I need an answer to this question..

[francoHFW]

Investigation Reveals the Unprecedented Number of Leaks Hitting Trump Compared to His Predecessors

If he wasn't so nutty and scary, it wouldn't happen...

It's more like whistleblowing. They hear Trump claim something that isn't true, and they leak the truth.

Since they agreed to that happening with the DNC e-mails, they should agree to the Trump leaks as just getting the truth out there.

OK....I'll put you in the column of favoring espionage and subversion against the United States.

You must be a Democrat, huh?

Nonsensical, Putin lover. lol

You posted this vis-a-vis leaks of classified information.

It's more like whistleblowing. They hear Trump claim something that isn't true, and they leak the truth.

Since they agreed to that happening with the DNC e-mails, they should agree to the Trump leaks as just getting the truth out there.


OK....I'll put you in the column of favoring espionage and subversion against the United States.

You must be a Democrat, huh?

Exactly what was classified, dupe? ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

 

[PoliticalChic]

If he wasn't so nutty and scary, it wouldn't happen...

It's more like whistleblowing. They hear Trump claim something that isn't true, and they leak the truth.

Since they agreed to that happening with the DNC e-mails, they should agree to the Trump leaks as just getting the truth out there.

OK....I'll put you in the column of favoring espionage and subversion against the United States.

You must be a Democrat, huh?

Nonsensical, Putin lover. lol

You posted this vis-a-vis leaks of classified information.

It's more like whistleblowing. They hear Trump claim something that isn't true, and they leak the truth.

Since they agreed to that happening with the DNC e-mails, they should agree to the Trump leaks as just getting the truth out there.


OK....I'll put you in the column of favoring espionage and subversion against the United States.

You must be a Democrat, huh?

Exactly what was classified, dupe? ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

1. In December, unnamed intelligence sources told the Washington Post that Russia helped Donald Trump win the presidency

2. A week later, senior intelligence sources told NBC News that Putin personally was involved in helping Trump win.

3. In February current and former officials released the details of a phone call between incoming national security adviser Mike Flynn and Russian ambassador Kislyak. The call was monitored because the Russian ambassador was being spied on, and Flynn's name should have been concealed.. but was unmasked and then leaked.

4. Trump's private phone call with the President of Mexico was surveilled by intell and then leaked.

5. His call with the Australian Prime Minister, also surveilled and then leaked.

6. His call with Vladimir Putin, again, leaked by the intell community.

7. Their job is to advance American national security....none of the above fits that description.

On the contrary, it was entirely political.

8. In fact, in March, a half dozen current and former intell officials told the NYTimes how they'd decide to spread classified information about the Trump campaign as widely as possible throughout government, so as to insure that it would eventually leak.

9. These people's job is to safeguard that intelligence, to hold information secret, not use them for political reasons.....and with enormous power goes...or should go....enormous responsibility.

10. Their job is to keep us safe from foreign threats.....not to pick our political leaders.

Tucker Carlson


11. "Investigation: Trump Admin Hit With at Least One National Security Leak a Day, Threatening U.S. Operations" Investigation Reveals the Unprecedented Number of Leaks Hitting Trump Compared to His Predecessors

 

[francoHFW]

It's more like whistleblowing. They hear Trump claim something that isn't true, and they leak the truth.

Since they agreed to that happening with the DNC e-mails, they should agree to the Trump leaks as just getting the truth out there.

OK....I'll put you in the column of favoring espionage and subversion against the United States.

You must be a Democrat, huh?

Nonsensical, Putin lover. lol

You posted this vis-a-vis leaks of classified information.

It's more like whistleblowing. They hear Trump claim something that isn't true, and they leak the truth.

Since they agreed to that happening with the DNC e-mails, they should agree to the Trump leaks as just getting the truth out there.


OK....I'll put you in the column of favoring espionage and subversion against the United States.

You must be a Democrat, huh?

Exactly what was classified, dupe? ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

1. In December, unnamed intelligence sources told the Washington Post that Russia helped Donald Trump win the presidency

2. A week later, senior intelligence sources told NBC News that Putin personally was involved in helping Trump win.

3. In February current and former officials released the details of a phone call between incoming national security adviser Mike Flynn and Russian ambassador Kislyak. The call was monitored because the Russian ambassador was being spied on, and Flynn's name should have been concealed.. but was unmasked and then leaked.

