Intel operation against Trump still going strong

[candycorn]

Hacking a computer is…and Stone was in concert with the hackers. The trial will uncover that (as his tweets have pretty much). Now the question becomes, “why was stone doing it”. I’m sure he won’t flip on Cohen…err I mean Trump. LOL

There are no claims that Stone was in cahoots with hackers, and he hasn't been charged with any crimes related to hacking.

You are beyond dumb.

Sure...

Lol

then show the charges and link us up.

all you gotta do.

From the NYT:

"In a detailed indictment unsealed last week, the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, accused Mr. Stone of lying to investigators for the House Intelligence Committee, which is conducting its own inquiry into the Russian election interference campaign, and of pressuring another witness in that investigation to lie to the committee.”

Let me guess…you’re now going to make the argument that “russian election interference” was not about hacking, right?

so... you can speculate it is and all is right in the world.

someone speculates otherwise they are fools worthy of your scorn.

i like you. you make me laf.

Well, okay…lets hear your speculation. The NYT article lists the indictments for lying to House investigators. They are investigating Russian election interference.

Your move.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Intel operation against Trump still going strong

But I think there’s one shocking aspect — perhaps a larger story — that’s gone virtually unreported. It appears that anonymous intelligence officials are executing an operation against the sitting commander-in-chief. It might not qualify as all-out mutiny, but it’s also not all that far from one.
----------
making up shit and then attacking anyone who doesn't believe your lie seems to be the mantra of the left right now.

By the way, that article is hilarious. What a desperate , specious, steaming pile of crap it is.

 

[Coyote]

Shouldnt the same apply to all the criminali claims aganst Clinton?

at this point, probably. like many, i think she's guilty but sooner or later you've got to let go and move on.

Do you think Trump is guilty?

of what?

i think he intentionally pisses a lot of people off.
guilty.

i think if someone said "hey want some dirt on someone you hate" he'd bite.
guilty.

where it gets confusing is why hillary can buy or hire a foreign agent to get dirt on trump but he can't do the same. where it gets worse is seeing the left try to justify hillary getting dirt from a foreign agent and say trump should be impeached for it. i do not micro-analyze things to the point where i'm looking for a reason to be innocent in as much as establish fair play in rules we'll all use.

It isn't really that confusing. Clinton hired a firm (same firm Republican primary rivals used) to conduct "opposition research". That firm, GPS Fusion, is neither a foreign agent nor a foriegn government actor. That is pefectly legal.

1. Is that what Trump is alledged to have done?

If we are going to insist on being "fair" then we also need to be fair and make sure we compare apples with apples.

so before we proceed, please tell me exactly what crime you're asking in which i think he is guilty of and if you can, please link me to where it's listed as a crime so we have a comparison and yes, i will compare to others who have done similar things for equal punishment and/or rage.

I want to be clear here. I am not accusing Trump of any crimes. Yet. I am perfectly satisfied to wait for the results of any investigations before declaring a crime. That is not the case with right snd it's treatment of Clinton. Where even after an investigation cleared her they still clamor to lock her up and manufacture new conspiracy theories.

That said there are significant areas of concern where Trump might be breaking the law: emoliaments, substantial conflicts of interest, interactions with a foreign government during the election. At the very least they merit a look.

where is hillarys guilt?
FBI Interview Catches Hillary Clinton In Multiple Lies

Clinton told the FBI that she didn’t pay attention to the different levels of classification, and that she didn’t understand that an email containing a “(C)” meant “confidential,” but that she thought they were marked “alphabetical order.”

really? where in the hell does a SoS have no idea what (C) means on government documentation? now if you say "well maybe she didn't know" great. then that same latitude must be given to trump.

more:
From the very beginning of her tenure as secretary of State, Clinton signed a non-disclosure agreement acknowledging that it was her responsibility to ascertain whether documents contained sensitive information. She also acknowledged the criminal penalties she would face if she disclosed government secrets.
-----
if it is her responsibility ascertain sensitive info, then you'd think she'd study up a bit on how we mark them as such. i fail to believe she went through training and how many years of government service and still doesn't understand (C).

Evidence Hillary Clinton Broke Federal Laws And Jeopardized National Security, No Charges Recommended... WTF, FBI?! | HuffPost
an entire HuffPost story saying the FBI says yes she broke laws but didn't mean to. the problem with using this as a "defense" simply means that "defense" goes into public use now and it has. many times.

What about it? Unlike with Trump, Clinton has been the subject of multiple (Republican led) investigations up one end and down the other, drawn out for years. She has been and still is regularly dusted off and villified by thr right whenever they need a distraction to focus away from Trump.

