Thread by @awprokop

Rick Gates: In May 2016, Roger Stone said he had information that WikiLeaks would be dropping information. Didn’t know when

Zelinsky: After Assange announced 6/12/16 that he had emails pending publication, what was the reaction in the campaign?

Gates: One of happiness, it was in a way a gift that we had not sought. The other piece is, we were kind of in disbelief that the info was finally coming out

Gates says Stone told him as far back as April that information would be leaked out by WikiLeaks. So they had been hoping and waiting for it since then.

6/13/16, day after Assange announcement, Stone emailed Gates: “need guidance on many things, call me”

Did you understand WikiLeaks to be one of those things?
Gates: It was one of many things in the conversation, yes.

Zelinsky: 6/14/16: DNC announced it had been hacked by Russian government.

6/15:16: Stone texts Gates: "Call me, important"

Gates says he then spoke with Stone. Stone said more information would be coming out of the DNC hack.

6/15/16, Stone emails Gates asking for contact info for "Murphy" and "Jared"

Gates: Mr. Stone indicated that he wanted to reach out to Mr. Kushner and Mr. Murphy to debrief them on the developments of the DNC announcement.

But as June went on, Gates says, he and Manafort were skeptical. No information came out. Wondered whether Stone's info was reliable.

So now Zelinsky moves to July 2016.

Zelinsky: Did Stone indicate whether his information that WikiLeaks would be releasing things was public or private?

Gates: It was not public information.

Gates said the campaign had "brainstorming sessions" for what to do if WikiLeaks info came out. Participants: Gates, Manafort, Jason Miller, Stephen Miller.

Based both on Assange's public statements and what Stone had told them

After DNC email release on 7/22/16, Gates says “the campaign was in a state of happiness.” “Anytime you’re in a campaign and damaging information came out about your competitor, it’s helpful.”

Zelinsky asks what Manafort's reaction was, defense objects, and ABJ sustains

After the release, Gates says Manafort put a call with Stone on speaker.

Stone indicated that additional information would be coming out down the road.

Manafort said that would be great.

Gates says he also had a conversation with Stone after the DNC release. Where Stone said this was the start of the information coming out that he had spoken of months earlier.

Manafort asked Gates to follow up with Stone occasionally to find out when the other WikiLeaks info would come out.

Manafort indicated he would update others on the campaign, "including the candidate," Gates says.

Zelinsky: The candidate would be Mr. Trump?"

Gates: Yes.

Gates says in late July '16, he witnessed a call between Stone and Trump. Saw Stone's number on the caller ID but couldn't hear the conversation.

Zelinsky: Immediately after the call, what did Mr. Trump say to you?

Defense objects. They're discussing at the bench.

We know what Gates intends to say, because it's in the Mueller report.

"Shortly after the call candidate Trump told Gates that more releases of damaging information would be coming."

But will he be allowed to say it in court?

Zelinsky gets to ask the question.

"After Mr. Trump got off the phone with Mr. Stone, what did then-candidate Trump say?"

Gates: "He indicated that more information would be coming."

Oct 2016: After WikiLeaks released Podesta emails, Gates spoke with Stone at some point afterward.

Stone indicated this was something he had mentioned earlier.

Zelinsky: That he had predicted the Podesta release?

Gates: Yes, that more information would be coming

Zelinsky: Did you understand Mr. Stone's updates to be public information?

Gates: He never indicated where the information was from but I believed it was non-public information.

No further questions from prosecutors.

Rogow is up for cross-examination.

Did you ever tell the government that Stone never talked about WikiLeaks to you and that he never talked about WikiLeaks to Manafort.

Gates: I never said that.

Rogow: Let me show you something.

Prosecutors object.

Rogow brings up questioning of Gates on January 30, 2018.

Rogow: Did you answer that you did not speak to Stone about WikiLeaks?

Gates: I do not recall answering that way. In fact on a number of occasions I indicated he had.

Rogow: Do you know what Mr. Stone said to Mr. Trump? (on the call)

Gates: I do not.

Rogow asks, is this the call where you were going from Trump Tower to LaGuardia Airport? Gates says yes.

Rogow: The other crimes that were dropped against you in Alexandria, do you recall what they were?

Gates: Most of them pertained to foreign bank accounts and not submitting accurate tax returns.

Rogow pressing him on specifics. More than $100K not reported on his tax returns

Rogow: "Have you committed other crimes besides those crimes for which you were not prosecuted?"

Objection, bench conference.

Rogow continues to focus on Gates and Manafort's finances, crimes. "Accounts in Cyprus."

Rogow: Did you take any steps to avoid taxes in Cyprus?
Gates: "Actually, in Cyprus, taxes were paid."

Rogow: Mr. Stone never indicated his source of information (on WikiLeaks) to you, and you don't know his source of information.

Gates says that's right.

Rogow: How much time elapsed between the Trump/Stone call in the car and Trump's statement (re: more information coming)?

Gates: Less than 30 seconds

Rogow: Mr. Stone's role in the campaign related to primarily voter registration lists, didn't it?

