Roger Stone Admits he has had contact with Russian Hacker today ( Trumps campaign Adviser )

[Cellblock2429]

Guccifer 2.0 is believed by the U.S. intelligence community to be a cover identity for Russian intelligence. The intelligence community concluded that Moscow sought to interfere in last year's election specifically to help Trump win.

Stone told the Times exchanged a handful of messages with Guccifer 2.0 in the weeks following a hack of the DNC, which was revealed in late July.

In one message from Aug. 14, Stone said he was "delighted" that Guccifer 2.0's Twitter account had been reinstated after being suspended.

Trump adviser admits to contact with DNC hacker

/---- So what? Dems we're in touch with Russians too. No fake outrage over that?

 

[bripat9643]

So the RNC had better internet security. Good for them. I am quite sure that hacks were attempted.

No, they weren't hacked. Russians, working with Trump's campaign, hacked the DNC. Why would they hack the RNC?

That's a serious accusation. Have you got any proof?

No? . . . . . . . I didn't think so.

You must be the last idiot on Earth to not see Roger Stone's confession.

He didn't "confess" to anything that matters.

LOL

Sure. Having direct conversations with the hacker about Podesta a week before his emails were splashed across the Internet is "nothing that matters.

You mean a tweet to a hacker in the internet is some kind of threat? What did it say that threatens us? It may have been before Wikileaks published Podesta's emails, but it was after they were hacked.

 

[bripat9643]

No, they weren't hacked. Russians, working with Trump's campaign, hacked the DNC. Why would they hack the RNC?

That's a serious accusation. Have you got any proof?

No? . . . . . . . I didn't think so.

You must be the last idiot on Earth to not see Roger Stone's confession.

He didn't "confess" to anything that matters.

LOL

Sure. Having direct conversations with the hacker about Podesta a week before his emails were splashed across the Internet is "nothing that matters.

It's even matters less when you know Podesta fell for a phishing scam and wasn't hacked. No need to let facts cloud good commiecrat propaganda.

The snowflakes just can't seem to spin the known facts to sum up to anything sinister.

 

[OKTexas]

Guccifer 2.0 is believed by the U.S. intelligence community to be a cover identity for Russian intelligence. The intelligence community concluded that Moscow sought to interfere in last year's election specifically to help Trump win.

Stone told the Times exchanged a handful of messages with Guccifer 2.0 in the weeks following a hack of the DNC, which was revealed in late July.

In one message from Aug. 14, Stone said he was "delighted" that Guccifer 2.0's Twitter account had been reinstated after being suspended.

Trump adviser admits to contact with DNC hacker

Two quotes from your link: My bold

"Guccifer 2.0 is believed by the U.S. intelligence community to be a cover identity for Russian intelligence."

"Reports from the intelligence community said Guccifer 2.0 was used to publicly release the data from hacks, but that the hacks themselves were conducted by Russia."

So which is it, is Guccifer 2.0 a tool, or is it Russian Intel?

I find it amazing that these fake news folks aren't even smart enough to realize they are putting conflicting information in the same article.

Who says the two are contradictory? They both sound like a group of people.

Because you don't "use" yourself to do something, you just do it. The article said: Guccifer 2.0 was used to publicly release the data from hacks, but that the hacks themselves were conducted by Russia." The author of the article is the one that drew the distinction.

Guccifer 2.0 could still be a group in that context.

Yet the author felt a need to draw a distinction, go figure.

 

[bripat9643]

You mean the confession where he had contact with Guccifer 2.0, after hacked DNC info was already released?

Podesta's emails were released after Stone's conversation with Guccifer 2.0. And it was Stone who brought up Podesta's name, not Guccifer 2.0

And the hack occurred before the conversation.

Post your evidence to show Stone knew Podesta's email was hacked prior to 8.21.16 when Stone tweeted, "Trust me, it will soon the Podesta's time in the barrel."

Post your evidence to show Stone knew Podesta's email was hacked prior to 8.21.16 when Stone tweeted,

By Joe Uchill - 12/13/16 04:00 PM EST

Last March, Podesta received an email purportedly from Google saying hackers had tried to infiltrate his Gmail account. When an aide emailed the campaign’s IT staff to ask if the notice was real, Clinton campaign aide Charles Delavan replied that it was “a legitimate email" and that Podesta should “change his password immediately.”

Typo led to Podesta email hack: report

What do I win? LOL!