Investigations have largely cleared her of criminal (willful) wrong doing. Clinton and Trump share one thing in common, neither are particularly tech saavy, and rely heavily on others for assistance in that regard, so I find the defense somewhat believable. There has never been a good reason given to assume she deliberately tried to break them. The investigation by the FBI was during Republican control of Congress and highly partisanly charged. If there were charges meriting indictments, they would have been brought. Comey took the highly unusual and unprecedented step of publically shaming her, treated completely differently than any other subject. For comparison, they were tight lipped on their Investigation of of Trump's Foundation during the same period. There too... some laws were broken. https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...f8e0dd91dc7_story.html?utm_term=.de194c52970f

So why is Clinton treated differently then Trump?

now if we want to go after stone and others for lying to the FBI, then we must go after EVERYONE who did it. if you are FOR cherry picking one side and not the other, then to me, you are the problem these days and yes, i will argue with everything i have against that and it has NOTHING to do with trump and EVERYTHING to do with NOT becoming a society of "do as i say, not as i do" that the left embodies anymore.

If you want to, sure. Bill Clinton was impeached for lying about a blowjob after all.

we've become a society where guilt or innocence is more whether or not WE like you, not if they broke any actual laws. liberals have been demanding jobs from conservatives for a decade now because they don't "tow the line" and that mindset needs to come to a crashing halt.

Really? Maybe your memory of mindsets is kinda one sided. As I pointed out, Conservatives impeached Clinton for lying about a blow job in an investigation that went far beyond it's mandate. Conservatives have also been responsible for expensive long lasting investigations that have resulted in few if any charges (Benghazi?) - ultimately clearing the target. Conservatives have demanded jobs and forced nominees to be withdrawn. So, I wouldn't pretend it is one sided like that.

so again - what laws did trump break and did he have intent to break said law? also, are you willing to apply these laws evenly, or just against trump and we need to stop doing "whataboutisms" cause i'll tell you know, when it comes to applying laws evenly, i'm all about the "whataboutisms".

Are you willing to apply those same standards and energy in defense of Clinton? And yes, intent matters. What is disturbing about Trump is the many layers to his lies and constantly changing stories every time new information comes out. That implies the possibility of intent to decieve. How serious remains to be seen. That is what investigations are for. And Hillary was thoroughly investigated. Trump not so much.

first - if you're not accusing trump of any crimes, why are you asking me if i think he's guilty or innocent?

of what?

second - when you come back to "trump and his many layers to his lies" - you're locked and loaded and i'm speaking to a wall. you're wanting honesty and unbiased answers out of me while you are not doing the same. you've judged trump already and to a point, simply waiting for validation now.

and the whole "she didn't mean to" - even if this is a valid defense (and i don't believe it to be) then again, did trump mean to break laws or simply do it while caught up in the emotions of the election? you can't use a defense then say only YOU can use it. it becomes public property more or less and anyone can then use the same excuse. so far i don't see the left giving the leeway they sure took with this "defense".

now, when i speak of generalities of how we are today and you run back to clinton OF WHICH i was never referring to - what do you want from me? when i speak of liberals demanding jobs i speak of the general population demanding a principal gets fired cause they didn't think the police acted improperly. this happened in miami and simply because this man didn't feel like the left did, the left went after and got his job.

as for clinton, i've said and i'll repeat - i think she's guilty and should pay for that; but there comes a time you need to move on and live with things you don't necessarily agree with or believe in. i think any ongoing WE GOT YOU NOW is pointless and needs to stop.

the hate simply needs to stop. i don't care where it's coming from. if you have an issue with that, nothing i can do.

Haven’t you judged Clinton...doing exactly what you are accusing me of doing? Your answers are hardly unbiased, and your criticism is entirely focused on the left.

Like you I have my opinions. There are things about Trump that are highly concerning. But I am not going to say with certainty he is guilty of any crimes until the investigation is complete.

 

[iceberg]

at this point, probably. like many, i think she's guilty but sooner or later you've got to let go and move on.

Do you think Trump is guilty?

of what?

i think he intentionally pisses a lot of people off.
guilty.

i think if someone said "hey want some dirt on someone you hate" he'd bite.
guilty.

where it gets confusing is why hillary can buy or hire a foreign agent to get dirt on trump but he can't do the same. where it gets worse is seeing the left try to justify hillary getting dirt from a foreign agent and say trump should be impeached for it. i do not micro-analyze things to the point where i'm looking for a reason to be innocent in as much as establish fair play in rules we'll all use.

It isn't really that confusing. Clinton hired a firm (same firm Republican primary rivals used) to conduct "opposition research". That firm, GPS Fusion, is neither a foreign agent nor a foriegn government actor. That is pefectly legal.

1. Is that what Trump is alledged to have done?

If we are going to insist on being "fair" then we also need to be fair and make sure we compare apples with apples.

so before we proceed, please tell me exactly what crime you're asking in which i think he is guilty of and if you can, please link me to where it's listed as a crime so we have a comparison and yes, i will compare to others who have done similar things for equal punishment and/or rage.

