Thread by @awprokop

We’re about to kick off for the next installment of Roger Stone’s trial, which for now could be referred to as “The Randy Credico Show.”

To set the stage: Yesterday, prosecutors focused on trying to prove that Roger Stone lied to the House Intelligence Committee by saying Credico was his only intermediary with WikiLeaks. They also tried to prove he lied by saying he had no texts or emails with his intermediary

Today, they will move on to focus on the witness tampering charge — that Stone encouraged Credico to give false testimony or plead the Fifth.

Then cross-examination, at which Stone's team will likely try to prove that Credico is a liar.

Credico’s testimony has been colorful, peppered with jokes and tangents.

The risk for prosecutors is: will the jury conclude that this whole situation is a big joke? And take the witness tampering charge against Stone less seriously because of it?

Judge Amy Berman Jackson told prosecutors to have their next witness ready to go today. But no word on who that will be. She suggested someone whose testimony would be "short" (since it's Friday).

Prosecutors have said that Steve Bannon and Rick Gates will testify eventually.

Credico's back.

Judge Jackson gives him general advice: “It will go smoothly if you listen to the question and answer *it.*” Says, if elaboration is needed, questioners will ask for it.

Credico explains what he interpreted Stone's request that he do a Frank Pentangeli to mean.

"I guess it would be to not — to not recall any of the conversations I had with Roger Stone. Or any of the events that transpired."

A discussion in Nov 2017, with Stone arguing to Credico that he's the backchannel. Credico insists it can't be him, he had no contact with Assange's team till late August

Stone: “Not the way I remember it. Oh well, guess Schiff will try to get one of us indicted for perjury”

Prosecutor asks Credico why he did eventually take the Fifth. Was it because of Stone?

Credico says, Stone was "one of many reasons," "there's a thousand reasons why." Main reason was to protect his friend, Margaret Kunstler, a lawyer for Assange, from being dragged into this

Credico explains Stone was threatening to attack Kunstler publicly or disclose her. That is part of the reason he took the Fifth, he said.

We are now discussing the infamous voice mail that Stone reportedly made to Eliot Spitzer's father in 2007.

Credico: "A very vile, nasty, threatening phone call to Old Man Spitzer"

It's come up because, in March 2018, Stone wrote the call was probably Credico impersonating him

Stone sent Credico an email saying, "If you go on Chris Hayes, be sure to mention this"

Prosecutor: “Who is Chris Hayes?”

Credico: “Chris Hayes is the host of the MSNBC show All In With Chris Hayes”

Prosecutors asking Credico about a March 2018 email where he writes to Stone, "You did not commit perjury and I can attest to that”

Credico says he did not believe that at the time. He was trying to get Stone off his back. "I didn’t want to be a victim of some kind of smear job"

Prosecutors are emphasizing that Stone wasn't just threatening Credico with public attacks, but also Credico's friend Margaret Kunstler.

(She was one of many lawyers for Assange. Credico said she's a widow, older, not a public person and didn't want the spotlight.)

Zelinsky wraps up by recapping various messages in which Credico insisted to Stone that there was another backchannel he had spoken of previously.

Now a break, and then the Credico Cross-Examination.

There's an enormous and at times messy documentary record of Stone/Credico comms.

Prosecutors attempted to present even those which looked bad for their case, to let Credico preemptively explain them away as BS-ing or unserious.

Now, though, Stone's team will have their say...

Stone lawyer Robert Buschel opens by making two main points:

-Credico was not an intermediary between WikiLeaks and Roger Stone (Credico agrees)
-Credico has lied to Roger Stone, led him to believe otherwise (Credico disputes this somewhat)

Buschel: “You hired lawyers to give you advice through this entire process, haven’t you?”

Credico: “I haven’t paid them, but I hired them.”

Buschel: “You have lied to him [Stone] throughout the years,” since 2002, is that true?

Credico: “You really wanna go into lies? I can go into it”

(ABJ recommends more focused questioning)

Buschel gets Credico to say that he had lunch with Assange in 2017. Says he may have told Stone that.

But Credico shoots back, that was "a year after the election" — it's "irrelevant to bring that up"

Stone’s team is trying to make the case that Credico misled Stone by implying he had inside info re: Assange in late 2016.

For instance, here:

Buschel keeps asking Credico about things he said or did re: Assange — but leaving out dates.

Reason why: Lots of what they're bringing up happened 2017-2018. After the election. Stone's team wants to imply Credico had this relationship with Assange earlier. Credico says, not so

Buschel asks, you told Stone not to mention your name re: WikiLeaks because “you did not want to be associated with the Donald Trump campaign?”

Credico: “Absolutely! Would you?”

Buschel: Do you have Democratic friends?

Credico: "Mostly left-wingers." He's a Bernie supporter.

In explaining why he didn't like Trump, Credico said, "I don't like kids in cages." Judge Jackson cut off that discussion, asked to move on

Buschel: Isn’t it true that the first person in your text communications with Stone to bring up Frankie Five Angels (Pentangeli) was you?

Credico isn't sure. Adds, "I'm sure over the years, every Italian that I know knows every scene from Godfather I and II."

Buschel asks if it's true that, on the day Stone testified to HPSCI, Credico called him upwards of 62 times.