Gates: Not sure. He didn't have a role by the time I joined campaign. But he often asked about voter registration lists

Rogow: Mr. Stone, before any information was released, did not tell you this specific information would be released?

Gates: That's correct.

On redirect, Gates says that he assumed Stone's source was WikiLeaks, that his inside info was coming from WikiLeaks. Says again that he didn't think it was public information.

And Gates is done.

Here's Trump's answer, submitted to Mueller's team, in which he says he does not recall discussing WikiLeaks with Roger Stone, and he doesn't recall being aware Stone discussed WikiLeaks with any campaign aides.

Gates just testified that both happened.

The government has brought back their first witness, former FBI case agent Michelle Taylor, for further testimony.

Kravis starts off by having her review parts of Stone's testimony to the House Intel Committee.

After recapping Stone's denial to HPSCI that he thought Guccifer 2 was a Russian cut-out, government introduces Godfather II scene transcript (Taylor doesn't read it).

Rogow: "Do you know independently if Guccifer is Russian?" Taylor doesn't

Government has no more witnesses.

The government rests. Judge Jackson wants to talk with prosecution and defense about what comes next, so jury's excused for two hours.

Stone lawyer Buschel talking with the judge about playing audio of Stone's HPSCI testimony for the jury. About 50 minutes in total. Doesn't want to give them a transcript, wants them to just listen.

Beyond that it seems the defense will not put on a case. So no Stone taking the stand.

Bruce Rogow told the New Yorker earlier this year that Stone would "definitely take the stand" and it would be "key to the case." It appears they've thought better of that.

newyorker.com/magazine/2019/…

Stone's team has filed its motion for acquittal. Says the government has not proven that Stone had any intermediary with WikiLeaks — so how can Stone's answers about an intermediary be false? courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…

The motion calls attention to a few accurate things:

-There was some inconsistency with Zelinsky's description of Credico as a WikiLeaks intermediary in the opening statement, with Credico's denial that he ever was an intermediary in testimony.
-Corsi has barely been discussed

ABJ is back to discuss the acquittal motion. Will hear arguments on both sides on it.

Says closing arguments will start around 1 pm tomorrow. Prosecutors estimate they'll need an hour and 15 minutes.

ABJ asks Buschel: Which count depends on the existence of an intermediary being proven?

Buschel says, parts of Counts 1-6 (all but Count 7, the Credico witness tampering count)

Jackson: I've looked at the transcript, I've looked at the indictment. And it seems to me the case began when Mr. Stone made public statements, said I'm in communication with WikiLeaks. And then he clarifies it by saying, it wasn't me, I had a go-between, an intermediary

Jackson: The committee asked him, to whom were you referring, as the intermediary? He didn't name Credico then, but made clear he meant Credico, and later named him as the intermediary. Government's allegation is that that has to be false, based on timing of Credico contacts

ABJ: "So I just don't understand where there's any count that turns on proof beyond a reasonable doubt on the actual existence of an intermediary"

The defense has introduced a bunch of exhibits (from their preapproved list). Now they're bringing in the jury to listen to the audio of parts of Stone's House Intelligence Committee testimony.

Buschel rattles off a long list of exhibits, by number. (Checking the list, most are Stone/Credico comms.) Not going to display them, but will be available for the jury's review.

Now, playing the Stone audio of the HPSCI testimony. (Full transcript here) documentcloud.org/documents/6544…

They are not playing the whole thing. Defense has chosen certain parts, about 50 minutes in total. Currently playing this bit of questioning from then-Rep. Tom Rooney

We've moved to the second audio clip from Stone's testimony. It's Schiff questioning Stone about what documents he has. Around p. 84 of the transcript: documentcloud.org/documents/6544…

Defense seems to be hoping Stone's answer on the documents was weaselly enough to cover him. That he can claim he thought the request wasn't specific enough

Now the audio is onto Swalwell questioning Stone about a deleted tweet of his attacking @RVAWonk and claiming he had a "perfectly legal back channel to Assange"

documentcloud.org/documents/6544…

@RVAwonk Audio just played of Stone telling the committee he never discussed WikiLeaks or the DNC hacks or Podesta emails with Trump.

@RVAwonk The audio just wrapped up — and, Buschel says, "Mr. Stone rests."

Government will introduce no rebuttal evidence.

@RVAwonk With jury out, Judge Jackson double-checks with Stone that he understands his right to testify, and that it is his decision not to testify.

"Yes, your honor," he says.

@RVAwonk And that's it for the day. Tomorrow morning, the judge will discuss jury instructions with the attorneys. At 1 PM, closing statements will begin.

Of course, there will be some other political news going on a few blocks away then, with the first impeachment inquiry hearing...

@RVAwonk Seeing a lot of questions about why Stone didn’t put on a defense (besides playing the HPSCI audio).

It’s not particularly unusual. It's a strategic decision that his best hope is to try to poke holes in and sow doubt in the prosecution’s case.