I want to be clear here. I am not accusing Trump of any crimes. Yet. I am perfectly satisfied to wait for the results of any investigations before declaring a crime. That is not the case with right snd it's treatment of Clinton. Where even after an investigation cleared her they still clamor to lock her up and manufacture new conspiracy theories.

That said there are significant areas of concern where Trump might be breaking the law: emoliaments, substantial conflicts of interest, interactions with a foreign government during the election. At the very least they merit a look.

where is hillarys guilt?
FBI Interview Catches Hillary Clinton In Multiple Lies

Clinton told the FBI that she didn’t pay attention to the different levels of classification, and that she didn’t understand that an email containing a “(C)” meant “confidential,” but that she thought they were marked “alphabetical order.”

really? where in the hell does a SoS have no idea what (C) means on government documentation? now if you say "well maybe she didn't know" great. then that same latitude must be given to trump.

more:
From the very beginning of her tenure as secretary of State, Clinton signed a non-disclosure agreement acknowledging that it was her responsibility to ascertain whether documents contained sensitive information. She also acknowledged the criminal penalties she would face if she disclosed government secrets.
-----
if it is her responsibility ascertain sensitive info, then you'd think she'd study up a bit on how we mark them as such. i fail to believe she went through training and how many years of government service and still doesn't understand (C).

Evidence Hillary Clinton Broke Federal Laws And Jeopardized National Security, No Charges Recommended... WTF, FBI?! | HuffPost
an entire HuffPost story saying the FBI says yes she broke laws but didn't mean to. the problem with using this as a "defense" simply means that "defense" goes into public use now and it has. many times.

What about it? Unlike with Trump, Clinton has been the subject of multiple (Republican led) investigations up one end and down the other, drawn out for years. She has been and still is regularly dusted off and villified by thr right whenever they need a distraction to focus away from Trump.

Investigations have largely cleared her of criminal (willful) wrong doing. Clinton and Trump share one thing in common, neither are particularly tech saavy, and rely heavily on others for assistance in that regard, so I find the defense somewhat believable. There has never been a good reason given to assume she deliberately tried to break them. The investigation by the FBI was during Republican control of Congress and highly partisanly charged. If there were charges meriting indictments, they would have been brought. Comey took the highly unusual and unprecedented step of publically shaming her, treated completely differently than any other subject. For comparison, they were tight lipped on their Investigation of of Trump's Foundation during the same period. There too... some laws were broken. https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...f8e0dd91dc7_story.html?utm_term=.de194c52970f

So why is Clinton treated differently then Trump?

now if we want to go after stone and others for lying to the FBI, then we must go after EVERYONE who did it. if you are FOR cherry picking one side and not the other, then to me, you are the problem these days and yes, i will argue with everything i have against that and it has NOTHING to do with trump and EVERYTHING to do with NOT becoming a society of "do as i say, not as i do" that the left embodies anymore.

If you want to, sure. Bill Clinton was impeached for lying about a blowjob after all.

we've become a society where guilt or innocence is more whether or not WE like you, not if they broke any actual laws. liberals have been demanding jobs from conservatives for a decade now because they don't "tow the line" and that mindset needs to come to a crashing halt.

Really? Maybe your memory of mindsets is kinda one sided. As I pointed out, Conservatives impeached Clinton for lying about a blow job in an investigation that went far beyond it's mandate. Conservatives have also been responsible for expensive long lasting investigations that have resulted in few if any charges (Benghazi?) - ultimately clearing the target. Conservatives have demanded jobs and forced nominees to be withdrawn. So, I wouldn't pretend it is one sided like that.

so again - what laws did trump break and did he have intent to break said law? also, are you willing to apply these laws evenly, or just against trump and we need to stop doing "whataboutisms" cause i'll tell you know, when it comes to applying laws evenly, i'm all about the "whataboutisms".

Are you willing to apply those same standards and energy in defense of Clinton? And yes, intent matters. What is disturbing about Trump is the many layers to his lies and constantly changing stories every time new information comes out. That implies the possibility of intent to decieve. How serious remains to be seen. That is what investigations are for. And Hillary was thoroughly investigated. Trump not so much.

first - if you're not accusing trump of any crimes, why are you asking me if i think he's guilty or innocent?

of what?

second - when you come back to "trump and his many layers to his lies" - you're locked and loaded and i'm speaking to a wall. you're wanting honesty and unbiased answers out of me while you are not doing the same. you've judged trump already and to a point, simply waiting for validation now.

and the whole "she didn't mean to" - even if this is a valid defense (and i don't believe it to be) then again, did trump mean to break laws or simply do it while caught up in the emotions of the election? you can't use a defense then say only YOU can use it. it becomes public property more or less and anyone can then use the same excuse. so far i don't see the left giving the leeway they sure took with this "defense".

now, when i speak of generalities of how we are today and you run back to clinton OF WHICH i was never referring to - what do you want from me? when i speak of liberals demanding jobs i speak of the general population demanding a principal gets fired cause they didn't think the police acted improperly. this happened in miami and simply because this man didn't feel like the left did, the left went after and got his job.

as for clinton, i've said and i'll repeat - i think she's guilty and should pay for that; but there comes a time you need to move on and live with things you don't necessarily agree with or believe in. i think any ongoing WE GOT YOU NOW is pointless and needs to stop.

the hate simply needs to stop. i don't care where it's coming from. if you have an issue with that, nothing i can do.

