The One Question No One So Far Can Answer

[easyt65]

No law was broken by firing Comey.

Comey testified himself that Hillary broke the law and that he failed to carry out his duty and responsibilities as Director of the FBI. 'Nuff justification to fire him. 'Nuff said.

 

[hadit]

The Information was obtained by breaking the law by hacking the DNC servers...To then use that to gain advantage is collusion with that crime.

1. To my knowledge there has never been evidence presented that Russians actually hacked the servers. The FBI never looked at the servers.

2. Russians approaching the Trump team AFTER they had hacked the servers, if they did, does not constitute a crime on behalf of the Trump team. The Trump team did not 'collude' to hack the servers. In this scenario the team would have been offered 'stolen goods'.

3. The only information that was supposedly hacked was the 'revelation' that DNC members' e-mails contained racist / sexist / homophobic / anti-Semitic jokes/comments AND that the DNC rigged their primaries, engaged in voter fraud during their primaries, and helped Hillary cheat in debates. While embarrassing, it's not like any of this was a huge shock to anyone. This is more of a 'self-inflicted wound' than something the Russians did to Hillary and the DNC.

But, since it's the only reason for Hillary to have lost the election that does not involve Hillary being a terrible candidate and their ideas to be unappealing to the electorate, they cling bitterly to it. 20 years from now, some will still be claiming "it was da Roosians, I tells ya", just like some are still bemoaning Algore's loss in 2000.

Why then were the Trump supporters around here unanimously certain that the wikileaks revelations were bringing Hillary down?

Some were, I wasn't. That's where your assertion of unanimity reveals a fatal flaw in your "reasoning" process. I declared several times that she would never be indicted because she was too connected and knew where the bodies were buried. A less well connected person, however, would have been.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Information was obtained by breaking the law by hacking the DNC servers...To then use that to gain advantage is collusion with that crime.

1. To my knowledge there has never been evidence presented that Russians actually hacked the servers. The FBI never looked at the servers.

2. Russians approaching the Trump team AFTER they had hacked the servers, if they did, does not constitute a crime on behalf of the Trump team. The Trump team did not 'collude' to hack the servers. In this scenario the team would have been offered 'stolen goods'.

3. The only information that was supposedly hacked was the 'revelation' that DNC members' e-mails contained racist / sexist / homophobic / anti-Semitic jokes/comments AND that the DNC rigged their primaries, engaged in voter fraud during their primaries, and helped Hillary cheat in debates. While embarrassing, it's not like any of this was a huge shock to anyone. This is more of a 'self-inflicted wound' than something the Russians did to Hillary and the DNC.

But, since it's the only reason for Hillary to have lost the election that does not involve Hillary being a terrible candidate and their ideas to be unappealing to the electorate, they cling bitterly to it. 20 years from now, some will still be claiming "it was da Roosians, I tells ya", just like some are still bemoaning Algore's loss in 2000.

Why then were the Trump supporters around here unanimously certain that the wikileaks revelations were bringing Hillary down?

Some were, I wasn't. That's where your assertion of unanimity reveals a fatal flaw in your "reasoning" process. I declared several times that she would never be indicted because she was too connected and knew where the bodies were buried. A less well connected person, however, would have been.

I'm talking about the election. You honestly believed at the time that the wikileaks revelations would do NO HARM WHATSOEVER to Hillary's chances of winning?

 

[easyt65]

Hypothetically, if members of the Trump team actively conspired with the Russians to undermine Hillary's campaign,would they have been guilty of breaking the law?

Let's say - hypothetically - the Russians actually hacked the DNC's server as claimed:

The crime would a 'cyber crime' perpetrated against the DNC by the Russians.
-- There was no coordination or collusion between the Russians and Trump before or during the crime. That means the trump team was not guilty of any crime. Going to the Trump team, after the fact, does not constitute a crime of intent to commit that crime or participate in it.

-- The target of this crime, also, was not Hillary Clinton - it was the DNC. It is somewhat of a leap to suggest the Russians' goal was to 'take down' Hillary if all they targeted was the DNC. If they wanted to take down Hillary you would think they would have targeted Hillary and her server, not the DNC and the DNC server.

