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

[Faun]

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?

LMAO

Explaining your own words to you, which you don't understand, is now semantics.



Moron ... you never asked the question you claimed I refused to answer. How difficult is that for you to understand?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

It's already happening, dope.

It is? Who is being punished?

You dopes really should be done for tonight.

obama sanctions russia - Google Search

We can add that to the long list of questions you don't want to answer.

I gave you pages of answers, dope.

But I thought the Trump administration was colluding with the Russians. How are they going to be punished?

The investigation is ongoing.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Is there any espionage you don't condone to further your political agenda?

Definition of espionage

1. : the practice of spying or using spies to obtain information about the plans and activities especially of a foreign government or a competing company

So now the DNC is a foreign government or competing company of Russia? Really?

You're not very familiar with the meaning of many words are ya, back to ESL for you.

Definition of espionage

1. : the practice of spying or using spies to obtain information about the plans and activities especially of a foreign government or a competing company

Like a political candidate working with a foreign govt to expose his opponent's weakness in order to gain an advantage?

Then yes. I agree.

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.

You run with that, fool.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

Hmm, barely two weeks after the first WL releases.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

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.

Which is it?

It gave Trump no tactical advantage?

Or...

It showed the Dems to be the "pieces of shit they are"?

Both. The worse effect was to convince some Sanders supporters to not vote. Ultimately it was Stein that cost the bitch the election. She siphoned of just enough votes in key States. I know that doesn't fit your preferred narrative, but here's the real question. You folks claim to accept the initial report on the hacking, when no one in government has any first hand proof, yet you refuse to accept it when the same agencies say there was ZERO evidence of collusion between the hackers and the Trump campaign, why is that?

Yeah, you're right. Trump never once mentioned any of this on the campaign trail.

 

[The Original Tree]

Guccifer is the dude who hacked Hillary's server and was extradidted back to the US... supposedly. If he was a Russian Spy then Tony Podesta, the brother of Hillary's campaign manager, was working for the KGB Bank and Russian spies - maybe for Guccifer.

The DNC and Hillary Clinton all said Hillary's Server was never hacked, and so did The FBI. At any rate. Funny thread.
Actually it kinda smells more like a rotting dead corpse of a horse lefty is frantically beating in hopes that he can resurrect the dumb mule and his dying party. LMFAO.

Still waiting for someone to be charged with a crime after another one in a long series of unsupported allegations.

This I believe is attempt # 5,463. Even Edison would have given up trying to invent the lightbulb after this many fails.

I'm outta this thread. BORING. Sorry I bothered reading it.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Like a political candidate working with a foreign govt to expose his opponent's weakness in order to gain an advantage?

Then yes. I agree.

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?

None of that is relevant.
The leak could have been something from a decade ago and would have been used the same way.

 

[Meane]

Why in the world would anyone in such dealings write something like that without secrecy?

Or is it a purposeful or a cheat?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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?

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.

The FACT is none of the federal intel agencies have any first hand proof that the Russians hacked shit.

FBI, DHS release report on Russia hacking
Give up while you're behind, fool.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

Again, Trump never uttered a word about them, right?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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!

 

[Redfish]

Considering that the Podesta Group was working for and being paid by the Russians to get the sanctions lifted, why would they hack the DNC?

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.

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.

of course the truth may have swayed the election. Would you think it better if the voters were kept in the dark?

You're too crazy. Earlier, you intimated the hacking did not have an impact on the election; now you admit it may have. Your mind is so confused, you can't decide.

voters are entitled to the truth. The truth may have swayed the election, that's the way it should be.

 

[Redfish]

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.

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.

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.

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?

Sounds like you're in favor of one side hacking the other side as long as what they reveal is what you consider to be the truth.

no, the entire truth about all candidates should be available to the voters. I don't care where it comes from as long as its the truth.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

And you said the releases started in July, so his article and subsequent twitter messages were after the initial release. Also your precious intel agencies say there was no evidence of collusion. Yet you simpletons just won't let it go, do you know the definition of insanity?

 

[OKTexas]

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.

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.

Which is it?

It gave Trump no tactical advantage?

Or...

It showed the Dems to be the "pieces of shit they are"?

Both. The worse effect was to convince some Sanders supporters to not vote. Ultimately it was Stein that cost the bitch the election. She siphoned of just enough votes in key States. I know that doesn't fit your preferred narrative, but here's the real question. You folks claim to accept the initial report on the hacking, when no one in government has any first hand proof, yet you refuse to accept it when the same agencies say there was ZERO evidence of collusion between the hackers and the Trump campaign, why is that?

Yeah, you're right. Trump never once mentioned any of this on the campaign trail.

Yeah, it's not like he was calling the bitch crooked hillary a year before or anything. LMAO

 

[OKTexas]

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.
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.

The FACT is none of the federal intel agencies have any first hand proof that the Russians hacked shit.

FBI, DHS release report on Russia hacking
Give up while you're behind, fool.

Do you know what "first hand" means? They simply took the word of a contractor bought and paid for by the DNC. It's not like they don't have a history of dirty tricks, right? You fools will buy into anything. How do you, or they for that matter, know it wasn't some pissed of guy at the CIA or other agency that did it using Russian tools? Wikileaks just proved they have that capability and it's just as plausible as your idiot theories.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

And you said the releases started in July, so his article and subsequent twitter messages were after the initial release. Also your precious intel agencies say there was no evidence of collusion. Yet you simpletons just won't let it go, do you know the definition of insanity?

Simply because we know he spoke with him after the release doesn't preclude a prior conversation that we don't know about.

You need to ask yourself why a Trump associate is talking with them at all.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

The FACT is none of the federal intel agencies have any first hand proof that the Russians hacked shit.

FBI, DHS release report on Russia hacking
Give up while you're behind, fool.

Do you know what "first hand" means? They simply took the word of a contractor bought and paid for by the DNC. It's not like they don't have a history of dirty tricks, right? You fools will buy into anything. How do you, or they for that matter, know it wasn't some pissed of guy at the CIA or other agency that did it using Russian tools? Wikileaks just proved they have that capability and it's just as plausible as your idiot theories.

It happened, dope.
How do we know? Because they've said so. It's their official conclusion. Everyone is operating under that conclusion except you.

First hand or second hand? Irrelevant. It's already settled.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

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.

Which is it?

It gave Trump no tactical advantage?

Or...

It showed the Dems to be the "pieces of shit they are"?

Both. The worse effect was to convince some Sanders supporters to not vote. Ultimately it was Stein that cost the bitch the election. She siphoned of just enough votes in key States. I know that doesn't fit your preferred narrative, but here's the real question. You folks claim to accept the initial report on the hacking, when no one in government has any first hand proof, yet you refuse to accept it when the same agencies say there was ZERO evidence of collusion between the hackers and the Trump campaign, why is that?

Yeah, you're right. Trump never once mentioned any of this on the campaign trail.

Yeah, it's not like he was calling the bitch crooked hillary a year before or anything. LMAO

He hammered her relentlessly with the WL shit. There's no getting around it.

 

[Faun]

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.

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.

of course the truth may have swayed the election. Would you think it better if the voters were kept in the dark?

You're too crazy. Earlier, you intimated the hacking did not have an impact on the election; now you admit it may have. Your mind is so confused, you can't decide.

voters are entitled to the truth. The truth may have swayed the election, that's the way it should be.

Sure, as long as the truth from both sides is given to the public and as long as it's done in a legal manner.