- Joined
- Jul 1, 2011
- Messages
- 67,218
- Reaction score
- 28,530
- Location
- Lower Hudson Valley, NY
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
"After the July 22, 2016, release of stolen (Democratic National Committee) emails by Organization 1, a senior Trump Campaign official was directed to contact STONE about any additional releases and what other damaging information Organization 1 had regarding the Clinton Campaign. STONE thereafter told the Trump Campaign about potential future releases of damaging material by Organization 1,"
According the Stone indictment
Now why would anyone ask Stone about that? Why would someone in the Trump assume Stone would know anything about the hacked emails if they did not have any prior knowledge of the hack before the release?
According the Stone indictment
Now why would anyone ask Stone about that? Why would someone in the Trump assume Stone would know anything about the hacked emails if they did not have any prior knowledge of the hack before the release?
According the Stone indictment
Now why would anyone ask Stone about that? Why would someone in the Trump assume Stone would know anything about the hacked emails if they did not have any prior knowledge of the hack before the release?
If it's what they thought it was, they loved it! They wanted more information.During the summer of 2016, STONE spoke to senior Trump Campaign officials about Organization 1 and information it might have had that would be damaging to the Clinton Campaign. STONE was contacted by senior Trump Campaign officials to inquire about future releases by Organization 1.
Dispelling any notion that these politics operatives, be they Trump associated or not, knew this was the Russian hacked emails.On or about June 14, 2016, the DNC—through Company 1—publicly announced that it had been hacked by Russian government actors.
According to Stone it is because he was paying attention to what Assange was saying to the media, he was observant and he had enough sense to understand that this was a big deal.
Hmm... why would prior knowledge be assumed if one is asking about any additional releases? That is much like asserting that asking about any additional wildfire damage must indicate prior knowledge of the cause of such fire(s).
According the Stone indictment
Now why would anyone ask Stone about that? Why would someone in the Trump assume Stone would know anything about the hacked emails if they did not have any prior knowledge of the hack before the release?
Background
STONE’s Communications About Organization 1 During the Campaign
11.
By in or around June and July 2016, STONE informed senior Trump Campaign officials
that he had information indicating Organization 1 had documents whose release would be
damaging to the Clinton Campaign. The head of Organization 1 was located at all relevant times
at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, United Kingdom.
12.
After the July 22, 2016 release of stolen DNC emails by Organization 1, a senior Trump
Campaign official was directed to contact STONE about any additional releases and what other
damaging information Organization 1 had regarding the Clinton Campaign. STONE thereafter
told the Trump Campaign about potential future releases of damaging material by Organization 1.
https://www.scribd.com/document/398235426/Roger-Stone-Indictment-1
Reading is your friend.
The answer to your question is...he told them.
Why would anyone ask Stone about any additional info, and not the source of the info? How would Stone know if there was additional info?
Perhaps, whoever made that request was simply busy doing something else and saw Stone as having little else of importance to do.
Why would that make anyone believe that Stone had information that could only have been gained directly from the source?
Re-read what this senior official was directed to ask
According to Stone it is because he was paying attention to what Assange was saying to the media, he was observant and he had enough sense to understand that this was a big deal.
According the Stone indictment
Now why would anyone ask Stone about that? Why would someone in the Trump assume Stone would know anything about the hacked emails if they did not have any prior knowledge of the hack before the release?
Thank you for admitting that the Trump campaign was conspiring with russian agents to interfere with the election
Stone was guilty of nothing until Mueller started questioning him. Mueller is creating process crimes as he goes, but lying to congress? What a hoot. Everyone lies to congress because they don't do a damn thing about it. Stone's best defense is being a scapegoat for laws that don't apply to others.
Thank you for admitting that the Trump campaign was conspiring with russian agents to interfere with the election
"but, but, but, Hillary Clinton was the spawn of Satan and had to be stopped by any means necessary and that justifies anything Trump and his campaign did."
And this ^^, ladies and gentlemen, is a perfect example of unsupported hyperpartisan hyperbole. No facts or truth required.Stone was guilty of nothing until Mueller started questioning him. Mueller is creating process crimes as he goes, but lying to congress? What a hoot. Everyone lies to congress because they don't do a damn thing about it. Stone's best defense is being a scapegoat for laws that don't apply to others.
Thank you for admitting that the Trump campaign was conspiring with russian agents to interfere with the election
Thank you for admitting that the Trump campaign was conspiring with russian agents to interfere with the election
Only problem with this...Wikileaks isn't Russian.
According the Stone indictment
"After the July 22, 2016, release of stolen (Democratic National Committee) emails by Organization 1, a senior Trump Campaign official was directed to contact STONE about any additional releases and what other damaging information Organization 1 had regarding the Clinton Campaign. STONE thereafter told the Trump Campaign about potential future releases of damaging material by Organization 1,"
Now why would anyone ask Stone about that? Why would someone in the Trump assume Stone would know anything about the hacked emails if they did not have any prior knowledge of the hack before the release?
According to Stone it is because he was paying attention to what Assange was saying to the media, he was observant and he had enough sense to understand that this was a big deal.
Neither was Aldrich Ames
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?