-------------------

The snowflake insistence that Trump and Russia colluded stemmed primarily from Trump making a joke and declaring he wished the Russians would hack Hillary.

1. Just because I wished some smartass who was bothering me falls on his ass while ice skating does not mean I have anything to do with it. If I wished some annoying heckler at a sporting event would get punched in the face by a fan and it happens, it does not mean I had anything to do with it, even though my wish came true and I am enjoying the hell out of it.

2. It has never been completely proven that the Russians hacked the DNC. There is just as much a possibility that the terrorist-connected, kidnapping/murdering/extorting, criminal-record-holding, Pakistani Spy brothers Debbie Wasserman-Schultz hired (1 after the brothers were banned from the House and an investigation of Espionage was opened on them) who were given access to DNC e-mails as well as the usernames / passwords - the same e-mails that just happened to be hacked and whose information was released. ('Coincidence'? I don't believe in them...)

 

[easyt65]

I'm talking about the election. You honestly believed at the time that the wikileaks revelations would do NO HARM WHATSOEVER to Hillary's chances of winning?

Most Americans had made up their minds, snowflakes were going to vote Democrat no matter what. There wasn't much revealed that people did not already know or did not surprise them about democrats.

Hillary was the worst candidate in US history...that's the real problem with Hillary, not what was released about her.

To begin with, her name should never have been allowed on the ballot on election day anyway for being under MULTIPLE FBI investigations for crimes to conclude ESPIONAGE just days before the election.

 

[hadit]

The Information was obtained by breaking the law by hacking the DNC servers...To then use that to gain advantage is collusion with that crime.

1. To my knowledge there has never been evidence presented that Russians actually hacked the servers. The FBI never looked at the servers.

2. Russians approaching the Trump team AFTER they had hacked the servers, if they did, does not constitute a crime on behalf of the Trump team. The Trump team did not 'collude' to hack the servers. In this scenario the team would have been offered 'stolen goods'.

3. The only information that was supposedly hacked was the 'revelation' that DNC members' e-mails contained racist / sexist / homophobic / anti-Semitic jokes/comments AND that the DNC rigged their primaries, engaged in voter fraud during their primaries, and helped Hillary cheat in debates. While embarrassing, it's not like any of this was a huge shock to anyone. This is more of a 'self-inflicted wound' than something the Russians did to Hillary and the DNC.

But, since it's the only reason for Hillary to have lost the election that does not involve Hillary being a terrible candidate and their ideas to be unappealing to the electorate, they cling bitterly to it. 20 years from now, some will still be claiming "it was da Roosians, I tells ya", just like some are still bemoaning Algore's loss in 2000.

Why then were the Trump supporters around here unanimously certain that the wikileaks revelations were bringing Hillary down?

Some were, I wasn't. That's where your assertion of unanimity reveals a fatal flaw in your "reasoning" process. I declared several times that she would never be indicted because she was too connected and knew where the bodies were buried. A less well connected person, however, would have been.

I'm talking about the election. You honestly believed at the time that the wikileaks revelations would do NO HARM WHATSOEVER to Hillary's chances of winning?

I knew she was a terrible candidate and I HOPED they would help keep her out of the White House. I did not, however, think they alone would cause enough problems to derail her attempt to stumble to the throne. Given what I saw from her partisans on this board, you would have thought the only issue was that someone broke into the DNC's computers, and the emails themselves were inconsequential. Apparently, they were very wrong.

Lesson learned, secure your data. Even better, don't keep stupidity around to be found.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

I've posed this hypothetical question to a couple of members and so far no one seems up to the task of providing an answer. So now I'm posing it the whole board.

Ok, here's a hypothetical scenario. Let's say a Trump associate spoke to a Russian representative. The Russian told him we have some really bad shit on the hildabitch and the representative said wow, it would sure help us if you released it on Tuesday and they did exactly that.

Tell me, what specific law would have been broken? Don't give me an opinion, quote the law.

Any takers?

.

18 U.S. Code § 953 - Private correspondence with foreign governments

"Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects."

