How the DNC Hack Skeptics’ Dominant Theory Sinks Stone
I’ve been thinking about something since I wrote this piece on Roger Stone’s Swiss cheese denials of conspiring with Guccifer 2.0 or Wikileaks on the hack-and-leak. As I laid out, Stone’s denial consists of two tactics: he admits he spoke with Guccifer 2.0 at a time he believed him to have done the hack but notes that that happened after (he claims six weeks, but it was really three) the documents already started coming out. And he denies knowing anything in advance about Wikileaks, which wouldn’t be a problem anyway, he says, because there’s no evidence Wikileaks is a Russian asset.
Effectively, that puts Stone’s involvement after the undeniably criminal act — the hack of the DNC and puts the rest into simple general foreknowledge of Wikileaks’ plan.
As I noted in my first post on Stone’s non-denials, that doesn’t address the possibility he was involved in the Peter Smith led rat-fuck negotiations with Russian hackers to find Hillary’s deleted emails.
But there’s one other problem with it.
According to the public record, Guccifer 2.0 first spoke with Stone on August 12 (though in his statement to Congress, he fudged that date interestingly and claimed the first contact — perhaps meaning DM — was August 14). While that post-dates all known hacking, it pre-dates at least one and possibly several key dates on the leak part of the operation. As Raffi Khatchadourian lays out, Wikileaks may have obtained the John Podesta emails around this time.
A pattern that was set in June appeared to recur: just before DCLeaks became active with election publications, WikiLeaks began to prepare another tranche of e-mails, this time culled from John Podesta’s Gmail account. “We are working around the clock,” Assange told Fox News in late August. “We have received quite a lot of material.” It is unclear how long Assange had been in possession of the e-mails, but a staffer assigned to the project suggested that he had received them in the late summer: “As soon as we got them, we started working on them, and then we started publishing them. From when we received them to when we published them, it was a real crunch. My only wish is that we had the equivalent from the Republicans.”
All of the raw e-mail files that WikiLeaks published from Podesta’s account are dated September 19th, which appears to indicate the day that they were copied or modified for some purpose.
Indeed, Stone’s “Podesta time in the barrel” comment, which Chuck Todd noted addressed Tony but not John Podesta, may even have preceded Wikileaks’ receipt of the emails.
But Stone’s discussions with Guccifer 2.0 undeniably precede an event that, at least according to the skeptics’ theory, necessarily precedes the publication of Podesta’s emails. That’s Craig Murray obtaining … something from someone while he was in the US for the Sam Adams Award on September 25. He has said he didn’t obtain the documents, but it might be a key or something.
That still doesn’t, by itself, make Stone’s conduct criminal. But it does mean his timeline is not exonerating.
for some reason I thought it went
.
Guccifer 2.0 ==> Roger Stone ==> Nigel Incubator Jones ==> Julian Assange
.
http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2017/3/9/111924/8690
I once tweeted that “John Podesta’s time in the barrel will come.”
https://stonecoldtruth.com/is-it-the-podestas-time-in-the-barrel-yet/
He may not have predicted the hack and Wikileaks dump, or he has plausible deniability, but he admits he was referring to John, not Tony.
If our elected representatives on the House and Senate intelligence oversight committees need someone to blame, they might try looking a little closer to home.
http://reason.com/archives/2018/03/08/dont-blame-tech-companies-for-russian-el
Semi-related on general sleaziness terms, and answering a question about why Sater was left alone in spite of several reasons to reopen Alcatraz just for him: it seems our Felix is a CIA / DIA / FBI informant. One suspects that many of the ones that seem to be covered with Teflon (like the Kaiser) will have the same coverage. Maybe even Roger Stone, which might be a problem if it then shows the Feebs (the NYC ones, still curiously un-investigated) connived with Stone to take a hatchet to HRC’s campaign.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/anthonycormier/felix-sater-trump-russia-undercover-us-spy?utm_term=.cdBYVmXQWK#.wx6Pq8YJjo
Cleaned link.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/anthonycormier/felix-sater-trump-russia-undercover-us-spy
Follow the money.
Why would NYC Feebs be investigated?
In a word, Giuliani.
https://nypost.com/2017/05/03/comey-fbi-investigating-possible-internal-leak-to-giuliani/
https://www.cnn.com/2016/11/04/politics/rudy-giuliani-hillary-clinton-email-fbi/
Sorry about the link, I’m usually better about it. The NYC Feebs were the ones that leaked about classified emails residing on the Abedin computer (which they knew they hadn’t searched yet) which “forced” Comey to make the HRC email story the priority in the last days before the election. These were Rudy’s boys and Rudy is tight with the Kaiser. It’s a classic rogue cell and since these maroons gave us Disgustus, they need to be looked at as well as Rudy.
Thank you both (Trip and Rugger9).
So much going on, I forgot about those angles.
And on that note, recall my bitching about FBI opsec.
I could be way off-base, nor can I find unambiguous evidence on a quick search, but wasn’t there (supposed to be) an investigation of the role the FBI’s New York office played in the laptop email brouhaha?
Perhaps part of the IG investigation that put McCabe into early retirement? which report has yet to issue AFAICT.
@emptywheel
https://www.twitter.com/emptywheel/status/973279774813704192
Recall the HVAC fix shutdown.
“Wikileaks’ plan”
??