The One Question No One So Far Can Answer

[bripat9643]

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.

I know I'm getting old but evidently not as old as you. Here are a couple of your contradictory quotes: My bold

How does one of the President’s Men (to introduce the Nixonian parlance because that seems to be where we’re going) know six months ahead of the fact that John Podesta is going to be hacked?

Well, Roger Stone knew full well that John Podesta was going to be hacked six weeks before Guccifer released the e-mails.

Then you have these.

He didn't alert the DNC or Podesta or whomever that they were about to be targeted by hackers.

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

So here's a thought, take a few minutes, get your thoughts together and get back to me.

.

I guess were no longer pretending that Stone just had a simple communication with Russian criminals...no worry. The investigation continues

The first one was a typo--6 weeks. My bad
Secondly it's a push; could go either way. If you're interested in free and fair elections; you have a duty (yes unwritten) to report such malfeasance. I know you disagree since your candidate benefitted. Again, with conservatives it seems that the ends justify the means. So if we get into the realm of causing physical injuries to candidates, their families, or staff in the name of winning; just remember, it started with Trump.

Apparently you are admitting that no crimes have been committed. Is there any reason to continue with your farce?

 

[francoHFW]

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?"

Example then, superdupe?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

I know I'm getting old but evidently not as old as you. Here are a couple of your contradictory quotes: My bold

How does one of the President’s Men (to introduce the Nixonian parlance because that seems to be where we’re going) know six months ahead of the fact that John Podesta is going to be hacked?

Well, Roger Stone knew full well that John Podesta was going to be hacked six weeks before Guccifer released the e-mails.

Then you have these.

He didn't alert the DNC or Podesta or whomever that they were about to be targeted by hackers.

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

So here's a thought, take a few minutes, get your thoughts together and get back to me.

.

I guess were no longer pretending that Stone just had a simple communication with Russian criminals...no worry. The investigation continues

The first one was a typo--6 weeks. My bad
Secondly it's a push; could go either way. If you're interested in free and fair elections; you have a duty (yes unwritten) to report such malfeasance. I know you disagree since your candidate benefitted. Again, with conservatives it seems that the ends justify the means. So if we get into the realm of causing physical injuries to candidates, their families, or staff in the name of winning; just remember, it started with Trump.

Not according to Stone, of course you're gonna say I'm taking the word of a criminal, even though you can't name the crime. And every one knew, according to 17 intelligence agencies, which Clapper said in reality was only 3, the other 14 remained silent on the topic, that the Ruskies were the culprits. But what I find amusing is your disdain for a conversation about the possible release of factual information, yet you seem to have no problem with Harry Reids outright lies on the senate floor. I guess truth is sedition and lies are just politics. LMAO
.

Well, they're investigating to see if there were any crimes committed; that is what investigations do. The way it is going, it looks like there will be a grand jury investigation into it since Trump has a policy of firing those who are investigating him it seems. When/if that happens and you can subpoena folks and hold them in contempt if they are found in contempt....you will see folks starting to flip. Anyone who believes/trusts the President at this point is a moron.

What you've never answered (and I can't blame you because there is no elegant answer) is how/why a guy who has the President's ear even remotely knows and converses with Russian hackers.

The grand jury will be investigating who unmasked the names of private citizens and/or leaked them to the public. Those people will be going to jail, and the list could include people high up in the Obama administration.

 

[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.

So every journalist with confidential sources should be tried for being accomplices to crimes their informants commit?

Snowflakes never think these things through. In their desperation to label everything Republicans do as criminal, they always incriminate themselves.

They really are a bunch of clowns.

 

[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?

.

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?

lol

Actually, no, they wouldn't have broken any laws.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

Russia had nothing to do with Wikileaks.

 

[Slade3200]

Who are the targets of the investigation as you understand it?

Well not Trump himself, but from there I guess it depends, Comey, Rogers and Clapper have said there no evidence of collusion. Then Comey comes back and says they are looking at the "possibility" that Trump associates may have coordinated with the hackers. Of course the hackers themselves are the primary component of the counterintelligence investigation. To date, no one has given the names of the Trump associates, of course that hasn't stopped the commiecrats from just throwing out names and maligning possibly totally innocent people.

.

Yeah, the speculation gets old, its all part of the garbage reality show that our cable news networks have become. But beside all that noise. There does appear to be enough evidence to warrant suspicion and a pretty heavy duty investigation by the FBI. The Russian hackers are definitely a focus, however, it has been specified that the investigation is looking at Trump associates and their communications with the Russians to see if there is proof of collusion. All it takes is foul play from one Trump associate and proof that Trump had knowledge of it and Mr Prez is in hot water.

I personally think all they have at this point is Flynn telling the Russians to ignore Obamas sanctions, but no link to Trump... although I don't think many people will believe that he didn't direct Flynn to have that conversation. Beyond that I'd be surprised if anything else materializes. There has just been so much dishonesty around the subject it makes them look guilty. And there I go speculating...

Well I have a bit more faith in a career military guy, I bet he said no more than Trump planned to review all of maobamas policies and made no promises. Maybe I'm just an optimist.

.

I have the upmost respect for our military generals, but I lost a lot for Flynn After I saw how he acted during the campaign. The dude is a weasel I wouldn't put anything past him

I think I'll give him the benefit of the doubt until I see proof otherwise.

.