Of course, you'll not accept this and quibble about what the definition of "is" is, but I'm not going to follow you down one of your fucking myriad rabbit holes! The person in your 'hypothetical' scenario would have committed a felony.

 

[easyt65]

1. To my knowledge there has never been evidence presented that Russians actually hacked the servers. The FBI never looked at the servers.

2. Russians approaching the Trump team AFTER they had hacked the servers, if they did, does not constitute a crime on behalf of the Trump team. The Trump team did not 'collude' to hack the servers. In this scenario the team would have been offered 'stolen goods'.

3. The only information that was supposedly hacked was the 'revelation' that DNC members' e-mails contained racist / sexist / homophobic / anti-Semitic jokes/comments AND that the DNC rigged their primaries, engaged in voter fraud during their primaries, and helped Hillary cheat in debates. While embarrassing, it's not like any of this was a huge shock to anyone. This is more of a 'self-inflicted wound' than something the Russians did to Hillary and the DNC.

But, since it's the only reason for Hillary to have lost the election that does not involve Hillary being a terrible candidate and their ideas to be unappealing to the electorate, they cling bitterly to it. 20 years from now, some will still be claiming "it was da Roosians, I tells ya", just like some are still bemoaning Algore's loss in 2000.

Why then were the Trump supporters around here unanimously certain that the wikileaks revelations were bringing Hillary down?

Some were, I wasn't. That's where your assertion of unanimity reveals a fatal flaw in your "reasoning" process. I declared several times that she would never be indicted because she was too connected and knew where the bodies were buried. A less well connected person, however, would have been.

I'm talking about the election. You honestly believed at the time that the wikileaks revelations would do NO HARM WHATSOEVER to Hillary's chances of winning?

I knew she was a terrible candidate and I HOPED they would help keep her out of the White House. I did not, however, think they alone would cause enough problems to derail her attempt to stumble to the throne. Given what I saw from her partisans on this board, you would have thought the only issue was that someone broke into the DNC's computers, and the emails themselves were inconsequential. Apparently, they were very wrong.

Lesson learned, secure your data. Even better, don't keep stupidity around to be found.

1. Don't put classified information on an unclassified, unencrypted computer.

2. Don't use 'password' as your password

3. Don't give access to e-mails / information / usernames/passwords to the information to those who don't have clearances, need to know, etc...like maids and terrorist-connected Pakistani Spies under investigation for espionage.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I've posed this hypothetical question to a couple of members and so far no one seems up to the task of providing an answer. So now I'm posing it the whole board.

Ok, here's a hypothetical scenario. Let's say a Trump associate spoke to a Russian representative. The Russian told him we have some really bad shit on the hildabitch and the representative said wow, it would sure help us if you released it on Tuesday and they did exactly that.

Tell me, what specific law would have been broken? Don't give me an opinion, quote the law.

Any takers?

.

"Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."

Try to spin that as benign - colluding with a foreign power interfere in our democratic institutions is an act of treason.

Can that be alleged? Yep. Can it be proved is the question.

So you're saying a recognized state of war exist between the US and Russia? Really?

.

Don't tell me or anyone what they're saying unless they say it. Otherwise you assertion is not an opinion, it is a logical fallacy and an incredulous statement.

Do you deny a cold war exists today between Russia and the US? But that was not the point of my post, colluding with Russia on an effort to elect someone to our highest office is providing them aid and comfort; failing to fully investigate the matter - to indict or to exculpate - is misfeasance at best and nonfeasance, as seen by the recent speech by Senator Leader McConnell in his partisan and contumelies affronts to the Constitution of the US.

 

[bripat9643]

Hacking is a crime, idiot.

Which Trump campaign member is guilty of hacking?

I would ask, which Trump campaign member did anything illegal?

Several candidates being investigated....do Foxbots and dupes understand that FBI investigations don't follow the BS GOP propaganda machine's ADHD schedule? Unless it's Comey on Hilary, that is?

True, there are investigations, only to satisfy the butthurt left, not because there is really something. When current investigation ends, they will demand new one and they'll probably get it. After that, they'll insist on special prosecutor and probably will get it. When none of investigations give results they can be satisfied with, they'll still demand something... impeachment... REEEEE.