You win a booby prize for not understanding your own sources. It doesn't indicate anyone knew Podesta's email was hacked. It mentions how a Clinton aide mistakenly thought a phishing email was "legitimate." It not only reflects the Clinton campaign wasn't aware Podesta was hacked, but more to the point, Stone could not have known about that.

The phishing email was the hack. We know Podesta received that long before Roger Stone tweeted to Guccifer, so it just isn't possible that Stone helped Guccifer hack Podesta's account.

 

[Faun]

Podesta's emails were released after Stone's conversation with Guccifer 2.0. And it was Stone who brought up Podesta's name, not Guccifer 2.0

And the hack occurred before the conversation.

Post your evidence to show Stone knew Podesta's email was hacked prior to 8.21.16 when Stone tweeted, "Trust me, it will soon the Podesta's time in the barrel."

Post your evidence to show Stone knew Podesta's email was hacked prior to 8.21.16 when Stone tweeted,

By Joe Uchill - 12/13/16 04:00 PM EST

Last March, Podesta received an email purportedly from Google saying hackers had tried to infiltrate his Gmail account. When an aide emailed the campaign’s IT staff to ask if the notice was real, Clinton campaign aide Charles Delavan replied that it was “a legitimate email" and that Podesta should “change his password immediately.”

Typo led to Podesta email hack: report

What do I win? LOL!

You win a booby prize for not understanding your own sources. It doesn't indicate anyone knew Podesta's email was hacked. It mentions how a Clinton aide mistakenly thought a phishing email was "legitimate." It not only reflects the Clinton campaign wasn't aware Podesta was hacked, but more to the point, Stone could not have known about that.

It indicates his email was hacked long before Stone was in contact with Guccifer.

Not publicly that I'm aware of. You have proof otherwise?

 

[Faun]

Podesta's emails were released after Stone's conversation with Guccifer 2.0. And it was Stone who brought up Podesta's name, not Guccifer 2.0

And the hack occurred before the conversation.

Post your evidence to show Stone knew Podesta's email was hacked prior to 8.21.16 when Stone tweeted, "Trust me, it will soon the Podesta's time in the barrel."

Post your evidence to show Stone knew Podesta's email was hacked prior to 8.21.16 when Stone tweeted,

By Joe Uchill - 12/13/16 04:00 PM EST

Last March, Podesta received an email purportedly from Google saying hackers had tried to infiltrate his Gmail account. When an aide emailed the campaign’s IT staff to ask if the notice was real, Clinton campaign aide Charles Delavan replied that it was “a legitimate email" and that Podesta should “change his password immediately.”

Typo led to Podesta email hack: report

What do I win? LOL!

You win a booby prize for not understanding your own sources. It doesn't indicate anyone knew Podesta's email was hacked. It mentions how a Clinton aide mistakenly thought a phishing email was "legitimate." It not only reflects the Clinton campaign wasn't aware Podesta was hacked, but more to the point, Stone could not have known about that.

The phishing email was the hack. We know Podesta received that long before Roger Stone tweeted to Guccifer, so it just isn't possible that Stone helped Guccifer hack Podesta's account.

Then post a link prior to 8.21.16 which talks about Podesta being hacked....

 

[Faun]

Thanks for confirming he encouraged them to hack Hillary, just as I said.

Yes, he encouraged them to hack Hillary's disassembled server for emails she deleted. DERP!

He encouraged them to hack into anywhere to find them. Where did he limit their search to that one server?

Where would they find them besides on the disassembled, government held server?

Emails are generally spread across many servers. Hillary, deleting the ones on her own server, does not guarantee they didn't already exist on other servers she did not have access to wipe clean.

Hillary had classified e-mails on servers she didn't control?
How reckless!!

I'm glad she lost.

Diversion noted.

 

[Faun]

No, they weren't hacked. Russians, working with Trump's campaign, hacked the DNC. Why would they hack the RNC?

That's a serious accusation. Have you got any proof?

No? . . . . . . . I didn't think so.

You must be the last idiot on Earth to not see Roger Stone's confession.

He didn't "confess" to anything that matters.

LOL

Sure. Having direct conversations with the hacker about Podesta a week before his emails were splashed across the Internet is "nothing that matters.

You mean a tweet to a hacker in the internet is some kind of threat? What did it say that threatens us? It may have been before Wikileaks published Podesta's emails, but it was after they were hacked.

Your attribution to me of something I didn't say is noted.

