For those who read the STONE indictment, you will want this 'bettors card' – the identification is transparent and extensively written about in the MSM

Company 1 - CrowdStrike

Person 1 - Jerome Corsi

Person 2 - Credico, an NY Radio show host

Organisation 1 - wikileaks.org (and thus Assange)

tl;dr – Mueller has a bunch of emails and texts, likely gotten from Credico who got cold feet for his role as the go between between STONE and ASSANGE, after Assange got leaned on by the HRC campaign to not do/delay his drop back in October. Credico was initially 'corruptly persuaded' – as a tampered witness – but seems to have turned over all his communications with STONE, which is the overt basis for this indictment. If you take them at face value, it looks like the falling out of two rats who were skulking in the shadows of the DNC Hack story, fishing for information and trying to get it to the Trump campaign (and in the case of the 'media' to score points with scoops on an emotional, partisan race).

The connections with the Trump campaign are pretty remote and tenuous at this stage:

Trump campaign < - STONE - possible intermediary [likely CREDICO] < - > WIkileaks (organisation 1) <- ?? - > DNC intrusion [[ of course, I think we all know that ?? = Seth Rich, not Guccifer 2.0 as alleged by the bogus CrowdStrike, along with transparent and failed attempts to make it look like 'the Russians did it' ]]

Trump campaign < - Some Reporter Fishing for information on ASSANGE -STONE

Remember that Prosecutors (like Mueller) prefer the Grand Jury system, because it gives them a very low evidential bar to get their indictment – much lower than a preliminary hearing – and the standard is 'probable cause' and 'some rational basis' for bringing the charge. It is entirely possible to bring an indictment with probative, relevant, but incompetent evidence. Whether that evidence would be enough to even clear a preliminary hearing in a lower court is quite another matter.

We should keep a close eye on how the email and text evidence is treated, because this is a dry run in my opinion – If Mueller can't get this conviction because the emails and text get thrown out as failing the Authenticity and Original Writing tests.

Once we are in a 'Federal Rules of Evidence' world (not the Grand Jury) the usual hurtles are PRAOH (it would be Oprah if O came first :D )

Privilege

Relevance

Authenticity

Original Writing

Hearsay

Getting past the latter probably involves showing that STONE is a Party-Opponent and thus comes under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d) – the interesting subcase being 801(d)(E)(2) which is the 'conspiracy exception' – but maybe just 'Original Writing' and 'Authenticy' hurdles are enough since the writing was to alleged fellow co-conspirator and tampered witness-victim CREDICO. To me, this puts CREDICO in an odd role as a simultaneous ratfink and informer, co-conspirator in an uncharged conspiracy, and a witness-victim, so claimed – and of course this is all knee deep in the Jones/Corsi stuff which I would guess is a MOSSAD op. Who knows what this CREDICO fellow is.

My real guess here is that Mueller is filing a bogus case, and hoping that STONE is foolish enough to perjure himself rather than be silent and demand his 5th and 6th Amendment (right to Confronting Witness) and then AHA! GOTCHA! here comes the FISA warrant stuff proving he lied on the stand. In other words, a bogus case (in terms of technical incompetence of the evidence), followed by entrapment. It looks from the emails like STONE'S strategy all along has been to win on appeal by conceding nothing that would provide an evidential basis for the emails and texts. Honestly, in a case this SPOOKY, I would consider the bar for beyond reasonable doubt of a frame up and such – the question of authenticity and original writing if denied by STONE – would be to present either forensic evidence of the devices with a chain of custody, or else proper wiretaps. This is a partisan political witch hunt, and the standard should be very high! [Be careful what you wish for – STONE'S defence today is HRC's tomorrow! ]

I think the communications have obvious probative value and relevance, so the real battle will be about forensics (do they have Stone's devices? Was there a FISA warrant on him?) Hearsay is going to be interesting because the 'victim' in this case, at least for the 7th, witness tampering charge, but also a co-conspirator (in whatever uncharged criminal conspiracy the link between ASSANGE and the Trump Campaign might be – and numerous attempts to inject RUSSIANS into either WL [maybe bogus] and Guccifer 2.0 [almost certainly bogus]).