It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

BOOM. Trump - WikiLeaks Connection Confirmed By Trump "Advisor," Manafort Partner, Roger Stone

page: 1
24
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+7 more 
posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 11:17 PM
link   
I would say that I hate to say I told you so but that would be a lie. I have listened to so many cockamamie fauxspiracies dredged up from the depths of alt-right Twitter feeds and sourced from psychotic Alex Jones videos in just the last few weeks that it's all I can do to keep from cackling maniacally right now.

Roger Stone is one of the most notorious sleazy, dirty, low down, do anything/say anything, perpetrators of hoaxes, orchestrators of mass manipulation, purveyors of fabrication and dealers of scandals — real and created — the political world has ever seen. Unlike Donald Trump, his friend of 37 years, I'm not exaggerating for effect. For a bunch that prides itself in knowing "the real deal" there are a lot of people who only vaguely recognize the name from recent interviews with Alex Jones, psychotic and now legitimate disinformation double-agent.

Roger Stone has known Donald Trump since 1979 when the two were introduced by Trump's notorious, much-despised, infamously crooked and heavily connected attorney and mentor, Roy Cohn.

Stone has spent decades operating as Trump's personal "lobbyist" and bag man when not slithering off to perform some political black op or another. He and Paul Manafort — despot-maker and longterm employee of deposed Ukrainian tyrant Viktor Yanukovych, close Putin ally and now Putin guest AND admitted "influence peddler" — have been business partners since 1981 when they were keeping Ferdinand Marcos in power and fixing up the public images of African dictators know for having predilections for chopping of limbs.

These men haven't just been behind corruption here — oh no — they're international corruptors. Do yourselves a favor. Stop right here if you like. Go to the search engine of your choice and start looking up these two characters. Of hell, start with this article from 1994 in the LA Times detailing how their firm took a whole lot of money from the Pakistani ISI to operate a disinformation campaign to cover up terrorism.

I will create a couple threads this weekend about these two and some of their buddies but right now I'm going to get to the topic of the thread.

Roger Stone Calls Claims of WikiLeaks Collusion 'Categorically False'


Former Trump adviser and confidante Roger Stone on Wednesday denied the suggestion that he had "advance warning" of the release by WikiLeaks of hacked emails purported to be from Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta.

Stone, who is not a formal part of the Trump campaign, said he and WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange have a "mutual friend." After Podesta on Tuesday suggested Stone was in collusion with the website, Stone called the claim "categorically false."

"I have a back-channel communications with WikiLeaks," Stone told NBC News. "But they certainly don't clear or tell me in advance what they're going to do."

Stone said on Twitter in August, after WikiLeaks published other emails purportedly stolen from Democratic Party institutions, that "Trust me, it will soon the Podesta's time in the barrel."

"We have a mutual friend who's traveled to London several times. And everything I know is through that channel of communications," Stone said. "I'm not implying I have any influence with him or that I have advanced knowledge of the specifics of what he is going to do. I do believe that he has all of the emails that Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills, the Clinton aides, thought were deleted. I hear that through my emissary."

WikiLeaks said on Twitter Wednesday that: "As we have already stated clearly: WikiLeaks has had no contact wiith [sic] Roger Stone."


He just knew before everyone in the world that Podesta's hacked emails were going to be next. It's time to wake up folks. As a country, we're being played like Manafort played the Ukrainians. Do yourselves a favor and look into how THAT turned out.

EDIT:

Added some embedded links to articles from over the years to get anyone interested started.
edit on 2016-10-13 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 11:32 PM
link   


Stone said on Twitter in August, after WikiLeaks published other emails purportedly stolen from Democratic Party institutions, that "Trust me, it will soon the Podesta's time in the barrel."


It was already known in June?

www.daily.ng...



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 11:33 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Even if Wikileaks is corrupt, they still serve an important service.

A corrupt wikileaks is exposing the dishonesty of only one side.
A non corrupt wikileaks exposes dishonesty on both sides.
No wikileaks exposes no dishonesty.

Until they are shown to release false information which hasn't happened yet it's irrelevant.
A corrupt wikileaks is better than no wikileaks.



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 11:34 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

Thanks for catching that. I updated the OP.



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 11:34 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian


BOOM is right! Each candidate is pulling out all the stops to defeat the opposition candidate.

(IMO) Clinton paid for release of the groping tape, followed by a parade of well-paid groping accusers.

and

(IMO) Trump paid a pretty penny for WikiLeaks to hack Clinton and DNC servers. Julian Assange says that there are over 100,000 emails and documents. We've just seen a small slice of what's the come. Also I have a hunch that Trump has now obtained Hillary's 33,000 deleted e-mails.



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 11:34 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

So do you have a problem with the guy or the leaks?
Surely you want the truth exposed?



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 11:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: theantediluvian

Even if Wikileaks is corrupt, they still serve an important service.

A corrupt wikileaks is exposing the dishonesty of only one side.
A non corrupt wikileaks exposes dishonesty on both sides.
No wikileaks exposes no dishonesty.

Until they are shown to release false information which hasn't happened yet it's irrelevant.
A corrupt wikileaks is better than no wikileaks.



because only exposing one side is a form of propaganda.



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 11:41 PM
link   
Ugh, so people that accessed Hillary's dirty secrets have informed the opposition of those secrets, prior to a public release, because they don't want to see her corrupt ass in office?!

Unless I'm missing something, where is the boom? Because that's nothing like the collusion we've seen in the leaks.



a reply to: theantediluvian



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 11:42 PM
link   
a reply to: knoxie

I agree that exposing only one side is propaganda.
Do you think wikileaks would not release trumps emails if they had them?