4. Trump's private phone call with the President of Mexico was surveilled by intell and then leaked.

5. His call with the Australian Prime Minister, also surveilled and then leaked.

6. His call with Vladimir Putin, again, leaked by the intell community.

7. Their job is to advance American national security....none of the above fits that description.

On the contrary, it was entirely political.

8. In fact, in March, a half dozen current and former intell officials told the NYTimes how they'd decide to spread classified information about the Trump campaign as widely as possible throughout government, so as to insure that it would eventually leak.

9. These people's job is to safeguard that intelligence, to hold information secret, not use them for political reasons.....and with enormous power goes...or should go....enormous responsibility.

10. Their job is to keep us safe from foreign threats.....not to pick our political leaders.

Tucker Carlson


11. "Investigation: Trump Admin Hit With at Least One National Security Leak a Day, Threatening U.S. Operations" Investigation Reveals the Unprecedented Number of Leaks Hitting Trump Compared to His Predecessors

Anything seriously classified leaked should be investigated and prosecuted, but most of this is leaked by serious Trumpers who want to keep the big orange idiot on the straight and narrow. lol

 

[JimBowie1958]

"I need an answer to this question..."

42

 

[francoHFW]

Answer OP- Nobody gives a shytte about what DNC staffers BSed about except controversy mad media gabfesters and GOP dupes...

 

[Ame®icano]

About a thousand mentions of wikileaks by trump in all of his rallies and tweets, trump was relentless!

Anytime a Trump surrogate was asked about some new revelation about Trump, they said "yeah, but what about the Wikileaks"...

The shit found on Wikileaks was much better than anything lefties used against Trump.

So you are saying it was so good it could influence how people voted in an election? Thanks for confirming that.

No, that's what you're saying.

What I said is that Wikileaks stuff was much better than anything lefties used against Trump.

What you just confirmed, and I stated few posts earlier, is that you're still talking out of your ass.

Wrong, you just complimented the information from WikiLeaks. If it was not good enough to influence people's votes on the election then it wouldn't be quality stuff...

You just got caught talking out of both sides of your mouth.

I complimented information that should've come from our media, had they did their job, and I don't mind that came from Wikileaks. Actually, it didn't come from Wikileaks, it came from the DNC leaker(s), Wikileaks just published it.

On the second part of your post, what can I say... you kid can't do anything on your own.

 

[Lewdog]

Anytime a Trump surrogate was asked about some new revelation about Trump, they said "yeah, but what about the Wikileaks"...

The shit found on Wikileaks was much better than anything lefties used against Trump.

So you are saying it was so good it could influence how people voted in an election? Thanks for confirming that.

No, that's what you're saying.

What I said is that Wikileaks stuff was much better than anything lefties used against Trump.

What you just confirmed, and I stated few posts earlier, is that you're still talking out of your ass.

Wrong, you just complimented the information from WikiLeaks. If it was not good enough to influence people's votes on the election then it wouldn't be quality stuff...

You just got caught talking out of both sides of your mouth.

I complimented information that should've come from our media, had they did their job, and I don't mind that came from Wikileaks. Actually, it didn't come from Wikileaks, it came from the DNC leaker(s), Wikileaks just published it.

On the second part of your post, what can I say... you kid can't do anything on your own.

Wikileaks has said they got the info from Gucifer 2.0. You Trump supporters are quite odd ducks that you selectively believe what someone says to fit your agenda.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The shit found on Wikileaks was much better than anything lefties used against Trump.

So you are saying it was so good it could influence how people voted in an election? Thanks for confirming that.

No, that's what you're saying.

What I said is that Wikileaks stuff was much better than anything lefties used against Trump.

What you just confirmed, and I stated few posts earlier, is that you're still talking out of your ass.

Wrong, you just complimented the information from WikiLeaks. If it was not good enough to influence people's votes on the election then it wouldn't be quality stuff...

You just got caught talking out of both sides of your mouth.

I complimented information that should've come from our media, had they did their job, and I don't mind that came from Wikileaks. Actually, it didn't come from Wikileaks, it came from the DNC leaker(s), Wikileaks just published it.

