Thread by @dfriedman33

Roger Stone is in the courthouse for the 4th day his trial. Jurors can cut the security line. But defendants and reporters can't. So I was just in line with Stone and his wife. That was a little bit awkward since he's barred from talking to press in the courthouse.

When the trial starts momentarily, prosecutor Aaron Zelinsky will complete his questioning of Randy Credico. Then the defense will cross examine Credico, and try to undermine his credibility. Maybe the riskiest moment of the trial for the gov, since Credico is no ideal witness.

Before bringing in jurors, Judge Jackson addresses reporting on the jury. "It’s concerning to me because it’s not only inaccurate and irresponsible but it puts the safety of all the people associated with this case on both sides, including possibly members of the jury, at risk."

Zelinsky asked about Stone paying Credico to record short impressions for some enterprise of Stone's in late 2016. This could be to preempt Stone's lawyers effort to make something of those payments. But it also may be evidence that Stone was looking for leverage over Credico.

Credico said in an interview last year that Stone knew he was upset about Stone's claim that Credico was his backchannel and offered him various things to appease him. “He wanted me to be quiet. He wanted me to go along with his narrative.” motherjones.com/politics/2018/…

Credico seems tired today, forgot to bring his glasses to the stand, has said he can't remember many times, just gave a rambling answer to a simple question about Frank Pentangeli.

Credico testified re Stone's claims to have an email that wld show that Margaret Ratner Kunstler, a civil rights lawyer who did work for WikiLeaks, had helped Credico give Stone info on their plans. This was a threat of sorts. Credico didn't want Kunstler, his friend, involved.

Credico said of Kunstler: "I didn’t want to drag her name through this...I wanted to keep her out of it." Then he said: "And ultimately, she is going through it." Zelinsky then cut him off, possibly because Credico was suggesting Kunstler will testify soon in this case.

As Credico and Stone was arguing over in Nov. 2016 over Stone's claim that Credico was his backchannel, and whether Credico would give testimony to HPSCI contradicting Stone, Stone wrote to Credico: "Oh well, guess Schiff will try get one of us indicted for perjury."

In another email Stone wrote to Credico: "I will visit you in prison."

Another Stone to Credico message: "I guarantee you are the one who gets indicted for perjury if you are stupid enough to testify."

To get Credico not to testify and contradict his claim Credico was his backchannel, Stone threatened to expose Credico's friend Kunstler. He told Credico no one would believe him and he'd be prosecuted for perjury. And Stone offered Credico $ help. motherjones.com/politics/2018/…

Stone later claimed that he was working on getting Trump to pardon Assange. This arguably was another means to get leverage over Credico, a big Assange proponent. motherjones.com/politics/2018/…

On 3/9/18 Credico emailed Stone saying: “You are hitting below the belt" in regard to this article: stonecoldtruth.com/randy-me-truth… Stone claims Credico left a voice mail imitating Stone in a voice mail to Eliot Spitzer's father. Stone was lying and made the call himself, Credico says.

Credico told Stone he wouldn't be Stone's "patsy" again. Credico testifies this means the Spitzer thing was a past instance where he was Stone's patsy and he wouldn't do it again with WikiLeaks.

Zelinsky has Credico read the following paragraphs from thje same Stone article. stonecoldtruth.com/randy-me-truth…

Stone here attacks and mocks Credico for taking the fifth, something Stone urged Credico to do. Can see why this would piss Credico off.

In March 2017, Credico was thinking of appearing on various TV shows. Stone sent him a copy of email Credico had sent Margaret Kunstler at Stone's request. Credico said he interpreted this as a reminder from Stone that he could expose Kunstler, something he knew Credico feared.

Credico says that in this period, he maintained contact with Stone because he worried Stone would publicly attack him. "I didn’t want to be a victim of some kind of smear job."

