Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No. I won’t be wrong because I’m only talking about the present court filing and not trying to predict the future.I asked a question. Answer it please. No need for insults. Be civil.
So you consider this lawful? Yes or no?There was no hacking. Your own quote said he had access to it.
God you’re a moron.
It looks like we are already past the statute of limitations.Well, there are no charges as of yet, but I wouldn't be hanging my hat on that if I were you...At some point there will be...
Now, just think of it, if it were revealed that currently the Trump campaign were spying on Biden as we speak...You people would be losing your minds...
We were talking about Hillary's spying in 2016. Now the report is out and we were right.
I see no laws broken based on this information.
Ahhhh....OK so we aren't on the same page. Fair enough. They did exploit. Not goodNo. I won’t be wrong because I’m only talking about the present court filing and not trying to predict the future.
Your question is disingenuous because it falsely portrays what I’m talking about.
You need to try to follow the story better. Then you’d be less confused.Ahhhh....OK so we aren't on the same page. Fair enough. They did exploit. Not good
What does this mean to you please? "Exploited this arrangement"I see no laws broken based on this information.
There definitely was no claim that anyone was hacked.
If you disagree, tell me what law was broken.
I’d love to hear your argument as to how this represents sedition or coup or whatever you want to call it.It's defined as a coup d' etat.
So in your whacked out mind if you can run out the statute of limitations on your crimes there is no crime.It looks like we are already past the statute of limitations.
There was no spying.
You need to stop with your insults its petty. Makes you sound defensive.You need to try to follow the story better. Then you’d be less confused.
What specifically is inaccurate about the statement below please?
Durham said in the court filing that lawyers for the Clinton campaign paid a tech company to “infiltrate” servers belonging to Trump Tower and the Trump White House in an effort to establish a “narrative” linking President Donald Trump to Russia.
“In connection with these efforts, Tech Executive-1 exploited his access to non-public and/or proprietary Internet data,” the filing states. “Tech Executive-1 also enlisted the assistance of researchers at a U.S.-based university who were receiving and analyzing large amounts of Internet data in connection with a pending federal government cybersecurity research contract.”
It looks like we are already past the statute of limitations.
There was no spying.
You deserve them.You need to stop with your insults its petty. Makes you sound defensive.
You need to stop with your insults its petty.
~~~~~~It looks like we are already past the statute of limitations.
There was no spying.
Well for one, you're lying when you falsely claim Durham said Clinton tried to "infiltrate" servers when Durham never said that.
No spying? What alternate universe are you living in?
But hey, we see your standards....Potential law breaking is just fine as long as you can out run the statute of limitations....Right?
You'd never accept that if the roles were reversed here...
