>“It was so perfunctory, brief and banal I had forgotten it,” Stone told The Times of a private Twitter conversation he had with a hacker known as Guccifer 2.0.
>Stone told the Times he exchanged a handful of messages with Guccifer 2.0 in the weeks following a hack of the DNC, which was revealed in late July.
>“wow. thank u for writing back, and thank u for an article about me!!! do u find anything interesting in the docs i posted?” Guccifer 2.0 wrote to Stone, referring to an article Stone wrote for Breitbart News on Aug. 5 which attributed the DNC breach to Guccifer 2.0. Wow, it's fucking nothing. He talked to him on Twitter after the leaks.
two days ago he said they hadn't talked at all. he was probably told "deny everything", then "give them something so theyll settle down". nothing about this is trustworthy. the fact that they concede anything at all is as close to an admission of guilt that you can even come in politics
Gavin White
If that's true, then why are they spinning "I talked to him after the leaks" as "I talked to him before the leaks?" Why are essentially forum PMs between public figures on a public website taken as collusion?
I could DM the prime minister of Israel right now, but that does not make me a CIA asset.
Nathan Thomas
because they tried to hide it
Robert Phillips
and because this more acceptable story comes out a couple of days after Stone, in a fury, admits on twitter that "of course we had a back door into wikileaks", something he then quickly removed.
Kayden Foster
Tried to hide what? He said it himself, he was just shitposting with a dumb e-celeb. The guy had a Twitter account after all, it's easy enough to just tweet at him or message him.
It still hasn't been established that the DNC was hacked. The prevailing theory is still a leaker on the inside. Crying about being the victim of a hacking attack is just an easier explanation for them.
This is no different from DMing MisterMetokur or PewDiePie. They have a public account, you can just sort of a talk to them if you want. The guy took credit for the leaks and put up a Twitter, it should be no surprise that a journalist would just message the guy. You can do this with your local senator, your school teachers, your local clergy, newscasters, professors, scientists, police, military, international criminals, pretty much anybody. The idea that Twitter is "backroom dealings" is just absurd, it's scaremongering targeting people who either only read the headline or don't really understand social media.
Ryder Russell
>The prevailing theory is still a leaker on the inside that's the prevailing theory on here, yes. in the rest of the world we take it at face value when the intel community comes out and says there was russian meddling.
also, and again, he did, while in a rage, admit that they had been in contact with the wikileaks people.
Liam Brooks
>Tried to hide what? first he says "of course we talked to wikileaks". then he removes it asap. that is trying to hide something. then they deny that anything happened, which is trying to hide it. now they admit a vanilla version to deflect
>when the Intel community says there was Russian meddling
Did you even read the "report"?
Oliver Powell
no, I did not read the report, is it long? do you have a logical reason why the CIA would go out publically and say there was russian meddling after the election was over, other than to report their findings? genuinely curious.
Christopher Gonzalez
It's pretty fucking simple, idiot. The CIA / deep state are doing what they've always done and are undermining anyone threatening their own power and influence.
How fucking difficult is it for you liberal retards to grasp this? They're one of the most corrupt institutions in the entire fucking world, have assassinated presidents and prime ministers, overthrown democratically elected governments, instigated coups, trafficked drugs, attempted to literally brainwash/mind control people - and that's just the shit they've fucking admitted to.
And you think they're a reliable source of fucking anything? The entire organization is immoral/unethical scumbags.
Carson Butler
It's roughly 10 pages. Here's a brief summary:
>we think Russia did it because RT said nice things about Trump >we think Russia did it because we saw some twitter trolls >we think Russia did it because muh cold war
The intelligence agencies hate that one of "their" people aren't in charge and the media hates that the leaks exposed the media's collusion with the Hillary campaign.
Robert White
It really escapes me how you have access to the internet and you still have no idea what the fuck is going on. But I guess asking is a good start...... fuck me sweden
Eli James
it's possible but it is also conspiracy theory. I can accept that it could be true, but I cant accept that it IS the truth.
ok I'll google it up but i dunno if I want to spend my saturday pouring through it, we'll see
Hudson Hughes
yall are so fucking certain about everything. how do you go from not believing the media to believeing anything you hear on a weaver/tapestry board for vietnamese blanket designers?
Luke Rogers
A conspiracy theory is not "an untrue or unreasonable theory." It is a theory that suggests there is a conspiracy. The term has become radioactive because these kinds of accusations are universally denied and it is essential to discredit them.
You're calling the existence of the CIA a conspiracy theory right now, I hope you realize this.
Aaron Cook
It's very simple. Do your own research and question everything you read. Pay particular attention to the motives and biases of the source.
Ryan Wilson
Everyone please take a good look at this little gullible redditor. Please lurk moar and post once you are physically and mentally above 18.
Josiah Jackson
no, I am calling the idea that the CIA has overran and taken control of the executive a conspiracy theory
Brayden Lewis
page 1
>The Intelligence Community rarely can publicly reveal the full extent of its knowledge or the precise bases for its assessments, as the release of such information would reveal sensitive sources or methods and imperil the ability to collect critical foreign intelligence in the future.