Haven’t you judged Clinton...doing exactly what you are accusing me of doing? Your answers are hardly unbiased, and your criticism is entirely focused on the left.

Like you I have my opinions. There are things about Trump that are highly concerning. But I am not going to say with certainty he is guilty of any crimes until the investigation is complete.

then you don't pay a whole lot of attention as i'm not, like any of us, totally defined by left or right. to continue to do that, to me, is bullshit and why we keep talking in circles.

yes, i think she's guilty. that is my opinion. HOWEVER, you don't see me call for her to go down on a daily basis. i think it's past time to let this shit go and stop this revenge politics. PERIOD. you keep wanting to make what i say to be more than it really is so you can feel better, i would guess, about the constant insults you fling at trump. and since i don't join in that insult parade, you, like many on the left, assume my positions and then start to argue with your assumptions.

10 years ago i was much like you and others when it came to hillary. but seeing things flip in real time and people doing nothing more than changing sides in an argument but yet using the very same tactics they called bullshit on previously got me to thinking maybe my own mindset was caught in that biased rut. i may never get out of it. you and many others certainly are not going to drop your bias and hate against trump so easily now are you? so since i saw that and it hit home for me, i try to NOT do it. while i may call her out as an example of "if you're going to punish this action, why are you not mad at this person. NOT BECAUSE i'm trying to defend one or the other, but because again - i want people to be held to the same standards. right and wrong should not be based on hate. so when i do a "whatbout" its not to defend but to find the playing field the person happens to be on and if they're even attempting to use logic and fair standards, or just hate.

now, i've said countless times the R's fucked it up when they had a chance to put their money where their mouth is around healthcare. i am NOT a fan of "single payer" simply because it shifts the cost to others, not reduces it or works to reduce the cost and/or expand the reach. we're so focused on PAY PAY PAY we don't see COST COST COST and our over-regulations and rules are a large part of that. our culture is another driver. we don't have a healthcare problem in the US, we have an insurance one.

i think the wall is stupid and i hope trump compromises and uses technology vs. concrete.

and i'm sure there's more but the focus from far too many is ORANGE MAN BAD so unfortunately as a forum that's where we get stuck a lot. i'll start other conversations and they die quickly because they're not rooted in insulting each other. that's the nature of this forum now isn't it? thats fine and i'll take the good with the bad and just slide idiots on both sides to ignore.

yes, BOTH SIDES have their share of people i ignore cause they're stuck on bullet points or hate.

you started this trail of fun by asking me if i thought trump was guilty and when i simply asked "of what" - well that never really got answered now did it? no law stipulated, no actions called forth in a specific "this action broke this law" that we do in fact have for hillary you seem to want to ignore.

i want whatever rule of law we have to apply to all. if and when you can name a specific crime trump committed and he is then found guilty of, i'll be glad to join you in line to say he needs to pay the penalty any of us would for said action.

i think clinton is in fact guilty of many crimes. deleting mail, hiring companies to destroy her hard drive and so forth are actions i'd bet most all i have you'd cry foul over if trump did it. he's not done anything close to that which has been proven, shown or charged with now has he? this entire investigation is a fishing expedition to see what they can find and go after. nothing more. but again, if they find something he did that is illegal, then yes trump must pay according to our laws on record, not judged by the social warrior hate.

 

[Dragonlady]

And let's not forget that Russian hackers tried to hack Hillary's email server the day Trump told them to do so.

No they didn't. They hacked the DNC SERVER on the very day Trump told them to find Hillary's emails.

I don't even that is accurate, but assuming it's true. The DNC server didn't contain the emails Trump said he wanted to see.

In any instance the claims just don't make sense.

The pretzels you'll twist yourself into so that can deny there's absolutely no connection between Trump calling on Russian to "find Hillary's emails", and the GRU hacking the DNC server the SAME DAY. Just an amazing coincidence, I guess.

Then there's Roger Stone, who talked about the details of John Podesta's emails four hours BEFORE Wikileaks released them, but Roger didn't coordinate with WikiLeaks.

 

[iceberg]

And let's not forget that Russian hackers tried to hack Hillary's email server the day Trump told them to do so.

No they didn't. They hacked the DNC SERVER on the very day Trump told them to find Hillary's emails.

I don't even that is accurate, but assuming it's true. The DNC server didn't contain the emails Trump said he wanted to see.

