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

[Faun]

Who says the two are contradictory? They both sound like a group of people.

Because you don't "use" yourself to do something, you just do it. The article said: Guccifer 2.0 was used to publicly release the data from hacks, but that the hacks themselves were conducted by Russia." The author of the article is the one that drew the distinction.

Guccifer 2.0 could still be a group in that context.

Yet the author felt a need to draw a distinction, go figure.

There was no distinction. You're reading two paragraphs where they mention Guccifer 2.0 and drawing an erroneous distinction between the them.

Maybe you should go back to your ESL class.

Guccifer was used to publicly release the data form the hacks.
Russia conducted the hacks themselves.

One released, one hacked, two different entities at work. It's so simple a 6th grader could understand.

Too stupid....Guccifer 2.0 IS the Russian group which conducted the hacking. They released the hacked emails to Wikileaks who then published them on the Internet. Both of those paragraphs are accurate and you're imagining a distinction which doesn't exist.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Where would they find them besides on the disassembled, government held server?

Emails are generally spread across many servers. Hillary, deleting the ones on her own server, does not guarantee they didn't already exist on other servers she did not have access to wipe clean.

Hillary had classified e-mails on servers she didn't control?
How reckless!!

I'm glad she lost.

Diversion noted.

Hillary's corruption diverted her from the White House.

Thankfully.

And the right justifies Russia hacking the DNC to accomplish that.

Isn't it hilarious how they now agree and applaud that Clinton was indeed damaged by these hacks but can't accept or connect the dots to see that Russia influenced our election?

 

[Care4all]

So Trump's team CHEATED and did NOT really win??? Cuz Cheaters don't win, they are suppose to get punished....right? We don't let the cheater just get rewarded for their cheating and stay in their position they got by cheating do we??

Inquiring minds want to know?

How do we deal with cheaters?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Where would they find them besides on the disassembled, government held server?

Emails are generally spread across many servers. Hillary, deleting the ones on her own server, does not guarantee they didn't already exist on other servers she did not have access to wipe clean.

Hillary had classified e-mails on servers she didn't control?
How reckless!!

I'm glad she lost.

Diversion noted.

Hillary's corruption diverted her from the White House.

Thankfully.

And the right justifies Russia hacking the DNC to accomplish that.

It's awful that hackers exposed her corruption.
Just awful.

I think I'm gonna shed a tear now.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The phishing email was the hack. We know Podesta received that long before Roger Stone tweeted to Guccifer, so it just isn't possible that Stone helped Guccifer hack Podesta's account.

Then post a link prior to 8.21.16 which talks about Podesta being hacked....

Your theory that the hack had to become public knowledge the day it occurred couldn't possibly be more idiotic.

More attribution to me of things I never said. Do you see that? You're so fucked in the head, you can't even argue against wait I'm saying, no less refute it.

Moron... there's no evidence anyone knew Podesta was hacked in March, so how the fuck could Stone have known. The Clinton aide who saw the phishing email thought it was a legitimate email, though he did warn Podesta to change his password anyway. And I've still yet to see any evidence that the public knew about Podesta being hacked prior to Stone's confession.

there's no evidence anyone knew Podesta was hacked in March, so how the fuck could Stone have known.

You think Stone knew in March? Link?

And I've still yet to see any evidence that the public knew about Podesta being hacked prior to Stone's confession.

When was Stone's confession?

No, I don't think Stone knew in March. Who knows what I said that led you to believe I did. I don't see any evidence Stone knew long before 8.21.17

His confession came when he notified Guccifer 2.0 that Podesta was going to "find himself in a barrel" about a week before Podesta found himself in a barrel.

Ironic that he notified the hacker who hacked Podesta months earlier.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That's a serious accusation. Have you got any proof?

No? . . . . . . . I didn't think so.

You must be the last idiot on Earth to not see Roger Stone's confession.

You mean the confession where he had contact with Guccifer 2.0, after hacked DNC info was already released?

Then went on to "predict" that Podesta was next.

So what?

He had the information well before the public did. It certainly shows a clear line of communication.

Why is Stone speaking with either WL or Guccifer 2.0 anyway?

He had the information well before the public did.

That's awful!

It certainly shows a clear line of communication.

So what?

Why is Stone speaking with either WL or Guccifer 2.0 anyway?