Again, name any Trump campaign member that did anything illegal.

I left the classified info at the office. Dems don't do fake investigations, as we don't have a propaganda machine, dupe. This is the FBI, not one of your fake GOP congressional witch hunts, for GOP dupes ONLY.

"Dems don't do fake investigations?"

 

[bripat9643]

You seem to be going in circles here. You admit that no law were broken by the Trump representative.

I've already addressed you other issues, the news media uses stolen information all the time, are they also demonstrating a lack of respect for the law. In fact they printed the very same emails.

Also I provided a link to an AP story that stated some hacker that goes by the name Fancy Bear was responsible for the Podesta phishing, not Gufficer. But you're also ignoring the fact that both Wikileaks and Gufficer telegraphed upcoming releases. If you were involved in a campaign wouldn't you try to get an idea of what was coming? I guarantee there were people on the dem side and in the press doing exactly that.

.

Yeah, I re-posted the answer to your question; you said nobody answered it.

Bottom line; what happened (phishing or hacking) is a crime. Roger Stone, one of Trump's higher up advisors, was aware of the crime and knew what was coming. He didn't alert the DNC or Podesta or whomever that they were about to be targeted by hackers. Since the outcome benefitted your side...you're okay with it. Is that pretty much the case? Please try not to involved the Clintons, Obama, or anyone else in your answer for a change.

He had no duty to alert anyone.

.

And that is how we "Make America Great Again"? be on the side of criminals if it benefits you?

You've already admitted that no law were broken, isn't it a bit disingenuous to call someone a criminal when they broke no law?

I didn't. I said "be on the side of criminals" by not reporting their criminal activity.

Literally thousands of news organizations and web sites made billions on those hacks and you seem to only have a problem with the Trump campaign using them, I find that a bit curious.

.

And they did so on the Pentagon Papers as well. The Public Right to Know has historically been given higher importance than an organizational right to privacy.
Blaming a news paper or news site for reporting the news is, well, dumb. Siding with criminals because you're going to benefit from it is dishonest; perhaps not illegal but certainly not what Americans have historically come to expect from their elected officials.

You seem to have finally admitted that Roger Stone knew about the hacking/phishing or whatever.

Two Questions:

1. Do you think he told Trump of the criminal activity he knew about?
2. Does it tarnish your opinion of Trump that he didn't seem to mind the criminal activity?

What "criminal activity," you fucking douche bag? Stone doesn't know anything that the general public doesn't know.

There is no cold war between Russia and the United States.

 

[bripat9643]

I've posed this hypothetical question to a couple of members and so far no one seems up to the task of providing an answer. So now I'm posing it the whole board.

Ok, here's a hypothetical scenario. Let's say a Trump associate spoke to a Russian representative. The Russian told him we have some really bad shit on the hildabitch and the representative said wow, it would sure help us if you released it on Tuesday and they did exactly that.

Tell me, what specific law would have been broken? Don't give me an opinion, quote the law.

Any takers?

.

The Information was obtained by breaking the law by hacking the DNC servers...

To then use that to gain advantage is collusion with that crime.

Really, if the police bust a burglar and he has stolen material that implicates someone else in a crime and they use it to prosecute the third party, did they collude in the burglary? In this case the Russians already had the material all the representative did was coordinate the release to the public, they never took possession of it and offered nothing in return.

So what law was broken, quote the law.

.

If a burglar steals something, and then sells it to a fence who knows the items are stolen, the fence is guilty of receiving stolen goods.

Anyone who participates in colluding with the Russians is guilty of conspiracy and a party to the illegal hacking of the DNC.

You're welcome.

Next!

No one was selling any emails, dipstick. I love the way you guys try to jump all over Republicans merely for mentioning published information, but you don't give a damn that government employees committed a crime by leaking the names of people in classified wiretapped conversations.

Every time you snowflakes post on this subject all you do is prove what utter hypocrites you are. Furthermore, you're all morons who don't know dick about the law.

 

[bripat9643]

I've posed this hypothetical question to a couple of members and so far no one seems up to the task of providing an answer. So now I'm posing it the whole board.

