Okay, maybe I'm just ignorant here, but.....

[Tommy_Carcetti]

....yesterday, text messages between Roger Stone and Randy Credico were released showing that during the 2016 campaign, both Stone and Credico knew about Wikileaks dumps in advance of their release to the public.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/14/politics/text-messages-roger-stone-wikileaks-hack/index.html

I've seen Stone and several right wing publications spin this as to somehow "vindicating" Stone.

Here's my very basic question:

How?

How in God's good name does that in any way vindicate Roger Stone?

[manor321]

1. I assume Stone is trying to lay blame on Credico

But I don't care what right wingers are saying. Mueller knows whats up.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

3. Which might work better if there wasn't already evidence of Stone threatening Credico.

So I don't think Mueller's gonna play that game.

[dlk]

2. Roger Stone Has a Long (& Documented) History of Lying

So do right-wing publications.

[rzemanfl]

4. Because of the ratfucking of Avennati? Look, over there. n/t

[guillaumeb]

5. Simply redefine the word "vindicate" to mean its opposite.