Enemy of my enemy?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Ask Trump, he was the one personally encouraging Russia to hack Hillary.

OK. just for drill, lets say that the Russians hacked the DNC and turned the info over to wikileaks who put it on the internet for all to see. So, what did that reveal? 1. corruption within the DNC to skew the primaries for Hillary, 2. that the DNC lied to democrats, 3. that the superdelegates control the dem primary and the rest of the delegates don't mean shit, 4. that the media conspired with the Hillary campaign to cheat and give her interview and debate questions ahead of time.

So that hacking provided the American voters with the truth about Hillary, the DNC, and the media. What exactly do you find wrong with the voters knowing the truth?

Next, on the dem/media/lib claim that the Russians changed the outcome of our election. Prove it.

You're beyond retarded. First you say Americans voters were shown the truth about Hillary/DNC lies and corruption, but then idiotically pretend like that didn't sway the election.

Too funny!
Yes, the American people deserve to see the truth of the Dem corruption but it no way changed the mind of voters.

Truly CONvoluted thinking.

The truth hurt Hillary?
What's the problem then?

That would be influencing the election, dumbass.

OMG! The truth influenced the election.
Better hide the truth, right? Moron.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Emails are generally spread across many servers. Hillary, deleting the ones on her own server, does not guarantee they didn't already exist on other servers she did not have access to wipe clean.

Hillary had classified e-mails on servers she didn't control?
How reckless!!

I'm glad she lost.

Diversion noted.

Hillary's corruption diverted her from the White House.

Thankfully.

And the right justifies Russia hacking the DNC to accomplish that.

Isn't it hilarious how they now agree and applaud that Clinton was indeed damaged by these hacks but can't accept or connect the dots to see that Russia influenced our election?

Yes, anything that damaged Hillary was good.

She was awful!

It's hilarious that you think hiding her corruption would have been a good thing.

 

[Faun]

Emails are generally spread across many servers. Hillary, deleting the ones on her own server, does not guarantee they didn't already exist on other servers she did not have access to wipe clean.

Hillary had classified e-mails on servers she didn't control?
How reckless!!

I'm glad she lost.

Diversion noted.

Hillary's corruption diverted her from the White House.

Thankfully.

And the right justifies Russia hacking the DNC to accomplish that.

It's awful that hackers exposed her corruption.
Just awful.

I think I'm gonna shed a tear now.

Oh, I fully understand you have no qualms about foreigners hacking our election and swaying the results as long as they sway in your direction. But then, that's just more evidence how the right places their ideology over their country.

 

[Faun]

You must be the last idiot on Earth to not see Roger Stone's confession.

You mean the confession where he had contact with Guccifer 2.0, after hacked DNC info was already released?

Then went on to "predict" that Podesta was next.

So what?

He had the information well before the public did. It certainly shows a clear line of communication.

Why is Stone speaking with either WL or Guccifer 2.0 anyway?

He had the information well before the public did.

That's awful!

It certainly shows a clear line of communication.

So what?

Why is Stone speaking with either WL or Guccifer 2.0 anyway?

Enemy of my enemy?

So Russian hackers are now the friends of the right.



Can ya get any more un-American?

 

[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.

The truth hurt Hillary?
What's the problem then?

That would be influencing the election, dumbass.

OMG! The truth influenced the election.
Better hide the truth, right? Moron.

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

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

The truth hurt Hillary?
What's the problem then?

That would be influencing the election, dumbass.

OMG! The truth influenced the election.
Better hide the truth, right? Moron.

Russia influenced our election, dumbass.
You dopes were too dumb to even know that you admitted it. Now you're trying to play it off like everyone didn't see it.

 

[OKTexas]

Because you don't "use" yourself to do something, you just do it. The article said: Guccifer 2.0 was used to publicly release the data from hacks, but that the hacks themselves were conducted by Russia." The author of the article is the one that drew the distinction.

Guccifer 2.0 could still be a group in that context.

Yet the author felt a need to draw a distinction, go figure.

There was no distinction. You're reading two paragraphs where they mention Guccifer 2.0 and drawing an erroneous distinction between the them.

Maybe you should go back to your ESL class.

Guccifer was used to publicly release the data form the hacks.
Russia conducted the hacks themselves.