On the second part of your post, what can I say... you kid can't do anything on your own.

Wikileaks has said they got the info from Gucifer 2.0. You Trump supporters are quite odd ducks that you selectively believe what someone says to fit your agenda.

a. The day before any leaks, wikileaks or otherwise, the RealClearPolitics had Hillary at 48%

b. The election result gave Hillary 48.08% per the election.


Sure looks like the leaks helped the career criminal, huh?

 

[Lewdog]

So you are saying it was so good it could influence how people voted in an election? Thanks for confirming that.

No, that's what you're saying.

What I said is that Wikileaks stuff was much better than anything lefties used against Trump.

What you just confirmed, and I stated few posts earlier, is that you're still talking out of your ass.

Wrong, you just complimented the information from WikiLeaks. If it was not good enough to influence people's votes on the election then it wouldn't be quality stuff...

You just got caught talking out of both sides of your mouth.

I complimented information that should've come from our media, had they did their job, and I don't mind that came from Wikileaks. Actually, it didn't come from Wikileaks, it came from the DNC leaker(s), Wikileaks just published it.

On the second part of your post, what can I say... you kid can't do anything on your own.

Wikileaks has said they got the info from Gucifer 2.0. You Trump supporters are quite odd ducks that you selectively believe what someone says to fit your agenda.

a. The day before any leaks, wikileaks or otherwise, the RealClearPolitics had Hillary at 48%

b. The election result gave Hillary 48.08% per the election.


Sure looks like the leaks helped the career criminal, huh?

You guys can't make up your minds. I thought you said all the polls were wrong.

 

[PoliticalChic]

No, that's what you're saying.

What I said is that Wikileaks stuff was much better than anything lefties used against Trump.

What you just confirmed, and I stated few posts earlier, is that you're still talking out of your ass.

Wrong, you just complimented the information from WikiLeaks. If it was not good enough to influence people's votes on the election then it wouldn't be quality stuff...

You just got caught talking out of both sides of your mouth.

I complimented information that should've come from our media, had they did their job, and I don't mind that came from Wikileaks. Actually, it didn't come from Wikileaks, it came from the DNC leaker(s), Wikileaks just published it.

On the second part of your post, what can I say... you kid can't do anything on your own.

Wikileaks has said they got the info from Gucifer 2.0. You Trump supporters are quite odd ducks that you selectively believe what someone says to fit your agenda.

a. The day before any leaks, wikileaks or otherwise, the RealClearPolitics had Hillary at 48%

b. The election result gave Hillary 48.08% per the election.


Sure looks like the leaks helped the career criminal, huh?

You guys can't make up your minds. I thought you said all the polls were wrong.

Sooo....proven undeniably wrong....your defense is to change the subject?

How long have you been a Liberal?

 

[Ame®icano]

The shit found on Wikileaks was much better than anything lefties used against Trump.

So you are saying it was so good it could influence how people voted in an election? Thanks for confirming that.

No, that's what you're saying.

What I said is that Wikileaks stuff was much better than anything lefties used against Trump.

What you just confirmed, and I stated few posts earlier, is that you're still talking out of your ass.

Wrong, you just complimented the information from WikiLeaks. If it was not good enough to influence people's votes on the election then it wouldn't be quality stuff...

You just got caught talking out of both sides of your mouth.

I complimented information that should've come from our media, had they did their job, and I don't mind that came from Wikileaks. Actually, it didn't come from Wikileaks, it came from the DNC leaker(s), Wikileaks just published it.

On the second part of your post, what can I say... you kid can't do anything on your own.

Wikileaks has said they got the info from Gucifer 2.0. You Trump supporters are quite odd ducks that you selectively believe what someone says to fit your agenda.

Nope, Wikileaks hadn't revealed their sources. You leftist liars have to get your story straight.

 

[Ame®icano]

No, that's what you're saying.

What I said is that Wikileaks stuff was much better than anything lefties used against Trump.

What you just confirmed, and I stated few posts earlier, is that you're still talking out of your ass.

Wrong, you just complimented the information from WikiLeaks. If it was not good enough to influence people's votes on the election then it wouldn't be quality stuff...

