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.
Too stupid....Guccifer 2.0 IS the Russian group which conducted the hacking. They released the hacked emails to Wikileaks who then published them on the Internet. Both of those paragraphs are accurate and you're imagining a distinction which doesn't exist.There was no distinction. You're reading two paragraphs where they mention Guccifer 2.0 and drawing an erroneous distinction between the them.Guccifer 2.0 could still be a group in that context.Who says the two are contradictory? They both sound like a group of people.
Because you don't "use" yourself to do something, you just do it. The article said: Guccifer 2.0 was used to publicly release the data from hacks, but that the hacks themselves were conducted by Russia." The author of the article is the one that drew the distinction.
Yet the author felt a need to draw a distinction, go figure.
Maybe you should go back to your ESL class.
Guccifer was used to publicly release the data form the hacks.
Russia conducted the hacks themselves.
One released, one hacked, two different entities at work. It's so simple a 6th grader could understand.
And the right justifies Russia hacking the DNC to accomplish that.Diversion noted.Emails are generally spread across many servers. Hillary, deleting the ones on her own server, does not guarantee they didn't already exist on other servers she did not have access to wipe clean.Where would they find them besides on the disassembled, government held server?
Hillary had classified e-mails on servers she didn't control?
How reckless!!
I'm glad she lost.
Hillary's corruption diverted her from the White House.
Thankfully.
And the right justifies Russia hacking the DNC to accomplish that.Diversion noted.Emails are generally spread across many servers. Hillary, deleting the ones on her own server, does not guarantee they didn't already exist on other servers she did not have access to wipe clean.Where would they find them besides on the disassembled, government held server?
Hillary had classified e-mails on servers she didn't control?
How reckless!!
I'm glad she lost.
Hillary's corruption diverted her from the White House.
Thankfully.
No, I don't think Stone knew in March. Who knows what I said that led you to believe I did.More attribution to me of things I never said. Do you see that? You're so fucked in the head, you can't even argue against wait I'm saying, no less refute it.Then post a link prior to 8.21.16 which talks about Podesta being hacked....The phishing email was the hack. We know Podesta received that long before Roger Stone tweeted to Guccifer, so it just isn't possible that Stone helped Guccifer hack Podesta's account.
Your theory that the hack had to become public knowledge the day it occurred couldn't possibly be more idiotic.
Moron... there's no evidence anyone knew Podesta was hacked in March, so how the fuck could Stone have known. The Clinton aide who saw the phishing email thought it was a legitimate email, though he did warn Podesta to change his password anyway. And I've still yet to see any evidence that the public knew about Podesta being hacked prior to Stone's confession.
there's no evidence anyone knew Podesta was hacked in March, so how the fuck could Stone have known.
You think Stone knew in March? Link?
And I've still yet to see any evidence that the public knew about Podesta being hacked prior to Stone's confession.
When was Stone's confession?I don't see any evidence Stone knew long before 8.21.17
His confession came when he notified Guccifer 2.0 that Podesta was going to "find himself in a barrel" about a week before Podesta found himself in a barrel.
You must be the last idiot on Earth to not see Roger Stone's confession.That's a serious accusation. Have you got any proof?
No? . . . . . . . I didn't think so.
You mean the confession where he had contact with Guccifer 2.0, after hacked DNC info was already released?
Then went on to "predict" that Podesta was next.
So what?
He had the information well before the public did. It certainly shows a clear line of communication.
Why is Stone speaking with either WL or Guccifer 2.0 anyway?
Too funny!You're beyond retarded. First you say Americans voters were shown the truth about Hillary/DNC lies and corruption, but then idiotically pretend like that didn't sway the election.Ask Trump, he was the one personally encouraging Russia to hack Hillary.
OK. just for drill, lets say that the Russians hacked the DNC and turned the info over to wikileaks who put it on the internet for all to see. So, what did that reveal? 1. corruption within the DNC to skew the primaries for Hillary, 2. that the DNC lied to democrats, 3. that the superdelegates control the dem primary and the rest of the delegates don't mean shit, 4. that the media conspired with the Hillary campaign to cheat and give her interview and debate questions ahead of time.
So that hacking provided the American voters with the truth about Hillary, the DNC, and the media. What exactly do you find wrong with the voters knowing the truth?
Next, on the dem/media/lib claim that the Russians changed the outcome of our election. Prove it.
Yes, the American people deserve to see the truth of the Dem corruption but it no way changed the mind of voters.
Truly CONvoluted thinking.
The truth hurt Hillary?
What's the problem then?
That would be influencing the election, dumbass.
And the right justifies Russia hacking the DNC to accomplish that.Diversion noted.Emails are generally spread across many servers. Hillary, deleting the ones on her own server, does not guarantee they didn't already exist on other servers she did not have access to wipe clean.
