‘Time in the barrel’ tweet reveals media bias
By Frank Parlato
On Aug. 21, 2016, during the US presidential election, Roger Stone tweeted, “Trust me, it will soon the Podesta’s time in the barrel. #crooked Hillary”.
Some in the media – especially those who believe they have a sacred duty to oppose and if possible depose Donald Trump – have interpreted Stone’s tweet as a reference to Wikileaks’ publication of John Podesta’s hacked or leaked emails.
To some of the patriots in media, the tweet ‘proves’ Stone collaborated with Wikileaks – for otherwise how could he ‘know’ that Podesta’s emails would be published six weeks later?
Some of the righteous media believe, or hope, that Wikileaks is a Russian operation. And if two assumptions make a fact, this proves Stone is in collusion with Russians. And Stone is but a step from Donald Trump.
Stone said later, after the election of Trump, that his pre-election tweet did not refer to Wikileaks publication of John Podesta’s emails.
He was referring to not one, but two Podestas: John and his brother, Tony, and their relationship with Russia and uranium – now in the possession of Russia.
If we examine Stone’s tweet itself, it’s hard to form a definite conclusion. The reason is that the tweet itself is not grammatically correct.
The 12 word tweet: “Trust me, it will soon the Podesta’s time in the barrel. #crooked Hillary” offers – as written – the possibility of two interpretations – of a single or dual Podesta theory.
The debate – such as it is – might center largely on the word ‘the’, or the placement of an apostrophe.
If I were advocating for the dual Podesta theory, I would argue that people normally do not refer to a single individual preceded by the word ‘the’.
There are exceptions. “The” precedes titles, such as the president.
Sometimes a celebrated person may be referred to colloquially this way. For example, “The” Donald.
However, I doubt – and it is merely conjecture – that people – even Roger Stone – refer to John Podesta as ‘the Podesta.’
While Stone wrote “it will soon the Podesta’s time in the barrel”, had he placed an apostrophe after the ‘s’ instead of before it, it would be clearer.
Had Stone written, “it will soon the Podestas’ time in the barrel,” at least from a grammatical standpoint, it would mean more than one Podesta.
If I were arguing for two instead of only one Podesta, I would advocate that some people make mistakes in placement of apostrophes, but very few refer to a single person, for example, John Podesta, as ‘The Podesta.’
On the other hand, many would refer to Anthony and John Podesta as the Podestas.
The loyal media points to the fact that John Podesta’s leaked or hacked emails were published by Wikileaks on October 7, 2016, much to the embarrassment and possible harm to the campaign of Hillary Clinton, who, they make no secret of, would have been a far superior president.
But to tie treason to Trump via tweet ala Stone, it’s necessary to prove or assume [whichever is easier for a noble cause] that Stone meant Podesta in the singular, and email leaks in specific – that were then ergo collusion with Russian-sponsored Wikileaks.
Unfortunately for the honorable and highly principled media, there is to date no proof they have provided the public that Wikileaks is Russian, or that Stone collaborated with Wikileaks, be they Russian or otherwise, or, sadly, that Stone was referring to the Wikileaks leak of [the] John Podesta’s emails and not his brother, and his relationship to uranium being placed in the possession of Russia – a metal that may be later used for nuclear bombs that could make the entire debate irrelevant.
At least as far as the Stone tweet is concerned, there is nothing in the form of proof one way or the other, but, for the noble cause of ousting Donald Trump, that may not truly matter.