Roger Stone Admits he has had contact with Russian Hacker today ( Trumps campaign Adviser )

[OKTexas]

Strawman, hardly. You said the intel community wouldn't make a claim without proof. I'm just asking which agency got the proof.

That is what I said. Somehow, your defective brain translated that into md claiming they personally conducted forensic analysis on the DNC servers.

Hence, strawman.

So there was no proof? Forensic analysis is the only way to prove a server was hacked and by whom.

LOLOL

Dayam, you're one thick-as-brick conservative.

I never said there was no proof nor did I say there was no forensic analysis performed.

You really suck at this.

Speaking of which, have you finally figured out that Guccifer 2.0 and Russian intelligence is one and the same? Or do you still think you've stumbled upon a glaring "distinction" in that article where no such distinction exists?

Yet you refuse to answer the simple question of which government agency performed the forensic analysis and garnered this so called proof. Also the author of the article drew the distinction, not me.

you may not know this, but the FBI and other 3 letter agencies, OFTEN USE outside private cyber security firms to gather forensic evidence for them that the govt agencies use to prosecute 'the bad guys'...

CrowdStrike is one such cyber security firm.

CrowdStrike - Wikipedia

How many times have they done it when the so called victim paid the tab?

 

[Faun]

That is what I said. Somehow, your defective brain translated that into md claiming they personally conducted forensic analysis on the DNC servers.

Hence, strawman.

So there was no proof? Forensic analysis is the only way to prove a server was hacked and by whom.

LOLOL

Dayam, you're one thick-as-brick conservative.

I never said there was no proof nor did I say there was no forensic analysis performed.

You really suck at this.

Speaking of which, have you finally figured out that Guccifer 2.0 and Russian intelligence is one and the same? Or do you still think you've stumbled upon a glaring "distinction" in that article where no such distinction exists?

Yet you refuse to answer the simple question of which government agency performed the forensic analysis and garnered this so called proof.

Sadly, I have to repeat myself because you apparently didn't understand this the first time I said it -- I never said the government conducted forensic analyses. So what exactly does your deformed brain tell you I'm refusing to answer to questions about things I never claimed?

Also the author of the article drew the distinction, not me.

Nope, the author clearly points out that our intelligence community believes Guccifer 2.0 is Russian intelligence. So the author of the article using the two interchangeably is not casting a distinction between the two; but exposes your dementia in believing there is a distinction even though the author points out the two are the same.

You claimed the government intel agencies had proof, yet refuse to say where they got it, why?

Also the author used language that contrasted, or drew a distinction between the two.

"Reports from the intelligence community said Guccifer 2.0 was used to publicly release the data from hacks, but that the hacks themselves were conducted by Russia."

I even showed you the dictionary functional definition of "but", I'm sorry you lack the understanding of American english, but that's your problem.

I didn't refuse to say where they got their proof from. I refused to participate with your strawmen.

 

[OKTexas]

Everything I saw dealt with the commiecrat primary and the DNC dirty dealing, what was released dealing with the general election?

Obviously, you have little knowledge of this matter and I'm not here to educate you. Feel free to do your own homework, catch up, and then try again.

OK CHILD, the wikileaks DNC emails covered this time frame, Jan 2015 to May 25, 2016.

The emails cover the period from January last year until 25 May this year.
WikiLeaks - Search the DNC email database

Now tell me, what part of that time frame covered the general election?

The emails were from that period, Idiot.
What date were they first released by WL?

What the fuck difference does that make, the hildabitch wasn't Trumps opponent during the period covered by the emails. His knowing who the DNC was backstabbing during the primaries and before gave him no tactical advantage. You're just pissed they showed your party for the gigantic pieces of shit they are.

of course it gave ADVANTAGE...

by pitting bernie voters against hillary voters...he used WIKILEAKS WIKILEAKS WIKILEAKS 160 times in his various rallies.... Trump knew exactly what he was doing and would not waste his own time doing it, if he thought there was not political advantage in doing it.

And he was calling the bitch Crooked Hillary a year before he had any knowledge of the emails, your point? The emails just confirmed what he was saying all along, well it did confirm the whole DNC was crooked as well.