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 11:44 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

So straighten me out here. It was printed in June that he was hacked. In August, stone then said that Podestas time is coming. How does that apply to advanced knowledge?



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 11:49 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

I don't see the BOOM either honestly.

I get that you hate Roger Stone. But this is a bit much



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 11:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: theantediluvian

Even if Wikileaks is corrupt, they still serve an important service.

A corrupt wikileaks is exposing the dishonesty of only one side.
A non corrupt wikileaks exposes dishonesty on both sides.


Corrupt? How about trying to prevent a worst case scenario. There hasn't been a thing that is damning to DJT, I've only seen faux-outrage and lies.

Wikileaks, and hackers in general, are a very progressive group of people. When they're trying to take down their own, it's kind of a sign.


+2 more 
posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 12:02 AM
link   
a reply to: BoldAlligator

There's been exactly one thread that I've seen that has come out of those leaks that was worth giving a s# about and that was Gramblers. The rest of them have been garbage.

- A Catholic woman talking about her own faith in a private email = HILLARY CLINTON HATES CATHOLICS!

- Campaign meeting with the press at a dinner 2 days before she announces run = OMG HILLARY IS CONSPIRING WITH MEDIA!

- Podesta emails an article to Hillary from Newsweek? = OMG PODESTA ADMITS BENGHAZI PREVENTABLE!

- Emailed translation of article from Haaretz = OMG HILLARY SAID 'SAND N-----!'

- Leed's phone # in same local exchange as a CF employee = LEED HAS SAME NUMBER AS CLINTON FOUNDATION!

- OMG A POLITICIAN HAS A PUBLIC PERSONA!
- OMG SOMEBODY SAID 'WET WORK!' They killed Scalia!

Maybe I'm missing something I would care more about if the entire fiasco wasn't littered with utter garbage, misrepresentations, leaps in logic, egregious speculation to the point of fabrication, etc.

If there was any one thing that was could end Clinton — it would have been released already. The leaks are being timed so that there's a steady stream of just enough emails that something that appears interesting can be talked about for a day or two until the next leak.

Meanwhile. The Trump campaign is conspiring with foreign agents in an attempt to hijack the election and people are too busy pointing at fake protesters paid $5k a pop by Alex Jones to videobomb the news media yelling "Bill Clinton is a rapist!" (those are ACTUAL SHILLS PAID FOR BY ALEX JONES) and watching media stunts with not very credible BILL Clinton assault accusers — including one whose story was completely and utterly discredited and who is for a FACT being paid by Donald Trump (Willey).

You know who orchestrated that? Roger Stone. Where'd Manafort slink back off to? Ukraine? Did he take Carter Page with him? Talk about back channel commmunications. "I have a friend who travels back and forth to MOSCOW."

Lots of excitable people are getting themselves whipped up into a frenzy over things that mostly seem not all that significant while people who have been behind honest-to-God major conspiracies of the most corrupt and sometimes country destroying nature are trying to get Trump elected. Even this recent crap with Russia is nothing but them trying to scare people into voting for Trump by saying that if we don't it will be nuclear war. (Vladimir Zhirinovsky)
edit on 2016-10-14 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 12:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: knoxie

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: theantediluvian

Even if Wikileaks is corrupt, they still serve an important service.

A corrupt wikileaks is exposing the dishonesty of only one side.
A non corrupt wikileaks exposes dishonesty on both sides.
No wikileaks exposes no dishonesty.

Until they are shown to release false information which hasn't happened yet it's irrelevant.
A corrupt wikileaks is better than no wikileaks.



because only exposing one side is a form of propaganda.


No, that is not not close to the definition of propaganda. It's hacking but with a whistle blower effect. The democrats are in power and have been for the last 8 years and close to 4 more, so that's why its one sided. I wish they were doing this when Bush was president too.

There's no Trump connection with Wikileaks' everyone knew and was waiting for all of these leaks. They are not released to help Trump but to expose corruption in our govt.



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 12:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed
a reply to: theantediluvian

I don't see the BOOM either honestly.

I get that you hate Roger Stone. But this is a bit much


No Boom, just a small pop then a fizzle.



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 12:13 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian


I have listened to so many cockamamie fauxspiracies


Like people who are partisan on a conspiracy website?

(i love your posts, well thought out and articulate, but I attack partisanship. It is almost like people pretend this isn't the biggest heap of shat ever) again though, I admire your posts even if I disagree with the motive.
edit on 14-10-2016 by CriticalStinker because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 12:13 AM
link   
What a shame that presidential candidates that are running for office in what is regarded as the most powerful nation on earth have to resort to this BS and the only way they feel they can win is to muddy the other persons name..

How has the U.S. got into this situation, do you not have a single honest good person that is capable of winning and leading a country on merit???..


RA



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 12:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: knoxie
because only exposing one side is a form of propaganda.


We could argue the term propaganda, but Assange clearly doesn't like Hillary (murdering a source seemed to rub him the wrong way for some reason) and if he has dirt on Trump it wouldn't help his vendetta to release it. Let's call it honest propaganda.

If Wikileaks is withholding information it's an easy problem to fix.
Whoever provided Wikileaks the info can provide it to another outlet.



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 12:17 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Roger Stone also tweeted earlier this month, "On Wednesday Hillary is done #Wikileaks", which turned out to be nothing.

Others, tweeters such as TruePundit and thomaspain1774, who seem to have a closer relationship with wiki leaks, tweeted "when someone brags they have connections with @wikileaks they surely do not. #assange doesn't deal with the Roger stones of the world.



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 12:22 AM
link   
a reply to: mkultra11

Wikileaks exposed the Bush administration in many ways. Thats how they got their fame and people loved them for that. Now that they are exposing the democrat parties people are dismissing them.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join