• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The question no one is asking

sangha

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
67,218
Reaction score
28,530
Location
Lower Hudson Valley, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
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 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 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?

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?

He told them before the release, that Wikileaks had the stolen Russian emails.
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.
If it's what they thought it was, they loved it! They wanted more information.

This was pointed out last night too:
On or about June 14, 2016, the DNC—through Company 1—publicly announced that it had been hacked by Russian government actors.
Dispelling any notion that these politics operatives, be they Trump associated or not, knew this was the Russian hacked emails.
That it's listed as important background information in this indictment, was the oddity.
 
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.

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
 
There was ONE(1) person above "High Level" in the Trump campaign.
 
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).

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?
 
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?

Reading is your friend.

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

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

The source Assange was regularly yakking to the media, and Stone was the one guy apparently in the orbit of the campaign who was paying attention.

That is Stones story, and it is plausible even in the age of Google.
 
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.

Professing clairvoyance is not a legitimate legal excuse. Especially since Mueller has the emails to prove otherwise.
 
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?

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

I don't think that's what this poster admitted.
Like that poster said, "reading is your friend."

Have fun reading.
 
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.

And here it is.... This is why people call Mueller's little **** show a witch hunt.
 
Thank you for admitting that the Trump campaign was conspiring with russian agents to interfere with the election

in the end - after all this is said and done and the report is issued and the trials are over and Trump is long gone - the Trumpkin response will be a variation of .....
"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."

For some twenty years, the right wing in this country whipped up their members in a fevered frenzy that, for many, crossed the line into a willful self-adopted mental illness that separated them from reality when it came to Hillary Clinton.

The Trump campaign and the tactics they embraced are a direct result of that break with reality.
 
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.
And this ^^, ladies and gentlemen, is a perfect example of unsupported hyperpartisan hyperbole. No facts or truth required.
 
Thank you for admitting that the Trump campaign was conspiring with russian agents to interfere with the election

LOL!!

I admitted no such thing. I simply quoted the indictment.

For that matter, Mueller didn't contend that the Trump campaign conspired with Russian agents to interfere with the election either.
 
The OP is funny. How many thousands of speculations of what is coming from the Mueller investigation have been made. But how would anyone have reason to speculate about additional information coming? Accordingly to the OPer, anyone speculating about future information obviously is engaged in a criminal conspiracy.
 
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.

Red:
Say what?

Applying Hawkeye10's answer to the questions asked:
  • Blue question:
    • One would ask Stone about "additional releases and what other damaging information [Wikileaks] had regarding the Clinton Campaign "because [Stone said] he was paying attention to what Assange was saying to the media, ... observant and ... had enough sense to understand that this[the hack and the information obtained and about to be released from it] was a big deal."
  • Pink question:
    • Someone in the Trump [campaign] assumed Stone [knew something] about the hacked emails, [even though the campaign employee knew that insofar as Stone wasn't part of the Wikileaks organization, Stone had to be presumed to have lacked] prior knowledge of [an upcoming] hack/release "because [Stone said] he was paying attention to what Assange was saying to the media, ... observant and ... had enough sense to understand that [the hack and the information obtained and about to be released from it] was a big deal."
First, I realize, Hawkeye10, that "your" answer is presumably what you think Stone would offer in answer to Sangha's questions. Now, with that out of the way....

I don't buy Stone's/Hawkeye10's explanation. I don't because the only thing that Stone could say to a rational person and that would give that person reason to think Stone had any awareness of the nature, extent and timing of upcoming Wikileaks releases of emails hacked from the DNC or Clinton, or Wikileaks releases of any other information damaging to Clinton, is something to the effect of this: "I have contacts who can give me advance notice of the nature, extent and/or timing of Wikileaks releases of information."

No amount of observation is going to allow anyone to tell folks in the "Trump Campaign about [Wikileaks'] potential future releases of damaging material," not about what'd be the content of those releases, not about the timing of those releases, and not about how many upcoming releases there'd be. The only way for Stone to obtain and share such information was for him to have a contact who was either:
  • part of Wikileaks management, or
  • someone who knew someone (etc.) who was part of Wikileaks management, or
  • someone who'd provided to Wikileaks the information Wikileaks management had agreed to release and who also knew of the agreement Wikileaks had made re: releasing that information.
Absent such a contact, Stone's remarks about upcoming Wikileaks information drops would be nothing other than speculation that was neither better nor worse than that which literally anyone could have made.
 
Neither was Aldrich Ames

Difference being of course that Aldrich Ames was not an organization dedicated to getting a hold of classified and disseminating it to the public. Wikileaks is. Wikileaks has published classified information from pretty much every major political power in the world, including Russia. Sorry, but this is still not evidence of Russian Collusion to win the 2016 election.

But hey, if you really want to go down this road go for it. I'm sure some charge for collaborating with someone that is not a US citizen to affect the 2016 election could be made. Of course you'd also have to charge Hillary for the same since she enlisted a non-US citizen to dig dirt up on Trump. What was his name again..............?
 
The ranting against documents on Wikileaks is just more of the Democratic Party's War On The Truth.
 
Back
Top Bottom