You just got caught talking out of both sides of your mouth.

I complimented information that should've come from our media, had they did their job, and I don't mind that came from Wikileaks. Actually, it didn't come from Wikileaks, it came from the DNC leaker(s), Wikileaks just published it.

On the second part of your post, what can I say... you kid can't do anything on your own.

Wikileaks has said they got the info from Gucifer 2.0. You Trump supporters are quite odd ducks that you selectively believe what someone says to fit your agenda.

a. The day before any leaks, wikileaks or otherwise, the RealClearPolitics had Hillary at 48%

b. The election result gave Hillary 48.08% per the election.


Sure looks like the leaks helped the career criminal, huh?

You guys can't make up your minds. I thought you said all the polls were wrong.

Did ever occurred to you that polls were wrong before and after the Wikileaks?

No?

 

[Ame®icano]

So you are saying it was so good it could influence how people voted in an election? Thanks for confirming that.

No, that's what you're saying.

What I said is that Wikileaks stuff was much better than anything lefties used against Trump.

What you just confirmed, and I stated few posts earlier, is that you're still talking out of your ass.

Wrong, you just complimented the information from WikiLeaks. If it was not good enough to influence people's votes on the election then it wouldn't be quality stuff...

You just got caught talking out of both sides of your mouth.

I complimented information that should've come from our media, had they did their job, and I don't mind that came from Wikileaks. Actually, it didn't come from Wikileaks, it came from the DNC leaker(s), Wikileaks just published it.

On the second part of your post, what can I say... you kid can't do anything on your own.

Wikileaks has said they got the info from Gucifer 2.0. You Trump supporters are quite odd ducks that you selectively believe what someone says to fit your agenda.

a. The day before any leaks, wikileaks or otherwise, the RealClearPolitics had Hillary at 48%

b. The election result gave Hillary 48.08% per the election.


Sure looks like the leaks helped the career criminal, huh?

Lewd-og doesn't get it.

 

[Crixus]

None....because democrats know that it had nothing to do with the Russians...

Who exactly has taken that server as evidence and EXAMINED it?

No one.....strange, no?

Pages and pages of threads on this and NO ONE can help me here?? Why is no one ASKING these questions?

Because no one told them to.

 

[Ame®icano]

Wrong, you just complimented the information from WikiLeaks. If it was not good enough to influence people's votes on the election then it wouldn't be quality stuff...

You just got caught talking out of both sides of your mouth.

I complimented information that should've come from our media, had they did their job, and I don't mind that came from Wikileaks. Actually, it didn't come from Wikileaks, it came from the DNC leaker(s), Wikileaks just published it.

On the second part of your post, what can I say... you kid can't do anything on your own.

Wikileaks has said they got the info from Gucifer 2.0. You Trump supporters are quite odd ducks that you selectively believe what someone says to fit your agenda.

a. The day before any leaks, wikileaks or otherwise, the RealClearPolitics had Hillary at 48%

b. The election result gave Hillary 48.08% per the election.


Sure looks like the leaks helped the career criminal, huh?

You guys can't make up your minds. I thought you said all the polls were wrong.

Sooo....proven undeniably wrong....your defense is to change the subject?

How long have you been a Liberal?

I don't think she knows what liberal is, but I'm pretty sure she knows what's "popular".

By the way, I notice you're still calling them "liberals", but why?

 

[Lewdog]

Wrong, you just complimented the information from WikiLeaks. If it was not good enough to influence people's votes on the election then it wouldn't be quality stuff...

You just got caught talking out of both sides of your mouth.

I complimented information that should've come from our media, had they did their job, and I don't mind that came from Wikileaks. Actually, it didn't come from Wikileaks, it came from the DNC leaker(s), Wikileaks just published it.

On the second part of your post, what can I say... you kid can't do anything on your own.

Wikileaks has said they got the info from Gucifer 2.0. You Trump supporters are quite odd ducks that you selectively believe what someone says to fit your agenda.

a. The day before any leaks, wikileaks or otherwise, the RealClearPolitics had Hillary at 48%

b. The election result gave Hillary 48.08% per the election.


Sure looks like the leaks helped the career criminal, huh?

You guys can't make up your minds. I thought you said all the polls were wrong.