>Thus, while the conclusions in the report are all reflected in the classified assessment, the declassified report does not and cannot include the full supporting information, including specific intelligence and sources and methods.
and this is your critique, isn't it? that there isn't sourcing? that the CIA could be doing this to fuck with the executive? it's true that that could be the case, but it is quite literally a conspiracy theory, it is unsubstantiated, it is speculation
Xavier Russell
The CIA and other US intelligence agencies have no credibility if they aren't willing to release hard evidence. They've been wrong too many times, they've been caught lying too many times, and their history if purposefully manipulating public opinion is too vast.
They can make all the claims they want, but until they produce evidence, they aren't worth the paper they're written on.
Furthermore, they aren't even accusing Russia of leaking the information to get Trump elected. Their claim is that Russia leaked the evidence that Hillary fixed the primary election to expose the hypocrisy of American democracy.
In the absolute worst case scenario: the CIA is right and Russia exposed one of the most egregious examples of election fixing and collusion in our history. Either way, the story isn't about Trump.
Oliver Davis
have you read through the report? because it's significantly longer than 10 pages, so I tend to believe you haven't. frankly I'm too tired to do it today, so I guess whoever posts last gets to be right unless you sit down and read through it now and can provide proper sourcing
Asher Price
The report is 13 pages, including cover pages.
Here is the last page. Which report are you talking about?
There's a longer one here but there's about eight pages of nothing if you include the cover pages. It comes out to around 17. 19 if you count two half-pages.
The material it covers the same. The last page is identical. Your summary of it is still accurate.
Jaxson Diaz
dude there's a shitload of pages wasted in my version. I saw the 25 and felt daunted. my b, I'm an idiot
Levi Johnson
To be fair, even the pages with stuff on them are wasted. Half of it is just screenshots from RT and Twitter.
Adrian Scott
Russia is bad. You must defend yourself and Russia on this position I've assigned. Use only logic and veritable facts to win or else you're lying, illogical, using (((alinsky))) tactics and still winning, like Drumpf.
Gabriel Hernandez
remember when Trump put up the strawman that "the Russians didn't go after tallying machines- there was no interference" and the MSM failed to pin him to the wall with literally everything else in the report? that was something. I am reading and will read but it still stands that
Anthony Perry
This is your first time reading the report, yet you claim the media failed to use the report to attack him? It's absurd. The report was hyped for a week, it was released, and then we heard nothing about it, except for vague allusions. There's literally nothing in it.
Asher Price
>ProKremlin bloggers had prepared a Twitter campaign, #DemocracyRIP, on election night in anticipation of Secretary Clinton’s victory, judging from their social media activity.
which one of you animals was contracted to design this lol
Sebastian Martinez
I just remember seeing it on tv thinking everything just runs off the back of this guy like chickenshit off an armadillo. Just focus on one good thing, look smug and watch the libruls crash and burn trying to get through your persona. This isn't the kind of thing that should die down at all in media reports (and I guess it hasn't, entirely, but it should be incredibly compromising)
James Wright
Just read the report and you'll find out the accusations were not based on it at all. They said it would surely be in the report, but it wasn't.
Angel White
This report completely died out after it was released because there's nothing in it. If the media covered the report honestly, people would begin to see how ridiculous the whole Russia-Trump thing is.
Hudson Harris
I mean my feeling, reading it now, is that russias guy won, and they were very active trying to manipulate the USA to make it so. regardless of anything else that's big in my book. perhaps not decisive, but definitely big. I buy their excuse for not giving sources
I don't exactly know but I would guess that that's something of a strawman. >They said it would surely be in the report
who are "they" in this statement?
Julian Parker
Yawn, is this going to be the shill story of the week to push?
Adam Fisher
If they're making the allegation that Russia influenced our election, they need to provide some evidence other than "RT said mean things about Hillary."
Hell, even that piece of "evidence" is ridiculous. The antagonistic relationship between Hillary and RT is no different than the propaganda efforts by American media outlets against Trump.
At the center of it all is this: there is a financial-media-political establishment that has held onto power in the West for the last few decades. Trump represented a threat to that power, so they did (and are doing) everything in their power to stop him.
>and Russia was very active trying to manipulate the USA to elect Trump
You have their evidence in front of you. Is there anything in that report that even remotely supports such an allegation?
Jordan Young
>all these hacks remember when we laughed at russia for going back to pen and paper systems
Jeremiah Howard
WOW HE TWEETED GUCCIFER?
Truly terrible.
President Obama let a criminal into the whitehouse when he knew damn well he should have been arrested yet President Obama allowed his party to lose the election.
REALLY MAKES ME THINK
Ethan Clark
>trying to hide it >talk about it publicly
Hiding it would be someone else breaking the story and that adviser going, "durrrr what's twitter"
Charles Baker
>At the center of it all is this: there is a financial-media-political establishment that has held onto power in the West for the last few decades. Trump represented a threat to that power, so they did (and are doing) everything in their power to stop him. I accept that it is very possible that this has been going on, but it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the intel report.