 

[OKTexas]

Oh boy, the peanut gallery chimes in. Slpain this to me child, the email release covered from Jan 2015 to May 2016. Trump didn't get the nomination till Aug 2016. So the only opponent the hildabitch had during that time was Sanders. So where's the advantage for Trump and how would he collude against his opponent when his opponents during that time were all republicans. Maybe you should be asking Sanders about his Russian contacts.

WikiLeaks - Search the DNC email database

Starting on Friday 22 July 2016 at 10:30am EDT, WikiLeaks released over 2 publications 44,053 emails and 17,761 attachments from the top of the US Democratic National Committee -- part one of our new Hillary Leaks series. The leaks come from the accounts of seven key figures in the DNC:




Dope.

Once again, before Trump got the nomination and disclosed information before and during the dem primaries. Nothing that covered the general election.

Why are you ignoring the fact that you claimed the leaks ceased on May 25th of last year even though they continued beyond that date? Don't you think you should apologize to the forum for being such a dumb fuck?

I didn't say that, I said the emails that were leaked didn't deal with the time of the general election when the hildabitch was trumps opponent, and it didn't.

Here's exactly what I said:

Everything I saw dealt with the commiecrat primary and the DNC dirty dealing, what was released dealing with the general election?

You're too fucking deranged, i.e., a typical conservative.

---[ Instant replay ]---

OKTexas: OK CHILD, the wikileaks DNC emails covered this time frame, Jan 2015 to May 25, 2016.

Faun: Why are you ignoring the fact that you claimed the leaks ceased on May 25th of last year even though they continued beyond that date?

OKTexas: I didn't say that, I said the emails that were leaked didn't deal with the time of the general election when the hildabitch was trumps opponent, and it didn't.​

Thanks for proving me correct. Boy do you look foolish. LMAO

 

[OKTexas]

So there was no proof? Forensic analysis is the only way to prove a server was hacked and by whom.

LOLOL

Dayam, you're one thick-as-brick conservative.

I never said there was no proof nor did I say there was no forensic analysis performed.

You really suck at this.

Speaking of which, have you finally figured out that Guccifer 2.0 and Russian intelligence is one and the same? Or do you still think you've stumbled upon a glaring "distinction" in that article where no such distinction exists?

Yet you refuse to answer the simple question of which government agency performed the forensic analysis and garnered this so called proof.

Sadly, I have to repeat myself because you apparently didn't understand this the first time I said it -- I never said the government conducted forensic analyses. So what exactly does your deformed brain tell you I'm refusing to answer to questions about things I never claimed?

Also the author of the article drew the distinction, not me.

Nope, the author clearly points out that our intelligence community believes Guccifer 2.0 is Russian intelligence. So the author of the article using the two interchangeably is not casting a distinction between the two; but exposes your dementia in believing there is a distinction even though the author points out the two are the same.

You claimed the government intel agencies had proof, yet refuse to say where they got it, why?

Also the author used language that contrasted, or drew a distinction between the two.

"Reports from the intelligence community said Guccifer 2.0 was used to publicly release the data from hacks, but that the hacks themselves were conducted by Russia."

I even showed you the dictionary functional definition of "but", I'm sorry you lack the understanding of American english, but that's your problem.

I didn't refuse to say where they got their proof from. I refused to participate with your strawmen.

And you still haven't said where they got it.

 

[Faun]

WikiLeaks - Search the DNC email database

Starting on Friday 22 July 2016 at 10:30am EDT, WikiLeaks released over 2 publications 44,053 emails and 17,761 attachments from the top of the US Democratic National Committee -- part one of our new Hillary Leaks series. The leaks come from the accounts of seven key figures in the DNC:




Dope.

Once again, before Trump got the nomination and disclosed information before and during the dem primaries. Nothing that covered the general election.

Why are you ignoring the fact that you claimed the leaks ceased on May 25th of last year even though they continued beyond that date? Don't you think you should apologize to the forum for being such a dumb fuck?

I didn't say that, I said the emails that were leaked didn't deal with the time of the general election when the hildabitch was trumps opponent, and it didn't.