 

[Faun]

Guccifer 2.0 is believed by the U.S. intelligence community to be a cover identity for Russian intelligence. The intelligence community concluded that Moscow sought to interfere in last year's election specifically to help Trump win.

Stone told the Times exchanged a handful of messages with Guccifer 2.0 in the weeks following a hack of the DNC, which was revealed in late July.

In one message from Aug. 14, Stone said he was "delighted" that Guccifer 2.0's Twitter account had been reinstated after being suspended.

Trump adviser admits to contact with DNC hacker

Two quotes from your link: My bold

"Guccifer 2.0 is believed by the U.S. intelligence community to be a cover identity for Russian intelligence."

"Reports from the intelligence community said Guccifer 2.0 was used to publicly release the data from hacks, but that the hacks themselves were conducted by Russia."

So which is it, is Guccifer 2.0 a tool, or is it Russian Intel?

I find it amazing that these fake news folks aren't even smart enough to realize they are putting conflicting information in the same article.

Who says the two are contradictory? They both sound like a group of people.

Because you don't "use" yourself to do something, you just do it. The article said: Guccifer 2.0 was used to publicly release the data from hacks, but that the hacks themselves were conducted by Russia." The author of the article is the one that drew the distinction.

Guccifer 2.0 could still be a group in that context.

Yet the author felt a need to draw a distinction, go figure.

There was no distinction. You're reading two paragraphs where they mention Guccifer 2.0 and drawing an erroneous distinction between the them.

 

[bripat9643]

And the hack occurred before the conversation.

Post your evidence to show Stone knew Podesta's email was hacked prior to 8.21.16 when Stone tweeted, "Trust me, it will soon the Podesta's time in the barrel."

Post your evidence to show Stone knew Podesta's email was hacked prior to 8.21.16 when Stone tweeted,

By Joe Uchill - 12/13/16 04:00 PM EST

Last March, Podesta received an email purportedly from Google saying hackers had tried to infiltrate his Gmail account. When an aide emailed the campaign’s IT staff to ask if the notice was real, Clinton campaign aide Charles Delavan replied that it was “a legitimate email" and that Podesta should “change his password immediately.”

Typo led to Podesta email hack: report

What do I win? LOL!

You win a booby prize for not understanding your own sources. It doesn't indicate anyone knew Podesta's email was hacked. It mentions how a Clinton aide mistakenly thought a phishing email was "legitimate." It not only reflects the Clinton campaign wasn't aware Podesta was hacked, but more to the point, Stone could not have known about that.

The phishing email was the hack. We know Podesta received that long before Roger Stone tweeted to Guccifer, so it just isn't possible that Stone helped Guccifer hack Podesta's account.

Then post a link prior to 8.21.16 which talks about Podesta being hacked....

Your theory that the hack had to become public knowledge the day it occurred couldn't possibly be more idiotic.

 

[Faun]

Post your evidence to show Stone knew Podesta's email was hacked prior to 8.21.16 when Stone tweeted, "Trust me, it will soon the Podesta's time in the barrel."

Post your evidence to show Stone knew Podesta's email was hacked prior to 8.21.16 when Stone tweeted,

By Joe Uchill - 12/13/16 04:00 PM EST

Last March, Podesta received an email purportedly from Google saying hackers had tried to infiltrate his Gmail account. When an aide emailed the campaign’s IT staff to ask if the notice was real, Clinton campaign aide Charles Delavan replied that it was “a legitimate email" and that Podesta should “change his password immediately.”

Typo led to Podesta email hack: report

What do I win? LOL!

You win a booby prize for not understanding your own sources. It doesn't indicate anyone knew Podesta's email was hacked. It mentions how a Clinton aide mistakenly thought a phishing email was "legitimate." It not only reflects the Clinton campaign wasn't aware Podesta was hacked, but more to the point, Stone could not have known about that.

The phishing email was the hack. We know Podesta received that long before Roger Stone tweeted to Guccifer, so it just isn't possible that Stone helped Guccifer hack Podesta's account.

Then post a link prior to 8.21.16 which talks about Podesta being hacked....

Your theory that the hack had to become public knowledge the day it occurred couldn't possibly be more idiotic.

More attribution to me of things I never said. Do you see that? You're so fucked in the head, you can't even argue against wait I'm saying, no less refute it.

Moron... there's no evidence anyone knew Podesta was hacked in March, so how the fuck could Stone have known. The Clinton aide who saw the phishing email thought it was a legitimate email, though he did warn Podesta to change his password anyway. And I've still yet to see any evidence that the public knew about Podesta being hacked prior to Stone's confession.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, he encouraged them to hack Hillary's disassembled server for emails she deleted. DERP!