Credico says, maybe. He was really worried Stone would name him as the backchannel to WikiLeaks in testimony, when he said that wasn't the case

Credico re: Stone: “I can’t work on his level. He plays hardball, he throws a lot of junk, and I didn’t wanna get hit.”

Buschel returns to the voicemail left for Eliot Spitzer's father. "You claim that you did not leave that voice mail message?"

Credico: "It’s the most absurd allegation I’ve ever heard in my entire life." Calls it "theatre of the absurd"

Buschel: "You know that Roger Stone has dogs, loves dogs."

Credico: "He's a dog lover, I acknowledge that.... I think he loves all dogs. I don't think he'd steal a dog."

Credico: "I know he would have never touched that dog. So it was hyperbole by him." Says he was "riled up."

(Referring to the email in which Stone called him a "rat" and "stoolie" and threatened to take his dog away.)

Cross now done.

On redirect, Zelinsky says to Credico, “You were asked a lot of questions about 2018, 2019. I want to focus on August 2016.”

Gets Credico to stress again that he was not the backchannel Stone referred to in early August 2016

With jury out, Judge Jackson tells Zelinsky that his questions on redirect were a bit too leading, try to avoid that. And now it's lunchtime.

Stone's trial is back from lunch. Prosecutors say they plan to call two witnesses this afternoon

After brief testimony from Margaret Kunstler... the government calls STEVE BANNON.

Prosecutor opens by asking Bannon if he's appearing under a subpoena.

Bannon says yes, "I have been compelled to testify." Says he would not have appeared voluntarily.

Bannon testifies that his Trump campaign position ("CEO") was the highest in the campaign, except for the candidate. (Sorry, campaign manager Kellyanne Conway.)

Bannon asked if, before he joined the Trump campaign, he heard Stone discuss connections he had with WikiLeaks. Yes, he says, both publicly and privately

"That he had a relationship with WikiLeaks and Julian Assange"

Bannon says Stone never told him directly he could get information from WikiLeaks/Assange, but he implied it.

Says these convos about Stone's WikiLeaks connections happened "maybe in the spring and summer of 2016"

Bannon says Stone didn't "frequently" talk about his Assange/WikiLeaks connection, but he would mention it "now and again"

They are now discussing Bannon's grand jury testimony in the Stone case, dated January 18, 2019.

Bannon said then that Stone did "frequently" bring up Assange/WikiLeaks. Prosecutor wanted to get that in.

Bannon being asked to describe Erik Prince and Ted Malloch. Then back to Stone. Bannon confirms he continued to communicate with Stone after he became CEO of the Trump campaign in mid-August 2016.

Q: Did Stone continue to tell you he had a connection to WL/Assange?
A: Yes.

Q: While you were CEO of the Trump campaign — who if anyone was the campaign’s access point to WikiLeaks?

Bannon: I don’t think we had one.

But then they bring up Bannon's grand jury transcript.
Bannon was asked, “Who was the access point to WikiLeaks” for the campaign.

He responded, “I think it was generally believed that the access point to WikiLeaks or Julian Assange would be Roger Stone.”

They bring up Stone's Aug 18, 2016 email to Bannon. "I do know how to win this but it ain’t pretty"

What did he understand that to mean?
Bannon: Well, "Roger's an agent provocateur... an expert in the tougher side of politics," for instance, "dirty tricks"

Now discussing Stone/Bannon emails from Oct 2016.

Bannon says the purpose was twofold: to ask why WL hadn't released anything yet, and also "a little bit of a heckle" (that nothing had come out)

Bannon asked if he remembers when the Podesta emails were posted, exactly

Bannon says he just remembers it was on a weekend, "What we referred to as Billy Bush weekend."

And that's it for the government questioning. Now cross.

Buschel asks Bannon, why he gave different answers now vs. grand jury re: whether Stone was an "access point" to WikiLeaks.

Bannon clarifies: we had no "official" access point. But Roger would be considered one, because he had implied he had access to WL and Assange

Bannon: “I always believed that Roger had the relationship with WikiLeaks and Julian Assange. It never came up that there was someone else.”

Q: Did he tell you that?

Bannon pauses. “I don’t remember.”

Buschel: “In your mind, it [WikiLeaks] wasn’t a major topic of conversation” within the campaign, right?

Bannon: Correct.

Buschel says, surely you’re getting lots of ideas and emails from people hoping to turn the campaign around.

Bannon: That’s correct.

Buschel trying to portray WikiLeaks releases as no big deal, a big dud.

Bannon somewhat agrees, but clarifies. "The things that the WikiLeaks would do would be marginally helpful. Things that would hurt Hillary Clinton and help the candidate would be helpful"

Buschel: As you sit here today, you don’t think Roger Stone had any predictions that had inside knowledge of WikiLeaks—

Government objects, and it's sustained.

Marando back for redirect. Brings up the Oct 4 email again. There was a reason why you wrote to Stone to ask what was up with WL?

Bannon says, yes.

Q: Why did you write to Stone in particular?

Bannon: Because Roger was the guy that told me he knew WL and Julian Assange.

Bannon: Over that weekend, when I became aware that those emails were released, I also believed I heard that Roger Stone was involved in the release of those emails.

And now he's done, and so is the trial, for the day. Back on Tuesday (due to Veterans Day Monday).