Credico reveals that he put Stone in touch with Kunstler after the election about getting Julian Assange a pardon. This made sense because she did legal work for WikiLeaks. motherjones.com/politics/2018/…

Stone claimed, oddly, that he was working with Fox News' Judge Andrew Napolitano on this Assange pardon effort. Napolitano denies this. It's unclear if Stone's pardon campaign was real. It's possible he was seeking a way to get leverage over Kunstler/Credico by involving her.

Credico says he was "ashamed" to have put Stone in touch with Kunstler and greatly regrets it.

Robert Buschel, one of Stone's lawyers, is about to cross-examine Randy Credico. Notably, Bruce Rogow, Stone's lead lawyer, who has a courtly, soft-spoken, kind of grandfatherly manner, will not do the cross. Bushel presumably will be the attack dog today.

Buschel: You led Roger stone to believe you were" an intermediary to Assange?
Credico: I disagree
Buschel: Fair enough.

Buschel gets Credico to admit he lied to Stone about lots of things.

Buschel: You hired lawyers to give you advice throughout this entire process?
Credico: I haven’t paid them but I’ve hired them.

Buschel asked Credico about grand jury testimony in which he said he didn't have conversations with Stone about Assange. Credico won't concede his testimony was wrong, saying he only sent Stone a text that Stone didn't respond to, and that's not a conversation.

Credico won't concede that he "bragged" to Stone that he was friends with Margaret Kunstler, a WikiLeaks lawyer. Says he mentioned it, but argues that wasn't bragging.

Buschel: You wanted Roger Stone to believe that you had an in with WikiLeaks?
Credico: I was one-upping him.

Credico says Stone had a backchannel, so he was competitively claiming to have his own WikiLeaks connection.

Buschel is asking Credico about his telling various people outside the 2018 White House Correspondents Dinner that he was Roger Stone's backchannel. Credico says he said that "with a wink and a nod" and that he told other people that he wasn't a backchannel.

Buschel is trying to get Credico to admit that he led Stone to believe he had the ability to ask favors of Assange, via Kunstler. Credico is resisting this. This is perilous ground for Credico. He's said publicly that he "bullshitted" Stone about Assange. motherjones.com/politics/2018/…

Buschel is asking Credico about his sending Stone a picture of himself outside of the Ecuadorian Embassy. "You were trying to imply that you had a special relationship with Julian Assange."

Credico quibbles with the word "special." Bushel asks if Credico was trying to "fool" Stone. Credico doesn't say no. Doesn't really answer.

Judge Jackson takes over questioning, asks Credico if he was trying to imply to Stone that he got information from Assange.
Credico: "Probably."

Buschel asked Credico about his delivering, in June 2018, a message from someone close to Assange that Assange was willing to meet with Adam Schiff.

An interesting thing about this outreach from WikiLeaks, via Credico, to Schiff, was that it appears to be one of several efforts by Assange to cut a deal to get some kind of immunity or leniency in exchange for talking. There have been a bunch. motherjones.com/politics/2018/…

Bushel wants to show a video of Credico on the Ari Melber show. This has resulted in a bench conference that has lasted several minutes already.

Buschel asks Credico if he didn't want Stone claiming Credico was his backchannel because he didn't want to be perceived as helping Trump, - giving Credico an opening. "Yes. I don't like kids in cages."

Credico references @DavidCornDC: "David Corn had put something out: This is suspicious that Credico took the Fifth." Credico said this while explaining that he felt his taking the Fifth had created a problem for him.

@DavidCornDC Moments earlier, Buschel asked Credico if he had consulted @woodruffbets of the Daily Beast about whether he should have taken the Fifth. Credico says he talked to Woodruff but didn't "consult" her.

@DavidCornDC @woodruffbets Other journalists whose names have come up in this trial include: Maggie Haberman, Michael Isikoff, Erin Burnett, Ari Melber, and at least one other that escapes me.