Here's exactly what I said:

Everything I saw dealt with the commiecrat primary and the DNC dirty dealing, what was released dealing with the general election?

You're too fucking deranged, i.e., a typical conservative.

---[ Instant replay ]---

OKTexas: OK CHILD, the wikileaks DNC emails covered this time frame, Jan 2015 to May 25, 2016.

Faun: Why are you ignoring the fact that you claimed the leaks ceased on May 25th of last year even though they continued beyond that date?

OKTexas: I didn't say that, I said the emails that were leaked didn't deal with the time of the general election when the hildabitch was trumps opponent, and it didn't.​

Thanks for proving me correct. Boy do you look foolish. LMAO

Doubling down on stupid doesn't actually help you. It just makes you look twice as stupid as you did before that idiotic denial.

 

[Faun]

LOLOL

Dayam, you're one thick-as-brick conservative.

I never said there was no proof nor did I say there was no forensic analysis performed.

You really suck at this.

Speaking of which, have you finally figured out that Guccifer 2.0 and Russian intelligence is one and the same? Or do you still think you've stumbled upon a glaring "distinction" in that article where no such distinction exists?

Yet you refuse to answer the simple question of which government agency performed the forensic analysis and garnered this so called proof.

Sadly, I have to repeat myself because you apparently didn't understand this the first time I said it -- I never said the government conducted forensic analyses. So what exactly does your deformed brain tell you I'm refusing to answer to questions about things I never claimed?

Also the author of the article drew the distinction, not me.

Nope, the author clearly points out that our intelligence community believes Guccifer 2.0 is Russian intelligence. So the author of the article using the two interchangeably is not casting a distinction between the two; but exposes your dementia in believing there is a distinction even though the author points out the two are the same.

You claimed the government intel agencies had proof, yet refuse to say where they got it, why?

Also the author used language that contrasted, or drew a distinction between the two.

"Reports from the intelligence community said Guccifer 2.0 was used to publicly release the data from hacks, but that the hacks themselves were conducted by Russia."

I even showed you the dictionary functional definition of "but", I'm sorry you lack the understanding of American english, but that's your problem.

I didn't refuse to say where they got their proof from. I refused to participate with your strawmen.

And you still haven't said where they got it.

So? You still haven't asked.

 

[OKTexas]

Once again, before Trump got the nomination and disclosed information before and during the dem primaries. Nothing that covered the general election.

Why are you ignoring the fact that you claimed the leaks ceased on May 25th of last year even though they continued beyond that date? Don't you think you should apologize to the forum for being such a dumb fuck?

I didn't say that, I said the emails that were leaked didn't deal with the time of the general election when the hildabitch was trumps opponent, and it didn't.

Here's exactly what I said:

Everything I saw dealt with the commiecrat primary and the DNC dirty dealing, what was released dealing with the general election?

You're too fucking deranged, i.e., a typical conservative.

---[ Instant replay ]---

OKTexas: OK CHILD, the wikileaks DNC emails covered this time frame, Jan 2015 to May 25, 2016.

Faun: Why are you ignoring the fact that you claimed the leaks ceased on May 25th of last year even though they continued beyond that date?

OKTexas: I didn't say that, I said the emails that were leaked didn't deal with the time of the general election when the hildabitch was trumps opponent, and it didn't.​

Thanks for proving me correct. Boy do you look foolish. LMAO

Doubling down on stupid doesn't actually help you. It just makes you look twice as stupid as you did before that idiotic denial.

You're the one that double down on not understanding the language. Do you know what "time frame" means or "dealt with"? I said from the beginning the time frame the emails dealt with did not include the general election, when they were released has no bearing on that FACT. I even asked you outright what was released that dealt with the general election, you only response was I didn't know what I was talking about. The FACT is NONE OF THE EMAILS DEALT WITH THE GENERAL ELECTION, they all dealt with the primary back, not the primary forward.

 

[OKTexas]

Yet you refuse to answer the simple question of which government agency performed the forensic analysis and garnered this so called proof.

