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

[Faun]

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.

Truly bizarre. So you're ok then if both sides hack each other and dump each other's dirty laundry onto the public?

 

[Faun]

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?

I never said the releases started in July. I said the release of Podesta's email came about a week after Stone tweeted the hacker about how Podesta would soon find himself "in a barrel."

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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?

do you know the definition of insanity?

Voting for the corrupt, crusty pant-suit?

 

[OKTexas]

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.

So now you're sticking your fingers in your ears and singing lalalalalalal when everyone including the FBI and Congressmen are saying there is no evidence of collusion? And on the other hand you're very ready to accept their word that the Russians did the hacking even though the only people that looked at the servers were bought and paid for by the DNC. If you slime ball regressives didn't have your hypocrisy you'd be totally bankrupt.

 

[OKTexas]

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?

I never said the releases started in July. I said the release of Podesta's email came about a week after Stone tweeted the hacker about how Podesta would soon find himself "in a barrel."

Excuse me child, here's exactly what you said:
My bold
"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."

Now run along you're starting to bore the hell out of me.

 

[Faun]

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?

I never said the releases started in July. I said the release of Podesta's email came about a week after Stone tweeted the hacker about how Podesta would soon find himself "in a barrel."

Excuse me child, here's exactly what you said:
My bold
"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."

Now run along you're starting to bore the hell out of me.

Like most conservatives, you're completely fucked in the head.

I say, "they released a glutton of emails in July, August, September & October to sway the election against Hillary."

... and your defective brain thinks I said, "they started releasing a glutton of emails in July, August, September & October to sway the election against Hillary."

 

[edward37]

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?

I never said the releases started in July. I said the release of Podesta's email came about a week after Stone tweeted the hacker about how Podesta would soon find himself "in a barrel."

Excuse me child, here's exactly what you said:
My bold
"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."

Now run along you're starting to bore the hell out of me.

Like most conservatives, you're completely fucked in the head.

I say, "they released a glutton of emails in July, August, September & October to sway the election against Hillary."

... and your defective brain thinks I said, "they started releasing a glutton of emails in July, August, September & October to sway the election against Hillary."

DID Finestein and Grassley see a ghost

So Comey talked to Grassley / finestein.
They said too sensitive,can't tell you if there is an investigation. What do you think?
can't make any comment at all Could it be about Trumps Russia connection??

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

So now you're sticking your fingers in your ears and singing lalalalalalal when everyone including the FBI and Congressmen are saying there is no evidence of collusion? And on the other hand you're very ready to accept their word that the Russians did the hacking even though the only people that looked at the servers were bought and paid for by the DNC. If you slime ball regressives didn't have your hypocrisy you'd be totally bankrupt.

No investigation has concluded.
Stone, a Trump confidant, was in communication with both the hacker and WL
at the height of the releases during the election. Why?
WL informed Stone of the Podesta release before it was public. The fact that he and no doubt the Trump team knew about the releases before they happened, is certainly proof of cooperation if not outright collusion.

Why is Stone in communication with them at all?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

Truly bizarre. So you're ok then if both sides hack each other and dump each other's dirty laundry onto the public?

They have completely backed themselves into a corner over this. In order to absolve Trump of any advantage gained, they have to endorse foreign intervention in our electoral process. Indeed bizarre.

 

[Redfish]

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.

You say that but you were one of the most blatant posters of every lie and fake news story put out about Trump since he decided to run. Is it "legal" to make up lies and post them as fact on main stream news outlets? Is it "legal" for the media to ignore any and all negative facts about the democrat candidate?

You are a typical lib. You want the truth as long as it doesn't hurt your side, and when it does you refuse to acknowledge it. The American voters told you guys to shove that crap last November.

 

[Redfish]

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.

Truly bizarre. So you're ok then if both sides hack each other and dump each other's dirty laundry onto the public?

They have completely backed themselves into a corner over this. In order to absolve Trump of any advantage gained, they have to endorse foreign intervention in our electoral process. Indeed bizarre.

"foreign intervention"? What specifically did the Russians do that changed one American vote?

 

[Redfish]

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.

Truly bizarre. So you're ok then if both sides hack each other and dump each other's dirty laundry onto the public?

Yes, the public has the right to know everything about a person who might sit in the oval office. If you don't have any dirty laundry then there is nothing to find, right?


What is wrong with our "news" media today is that they make up shit and then put it out as gospel and are never held accountable.

 

[Faun]

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.

You say that but you were one of the most blatant posters of every lie and fake news story put out about Trump since he decided to run. Is it "legal" to make up lies and post them as fact on main stream news outlets? Is it "legal" for the media to ignore any and all negative facts about the democrat candidate?

You are a typical lib. You want the truth as long as it doesn't hurt your side, and when it does you refuse to acknowledge it. The American voters told you guys to shove that crap last November.

Link to a lie I've told.....

 

[edward37]

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.

You say that but you were one of the most blatant posters of every lie and fake news story put out about Trump since he decided to run. Is it "legal" to make up lies and post them as fact on main stream news outlets? Is it "legal" for the media to ignore any and all negative facts about the democrat candidate?