Sooo....proven undeniably wrong....your defense is to change the subject?

How long have you been a Liberal?

You didn't prove me wrong... I'm simply amused that you choose to accept a source whenever it fits your argument.

 

[Lewdog]

So you are saying it was so good it could influence how people voted in an election? Thanks for confirming that.

No, that's what you're saying.

What I said is that Wikileaks stuff was much better than anything lefties used against Trump.

What you just confirmed, and I stated few posts earlier, is that you're still talking out of your ass.

Wrong, you just complimented the information from WikiLeaks. If it was not good enough to influence people's votes on the election then it wouldn't be quality stuff...

You just got caught talking out of both sides of your mouth.

I complimented information that should've come from our media, had they did their job, and I don't mind that came from Wikileaks. Actually, it didn't come from Wikileaks, it came from the DNC leaker(s), Wikileaks just published it.

On the second part of your post, what can I say... you kid can't do anything on your own.

Wikileaks has said they got the info from Gucifer 2.0. You Trump supporters are quite odd ducks that you selectively believe what someone says to fit your agenda.

Nope, Wikileaks hadn't revealed their sources. You leftist liars have to get your story straight.

Wrong, they sent out a tweet about them getting it from Gucifer 2.0.

 

[Lewdog]

Wrong, you just complimented the information from WikiLeaks. If it was not good enough to influence people's votes on the election then it wouldn't be quality stuff...

You just got caught talking out of both sides of your mouth.

I complimented information that should've come from our media, had they did their job, and I don't mind that came from Wikileaks. Actually, it didn't come from Wikileaks, it came from the DNC leaker(s), Wikileaks just published it.

On the second part of your post, what can I say... you kid can't do anything on your own.

Wikileaks has said they got the info from Gucifer 2.0. You Trump supporters are quite odd ducks that you selectively believe what someone says to fit your agenda.

a. The day before any leaks, wikileaks or otherwise, the RealClearPolitics had Hillary at 48%

b. The election result gave Hillary 48.08% per the election.


Sure looks like the leaks helped the career criminal, huh?

You guys can't make up your minds. I thought you said all the polls were wrong.

Did ever occurred to you that polls were wrong before and after the Wikileaks?

No?

You have a reading comprehension problem. She just stated that the RESULTS matched the polls.

 

[Ame®icano]

I complimented information that should've come from our media, had they did their job, and I don't mind that came from Wikileaks. Actually, it didn't come from Wikileaks, it came from the DNC leaker(s), Wikileaks just published it.

On the second part of your post, what can I say... you kid can't do anything on your own.

Wikileaks has said they got the info from Gucifer 2.0. You Trump supporters are quite odd ducks that you selectively believe what someone says to fit your agenda.

a. The day before any leaks, wikileaks or otherwise, the RealClearPolitics had Hillary at 48%

b. The election result gave Hillary 48.08% per the election.


Sure looks like the leaks helped the career criminal, huh?

You guys can't make up your minds. I thought you said all the polls were wrong.

Sooo....proven undeniably wrong....your defense is to change the subject?

How long have you been a Liberal?

You didn't prove me wrong... I'm simply amused that you choose to accept a source whenever it fits your argument.

Nope, she didn't.

 

[Ame®icano]

No, that's what you're saying.

What I said is that Wikileaks stuff was much better than anything lefties used against Trump.

What you just confirmed, and I stated few posts earlier, is that you're still talking out of your ass.

Wrong, you just complimented the information from WikiLeaks. If it was not good enough to influence people's votes on the election then it wouldn't be quality stuff...

You just got caught talking out of both sides of your mouth.

I complimented information that should've come from our media, had they did their job, and I don't mind that came from Wikileaks. Actually, it didn't come from Wikileaks, it came from the DNC leaker(s), Wikileaks just published it.

On the second part of your post, what can I say... you kid can't do anything on your own.

Wikileaks has said they got the info from Gucifer 2.0. You Trump supporters are quite odd ducks that you selectively believe what someone says to fit your agenda.

Nope, Wikileaks hadn't revealed their sources. You leftist liars have to get your story straight.

Wrong, they sent out a tweet about them getting it from Gucifer 2.0.

How about you post that tweet?