Sadly, I have to repeat myself because you apparently didn't understand this the first time I said it -- I never said the government conducted forensic analyses. So what exactly does your deformed brain tell you I'm refusing to answer to questions about things I never claimed?

Also the author of the article drew the distinction, not me.

Nope, the author clearly points out that our intelligence community believes Guccifer 2.0 is Russian intelligence. So the author of the article using the two interchangeably is not casting a distinction between the two; but exposes your dementia in believing there is a distinction even though the author points out the two are the same.

You claimed the government intel agencies had proof, yet refuse to say where they got it, why?

Also the author used language that contrasted, or drew a distinction between the two.

"Reports from the intelligence community said Guccifer 2.0 was used to publicly release the data from hacks, but that the hacks themselves were conducted by Russia."

I even showed you the dictionary functional definition of "but", I'm sorry you lack the understanding of American english, but that's your problem.

I didn't refuse to say where they got their proof from. I refused to participate with your strawmen.

And you still haven't said where they got it.

So? You still haven't asked.

Don't have to, I don't ask a question form dumb asses without knowing the answer. The FACT is none of the federal intel agencies have any first hand proof that the Russians hacked shit. They took the word of a third party that was bought and paid for by the DNC.

Now here's an alternate theory. How about you prove the hacks weren't done by a guy in the CIA, using Russian tools, who happened to be pissed at the bitch because he lost a good friend in Benghazi? The last wikileaks release proved they have that capability and the guys that examined the server wouldn't know the difference.

 

[Faun]

Why are you ignoring the fact that you claimed the leaks ceased on May 25th of last year even though they continued beyond that date? Don't you think you should apologize to the forum for being such a dumb fuck?

I didn't say that, I said the emails that were leaked didn't deal with the time of the general election when the hildabitch was trumps opponent, and it didn't.

Here's exactly what I said:

Everything I saw dealt with the commiecrat primary and the DNC dirty dealing, what was released dealing with the general election?

You're too fucking deranged, i.e., a typical conservative.

---[ Instant replay ]---

OKTexas: OK CHILD, the wikileaks DNC emails covered this time frame, Jan 2015 to May 25, 2016.

Faun: Why are you ignoring the fact that you claimed the leaks ceased on May 25th of last year even though they continued beyond that date?

OKTexas: I didn't say that, I said the emails that were leaked didn't deal with the time of the general election when the hildabitch was trumps opponent, and it didn't.​

Thanks for proving me correct. Boy do you look foolish. LMAO

Doubling down on stupid doesn't actually help you. It just makes you look twice as stupid as you did before that idiotic denial.

You're the one that double down on not understanding the language. Do you know what "time frame" means or "dealt with"? I said from the beginning the time frame the emails dealt with did not include the general election, when they were released has no bearing on that FACT. I even asked you outright what was released that dealt with the general election, you only response was I didn't know what I was talking about. The FACT is NONE OF THE EMAILS DEALT WITH THE GENERAL ELECTION, they all dealt with the primary back, not the primary forward.

LOL

Of course it matters when they were released. Had they not been released at all, in terms of the election, it wouldn't have mattered that the DNS was hacked. They released a glutton of emails in July, August, September & October to sway the election against Hillary.

 

[Faun]

I didn't refuse to say where they got their proof from. I refused to participate with your strawmen.

And you still haven't said where they got it.

So? You still haven't asked.

Don't have to...

LMAO

Now you claim you don't have to ask a question after I point out I didn't answer the question you didn't ask.



Putz, then we did you say I refused to answer a question you now admit you didn't ask?

You're truly fucking demented.

 

[OKTexas]

I didn't say that, I said the emails that were leaked didn't deal with the time of the general election when the hildabitch was trumps opponent, and it didn't.

Here's exactly what I said:

You're too fucking deranged, i.e., a typical conservative.

---[ Instant replay ]---

OKTexas: OK CHILD, the wikileaks DNC emails covered this time frame, Jan 2015 to May 25, 2016.

Faun: Why are you ignoring the fact that you claimed the leaks ceased on May 25th of last year even though they continued beyond that date?