That's fine but we do have proof of a few things. 1. He didn't disclose the fact that he broke the rules and accepted funds for speaking in Russia. 2. He lied to the VP and other administration officials about discussing sanctions with Russia.

Those aren't really debatable. There is a good chance that he was taking orders and fell on his sword to protect Trump in regards to the 2nd item. But the lie still exists.

 

[Slade3200]

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.

Let's see if you keep singing that tune once we find out the scope of communications between the Trumpsters and the Rooskies

 

[OKTexas]

I know I'm getting old but evidently not as old as you. Here are a couple of your contradictory quotes: My bold

Then you have these.

So here's a thought, take a few minutes, get your thoughts together and get back to me.

.

I guess were no longer pretending that Stone just had a simple communication with Russian criminals...no worry. The investigation continues

The first one was a typo--6 weeks. My bad
Secondly it's a push; could go either way. If you're interested in free and fair elections; you have a duty (yes unwritten) to report such malfeasance. I know you disagree since your candidate benefitted. Again, with conservatives it seems that the ends justify the means. So if we get into the realm of causing physical injuries to candidates, their families, or staff in the name of winning; just remember, it started with Trump.

Not according to Stone, of course you're gonna say I'm taking the word of a criminal, even though you can't name the crime. And every one knew, according to 17 intelligence agencies, which Clapper said in reality was only 3, the other 14 remained silent on the topic, that the Ruskies were the culprits. But what I find amusing is your disdain for a conversation about the possible release of factual information, yet you seem to have no problem with Harry Reids outright lies on the senate floor. I guess truth is sedition and lies are just politics. LMAO
.

Well, they're investigating to see if there were any crimes committed; that is what investigations do. The way it is going, it looks like there will be a grand jury investigation into it since Trump has a policy of firing those who are investigating him it seems. When/if that happens and you can subpoena folks and hold them in contempt if they are found in contempt....you will see folks starting to flip. Anyone who believes/trusts the President at this point is a moron.

What you've never answered (and I can't blame you because there is no elegant answer) is how/why a guy who has the President's ear even remotely knows and converses with Russian hackers.

LOL, you're delusional if you think Comey was personally involved in field work, the real investigators, a lead agent and his team, are still on the job and haven't missed a step. McCabe testified to that fact today.

I thought I answered you pretty well on the topic of Stone. But tell me, would appropriated truth or outright fabricated lies be the greater danger to our elections?

.

I'm sure that that is next; the supposed hack (why hack when you can just make stuff up????). And it just becomes more and more murky a process. Thanks Donald.

LOL, Two words, Harry Reid.

.

 

[g5000]

One has to wonder why Trump's Chumps are working so hard to be okay with a hostile foreign power interfering in our election, and why they are working so hard to be okay with Trump's campaign conspiring with the Russians if that turns out to be the case.

Traitors.

 

[OKTexas]

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?

.

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?

lol

Not enough details to answer.

.

 

[g5000]

I have said many, many times that the pseudocons remind me so much of the comsymp hippie liberals of the 60s and 70s.

This fellating and appeasement of the commie KGB thug Putin is just another example in a long list of examples.

This condoning of a hostile foreign power interfering in our internal affairs is sickening to behold.

 

[jc456]

One has to wonder why Trump's Chumps are working so hard to be okay with a hostile foreign power interfering in our election, and why they are working so hard to be okay with Trump's campaign conspiring with the Russians if that turns out to be the case.

Traitors.

we are? hmmmm, why don't you post the evidence one did.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Please stay on topic.

.

 

[jc456]

I have said many, many times that the pseudocons remind me so much of the comsymp hippie liberals of the 60s and 70s.

This fellating and appeasement of the commie KGB thug Putin is just another example in a long list of examples.

what did the dude Putin do? got something on him? let's see it.

 

[Slade3200]

One has to wonder why Trump's Chumps are working so hard to be okay with a hostile foreign power interfering in our election, and why they are working so hard to be okay with Trump's campaign conspiring with the Russians if that turns out to be the case.

Traitors.

That part of it is pretty simple. Trump is their guy, they back him just like you do your favorite sports team. The Russia thing erodes his credibility and pokes at his ego which is why he still boasts about the election and why he and his supporters try to dismiss it.

 

[g5000]

I have said many, many times that the pseudocons remind me so much of the comsymp hippie liberals of the 60s and 70s.

This fellating and appeasement of the commie KGB thug Putin is just another example in a long list of examples.

what did the dude Putin do? got something on him? let's see it.

I have seen no evidence!

 

[jc456]

One has to wonder why Trump's Chumps are working so hard to be okay with a hostile foreign power interfering in our election, and why they are working so hard to be okay with Trump's campaign conspiring with the Russians if that turns out to be the case.

Traitors.

That part of it is pretty simple. Trump is their guy, they back him just like you do your favorite sports team. The Russia thing erodes his credibility and pokes at his ego which is why he still boasts about the election and why he and his supporters try to dismiss it.

no, the fact remains the witch hunt is all dems, and to date, not one can produce a shred of evidence. So, until then, the Trumpster rules.

 

[g5000]

Putin says he didn't interfere, and that's good enough for his cock holsters.

 

[jc456]

I have said many, many times that the pseudocons remind me so much of the comsymp hippie liberals of the 60s and 70s.

This fellating and appeasement of the commie KGB thug Putin is just another example in a long list of examples.

what did the dude Putin do? got something on him? let's see it.

I have seen no evidence!

sorry, can't see your img.

And there is no evidence. zip, nada, nothing.