Hillary had classified e-mails on servers she didn't control?
How reckless!!
I'm glad she lost.
Hillary's corruption diverted her from the White House.
Thankfully.
Isn't it hilarious how they now agree and applaud that Clinton was indeed damaged by these hacks but can't accept or connect the dots to see that Russia influenced our election?
Oh, I fully understand you have no qualms about foreigners hacking our election and swaying the results as long as they sway in your direction. But then, that's just more evidence how the right places their ideology over their country.And the right justifies Russia hacking the DNC to accomplish that.Diversion noted.Emails are generally spread across many servers. Hillary, deleting the ones on her own server, does not guarantee they didn't already exist on other servers she did not have access to wipe clean.
Hillary had classified e-mails on servers she didn't control?
How reckless!!
I'm glad she lost.
Hillary's corruption diverted her from the White House.
Thankfully.
It's awful that hackers exposed her corruption.
Just awful.
I think I'm gonna shed a tear now.
So Russian hackers are now the friends of the right.You must be the last idiot on Earth to not see Roger Stone's confession.
You mean the confession where he had contact with Guccifer 2.0, after hacked DNC info was already released?
Then went on to "predict" that Podesta was next.
So what?
He had the information well before the public did. It certainly shows a clear line of communication.
Why is Stone speaking with either WL or Guccifer 2.0 anyway?
He had the information well before the public did.
That's awful!
It certainly shows a clear line of communication.
So what?
Why is Stone speaking with either WL or Guccifer 2.0 anyway?
Enemy of my enemy?
Is there any espionage you don't condone to further your political agenda?Too funny!You're beyond retarded. First you say Americans voters were shown the truth about Hillary/DNC lies and corruption, but then idiotically pretend like that didn't sway the election.OK. just for drill, lets say that the Russians hacked the DNC and turned the info over to wikileaks who put it on the internet for all to see. So, what did that reveal? 1. corruption within the DNC to skew the primaries for Hillary, 2. that the DNC lied to democrats, 3. that the superdelegates control the dem primary and the rest of the delegates don't mean shit, 4. that the media conspired with the Hillary campaign to cheat and give her interview and debate questions ahead of time.
So that hacking provided the American voters with the truth about Hillary, the DNC, and the media. What exactly do you find wrong with the voters knowing the truth?
Next, on the dem/media/lib claim that the Russians changed the outcome of our election. Prove it.
Yes, the American people deserve to see the truth of the Dem corruption but it no way changed the mind of voters.
Truly CONvoluted thinking.
The truth hurt Hillary?
What's the problem then?
That would be influencing the election, dumbass.
OMG! The truth influenced the election.
Better hide the truth, right? Moron.
Too funny!You're beyond retarded. First you say Americans voters were shown the truth about Hillary/DNC lies and corruption, but then idiotically pretend like that didn't sway the election.OK. just for drill, lets say that the Russians hacked the DNC and turned the info over to wikileaks who put it on the internet for all to see. So, what did that reveal? 1. corruption within the DNC to skew the primaries for Hillary, 2. that the DNC lied to democrats, 3. that the superdelegates control the dem primary and the rest of the delegates don't mean shit, 4. that the media conspired with the Hillary campaign to cheat and give her interview and debate questions ahead of time.
So that hacking provided the American voters with the truth about Hillary, the DNC, and the media. What exactly do you find wrong with the voters knowing the truth?
Next, on the dem/media/lib claim that the Russians changed the outcome of our election. Prove it.
Yes, the American people deserve to see the truth of the Dem corruption but it no way changed the mind of voters.
Truly CONvoluted thinking.
The truth hurt Hillary?
What's the problem then?
That would be influencing the election, dumbass.
OMG! The truth influenced the election.
Better hide the truth, right? Moron.
Too stupid....Guccifer 2.0 IS the Russian group which conducted the hacking. They released the hacked emails to Wikileaks who then published them on the Internet. Both of those paragraphs are accurate and you're imagining a distinction which doesn't exist.There was no distinction. You're reading two paragraphs where they mention Guccifer 2.0 and drawing an erroneous distinction between the them.Guccifer 2.0 could still be a group in that context.Because you don't "use" yourself to do something, you just do it. The article said: Guccifer 2.0 was used to publicly release the data from hacks, but that the hacks themselves were conducted by Russia." The author of the article is the one that drew the distinction.
Yet the author felt a need to draw a distinction, go figure.
Maybe you should go back to your ESL class.
Guccifer was used to publicly release the data form the hacks.
Russia conducted the hacks themselves.
One released, one hacked, two different entities at work. It's so simple a 6th grader could understand.