You are a typical lib. You want the truth as long as it doesn't hurt your side, and when it does you refuse to acknowledge it. The American voters told you guys to shove that crap last November.

Is it legal for trump to lie about showing his tax return ,,{not the one decade old} Is it legal for trump to accuse Obama of not born in America with no proof or accuse obama for tapping his towers that hold many russian agents ? Perhaps lying about our election process until he got elected sits well with you or lying about millions voting illegally is fine too?? or calling obamas unemployment record a balloon until his unemployment came out Screw that sob

 

[Faun]

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.

Truly bizarre. So you're ok then if both sides hack each other and dump each other's dirty laundry onto the public?

Yes, the public has the right to know everything about a person who might sit in the oval office. If you don't have any dirty laundry then there is nothing to find, right?


What is wrong with our "news" media today is that they make up shit and then put it out as gospel and are never held accountable.

Well that's how fucked in the head you are that you condone people breaking the law. I suppose you think it's ok for people accused of a crime to have their property illegally searched by law enforcement as long as the improper search garnishes evidence against the accused?

 

[Redfish]

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.

You say that but you were one of the most blatant posters of every lie and fake news story put out about Trump since he decided to run. Is it "legal" to make up lies and post them as fact on main stream news outlets? Is it "legal" for the media to ignore any and all negative facts about the democrat candidate?

You are a typical lib. You want the truth as long as it doesn't hurt your side, and when it does you refuse to acknowledge it. The American voters told you guys to shove that crap last November.

Link to a lie I've told.....

repeating a lie is the same as lying. But I am not going to waste my time going through 22K posts and listing all of your lies.

you are a dem/lib hack, you repeat the dem/lib talking points all day every day. I know it, you know it, everyone on this forum knows it.

 

[Redfish]

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.

Truly bizarre. So you're ok then if both sides hack each other and dump each other's dirty laundry onto the public?

Yes, the public has the right to know everything about a person who might sit in the oval office. If you don't have any dirty laundry then there is nothing to find, right?


What is wrong with our "news" media today is that they make up shit and then put it out as gospel and are never held accountable.

Well that's how fucked in the head you are that you condone people breaking the law. I suppose you think it's ok for people accused of a crime to have their property illegally searched by law enforcement as long as the improper search garnishes evidence against the accused?

I did not condone breaking the law. Nixon was run out of office for lying about his people breaking the law. Clinton was impeached for breaking the law and lying under oath. Hillary broke national security laws, why don't you want her prosecuted?

I think I get it. you only want laws enforced on your opponents.

 

[Redfish]

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.

You say that but you were one of the most blatant posters of every lie and fake news story put out about Trump since he decided to run. Is it "legal" to make up lies and post them as fact on main stream news outlets? Is it "legal" for the media to ignore any and all negative facts about the democrat candidate?

You are a typical lib. You want the truth as long as it doesn't hurt your side, and when it does you refuse to acknowledge it. The American voters told you guys to shove that crap last November.

Is it legal for trump to lie about showing his tax return ,,{not the one decade old} Is it legal for trump to accuse Obama of not born in America with no proof or accuse obama for tapping his towers that hold many russian agents ? Perhaps lying about our election process until he got elected sits well with you or lying about millions voting illegally is fine too?? or calling obamas unemployment record a balloon until his unemployment came out Screw that sob

you don't like Trump, I get that. Can you please quote the national statute that makes it a crime to say you will release a tax return and then not do it?

The Obama birthplace controversy was started by the Hillary Clinton campaign. Why aren't you pissed at her for making that up? (or maybe somewhere deep down inside, you think it might be true).

 

[Faun]

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.

You say that but you were one of the most blatant posters of every lie and fake news story put out about Trump since he decided to run. Is it "legal" to make up lies and post them as fact on main stream news outlets? Is it "legal" for the media to ignore any and all negative facts about the democrat candidate?

You are a typical lib. You want the truth as long as it doesn't hurt your side, and when it does you refuse to acknowledge it. The American voters told you guys to shove that crap last November.

Link to a lie I've told.....

repeating a lie is the same as lying. But I am not going to waste my time going through 22K posts and listing all of your lies.

you are a dem/lib hack, you repeat the dem/lib talking points all day every day. I know it, you know it, everyone on this forum knows it.

LOLOL

22k posts and you can't find a single lie I've told. That's quite the thumbs up you just gave me for credibility. Let me show you how easy it is to post lies from someone who is not so credible...

better question: why would Russia prefer Trump when Hillary gave them half of our uranium reserves?

 

[meaner gene]

So now you're sticking your fingers in your ears and singing lalalalalalal when everyone including the FBI and Congressmen are saying there is no evidence of collusion? And on the other hand you're very ready to accept their word that the Russians did the hacking even though the only people that looked at the servers were bought and paid for by the DNC. If you slime ball regressives didn't have your hypocrisy you'd be totally bankrupt.

The evidence of Russian hacking came from the NSA, not from looking at the servers, but looking at the data traffic.