One released, one hacked, two different entities at work. It's so simple a 6th grader could understand.

Too stupid....Guccifer 2.0 IS the Russian group which conducted the hacking. They released the hacked emails to Wikileaks who then published them on the Internet. Both of those paragraphs are accurate and you're imagining a distinction which doesn't exist.

So you're saying the author F'd up when he said Guccifer released the data, "but" the Russians did the hacking themselves?

but
[bət]
1. used to introduce something contrasting with what has already been mentioned.
synonyms yet · nevertheless · nonetheless · even so · however ·

I guess something contrasting with is NOT drawing a distinction between the two. LMAO

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Hillary had classified e-mails on servers she didn't control?
How reckless!!

I'm glad she lost.

Diversion noted.

Hillary's corruption diverted her from the White House.

Thankfully.

And the right justifies Russia hacking the DNC to accomplish that.

It's awful that hackers exposed her corruption.
Just awful.

I think I'm gonna shed a tear now.

Oh, I fully understand you have no qualms about foreigners hacking our election and swaying the results as long as they sway in your direction. But then, that's just more evidence how the right places their ideology over their country.

you have no qualms about foreigners hacking our election

Hacking our election? LOL!

You think Hillary's corruption should remain hidden. Just say it.

You know you want to.......

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

The truth hurt Hillary?
What's the problem then?

That would be influencing the election, dumbass.

OMG! The truth influenced the election.
Better hide the truth, right? Moron.

Russia influenced our election, dumbass.
You dopes were too dumb to even know that you admitted it. Now you're trying to play it off like everyone didn't see it.

You think Hillary's corruption should remain hidden. Just say it.

You know you want to.......

 

[OKTexas]

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.

The truth hurt Hillary?
What's the problem then?

That would be influencing the election, dumbass.

OMG! The truth influenced the election.
Better hide the truth, right? Moron.

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

Definition of espionage

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

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

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

 

[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.

The truth hurt Hillary?
What's the problem then?

That would be influencing the election, dumbass.

OMG! The truth influenced the election.
Better hide the truth, right? Moron.

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

Definition of espionage

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

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

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

The Russians were doing the bidding of Trump to help him get elected; so yes, the DNC was the competing "company," or in this case, organization.

 

[Faun]

Guccifer 2.0 could still be a group in that context.

Yet the author felt a need to draw a distinction, go figure.

There was no distinction. You're reading two paragraphs where they mention Guccifer 2.0 and drawing an erroneous distinction between the them.

Maybe you should go back to your ESL class.

Guccifer was used to publicly release the data form the hacks.
Russia conducted the hacks themselves.

One released, one hacked, two different entities at work. It's so simple a 6th grader could understand.

Too stupid....Guccifer 2.0 IS the Russian group which conducted the hacking. They released the hacked emails to Wikileaks who then published them on the Internet. Both of those paragraphs are accurate and you're imagining a distinction which doesn't exist.

So you're saying the author F'd up when he said Guccifer released the data, "but" the Russians did the hacking themselves?

but
[bət]
1. used to introduce something contrasting with what has already been mentioned.
synonyms yet · nevertheless · nonetheless · even so · however ·

I guess something contrasting with is NOT drawing a distinction between the two. LMAO

No, I'm saying you fucked up. The article identified Guccifer 2.0 as Russian intelligence, according to our intelligence community. So whether they're saying Russia hacked the emails or they're saying Guccifer 2.0 released them; they're still talking about the same entity. It's no ones fault but your own that you can't grasp that simple concept.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

I think it would be better if we hold foreign actors accountable for such interference. Including any agents acting mutually from our side.

What would "holding them accountable" entail, and who did you have in mind for this treatment?

Exactly whatever for whomever the investigations find to be culpable.

Obama has already taken actions against Russia. The individual players still need to be sorted.

"Culpable" for what? How is the US government going to punish any Russians?

 

[bripat9643]

The truth hurt Hillary?
What's the problem then?

That would be influencing the election, dumbass.

OMG! The truth influenced the election.
Better hide the truth, right? Moron.

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

Definition of espionage

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

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

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

The Russians were doing the bidding of Trump to help him get elected; so yes, the DNC was the competing "company," or in this case, organization.

Again, serious allegation without a shred of proof.