In any instance the claims just don't make sense.

The pretzels you'll twist yourself into so that can deny there's absolutely no connection between Trump calling on Russian to "find Hillary's emails", and the GRU hacking the DNC server the SAME DAY. Just an amazing coincidence, I guess.

Then there's Roger Stone, who talked about the details of John Podesta's emails four hours BEFORE Wikileaks released them, but Roger didn't coordinate with WikiLeaks.

so you are saying then that hillary deleted 33k mails but stored them on the DNC server.

otherwise there is no connection between the 2.

 

[Dragonlady]

And let's not forget that Russian hackers tried to hack Hillary's email server the day Trump told them to do so.

No they didn't. They hacked the DNC SERVER on the very day Trump told them to find Hillary's emails.

I don't even that is accurate, but assuming it's true. The DNC server didn't contain the emails Trump said he wanted to see.

In any instance the claims just don't make sense.

The pretzels you'll twist yourself into so that can deny there's absolutely no connection between Trump calling on Russian to "find Hillary's emails", and the GRU hacking the DNC server the SAME DAY. Just an amazing coincidence, I guess.

Then there's Roger Stone, who talked about the details of John Podesta's emails four hours BEFORE Wikileaks released them, but Roger didn't coordinate with WikiLeaks.

so you are saying then that hillary deleted 33k mails but stored them on the DNC server.

otherwise there is no connection between the 2.

And you wonder why I lose patience with you, and brain dead responses. You added one plus one, and as always, come up with 3, always.

The Russians hacked the DNC because they could, not because they expected to find Hillary's emails. Trump gave them the go-ahead to hack Hillary Clinton's campaign and they did. You want to dismiss the whole connection because they didn't find Hillary's emails, but found something far more damaging - Democratic strategy in the face of an attempt by an independent to hijack the party's campaign coffers.

It's also telling that the Russians also hacked the RNC, but never released any emails talking about what the "never Trump" faction tried to do to stop him. Since they were seriously discussing a brokered convention, I'm willing to bet those emails were just as entertaining if not more so, than the DNC's stop Bernie machinations.

 

[iceberg]

And let's not forget that Russian hackers tried to hack Hillary's email server the day Trump told them to do so.

No they didn't. They hacked the DNC SERVER on the very day Trump told them to find Hillary's emails.

I don't even that is accurate, but assuming it's true. The DNC server didn't contain the emails Trump said he wanted to see.

In any instance the claims just don't make sense.

The pretzels you'll twist yourself into so that can deny there's absolutely no connection between Trump calling on Russian to "find Hillary's emails", and the GRU hacking the DNC server the SAME DAY. Just an amazing coincidence, I guess.

Then there's Roger Stone, who talked about the details of John Podesta's emails four hours BEFORE Wikileaks released them, but Roger didn't coordinate with WikiLeaks.

so you are saying then that hillary deleted 33k mails but stored them on the DNC server.

otherwise there is no connection between the 2.

And you wonder why I lose patience with you, and brain dead responses. You added one plus one, and as always, come up with 3, always.

The Russians hacked the DNC because they could, not because they expected to find Hillary's emails. Trump gave them the go-ahead to hack Hillary Clinton's campaign and they did. You want to dismiss the whole connection because they didn't find Hillary's emails, but found something far more damaging - Democratic strategy in the face of an attempt by an independent to hijack the party's campaign coffers.

It's also telling that the Russians also hacked the RNC, but never released any emails talking about what the "never Trump" faction tried to do to stop him. Since they were seriously discussing a brokered convention, I'm willing to bet those emails were just as entertaining if not more so, than the DNC's stop Bernie machinations.

Trump said:
FIND HER E-MAILS - that's all he said. he didn't say 'hack the bitch' and he didn't say "open season go after everything" - you even say all trump said was FIND HER E-MAILS.

now you run off to "oh that very day they hacked the DNC!!!"

go ahead - put those 2 together. "find her e-mails" and "hack the DNC".

and you wonder why people realize you're the stupid bitch you are.

 

[Dragonlady]

No they didn't. They hacked the DNC SERVER on the very day Trump told them to find Hillary's emails.

I don't even that is accurate, but assuming it's true. The DNC server didn't contain the emails Trump said he wanted to see.

In any instance the claims just don't make sense.

The pretzels you'll twist yourself into so that can deny there's absolutely no connection between Trump calling on Russian to "find Hillary's emails", and the GRU hacking the DNC server the SAME DAY. Just an amazing coincidence, I guess.

Then there's Roger Stone, who talked about the details of John Podesta's emails four hours BEFORE Wikileaks released them, but Roger didn't coordinate with WikiLeaks.

so you are saying then that hillary deleted 33k mails but stored them on the DNC server.

otherwise there is no connection between the 2.

And you wonder why I lose patience with you, and brain dead responses. You added one plus one, and as always, come up with 3, always.