Ok, here's a hypothetical scenario. Let's say a Trump associate spoke to a Russian representative. The Russian told him we have some really bad shit on the hildabitch and the representative said wow, it would sure help us if you released it on Tuesday and they did exactly that.

Tell me, what specific law would have been broken? Don't give me an opinion, quote the law.

Any takers?

.

"Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."

Try to spin that as benign - colluding with a foreign power interfere in our democratic institutions is an act of treason.

Can that be alleged? Yep. Can it be proved is the question.

So you're saying a recognized state of war exist between the US and Russia? Really?

.

Don't tell me or anyone what they're saying unless they say it. Otherwise you assertion is not an opinion, it is a logical fallacy and an incredulous statement.

Do you deny a cold war exists today between Russia and the US? But that was not the point of my post, colluding with Russia on an effort to elect someone to our highest office is providing them aid and comfort; failing to fully investigate the matter - to indict or to exculpate - is misfeasance at best and nonfeasance, as seen by the recent speech by Senator Leader McConnell in his partisan and contumelies affronts to the Constitution of the US.

We are not in a cold war with Russian, and they aren't our enemy. Since your premise fails, the rest of your drek is pure idiocy.

 

[bripat9643]

18 U.S. Code § 371 - Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States

If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

You're welcome!

What's the "offence," douche bag? All you conspiracy theorists keep failing to come up with anything legitimate.

 

[hadit]

18 U.S. Code § 371 - Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States

If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

You're welcome!

What's the "offence," douche bag? All you conspiracy theorists keep failing to come up with anything legitimate.

The offense appears to be defeating Hillary.

 

[bripat9643]

He had no duty to alert anyone.

.

And that is how we "Make America Great Again"? be on the side of criminals if it benefits you?

You've already admitted that no law were broken, isn't it a bit disingenuous to call someone a criminal when they broke no law?

I didn't. I said "be on the side of criminals" by not reporting their criminal activity.

Literally thousands of news organizations and web sites made billions on those hacks and you seem to only have a problem with the Trump campaign using them, I find that a bit curious.

.

And they did so on the Pentagon Papers as well. The Public Right to Know has historically been given higher importance than an organizational right to privacy.
Blaming a news paper or news site for reporting the news is, well, dumb. Siding with criminals because you're going to benefit from it is dishonest; perhaps not illegal but certainly not what Americans have historically come to expect from their elected officials.

You seem to have finally admitted that Roger Stone knew about the hacking/phishing or whatever.

Two Questions:

1. Do you think he told Trump of the criminal activity he knew about?
2. Does it tarnish your opinion of Trump that he didn't seem to mind the criminal activity?

1. Why would he need to tell Trump, emails were already in the media, and both Wikileaks and Gufficer were telegraphing there was more to come. Do you think Gufficer told Stone the content of the emails that were coming? I seriously doubt that he did, he wouldn't want Stone to give it away. The most he would have said is something on Podesta was coming. Damn now you've got me making assumptions.

2. Why would I think less of Trump, he had no control over the releases unless you think Clapper lied about no collusion and Comey lied, saying Trump wasn't a target in the investigation.

.

1. Its not an assumption.

2. Because he didn't tell Roger to tell whomever was going to put Podesta in the barrel to knock it off....

Just another question to see if there if you have a moral compass.

Would you at least agree that, in the broadest sense of the word, working with hackers as Mr. Stone was doing is tantamount to

A) Cheating
B) Improper
C) Unamerican

Who says he was "working with hackers?" Talking to one is not "working with" him.

The lengths you snowflakes take to make perfectly legal behavior sound criminal is positively comical.

 

[bripat9643]

18 U.S. Code § 371 - Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States

If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

You're welcome!

What's the "offence," douche bag? All you conspiracy theorists keep failing to come up with anything legitimate.

The offense appears to be defeating Hillary.

BINGO!

 

[bripat9643]

I've posed this hypothetical question to a couple of members and so far no one seems up to the task of providing an answer. So now I'm posing it the whole board.

Ok, here's a hypothetical scenario. Let's say a Trump associate spoke to a Russian representative. The Russian told him we have some really bad shit on the hildabitch and the representative said wow, it would sure help us if you released it on Tuesday and they did exactly that.

