No Americans were indicted as part of the charges Special Counsel Robert Mueller brought Friday against 12 Russian military officers in the hacking of the 2016 presidential election. However, as my colleague Maya Kosoff notes, the indictment is full of references to unnamed U.S. persons who had interactions with the Russians—including a congressional candidate and “senior members” of the Trump campaign. The indictment also refers to an unnamed “U.S. person” who was in contact with Guccifer 2.0, a front for Russian intelligence posing as a hacker—leading to widespread speculation that this person was, in fact, longtime Trump ally Roger Stone. Stone, after all, has a documented history of interaction with Guccifer 2.0, though he has long maintained that there was nothing nefarious about their conversation.

On Friday, amid the hubbub over this “U.S. person,” Stone vociferously denied being the contact mentioned in the indictment—but later that day said it might actually be him. “As I testified before the House Intelligence Committee under oath, my 24-word exchange with someone on Twitter claiming to be Guccifer 2.0 is benign based on its content, context, and timing,” Stone told ABC News late on Friday. “This exchange is entirely public and provides no evidence of collaboration or collusion with Guccifer 2.0 or anyone else in the alleged hacking of the D.N.C. e-mails, as well as taking place many weeks after the events described in today’s indictment.”

In a statement to the Guardian, Stone conceded he is “probably the person mentioned on the indictment.” Indictments, he added, “are charges and until there is a trial all claims remain unproven.”

According to Mueller’s indictment, Guccifer and the unnamed American had a brief e-mail exchange in which Russian officials posing as the hacker asked him to verify information about the Democratic campaign plan. “Thank u for writing back . . . do u find anyt[h]ing in the docs i posted?’” Gufficer 2.0 asked. “Please tell me if i can help u anyhow . . . it would be a great pleasure to me. What do u think about the info on the turnout model for the democrats entire presidential campaign.’ The unnamed American responded that the model seemed ‘pretty standard.’”