The Russians hacked the DNC because they could, not because they expected to find Hillary's emails. Trump gave them the go-ahead to hack Hillary Clinton's campaign and they did. You want to dismiss the whole connection because they didn't find Hillary's emails, but found something far more damaging - Democratic strategy in the face of an attempt by an independent to hijack the party's campaign coffers.

It's also telling that the Russians also hacked the RNC, but never released any emails talking about what the "never Trump" faction tried to do to stop him. Since they were seriously discussing a brokered convention, I'm willing to bet those emails were just as entertaining if not more so, than the DNC's stop Bernie machinations.

Trump said:
FIND HER E-MAILS - that's all he said. he didn't say 'hack the bitch' and he didn't say "open season go after everything" - you even say all trump said was FIND HER E-MAILS.

now you run off to "oh that very day they hacked the DNC!!!"

go ahead - put those 2 together. "find her e-mails" and "hack the DNC".

and you wonder why people realize you're the stupid bitch you are.

There it is. The abuse and lies from you that I'm accustomed to.

And the absolutely denial of the evidence that is RIGHT IN PLAIN VIEW. There is none so blind as those who will not see, and that describe's Trump supporters to a T.

 

[iceberg]

I don't even that is accurate, but assuming it's true. The DNC server didn't contain the emails Trump said he wanted to see.

In any instance the claims just don't make sense.

The pretzels you'll twist yourself into so that can deny there's absolutely no connection between Trump calling on Russian to "find Hillary's emails", and the GRU hacking the DNC server the SAME DAY. Just an amazing coincidence, I guess.

Then there's Roger Stone, who talked about the details of John Podesta's emails four hours BEFORE Wikileaks released them, but Roger didn't coordinate with WikiLeaks.

so you are saying then that hillary deleted 33k mails but stored them on the DNC server.

otherwise there is no connection between the 2.

And you wonder why I lose patience with you, and brain dead responses. You added one plus one, and as always, come up with 3, always.

The Russians hacked the DNC because they could, not because they expected to find Hillary's emails. Trump gave them the go-ahead to hack Hillary Clinton's campaign and they did. You want to dismiss the whole connection because they didn't find Hillary's emails, but found something far more damaging - Democratic strategy in the face of an attempt by an independent to hijack the party's campaign coffers.

It's also telling that the Russians also hacked the RNC, but never released any emails talking about what the "never Trump" faction tried to do to stop him. Since they were seriously discussing a brokered convention, I'm willing to bet those emails were just as entertaining if not more so, than the DNC's stop Bernie machinations.

Trump said:
FIND HER E-MAILS - that's all he said. he didn't say 'hack the bitch' and he didn't say "open season go after everything" - you even say all trump said was FIND HER E-MAILS.

now you run off to "oh that very day they hacked the DNC!!!"

go ahead - put those 2 together. "find her e-mails" and "hack the DNC".

and you wonder why people realize you're the stupid bitch you are.

There it is. The abuse and lies from you that I'm accustomed to.

And the absolutely denial of the evidence that is RIGHT IN PLAIN VIEW. There is none so blind as those who will not see, and that describe's Trump supporters to a T.

you can't be accustomed to abuse from me cause i ignore 99% of your posts. but every once in awhile a nugget of your stupid shines through and i comment. but as usual, you make it a lot more than it is cause that's just who you are.

YOU SAID trump told them to go find her e-mails. you're right. he sure did.
YOU ARE THE ONE who is now saying the hacking of the DNC server was the result.

there simply is no connection from a technical level because the e-mails were not on the DNC server. or are you saying they were and the russians knew that?

when your own words do you in, you get frustrated and start blaming others. keep at it, you're going back to ignore. i'm tired of the stupid i'm accustomed to from you. you wanna call me brain dead and other crap but you can't take it, can you?

btw - if you're referring to them trying to hack hillary's server that day - the mails were long since song and "wiped clean, as in with a cloth" so what would be the point? her own server was taken off line in 2014 or early 2015 i believe.

what exactly did the russians hack now? not the DNC that day, it was already hacked. not her e-mail server, it was already swimming with the fishes.

 

[iceberg]

And let's not forget that Russian hackers tried to hack Hillary's email server the day Trump told them to do so.

No they didn't. They hacked the DNC SERVER on the very day Trump told them to find Hillary's emails.

I don't even that is accurate, but assuming it's true. The DNC server didn't contain the emails Trump said he wanted to see.

In any instance the claims just don't make sense.

The pretzels you'll twist yourself into so that can deny there's absolutely no connection between Trump calling on Russian to "find Hillary's emails", and the GRU hacking the DNC server the SAME DAY. Just an amazing coincidence, I guess.