Tell me, what specific law would have been broken? Don't give me an opinion, quote the law.

Any takers?

.

In your scenario, probably no law is being broken. If they were complicit in spreading false Informstion to influence an election then they are probably flirting with treason. If they told the Russians not to react to sanctions because the new administration will be more forgiving then I'm guessing that's a violation... not sure which exact law it's breaking though. Perhaps treason as well. Undermining our government

You mean like ted kennedy....who went to the actual Soviet Union and told them he wanted to help them defeat Reagan...you mean like that?

Sure I guess... I don't know that story but if Ted talked to the Russians then the Russians proceeded with illegal activity to influence an election with his help then he should have been locked up

He should have been locked up whether they agreed to help or not. Merely making the proposal was a crime.

 

[bripat9643]

I've posed this hypothetical question to a couple of members and so far no one seems up to the task of providing an answer. So now I'm posing it the whole board.

Ok, here's a hypothetical scenario. Let's say a Trump associate spoke to a Russian representative. The Russian told him we have some really bad shit on the hildabitch and the representative said wow, it would sure help us if you released it on Tuesday and they did exactly that.

Tell me, what specific law would have been broken? Don't give me an opinion, quote the law.

Any takers?

.

Interfering in our election is a violation of international law.

Any American who aids that interference is guilty of conspiracy.

Glad I could help. You're welcome.

So where's the conspiracy if you only take advantage of the interference after it occurs?

.

Your scenario said the Trump associate spoke to the Russian BEFORE the interference.

Your own words: "it would sure help us if you released it on Tuesday and they did exactly that."

Conspiracy.

You're welcome.

You're one of the douche bags who has no problem with Obama interfering in the elections if Israel, France and Britain, so your opinions on this subject are obviously worthless.

 

[bripat9643]

You've already admitted that no law were broken, isn't it a bit disingenuous to call someone a criminal when they broke no law?

I didn't. I said "be on the side of criminals" by not reporting their criminal activity.

Literally thousands of news organizations and web sites made billions on those hacks and you seem to only have a problem with the Trump campaign using them, I find that a bit curious.

.

And they did so on the Pentagon Papers as well. The Public Right to Know has historically been given higher importance than an organizational right to privacy.
Blaming a news paper or news site for reporting the news is, well, dumb. Siding with criminals because you're going to benefit from it is dishonest; perhaps not illegal but certainly not what Americans have historically come to expect from their elected officials.

You seem to have finally admitted that Roger Stone knew about the hacking/phishing or whatever.

Two Questions:

1. Do you think he told Trump of the criminal activity he knew about?
2. Does it tarnish your opinion of Trump that he didn't seem to mind the criminal activity?

1. Why would he need to tell Trump, emails were already in the media, and both Wikileaks and Gufficer were telegraphing there was more to come. Do you think Gufficer told Stone the content of the emails that were coming? I seriously doubt that he did, he wouldn't want Stone to give it away. The most he would have said is something on Podesta was coming. Damn now you've got me making assumptions.

2. Why would I think less of Trump, he had no control over the releases unless you think Clapper lied about no collusion and Comey lied, saying Trump wasn't a target in the investigation.

.

1. Its not an assumption.

2. Because he didn't tell Roger to tell whomever was going to put Podesta in the barrel to knock it off....

Just another question to see if there if you have a moral compass.

Would you at least agree that, in the broadest sense of the word, working with hackers as Mr. Stone was doing is tantamount to

A) Cheating
B) Improper
C) Unamerican

Assuming that was a public tweet, wouldn't that in effect be alerting Podesta that something was coming? I thought you said he didn't alert anyone.

No, I said he didn't alert the authorities that obvious criminal activity was imminent.

And no, I wouldn't agree that a simple communication would constitute working with anyone, you have no idea what was in the communication other than he was informed that more was coming and it concerned Podesta, so none of your options would apply.
.

Again, why would someone like Roger Stone have any opinion about an obscure Russian hacker???? Seems like a pretty strange thing for him to be worried about.

People are free to have whatever opinions they like.