Opinion | Mueller's actual target in Roger Stone's indictment

For many, the arrest on Friday of Roger Stone, Donald Trump's longtime political advisor and advisor, was a sign that the special council's investigation into Russian electoral interference was entering its final phase. However, there are several indications that the investigation may not be as close to the conclusion as many observers badume – and that the real purpose of Friday's meeting of F.B.I. shares was not Mr. Stone himself, but his electronics.

The arrest of Mr. Stone at his home in Florida, unsurprisingly, was dominant, but reports also indicated that federal agents had been "seen carrying hard drives and others evidence in Mr. Stone's apartment in Harlem, and a search of his recording studio in South Florida.In other words, the FBI was executing search warrants, not just arrest warrants. "Even the timing and manner of Mr. Stone's arrest – at the very first moment allowed by federal criminal procedure rules without persuading a judge to authorize a descent Exceptional night time – suggest that it is difficult to prevent the destruction of evidence: Otherwise, it would make no sense to send a dozen agents to stop a man in his sixties before sunrise.

The indictment itself – which accuses Mr. Stone of falsifying witnesses, obstruction of justice and false statements in Congress – requires little imagination to warrant a search warrant, and also indicates what Robert Mueller could look for. In describing the lies alleged by Mr. Stone before a House committee, the document places great emphasis on the fact that he denied having written communications with two partners – badociates with whom he had in fact regularly exchanged e-mails and texting. This is precisely the type of behavior on which one could try to convince a recalcitrant judge that an investigative target could not be trusted to deliver documents in response to a subpoena, which required more intrusive approach of directly seizing the devices of Mr. Stone.

Of course, as the indictment also points out, the special council has already managed to get hold of many of Stone's communications by other means – but an apparent exception emerges. In an exchange of text between Mr. Stone and a "supporter involved in the Trump campaign", Mr. Mueller explicitly quotes Mr. Stone's request to "speak on a secure line – you have WhatsApp?" There abruptly end the direct quotes and the indictment instead of paraphrasing what Mr Stone "then told the supporter". While not directly relevant to his alleged misrepresentations, the special board strives to establish that Mr. Stone has made the habit of transferring sensitive conversations to messaging platforms. encrypted such as WhatsApp – which means that, unlike ordinary emails, messages can not be obtained directly from the service provider.

The obvious implication is that any truly incriminating communication would have been made in encrypted form – and could therefore only be obtained directly from Mr. Stone's cell phones and laptops. And although Mr. Stone is probably of limited value as a cooperating witness – it is difficult to call someone to the bar after accusing him of lying to obstruct the justice – the charges against him serve as leverage in the event that his cooperation is needed to unlock these devices by providing a cryptographic pbadphrase.

Of course, Mr. Mueller is probably interested in his communications with the Trump campaigners, but the the detailed charges against the Russian hackers suspected of forcibly entering the servers of the Democratic National Committee also show the keen interest of the special counsel for Mr. Stone's communications with the hacker "Guccifer 2.0", an identity which would have been used as a face for Russia intruders. By his own admission, Mr. Stone had a brief exchange with "Guccifer" via private Twitter messages. On behalf of Mr. Stone, Guccifer enthusiastically offered his badistance – at the same time that we now know that Mr. Stone was vigorously seeking to know in advance what other embarrbading documents stolen from Mr. Trump's opponents might soon be published. – and Mr. Stone did not even get worthy of the offer with an answer. In the absence of an easy way to get the mobile phone from "Guccifer", the advice of Mr. Stone could be the only reliable way for the special board to determine if the conversation actually continues. on a "secure line".

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.