Then there's Roger Stone, who talked about the details of John Podesta's emails four hours BEFORE Wikileaks released them, but Roger didn't coordinate with WikiLeaks.

so is it the DNC, Hillarys e-mail server (of which was taken offline in 2014 so they couldn't hack it) or just a random campaign server that was hacked that fateful day?

and the DNC - podesta fell for a phishing scam on march 19, 2016 which gave hackers access to the DNC.

you're screaming about FOUL but nothing is adding up. when you get called on this you just get mad and scream more.

 

[DandyDonovan]

And let's not forget that Russian hackers tried to hack Hillary's email server the day Trump told them to do so.

No they didn't. They hacked the DNC SERVER on the very day Trump told them to find Hillary's emails.

I don't even that is accurate, but assuming it's true. The DNC server didn't contain the emails Trump said he wanted to see.

In any instance the claims just don't make sense.

The pretzels you'll twist yourself into so that can deny there's absolutely no connection between Trump calling on Russian to "find Hillary's emails", and the GRU hacking the DNC server the SAME DAY. Just an amazing coincidence, I guess.

Then there's Roger Stone, who talked about the details of John Podesta's emails four hours BEFORE Wikileaks released them, but Roger didn't coordinate with WikiLeaks.

Read carefully stupid. This simply isn't that hard to keep up with.

1. I didnt say the Russians didnt try to hack something that day, as far as that goes all I've ever said was there is no proof except that you want to believe allegations alone at this point.

2. The emails in question of whether the Russians tried to hack them that day were NOT on the DNC server. Let me repeat, they are not alleged to have tried to hack the DNC server that day. They were alleged to have tried to hack two email accounts related to Clinton's campaign, a separate entity from the DNC, well at least nominally.

3. The 33K missing emails that Trump asked the Russians to find were on Hillary's private bathroom server, not the DNC server when they got lost, so if the Russians were trying to get those emails for Trump, why hack the DNC server?

4. The 33K missing emails were already known to be missing from a server that the FBI had in custody and had already told the world "those emails are not on the that server" so, even if the server were online, and it wasn't, why would the Russians bother hacking a server to retrieve emails that the entire world already knew were not on that server?

5. If Trump was colluding with Russia, and Russia had those 33K emails, Trump wouldnt have had to have asked them to find them, they would have already given them to Wikileaks, I mean cuz we agree WikiLeaks was getting stuff from Russia who hacked all the servers , right?

So, in conclusion we can plainly see that this entire house of cards come down around you dummies at every turn.

 

[DandyDonovan]

And let's not forget that Russian hackers tried to hack Hillary's email server the day Trump told them to do so.

No they didn't. They hacked the DNC SERVER on the very day Trump told them to find Hillary's emails.

I don't even that is accurate, but assuming it's true. The DNC server didn't contain the emails Trump said he wanted to see.

In any instance the claims just don't make sense.

The pretzels you'll twist yourself into so that can deny there's absolutely no connection between Trump calling on Russian to "find Hillary's emails", and the GRU hacking the DNC server the SAME DAY. Just an amazing coincidence, I guess.

Then there's Roger Stone, who talked about the details of John Podesta's emails four hours BEFORE Wikileaks released them, but Roger didn't coordinate with WikiLeaks.

so is it the DNC, Hillarys e-mail server (of which was taken offline in 2014 so they couldn't hack it) or just a random campaign server that was hacked that fateful day?

and the DNC - podesta fell for a phishing scam on march 19, 2016 which gave hackers access to the DNC.

you're screaming about FOUL but nothing is adding up. when you get called on this you just get mad and scream more.

Democrats are so dishonest that they can't even just admit "yeah okay the email accounts in question that we think the Russians tried to hack that day had nothing to do with those missing emails"

 

[iceberg]

And let's not forget that Russian hackers tried to hack Hillary's email server the day Trump told them to do so.

No they didn't. They hacked the DNC SERVER on the very day Trump told them to find Hillary's emails.

I don't even that is accurate, but assuming it's true. The DNC server didn't contain the emails Trump said he wanted to see.

In any instance the claims just don't make sense.

The pretzels you'll twist yourself into so that can deny there's absolutely no connection between Trump calling on Russian to "find Hillary's emails", and the GRU hacking the DNC server the SAME DAY. Just an amazing coincidence, I guess.

Then there's Roger Stone, who talked about the details of John Podesta's emails four hours BEFORE Wikileaks released them, but Roger didn't coordinate with WikiLeaks.

so is it the DNC, Hillarys e-mail server (of which was taken offline in 2014 so they couldn't hack it) or just a random campaign server that was hacked that fateful day?

and the DNC - podesta fell for a phishing scam on march 19, 2016 which gave hackers access to the DNC.

you're screaming about FOUL but nothing is adding up. when you get called on this you just get mad and scream more.

Democrats are so dishonest that they can't even just admit "yeah okay the email accounts in question that we think the Russians tried to hack that day had nothing to do with those missing emails"

well the DNC was already hacked and hillarys e-mail server was swimming with the fishes for well over a year at that point. WHAT got hacked at "trumps command"?