Oh, I fully understand you have no qualms about foreigners hacking our election and swaying the results as long as they sway in your direction. But then, that's just more evidence how the right places their ideology over their country.And the right justifies Russia hacking the DNC to accomplish that.Diversion noted.Hillary had classified e-mails on servers she didn't control?
How reckless!!
I'm glad she lost.
Hillary's corruption diverted her from the White House.
Thankfully.
It's awful that hackers exposed her corruption.
Just awful.
I think I'm gonna shed a tear now.
Too funny!You're beyond retarded. First you say Americans voters were shown the truth about Hillary/DNC lies and corruption, but then idiotically pretend like that didn't sway the election.
Yes, the American people deserve to see the truth of the Dem corruption but it no way changed the mind of voters.
Truly CONvoluted thinking.
The truth hurt Hillary?
What's the problem then?
That would be influencing the election, dumbass.
OMG! The truth influenced the election.
Better hide the truth, right? Moron.
Russia influenced our election, dumbass.
You dopes were too dumb to even know that you admitted it. Now you're trying to play it off like everyone didn't see it.
Is there any espionage you don't condone to further your political agenda?Too funny!You're beyond retarded. First you say Americans voters were shown the truth about Hillary/DNC lies and corruption, but then idiotically pretend like that didn't sway the election.
Yes, the American people deserve to see the truth of the Dem corruption but it no way changed the mind of voters.
Truly CONvoluted thinking.
The truth hurt Hillary?
What's the problem then?
That would be influencing the election, dumbass.
OMG! The truth influenced the election.
Better hide the truth, right? Moron.
The Russians were doing the bidding of Trump to help him get elected; so yes, the DNC was the competing "company," or in this case, organization.Is there any espionage you don't condone to further your political agenda?Too funny!
Yes, the American people deserve to see the truth of the Dem corruption but it no way changed the mind of voters.
Truly CONvoluted thinking.
The truth hurt Hillary?
What's the problem then?
That would be influencing the election, dumbass.
OMG! The truth influenced the election.
Better hide the truth, right? Moron.
Definition of espionage
So now the DNC is a foreign government or competing company of Russia? Really?
- : the practice of spying or using spies to obtain information about the plans and activities especially of a foreign government or a competing company
You're not very familiar with the meaning of many words are ya, back to ESL for you.
No, I'm saying you fucked up. The article identified Guccifer 2.0 as Russian intelligence, according to our intelligence community. So whether they're saying Russia hacked the emails or they're saying Guccifer 2.0 released them; they're still talking about the same entity. It's no ones fault but your own that you can't grasp that simple concept.Too stupid....Guccifer 2.0 IS the Russian group which conducted the hacking. They released the hacked emails to Wikileaks who then published them on the Internet. Both of those paragraphs are accurate and you're imagining a distinction which doesn't exist.There was no distinction. You're reading two paragraphs where they mention Guccifer 2.0 and drawing an erroneous distinction between the them.Guccifer 2.0 could still be a group in that context.
Yet the author felt a need to draw a distinction, go figure.
Maybe you should go back to your ESL class.
Guccifer was used to publicly release the data form the hacks.
Russia conducted the hacks themselves.
One released, one hacked, two different entities at work. It's so simple a 6th grader could understand.
So you're saying the author F'd up when he said Guccifer released the data, "but" the Russians did the hacking themselves?
but
[bət]
1. used to introduce something contrasting with what has already been mentioned.
synonyms yet · nevertheless · nonetheless · even so · however ·
I guess something contrasting with is NOT drawing a distinction between the two. LMAO
I think it would be better if we hold foreign actors accountable for such interference. Including any agents acting mutually from our side.Too funny!You're beyond retarded. First you say Americans voters were shown the truth about Hillary/DNC lies and corruption, but then idiotically pretend like that didn't sway the election.
Yes, the American people deserve to see the truth of the Dem corruption but it no way changed the mind of voters.
Truly CONvoluted thinking.
so lets see if I get what you are saying. You think it would be better if the voters did not know the truth about presidential candidates and corruption within the parties and the media? Is that it?
What would "holding them accountable" entail, and who did you have in mind for this treatment?
Exactly whatever for whomever the investigations find to be culpable.
Obama has already taken actions against Russia. The individual players still need to be sorted.
The Russians were doing the bidding of Trump to help him get elected; so yes, the DNC was the competing "company," or in this case, organization.Is there any espionage you don't condone to further your political agenda?The truth hurt Hillary?
What's the problem then?
That would be influencing the election, dumbass.
OMG! The truth influenced the election.
Better hide the truth, right? Moron.
Definition of espionage
So now the DNC is a foreign government or competing company of Russia? Really?
- : the practice of spying or using spies to obtain information about the plans and activities especially of a foreign government or a competing company
You're not very familiar with the meaning of many words are ya, back to ESL for you.