He encouraged them to hack into anywhere to find them. Where did he limit their search to that one server?

Where would they find them besides on the disassembled, government held server?

Emails are generally spread across many servers. Hillary, deleting the ones on her own server, does not guarantee they didn't already exist on other servers she did not have access to wipe clean.

Hillary had classified e-mails on servers she didn't control?
How reckless!!

I'm glad she lost.

Diversion noted.

Hillary's corruption diverted her from the White House.

Thankfully.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Post your evidence to show Stone knew Podesta's email was hacked prior to 8.21.16 when Stone tweeted,

By Joe Uchill - 12/13/16 04:00 PM EST

Last March, Podesta received an email purportedly from Google saying hackers had tried to infiltrate his Gmail account. When an aide emailed the campaign’s IT staff to ask if the notice was real, Clinton campaign aide Charles Delavan replied that it was “a legitimate email" and that Podesta should “change his password immediately.”

Typo led to Podesta email hack: report

What do I win? LOL!

You win a booby prize for not understanding your own sources. It doesn't indicate anyone knew Podesta's email was hacked. It mentions how a Clinton aide mistakenly thought a phishing email was "legitimate." It not only reflects the Clinton campaign wasn't aware Podesta was hacked, but more to the point, Stone could not have known about that.

The phishing email was the hack. We know Podesta received that long before Roger Stone tweeted to Guccifer, so it just isn't possible that Stone helped Guccifer hack Podesta's account.

Then post a link prior to 8.21.16 which talks about Podesta being hacked....

Your theory that the hack had to become public knowledge the day it occurred couldn't possibly be more idiotic.

More attribution to me of things I never said. Do you see that? You're so fucked in the head, you can't even argue against wait I'm saying, no less refute it.

Moron... there's no evidence anyone knew Podesta was hacked in March, so how the fuck could Stone have known. The Clinton aide who saw the phishing email thought it was a legitimate email, though he did warn Podesta to change his password anyway. And I've still yet to see any evidence that the public knew about Podesta being hacked prior to Stone's confession.

there's no evidence anyone knew Podesta was hacked in March, so how the fuck could Stone have known.

You think Stone knew in March? Link?

And I've still yet to see any evidence that the public knew about Podesta being hacked prior to Stone's confession.

When was Stone's confession?

 

[OKTexas]

Two quotes from your link: My bold

"Guccifer 2.0 is believed by the U.S. intelligence community to be a cover identity for Russian intelligence."

"Reports from the intelligence community said Guccifer 2.0 was used to publicly release the data from hacks, but that the hacks themselves were conducted by Russia."

So which is it, is Guccifer 2.0 a tool, or is it Russian Intel?

I find it amazing that these fake news folks aren't even smart enough to realize they are putting conflicting information in the same article.

Who says the two are contradictory? They both sound like a group of people.

Because you don't "use" yourself to do something, you just do it. The article said: Guccifer 2.0 was used to publicly release the data from hacks, but that the hacks themselves were conducted by Russia." The author of the article is the one that drew the distinction.

Guccifer 2.0 could still be a group in that context.

Yet the author felt a need to draw a distinction, go figure.

There was no distinction. You're reading two paragraphs where they mention Guccifer 2.0 and drawing an erroneous distinction between the them.

Maybe you should go back to your ESL class.

Guccifer was used to publicly release the data form the hacks.
Russia conducted the hacks themselves.

One released, one hacked, two different entities at work. It's so simple a 6th grader could understand.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

OK. just for drill, lets say that the Russians hacked the DNC and turned the info over to wikileaks who put it on the internet for all to see. So, what did that reveal? 1. corruption within the DNC to skew the primaries for Hillary, 2. that the DNC lied to democrats, 3. that the superdelegates control the dem primary and the rest of the delegates don't mean shit, 4. that the media conspired with the Hillary campaign to cheat and give her interview and debate questions ahead of time.

So that hacking provided the American voters with the truth about Hillary, the DNC, and the media. What exactly do you find wrong with the voters knowing the truth?

Next, on the dem/media/lib claim that the Russians changed the outcome of our election. Prove it.

You're beyond retarded. First you say Americans voters were shown the truth about Hillary/DNC lies and corruption, but then idiotically pretend like that didn't sway the election.

