrankFigliuzzi1 2/ "Induce" means "move by persuasion or influence" or "call forth or bring about by influence or stimulation"—so one can't "move [someone to criminal activity] by persuasion or influence" or "stimulate" criminal activity. How does that differ from giving "hope" to such activity?

@FrankFigliuzzi1 3/ Mueller says Trump "gave hope to criminal activity." We know from the Mueller Report and the underlying facts of the Trump-Russia case that Trump had knowledge of that criminal activity with "high likelihood" when he gave it "hope." That's a federal crime: aiding and abetting.

@FrankFigliuzzi1 4/ @DavidCornDC and I have been the loudest—I think most would say—on the "aiding and abetting" angle for more than a year now. I'm amazed that this new criminal offense—"new" in that media hasn't covered it—isn't coming immediately and aggressively into public discourse tonight.

@FrankFigliuzzi1 @DavidCornDC 5/ The "hope" that Donald Trump gave WikiLeaks was that their "computer crimes" (a federal statute) were a) being appreciated and employed instrumentally by a U.S. campaign in real time, and b) in being employed, were making *more likely* what WikiLeaks wanted—*Trump's election*.

@FrankFigliuzzi1 @DavidCornDC 6/ Media is correctly noting that Mueller went beyond the question he was asked only *once* today: and it was *on that question* that I'm now saying he leveled a charge of aiding and abetting (a *serious* federal crime) against the President. We need to start discussing this now.

@FrankFigliuzzi1 @DavidCornDC 7/ @jimsciutto, please take a look at this thread. You're right that Mueller discussing the "new normal" was raising the specter of Trump "aiding and abetting"—but I think you'll find the question of whether the aiding and abetting was *criminal* was elevated significantly today.

@FrankFigliuzzi1 @DavidCornDC @jimsciutto 8/ Whether Mueller alleged aiding and abetting in his report is no longer the question—the question is if, should Democrats draft Articles of Impeachment, they can accuse Trump of aiding and abetting and *directly cite Robert Mueller's sworn testimony*. I think that they now can.

@FrankFigliuzzi1 @DavidCornDC @jimsciutto 9/ Needless to say, once we get more information from the ongoing counterintelligence probe of Trump and/or his associates, we will discover whether we have even more evidence (in addition to the significant evidence that *is* in the report) on the "aiding and abetting" question.

@FrankFigliuzzi1 @DavidCornDC @jimsciutto 10/ PROOF OF CONSPIRACY observes that Mueller never considered aiding and abetting, bribery, or money laundering in his probe, and I think Mueller's testimony today fully confirms this. It's stunning that these criminal questions—not just counterintelligence ones—are unresolved.

@FrankFigliuzzi1 @DavidCornDC @jimsciutto PS/ I've noted it elsewhere, but I want to make sure I note it here too: Mueller *also* accused Trump of "boost[ing]" criminal activity—which of course *also* falls into the definition of "induce" and generates another line of discussion with respect to Trump's criminal activity.