 

[DandyDonovan]

No they didn't. They hacked the DNC SERVER on the very day Trump told them to find Hillary's emails.

I don't even that is accurate, but assuming it's true. The DNC server didn't contain the emails Trump said he wanted to see.

In any instance the claims just don't make sense.

The pretzels you'll twist yourself into so that can deny there's absolutely no connection between Trump calling on Russian to "find Hillary's emails", and the GRU hacking the DNC server the SAME DAY. Just an amazing coincidence, I guess.

Then there's Roger Stone, who talked about the details of John Podesta's emails four hours BEFORE Wikileaks released them, but Roger didn't coordinate with WikiLeaks.

so is it the DNC, Hillarys e-mail server (of which was taken offline in 2014 so they couldn't hack it) or just a random campaign server that was hacked that fateful day?

and the DNC - podesta fell for a phishing scam on march 19, 2016 which gave hackers access to the DNC.

you're screaming about FOUL but nothing is adding up. when you get called on this you just get mad and scream more.

Democrats are so dishonest that they can't even just admit "yeah okay the email accounts in question that we think the Russians tried to hack that day had nothing to do with those missing emails"

well the DNC was already hacked and hillarys e-mail server was swimming with the fishes for well over a year at that point. WHAT got hacked at "trumps command"?

That is false, false information is bad no matter who uses it. The FBI had Hillary's private email server in custody. It didn't just disappear. That is how they determined that around 33K emails were missing.

 

[kwc57]

Intel operation against Trump still going strong

But I think there’s one shocking aspect — perhaps a larger story — that’s gone virtually unreported. It appears that anonymous intelligence officials are executing an operation against the sitting commander-in-chief. It might not qualify as all-out mutiny, but it’s also not all that far from one.
----------
making up shit and then attacking anyone who doesn't believe your lie seems to be the mantra of the left right now.

Has it ever crossed.your mind that there are good reasons they are still watching him? Like...even once?

Not liking the guy who beat your candidate isn't a good reason. Keep it up and see what happens when a Democrat gets elected.

Neato!

Now answer my question.

Slow on the uptake are you? I can lead you to water, I can't make you drink.

 

[iceberg]

I don't even that is accurate, but assuming it's true. The DNC server didn't contain the emails Trump said he wanted to see.

In any instance the claims just don't make sense.

The pretzels you'll twist yourself into so that can deny there's absolutely no connection between Trump calling on Russian to "find Hillary's emails", and the GRU hacking the DNC server the SAME DAY. Just an amazing coincidence, I guess.

Then there's Roger Stone, who talked about the details of John Podesta's emails four hours BEFORE Wikileaks released them, but Roger didn't coordinate with WikiLeaks.

so is it the DNC, Hillarys e-mail server (of which was taken offline in 2014 so they couldn't hack it) or just a random campaign server that was hacked that fateful day?

and the DNC - podesta fell for a phishing scam on march 19, 2016 which gave hackers access to the DNC.

you're screaming about FOUL but nothing is adding up. when you get called on this you just get mad and scream more.

Democrats are so dishonest that they can't even just admit "yeah okay the email accounts in question that we think the Russians tried to hack that day had nothing to do with those missing emails"

well the DNC was already hacked and hillarys e-mail server was swimming with the fishes for well over a year at that point. WHAT got hacked at "trumps command"?

That is false, false information is bad no matter who uses it. The FBI had Hillary's private email server in custody. It didn't just disappear. That is how they determined that around 33K emails were missing.

by "swimming with the fishes" i simply mean it was out of commission and you'd be hard pressed to hack it at that point.

 

[kwc57]

Keep it up and see what happens when a Democrat gets elected

Sorry dude, Trump's one of a kind.

Yep, just like Obama. Paybacks are hell and the Dems have set a precedent. You reap what you sow dude.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Intel operation against Trump still going strong

But I think there’s one shocking aspect — perhaps a larger story — that’s gone virtually unreported. It appears that anonymous intelligence officials are executing an operation against the sitting commander-in-chief. It might not qualify as all-out mutiny, but it’s also not all that far from one.
----------
making up shit and then attacking anyone who doesn't believe your lie seems to be the mantra of the left right now.

Has it ever crossed.your mind that there are good reasons they are still watching him? Like...even once?

Not liking the guy who beat your candidate isn't a good reason. Keep it up and see what happens when a Democrat gets elected.

Neato!

Now answer my question.

Slow on the uptake are you? I can lead you to water, I can't make you drink.

It appears that you are the slow one. Here, let me help you out:

Your answer is no. not once has it ever crossed your mind that they may have a good reason for collecting Intel on him. Just like a good little cultist.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Paybacks are hell and the Dems have set a precedent.

What precedent is that? You're pulling things out of your ass