Too funny!
Yes, the American people deserve to see the truth of the Dem corruption but it no way changed the mind of voters.

Truly CONvoluted thinking.

so lets see if I get what you are saying. You think it would be better if the voters did not know the truth about presidential candidates and corruption within the parties and the media? Is that it?

I think it would be better if we hold foreign actors accountable for such interference. Including any agents acting mutually from our side.

What would "holding them accountable" entail, and who did you have in mind for this treatment?

Exactly whatever for whomever the investigations find to be culpable.

Obama has already taken actions against Russia. The individual players still need to be sorted.

 

[Faun]

He encouraged them to hack into anywhere to find them. Where did he limit their search to that one server?

Where would they find them besides on the disassembled, government held server?

Emails are generally spread across many servers. Hillary, deleting the ones on her own server, does not guarantee they didn't already exist on other servers she did not have access to wipe clean.

Hillary had classified e-mails on servers she didn't control?
How reckless!!

I'm glad she lost.

Diversion noted.

Hillary's corruption diverted her from the White House.

Thankfully.

And the right justifies Russia hacking the DNC to accomplish that.

 

[Faun]

You win a booby prize for not understanding your own sources. It doesn't indicate anyone knew Podesta's email was hacked. It mentions how a Clinton aide mistakenly thought a phishing email was "legitimate." It not only reflects the Clinton campaign wasn't aware Podesta was hacked, but more to the point, Stone could not have known about that.

The phishing email was the hack. We know Podesta received that long before Roger Stone tweeted to Guccifer, so it just isn't possible that Stone helped Guccifer hack Podesta's account.

Then post a link prior to 8.21.16 which talks about Podesta being hacked....

Your theory that the hack had to become public knowledge the day it occurred couldn't possibly be more idiotic.

More attribution to me of things I never said. Do you see that? You're so fucked in the head, you can't even argue against wait I'm saying, no less refute it.

Moron... there's no evidence anyone knew Podesta was hacked in March, so how the fuck could Stone have known. The Clinton aide who saw the phishing email thought it was a legitimate email, though he did warn Podesta to change his password anyway. And I've still yet to see any evidence that the public knew about Podesta being hacked prior to Stone's confession.

there's no evidence anyone knew Podesta was hacked in March, so how the fuck could Stone have known.

You think Stone knew in March? Link?

And I've still yet to see any evidence that the public knew about Podesta being hacked prior to Stone's confession.

When was Stone's confession?

No, I don't think Stone knew in March. Who knows what I said that led you to believe I did. I don't see any evidence Stone knew long before 8.21.17

His confession came when he notified Guccifer 2.0 that Podesta was going to "find himself in a barrel" about a week before Podesta found himself in a barrel.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

No, they weren't hacked. Russians, working with Trump's campaign, hacked the DNC. Why would they hack the RNC?

That's a serious accusation. Have you got any proof?

No? . . . . . . . I didn't think so.

You must be the last idiot on Earth to not see Roger Stone's confession.

You mean the confession where he had contact with Guccifer 2.0, after hacked DNC info was already released?

Then went on to "predict" that Podesta was next.

So what?

He had the information well before the public did. It certainly shows a clear line of communication.

Why is Stone speaking with either WL or Guccifer 2.0 anyway?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Considering that the Podesta Group was working for and being paid by the Russians to get the sanctions lifted, why would they hack the DNC?

Ask Trump, he was the one personally encouraging Russia to hack Hillary.

OK. just for drill, lets say that the Russians hacked the DNC and turned the info over to wikileaks who put it on the internet for all to see. So, what did that reveal? 1. corruption within the DNC to skew the primaries for Hillary, 2. that the DNC lied to democrats, 3. that the superdelegates control the dem primary and the rest of the delegates don't mean shit, 4. that the media conspired with the Hillary campaign to cheat and give her interview and debate questions ahead of time.

So that hacking provided the American voters with the truth about Hillary, the DNC, and the media. What exactly do you find wrong with the voters knowing the truth?

Next, on the dem/media/lib claim that the Russians changed the outcome of our election. Prove it.

You're beyond retarded. First you say Americans voters were shown the truth about Hillary/DNC lies and corruption, but then idiotically pretend like that didn't sway the election.

Too funny!
Yes, the American people deserve to see the truth of the Dem corruption but it no way changed the mind of voters.

Truly CONvoluted thinking.

The truth hurt Hillary?
What's the problem then?

That would be influencing the election, dumbass.