This is a nugget that could well turn out to be important.
In the indictment of the 12 Russians for hacking 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party, Ryan Goodman of Just Security highlighted a section that shows that contrary to Don Jr’s Senate testimony, Roger Stone was in regular contact with senior members of the Trump campaign.
1. Indictment: Roger Stone "was in regular contact with senior members of the presidential campaign"
2. Don Jr.'s Senate testimony:
"Q. Who did deal with Roger?
A. I don't know if anyone did. I don 't know that he had an actual role in our campaign." https://t.co/BrxYBK0wGD
— Ryan Goodman (@rgoodlaw) July 13, 2018
Here’s that section of the indictment:
Donald Trump, Jr also couldn’t recall in his Senate testimony if a Russian participant in the meeting requested that Trump repeal the Magnitsky Act.
Roger Stone’s own House Intelligence Committee denied Russian contacts, as well as denying that the Russians were responsible for the hackings of Trump’s opponent:
“Members of this Committee as well as some members of the Senate Intelligence Committee aren’t alone in their irresponsibility. On January 20, 2017, the New York Times reported that the intelligence services were in possession of emails, records of financial transactions and transcripts of telephone intercepts, which proved that Roger Stone, Paul Manafort, and Carter Page colluded with the Russians for the benefit of Donald Trump. So, where are these records? Can this Committee or our intelligence agencies produce them? I didn’t think so.
These hearings are largely based on a yet unproven allegation that the Russian state is responsible for the hacking of the DNC and John Podesta and the transfer of that information to WikiLeaks.
I have no involvement in the alleged activities that are within the publicly stated scope of this Committee’s investigation – collusion with the Russian state to affect the outcome of the 2016 election.”
And apparently because Mr. Stone likes to go all in, he also reiterated in his testimony that Guccifer 2.0 was not a Russian asset: “Finally, let me address this limited, benign, and now entirely public exchange with a persona on Twitter calling themselves Guccifer 2.0. While some in the intelligence community have claimed that Guccifer 2.0 is a Russian cutout and that it is responsible for the hacking of the DNC servers, neither of these assertions can be proven by this Committee or the aforementioned intelligence community. I wrote an article for Breitbart on August 5, 2016, in which I express my view that Guccifer 2.0 was not a Russian asset, at the same time reporting their claim taking credit for hacking the DNC.”
Things like this seemingly small detail are why it appears that Robert Mueller might be building a case for cooperation and conspiracy, rather than the conservative hope that this is his entire case.
Ms. Jones is the editor-in-chief of PoliticusUSA.
Sarah hosts Politicus News and co-hosts Politicus Radio. Her analysis has been featured on several national radio, television news programs and talk shows, and print outlets including Stateside with David Shuster, as well as The Washington Post, The Atlantic Wire, CNN, MSNBC, The Week, The Hollywood Reporter, and more.
Sarah has won two Telly Awards and is a member of the Society of Professional Journalists.