[View here as a Twitter thread]
1/ Aiding and abetting is more serious than Accessory after the Fact. An aider and abettor is punished the same as a principal (person who actually hacks) law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18… Remember, we start with the law, then apply the facts.
2/ Elements of Aiding and Abetting: The accused 1. aided, counseled, commanded, induced or procured the person committing the crime; 2. acted with the intent to facilitate the crime; 3. acted before the crime was completed; & 4. the crime was committed.
3/ To get a conviction, a prosecutor must have evidence to prove each element beyond a reasonable doubt. The underlying crime was violation of the computer fraud act: the Russians hacked, stole emails, and disseminated them to harm HRC’s candidacy.
4/ The indictment against the Russians, for example, indicates that computer crimes occurred in June 2016 AFTER Russians communicated with the campaign about the hacked emails (via Papadopolous in April)
https://www.lawfareblog.com/russia-indictment-20-what-make-muellers-hacking-indictment
5/ Moreover, Michael Cohen’s lawyer “observed” that Cohen has “knowledge” on the “question” of whether Trump knew about the hacking before it happened.
(he later backpedaled this)
6/ If a candidate for president gives the thumbs up (and fails to report the planned crime to the FBI) you arguably have “inducing.” Certainly it’s encouraging. Note: Even if the Russians were going to do it anyway, Trump would be an aider and abettor.
7/ Conclusion: If these facts can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, Trump aided and abetted a cyber crime. That was today’s Twitter Law 101. Twitter law 202: Did Trump Aid and Abet the cyber crime of disseminating the stolen email (this one becomes a bit more complicated)