OKTexas: I didn't say that, I said the emails that were leaked didn't deal with the time of the general election when the hildabitch was trumps opponent, and it didn't.​

Thanks for proving me correct. Boy do you look foolish. LMAO

Doubling down on stupid doesn't actually help you. It just makes you look twice as stupid as you did before that idiotic denial.

You're the one that double down on not understanding the language. Do you know what "time frame" means or "dealt with"? I said from the beginning the time frame the emails dealt with did not include the general election, when they were released has no bearing on that FACT. I even asked you outright what was released that dealt with the general election, you only response was I didn't know what I was talking about. The FACT is NONE OF THE EMAILS DEALT WITH THE GENERAL ELECTION, they all dealt with the primary back, not the primary forward.

LOL

Of course it matters when they were released. Had they not been released at all, in terms of the election, it wouldn't have mattered that the DNS was hacked. They released a glutton of emails in July, August, September & October to sway the election against Hillary.

That was wikileaks, not Trump. Of course if the DNC had conducted themselves in an ethical manner it wouldn't have mattered either.

 

[OKTexas]

I didn't refuse to say where they got their proof from. I refused to participate with your strawmen.

And you still haven't said where they got it.

So? You still haven't asked.

Don't have to...

LMAO

Now you claim you don't have to ask a question after I point out I didn't answer the question you didn't ask.



Putz, then we did you say I refused to answer a question you now admit you didn't ask?

You're truly fucking demented.

But I did ask.

You claimed the government intel agencies had proof, yet refuse to say where they got it, why?

You danced away, God your a pathetic hypocrite and liar. But I already knew the answer, I just wanted you to say it.

 

[oreo]

Guccifer 2.0 is believed by the U.S. intelligence community to be a cover identity for Russian intelligence. The intelligence community concluded that Moscow sought to interfere in last year's election specifically to help Trump win.

Stone told the Times exchanged a handful of messages with Guccifer 2.0 in the weeks following a hack of the DNC, which was revealed in late July.

In one message from Aug. 14, Stone said he was "delighted" that Guccifer 2.0's Twitter account had been reinstated after being suspended.

Trump adviser admits to contact with DNC hacker

John McCain is insisting that Roger Stone testify under oath.
McCain: Roger Stone needs to testify in Senate

Roger Stone:

(CNN) - Roger Stone, the flamboyant political adviser who has been connected to President Donald Trump for years, is defending his contacts with "Guccifer 2.0"-- the online persona who claims responsibility for hacking the Democratic National Committee -- as an innocuous "brief exchange" of a few direct messages that he says amount to nothing.

Any suggestion otherwise, he told CNN, is "a fabrication."

Stone said his few exchanges with Guccifer 2.0 occurred in August after Twitter briefly banned the hacker for posting DNC information, proving he did not collude in the hack itself.

"I have this brief exchange with him on Twitter," he recalled. "To collude, I would have to have written him before. ... We would need a time machine to collude."

The Smoking Gun website and The Washington Times first reported the direct messages between Stone and Guccifer 2.0 last month and published another piece on the exchanges Wednesday.

Afterward, Stone released screen shots of the purported messages himself, posting them online in a blog post. In those messages, he said he was "delighted" to see Guccifer 2.0 reinstated after the hacking persona's brief banning by Twitter.

Stone also said in the blog post that he also noted publicly on his Twitter account when the social media reinstated the Guccifer 2.0 "because I abhor censorship."

While Stone says his messages to the hacker alias are of no consequence, this is the first time anyone in Trump's orbit has acknowledged any contact with a hacker -- not to mention one that claimed responsibility for hacking the DNC.

US officials may well be interested in Stone's communications with Guccifer 2.0, whom they believe with "high confidence" was actually a front for Russian military intelligence and was part of the effort to influence America's elections.

Stone claims to be the subject of a warrant under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, saying his knowledge of that comes from "credible sources" that he cannot reveal. His communications with others -- by phone and email -- are being monitored, he claims to CNN.

Stone vigorously denies that any monitoring would be productive. You might get "a lot of funky campaign stuff, nothing that's illegal ... [and] no Russians," he said, denying any contact with Russia.

US officials have not confirmed any such warrant.