Very acrimonious exchange as Buschel tries to get Credico to admit he threatened a guy named David Lugo if Lugo said publicly that Credico had described himself as Stone's "backchannel." Lugo later did that. nbcnews.com/politics/justi…

Buschel gets Credico to admit that he didn't think Stone was really threatening his dog, Bianca, in the famous message in which Stone said he was going to take the dog away from Credico. Credico says he understood that to be "hyperbole."

The defense did a decent job muddling the already confusing issue of to what extent Stone thought Credico was a backchannel to WL.

Buschel highlighted Credico's effort in Sep 2016 to make Stone think he was meeting with Assange, pointing out that Credico in 2018 delivered a message from WikiLeaks to Adam Schiff and by noting Credico at times called himself Stone's backchannel. (sarcastically, Credico says.)

Zelinsky tried to clean up the backchannel muddle by clarifying Credico wasn't the intermediary Stone claimed he had in August.
Zelinsky: "Did you try to set the record straight repeatedly that you were not the person he was taking about on August 8?"
Credico: Endlessly, yes.

Zelinsky: Did you tell him that well before his testimony in the House?
Credico: Yes.
Zelinsky: Did you continue to tell him that after his testimony in the House?
Credico: Yes.

Prosecution's argument here to the jury: Ignore all that crazy bullshit and focus on the evidence we've presented that shows Stone lied to the House Intelligence Committee by citing only Credico as his WikiLeaks' source, and not mentioning Jerome Corsi.

The court broke for lunch until 1:45pm. Credico is done. I expect the government to call Margaret Ratner Kunstler next, but am not sure.

Government calls Margaret Ratner Kunstler.

Kunstler didn't want to be here. She's a civil rights lawyer, a big lefty, who represents Sarah Harrison, a WikiLeaks person and has been pulled into this case about a plot to help Trump. Bloomberg did a story about this in January when Stone was indicted. bloomberg.com/news/articles/…

Kunstler did see the email that Credico sent her, with Stone bcc'd, asking her to ask Assange if he had emails related to Hillary Clinton and Libya. But Kunstler says she only read the first few words: "Can you find out from JA if there is."

Kunstler says she read no more "because I was not gonna ask Mr. Assange to look up anything for me for someone else, because I'm lawyer and I don’t do things like that."

Kunstler said she saw Stone's email address on the email Credico sent her, but didn't know what it was, which if correct means Credico didn't really blind copy Stone.

Kunstler says she didn’t pay attention to other address because, "I was so annoyed about the whole thing that I just kind of put it aside."

Government calls Steve Bannon.

Bannon is expected to testify that he Stone communicated with him, while he was CEO of the Trump campaign, about WikiLeaks, and represented himself as having access to Assange, at least indirectly.

Stone told the House Intelligence Committee that he didn't communicate with the Trump campaign about what he learned from his supposed intermediary about WikiLeaks' plans. That wasn't true. So Bannon will help nail Stone on one of the false statement counts.

We reported this last week: "A person familiar with Bannon’s role in the trial says Bannon expects to testify that he communicated with Stone and that Stone “was portraying himself to Bannon as someone who was in touch with Assange.” motherjones.com/politics/2019/…

Bannon says Stone in conversations in the spring/summer of 2016 "implied he had a relationship with WikiLeaks and Julian Assange."

Bannon is read his grand jury testimony:
"I think it was generally believed that the access point, or general access point(for the Trump campaign) to WikiLeaks would be Roger Stone."
Bannon says this is correct.

Q: Did you generally view Roger Stone as an access point to WikiLeaks" for the Trump campaign?
Bannon: Yes.

Marando: Did you believe that Stone actually knew what happened with WikiLeaks and why they didn’t release documents that day [Oct. 3, 2016]?
Bannon: Yes.

On cross examination, Stone lawyer Buschel quibbles with Bannon, getting Bannon to reiterate the the campaign saw Stone as their access point to WikiLeaks. "I think we did, yes," Bannon says.

Bannon adds: "The campaign had no official access to WikiLeaks and Julian Assange, but Roger would be considered an access point."