If they gave clear sourcing it would be incredibly easy for russia to plug those sources, probably by two to the back of the head.
the intelligence community comes out saying it's confident that there has been a concerted effort to affect american oppinion ("RT said mean things" is reductio ad absurdum, there is much more than that in the report). you can either decide that everyone is against your guy, or you can decide that there is even an ounce of credibility left in the intel community. It's possible someone will write the book 40 years form now- until then we're guessing. I don't understand how you can be so trusting that everything is in order around Trump, but I can understand how you can be this distrusting of literally every traditional authority on anything.
When the report says that Russia tried to undermine the democratic process that is essentially what they mean, as I understand it: they want to make you not trust any traditional authorities on anything, they want you mired in disillusion, real or otherwise. They do the same thing here.
Ian Martinez
publish a story that makes you look fine, then don't say a single word more ever ever ever. same thing happening in Obamagate now: it will never leave congress
Ayden Watson
>reducto ad absurdum
Except its not. Here is their list of "propaganda" from RT.
>REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE STOP HOSTING THIRD PARTY CANDIDATES, THE TWO PARTY SYSTEM IS WORKING GREAT!!!
Can you point to anything in that report that warrants the media's current hysteria?
Jaxson Parker
the connection between RT and Assange
Connor Baker
>Assange is interviewed by RT regularly
Uhhh, OK...
Here are some of RT's other "offenses".
Apparently anyone who says our political class is corrupted by corporate interests, or that America is a surveillance state, is a Russian stooge.
Tyler Roberts
...
Adam Cooper
anyone who works closely with RT is a Russian stooge
Tyler Smith
They probably already have all the dirt on Trump that they need. They just need to crash his reputation so that only a small fraction of right wing nuts tries to start an armed revolt when they dismantle his presidency and admin
Cameron Taylor
>RT actively works to undermine trust of the leadership among the general population >they're probably a fine partner to work with it's a tribute to american democracy that they're allowed to exist, although I understand one of Obamas closing statements was basically aimed at their type of activity
Chase Jones
Larry King is a Russian stooge? RT International is the biggest English language news network not controlled by (((Western interests))). Assange can't exactly trust the NYT or WaPo to cover him fairly.
Jonathan Young
>Nobody can be trusted but Trump Gotta hand it to him - he's got the cretin vote cornered
Jordan Turner
well he certainly can't trust RT. perhaps he should fuck off and let some new grassroots organization grow forth, perhaps his name is spent
Nathaniel Ortiz
Obviously (((they))) were hoping that everyone would buy the cooked-up Russian narrative so when they planted their cooked-up evidence people would buy it.
Then the wiretapping came, and then Vault 7, and now everyone can see the strings moving the puppets and it's all gone to shit and it's fucking hilarious
David Thompson
>questioning the establishment is bad
Sure thing.
Carson Diaz
Wikileaks has never given me any reason to question their integrity, which is more than I can say for any Western media outlet.
Ryan Cox
>russia actively undermining trust in american civil society is a good thing it isn't the questioning, it's the motif, it's who is doing it and with what goal. Underblowing civil unrest is a good thing? making americans think less of their next door neighbour so that they can be more readily manipulated is a good thing?
Christopher Stewart
man are you on a proxy or something? give it to me straight luv. THAT if anything was in the report
Grayson Miller
MSNBC covered Occupy Wall Street in a similar manner, are they enemies of the state now? Glenn Beck covered the corrupt political establishment in a similar manner, is he an enemy of the state?
The politicians in America have done nothing but screw voters over the last 30 years. It doesn't take a genius or an omnipresent Russian boogeyman to point that out.
Nolan Edwards
>Roger Stone claims (...) Stopped reading there
Gabriel Diaz
I'm an American, I'm sorry that questioning authority isn't part of Swedish culture, but it should be. Perhaps you wouldn't be having regular grenade attacks then.
David Harris
it seems we have different understandings of what a russian foreign affairs goal might be. anyways, I'm tired, I'm gonna go for a walk or something.
Connor Wright
I fear the destructive nature of our ruling class over the vague threat of propaganda from a country the size of Italy.
Matthew Lewis
> in the rest of the world we take it at face value when the intel community comes out and says Then the rest of the world is dangerously naive.
Angel Foster
> mean my feeling, reading it now, is that russias guy won, and they were very active trying to manipulate the USA to make it so. Honestly, you probably aren't wrong that Russia wanted Trump to win. Clinton was signaling that she wanted war with Russia. And it would be the first time a foreign government tried to influence an election.
Andrew Bennett
Oh, Trump isn't exactly trustworthy, either. One thing that keeps getting ignored by everyone now is that the U.S. had a choice between a self aggrandizing reality tv star and a the political equivalent of a flaming bag of dog shit. Hillary Clinton was a terrible candidate by everyone possible measure and the establishment that backed her and spent over a billion and a half dollars trying to get her elected wants to convince the public that there is some other reason she lost than that she was the worst candidate since Michael Dukakis. So, "Muh Russians."
Lincoln Wright
In all fairness, Putin did come perhaps too close to outright endorsing Trump. But I mean you'd have to be a blind fool to not see how Russia would rather the US elect a guy who says he'd like to try to get along with than than some neocon warmonger or other.