Questions have also been raised about Stone's cryptic tweets last August when he wrote that John Podesta, Hillary Clinton's campaign manager, would endure his "time in the barrel," which he posted after WikiLeaks began publishing other Democrats' hacked emails. The website posted thousands of emails it said were from Podesta's account in the closing weeks of the campaign.

Stone offers a "simple" explanation for his Podesta tweet: He was referring to "my own research" about Podesta and his family. He also says that tweet "does not in any way prove I was foreshadowing" the WikiLeaks release.

And what of Stone's ominous tweet in early October, "Wednesday@HillaryClinton is done. #Wikileaks"? He tells CNN that is the result of information from a source he would not reveal.

Stone says he has never communicated with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange "either directly or indirectly." Rather, the tweet was based on information from a friend who had spoken with Assange, he said. Earlier this month, however, he tweeted that he had a "back channel" to WikiLeaks during the presidential campaign, only to delete it a short time later.

"[N]ever denied perfectly legal back channel to Assange who indeed had the goods on #CrookedHillary," Stone tweeted. The post was gone after almost 40 minutes.

Stone adds that he does not believe Assange works for the Russians, although the US intelligence community concluded in a report on January 6 that WikiLeaks did, in fact, work with Russian intelligence during the US election.

Instead, he offers that all of this could be "disinformation" disseminated by what he calls "rogue intelligence agencies," a line that is becoming increasingly popular in some far-right circles.
Trump associate plays down Twitter contact with Guccifer 2.0

Roger Stone is actually on record for stating that Hillary Clinton murdered JFK Jr.-LOL Stone is on record for praising Wikileaks--as the "truth teller." Stone is the MASTER of conspiracy theories.
“Facts Are In The Eye Of The Beholder,” Says Roger Stone, Trump Confidant

Roger Stone is as big a fruit cake as what's sitting in the Oval office:

And it looks like Roger Stone is going to PROFIT Bigly:

Clearly there are many more involved in this than just Roger Stone.

Analysis | 5 times Donald Trump’s team denied contact with Russia

• 
  

 

[Faun]

You're too fucking deranged, i.e., a typical conservative.

---[ Instant replay ]---

OKTexas: OK CHILD, the wikileaks DNC emails covered this time frame, Jan 2015 to May 25, 2016.

Faun: Why are you ignoring the fact that you claimed the leaks ceased on May 25th of last year even though they continued beyond that date?

OKTexas: I didn't say that, I said the emails that were leaked didn't deal with the time of the general election when the hildabitch was trumps opponent, and it didn't.​

Thanks for proving me correct. Boy do you look foolish. LMAO

Doubling down on stupid doesn't actually help you. It just makes you look twice as stupid as you did before that idiotic denial.

You're the one that double down on not understanding the language. Do you know what "time frame" means or "dealt with"? I said from the beginning the time frame the emails dealt with did not include the general election, when they were released has no bearing on that FACT. I even asked you outright what was released that dealt with the general election, you only response was I didn't know what I was talking about. The FACT is NONE OF THE EMAILS DEALT WITH THE GENERAL ELECTION, they all dealt with the primary back, not the primary forward.

LOL

Of course it matters when they were released. Had they not been released at all, in terms of the election, it wouldn't have mattered that the DNS was hacked. They released a glutton of emails in July, August, September & October to sway the election against Hillary.

That was wikileaks, not Trump. Of course if the DNC had conducted themselves in an ethical manner it wouldn't have mattered either.

Not exactly. Wikileaks received many of those emails from Guccifer 2.0 who we knows was in direct communication with at least one of Trump's minions around the time the emails were dumped on the Internet.

 

[Faun]

I didn't refuse to say where they got their proof from. I refused to participate with your strawmen.

And you still haven't said where they got it.

So? You still haven't asked.

Don't have to...

LMAO

Now you claim you don't have to ask a question after I point out I didn't answer the question you didn't ask.



Putz, then we did you say I refused to answer a question you now admit you didn't ask?

You're truly fucking demented.

But I did ask.

You claimed the government intel agencies had proof, yet refuse to say where they got it, why?

