An interesting passage explaining why Mueller didn't charge Roger Stone or WikiLeaks with conspiracy regarding the hacked emails. Let's go through it...
https://twitter.com/JasonLeopold/status/1323395225960685568
First, the report confirms Mueller considered charging WikiLeaks, Assange, or Stone as "conspirators in the computer-intrusion conspiracy," under the theory that they were "late joiners" to the Russian intelligence officers' hacking plot. 
But not sufficient "admissible evidence" that WikiLeaks knew of hackings before they happened, or made an agreement about it.
"A “fence” who had no advance knowledge of the plan to steal the goods he disposes of... is generally not liable for conspiring to steal those goods"
"A “fence” who had no advance knowledge of the plan to steal the goods he disposes of... is generally not liable for conspiring to steal those goods"
In Stone's case, the hurdles for a conspiracy charge were "factual." Specifically: Corsi's story of Stone trying to get WikiLeaks to release the Podesta emails to counteract the Access Hollywood tape was not corroborated.
Also: even that wasn't about hacking itself.
Also: even that wasn't about hacking itself.
A footnote here confirms that Mueller referred some matters related to Corsi and Stone to the DC US Attorney's office for ongoing investigation.
Closed referred investigations in the appendix have been unredacted. But if Corsi's in this alphabetical listing, it's still redacted
Closed referred investigations in the appendix have been unredacted. But if Corsi's in this alphabetical listing, it's still redacted
Finally, there's one more problem: the 1st Amendment.
Under Bartnicki, 1st Amdt "protects a party’s publication of illegally intercepted communications on a
matter of public concern, even when the publishing parties knew or had reason to know of the intercepts’ unlawful origin"
Under Bartnicki, 1st Amdt "protects a party’s publication of illegally intercepted communications on a
matter of public concern, even when the publishing parties knew or had reason to know of the intercepts’ unlawful origin"
Again, the problem was that Mueller didn't have "evidence of WikiLeaks’s and Stone’s knowledge of ongoing or contemplated future computer intrusions."
Without evidence that they knew about *ongoing* or *new* hacking, they couldn't charge them with conspiracy re: the old hacks
Without evidence that they knew about *ongoing* or *new* hacking, they couldn't charge them with conspiracy re: the old hacks
Here's the clearest of the newly-unredacted Mueller Report grafs on Stone/WikiLeaks.
-Didn't identify "sufficient credible evidence" Stone coordinated with WL
-But can't "exclude" that possibility or that "additional evidence could come to light on that issue"
-Didn't identify "sufficient credible evidence" Stone coordinated with WL
-But can't "exclude" that possibility or that "additional evidence could come to light on that issue"
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
