Roger Stone Indicted
Every morning I check my phone for overnight news I missed. For ___ days now I’ve sighed in disappointment because that day was not the day that I woke up to news that Trump’s presidency is over. Today’s news that Roger Stone has been indicted moves the Russia probe another step closer to the Kingpin. If you think of the Special Counsel (SC) indictments as a group of nested circles, there is only one circle between Stone’s and the bullseye, Donald Trump. That circle is inhabited by Jared, Ivanka, Donald Jr. and a few others. Not one to lean on media to relay any more information than I must, I read the indictment. It is available on a number of sites but I got my copy from Documentcloud.org .
I am not a lawyer but do not need to be to conclude that for declarative statements made in the indictment regarding the details forming the basis for a charge, the SC presented compelling evidence to the Grand Jury to support those statements. Grand juries are not trial juries and an indictment is not a conviction. But looking at the indictment and the evidence needed to prove probable cause for an indictment for these charges, it is difficult to see how Stone could raise a reasonable doubt.
Consider Count 1 of the indictment verbatim:
“STONE testified falsely and misleadingly at a HPSCI hearing in or around September 2017; STONE failed to turn over and lied about the existence of responsive records to HPSCI’s requests about documents; STONE submitted and caused to be submitted a letter to HPSCI falsely and misleadingly describing communications with Person 2; and STONE attempted to have Person 2 testify falsely before HPSCI or prevent him from testifying.”
There are 4 elements to this count:
1. That Stone testified falsely to the house about the existence of records
2. That Stone failed to turn over these records
3. That Stone’s description of his communications with Person 2 was false
4. That Stone attempted to have Person 2 testify falsely to Congress.
The only way to support elements 1 and 2 is to present said records and show that Stone knew of and had these records in his possession when he testified before Congress. Elements 3 and 4, that Stone’s description of his communications with Person 2 was false and that Stone attempted to have Person 2 testify falsely, can be supported by the records in question and by the testimony of Person 2 although the indictment does not say whether it is the former or both the former and the latter. I think both. What are these records? The indictment tells us that they are emails and texts excerpts from which are peppered throughout the indictment.
Now think about this for a moment. The SC has in his possession emails and texts that contradict in a big way Stone’s statements under oath to Congress. And in case you’re curious, Title 18 USC Section 1505, Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees, makes it a crime to:
“…avoid, evade, prevent, or obstruct compliance, in whole or in part, with any civil investigative demand duly and properly made…withholds, misrepresents, removes,….conceals, covers up, destroys, mutilates, alters, or by other means falsifies any documentary material, answers to written interrogatories, or oral testimony, which is the subject of such demand; or attempts to do so or solicits another to do so…”
Further, 18 USC 1505 makes it a crime to:
“..corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by …Congress.
What credible defense could Stone put forth to mitigate the actual emails & texts to and from him contradicting his statements to Congress and showing he attempted to influence by threat the testimony of Person 2?
He could say that the inquiry was not an “investigative demand duly and properly made” or “due and proper administration of the law”. That is, the Congressional inquiries (both House and Senate) were unlawful inquisitions.
He could say that he did not send the emails and texts although they were sent from his email account and his phone. But then he would also have to say that he did not receive the emails and text s sent to him or did not read them if he received them. Having no knowledge of the emails and texts and hence no knowledge that he possessed said records, he did not testify falsely.
He could say that the emails and texts are subject to a different, plausible interpretation that does not violate 18 USC 1505. He may be able to do this for some of the “records” but certainly not all. Most of the excerpts in the indictment standing alone do not support a plausible, alternative interpretation. Assuming that the emails & texts excerpted in the indictment are the only ones the SC has which is unlikely. Further assuming that the SC either did not interview Person 1 and Person 2 or that their testimony before the SC does not contradict such a defense (unlikely since the SC does have the records and they have not been indicted).
At the end of the day, Stone does not have to mount a credible defense if he is not indicted for state crimes. Manafort pleaded guilty to state crimes as part of his plea agreement but later changed his mind and sabotaged the plea deal. Trump must have convinced him that he would pardon him for federal crimes AND keep him out of jail for state crimes although this would mean a pardon from NY and Virginia both of whom have democratic governors and less than sympathetic electorates now. Cohen likewise pleaded guilty but did not change his mind. There is no reason for Trump to spend political capital on Cohen and no reason for Cohen, facing a lot of serious state charges, to refuse to cooperate or sabotage his SC plea deal. Trump will pardon Stone, not because of loyalty or compassion or affection but because he must to keep himself out of jail. None of the charges appear to be state charges so other than a brief stint in jail after conviction but before his pardon, he has nothing to lose and everything to gain by not cooperating with the SC however flimsy his defense.
There is almost unanimous consensus on the identity of Person 1, Person 2 and the senior campaign official (Bannon) who was “directed” to tell Stone to contact WikiLeaks. The next bombshell will be the identity of the person who directed the senior campaign official. The field of Trump officials who had sufficient influence to direct Bannon to do anything is very, very narrow.