You danced away, God your a pathetic hypocrite and liar. But I already knew the answer, I just wanted you to say it.

LOL

Your derangement gets the better of you yet again ...

that would be you asking me why I didn't answer (the question you didn't ask). You never asked me where the intelligence community got their proof from.

And how on Earth could I dance away from a question you never asked? You're quite the funny loon.

 

[Snouter]

oreo, if you post that bogus video of homosexual, MSM qu33r, Shep Smith, I will consider reporting you for spam! My patience is running low! Let's keep posts interesting!

 

[OKTexas]

Thanks for proving me correct. Boy do you look foolish. LMAO

Doubling down on stupid doesn't actually help you. It just makes you look twice as stupid as you did before that idiotic denial.

You're the one that double down on not understanding the language. Do you know what "time frame" means or "dealt with"? I said from the beginning the time frame the emails dealt with did not include the general election, when they were released has no bearing on that FACT. I even asked you outright what was released that dealt with the general election, you only response was I didn't know what I was talking about. The FACT is NONE OF THE EMAILS DEALT WITH THE GENERAL ELECTION, they all dealt with the primary back, not the primary forward.

LOL

Of course it matters when they were released. Had they not been released at all, in terms of the election, it wouldn't have mattered that the DNS was hacked. They released a glutton of emails in July, August, September & October to sway the election against Hillary.

That was wikileaks, not Trump. Of course if the DNC had conducted themselves in an ethical manner it wouldn't have mattered either.

Not exactly. Wikileaks received many of those emails from Guccifer 2.0 who we knows was in direct communication with at least one of Trump's minions around the time the emails were dumped on the Internet.

Yeah, well after the dump started, and it was on a public forum called Twitter. Not the best method for covert collusion.

 

[OKTexas]

And you still haven't said where they got it.

So? You still haven't asked.

Don't have to...

LMAO

Now you claim you don't have to ask a question after I point out I didn't answer the question you didn't ask.



Putz, then we did you say I refused to answer a question you now admit you didn't ask?

You're truly fucking demented.

But I did ask.

You claimed the government intel agencies had proof, yet refuse to say where they got it, why?

You danced away, God your a pathetic hypocrite and liar. But I already knew the answer, I just wanted you to say it.

LOL

Your derangement gets the better of you yet again ...

that would be you asking me why I didn't answer (the question you didn't ask). You never asked me where the intelligence community got their proof from.

And how on Earth could I dance away from a question you never asked? You're quite the funny loon.

Semantics, the last bastion of a loser. Do you need the definition of "why" now?

 

[Faun]

Doubling down on stupid doesn't actually help you. It just makes you look twice as stupid as you did before that idiotic denial.

You're the one that double down on not understanding the language. Do you know what "time frame" means or "dealt with"? I said from the beginning the time frame the emails dealt with did not include the general election, when they were released has no bearing on that FACT. I even asked you outright what was released that dealt with the general election, you only response was I didn't know what I was talking about. The FACT is NONE OF THE EMAILS DEALT WITH THE GENERAL ELECTION, they all dealt with the primary back, not the primary forward.

LOL

Of course it matters when they were released. Had they not been released at all, in terms of the election, it wouldn't have mattered that the DNS was hacked. They released a glutton of emails in July, August, September & October to sway the election against Hillary.

That was wikileaks, not Trump. Of course if the DNC had conducted themselves in an ethical manner it wouldn't have mattered either.

Not exactly. Wikileaks received many of those emails from Guccifer 2.0 who we knows was in direct communication with at least one of Trump's minions around the time the emails were dumped on the Internet.

Yeah, well after the dump started, and it was on a public forum called Twitter. Not the best method for covert collusion.

Dumbfuck, do you ever get anything right?

Mr. Stone wrote an article for Breitbart News on Aug. 5 attributing the DNC breach to Guccifer 2.0, not Russia, and swapped a handful of direct messages with the persona in the weeks that followed, according to copies of the conversations provided to the Times.

Roger Stone, Trump confidant, acknowledges ‘innocuous’ Twitter conversation with DNC hackers​

Direct messages are not available for public consumption. What an idiot you are.