Trump advisor, Roger Stone, met with and wrote an article about DNC hacker

[Raunchy]

Thanks for proving my point for me.

This cocksucker thinks he has a point!

Infracted - Flaming

[NYC17]

No i answered your question. You just don't like the answer since it basically proves just how ridicules you are being. And im sorry you dont appreciate how you have taken on the potion of the Trumpsters in this continuation of the Hillary Emails thingy. I however find it hilarious and will live it up on my time...and yours apparently.

I actually very explicitly stated why I don't "like" your answer. Well, I thought I did but apparently it's beyond your comprehension. So here, I'll be even more explicit in my criticism: Your passive aggressive answer/non answer was designed for a conversation we aren't having. I asked a simple question because the conversation I wish to have about this subject is relatively simple. Your "answer" was a conclusion based on a conversation you wished to have instead of the one you were actually taking part in.

As for your reference to Hillary's emails; it's barely coherent.

[Saucexorzski]

I actually very explicitly stated why I don't "like" your answer. Well, I thought I did but apparently it's beyond your comprehension. So here, I'll be even more explicit in my criticism: Your passive aggressive answer/non answer was designed for a conversation we aren't having. I asked a simple question because the conversation I wish to have about this subject is relatively simple. Your "answer" was a conclusion based on a conversation you wished to have instead of the one you were actually taking part in.

As for your reference to Hillary's emails; it's barely coherent.

your question: How is one of his advisers, and friend, meeting with the hackers a "rumor", exactly?

Answer: Its not.

Commentary: But what took place at said meeting currently is only rumors.

Your 2nd question: I'll ask again; how is a trump adviser and friend speaking directly with the hacker, by his own admission, a "rumor"?

Answer: ...its not

Commentary: Keep asking stupid question, you will get stupid answers!

[NYC17]

your question: How is one of his advisers, and friend, meeting with the hackers a "rumor", exactly?

Answer: Its not.

Commentary: But what took place at said meeting currently is only rumors.

Your 2nd question: I'll ask again; how is a trump adviser and friend speaking directly with the hacker, by his own admission, a "rumor"?

Answer: ...its not

Commentary: Keep asking stupid question, you will get stupid answers!

If those had been your answers than this conversation would have been a bit more amicable. However your answers were...

Lets do a play! ok my line is:

"If you have all this proof why don't you bring it to the FBI?"

then your line is:

"the investigation is still on going."

boy this fun!

So, not only do you fabricate conversations you want to have, you fabricate ones you think took place...that clearly did not.


As I said, you are particularly bad at this. From now on when someone asks you a straightforward and simple question you should answer it less like an overly sensitive victim and more like a functional adult. There's your free lesson for the day.

[Machismo]

This cocksucker thinks he has a point!

You are proving my point for me, thanks.

[Saucexorzski]

If those had been your answers than this conversation would have been a bit more amicable. However your answers were...

Lets do a play! ok my line is:

"If you have all this proof why don't you bring it to the FBI?"

then your line is:

"the investigation is still on going."

boy this fun!

So, not only do you fabricate conversations you want to have, you fabricate ones you think took place...that clearly did not.


As I said, you are particularly bad at this. From now on when someone asks you a straightforward and simple question you should answer it less like an overly sensitive victim and more like a functional adult. There's your free lesson for the day.

No way man, its much more fun to play around with politically biased individuals by pointing out their hypocrisy.


[Infracted]

[Varvara Spiros Gelashvili]

Theres nothing to blow. Its clearly a distraction. And they keep doing it because its working. Its a bunch of "oh someone on trump staff talked to a russian 2 months-5 years ago" "Collusion!!!!"

Its just stupid. One sides mad they lost and got exposed and are trying to turn it into "its Russia's fault" Except they forgot the "its Russia's fault our corrupted system failed to keep us in power"

A Russian who might have illegally hacked the democrats to swing the election.

- - - Updated - - -

What am I missing that makes this newsworthy?

- - - Updated - - -



Why not we ignore the million dollar birthday gift Clinton got quick enough... when your standards only apply to people you don't like they come across rather petty and hollow.

Why is a million dollar birthday gift bad?

- - - Updated - - -

Your first link is just allegations and rumors... it isn't anything but a gossip rag...

Your second link is more rumors without any evidence...

Your third link admits at the start of its article that the claims its making are unclear...

The last articles damning proof is donald borrowed money from Russia in the past...

My what a damning argument you put forth...baseless rumor mongering and conspiracy theories. Let me guess Trump also faked his birth certificate right?

Trump foundation and university got closed down because they were basically scams but the Clinton foundation is running just fine. Trump used money donated to his charity to pay off a judge. He laundry money for the Russian mafia.

Trump might be using the presidency to enrich himself. He and the republicans got some pretty hefty donations from Betsy Devos. Trump might also value his fortune over the country with a weak travel ban that doesn't even target the top exporters of terrorism. Foreign politicians stay at his hotels for massive mark ups to be respectful.

Trumps lied about saving jobs, keeping jobs, and saving us money on a new jet.

Trump tweaking his policies around what's best for him is an ugly precedent. He and Bannon might want a terrorist attack to happen though to push for another war in the Middle East. They could also push for an ineffective bans that they know democrats will fight. They can then blame the next terrorist attacks on democrats which is scummy and puts peoples lives at risk for hopes of a reelection which is cancerous behavior.

I can't wait for a tax funded wall and stories of contractors that are friends of the president getting rammed through the approval process.

[NYC17]

No way man, its much more fun to play around with politically biased individuals by pointing out their hypocrisy.

The bias in our discussion is limited to you and your penchant for fabrication. My interest in Stone's role isn't based in political opposition. It doesn't take a particular ideology to find this situation interesting and worth knowing more about. The political nonsense that comes into play here is the Trumpeteers shouting for all to hear that "there's nothing to see here".

There most definitely is more to see, and drawing a conclusion in either direction at this point is senseless.

[Orbitus]

I don't waste my time looking at people's posting history. This site is purely for entertainment purposes only.

And for your entertainment, you choose to defend Trump in every thread. Hooray.

- - - Updated - - -

No, I'm calling him a shitposter, because I actually took the time to inform myself by looking at his posting history. You are now trying to get upset with me, because I bothered to look into something.

Don't worry about Allybeboba. All she does is try to pull the bullshit semantics game.

- - - Updated - - -

Why was people so up in wire with Hillary's mails, but as soon it's talk about a possible hack and connection with foreign powers and Trump, it's suddenly okay and 'nothing to worry about'? What?

Because its their guy that they wanted to win.

- - - Updated - - -

It's not Trumpers... its anyone with a normal functioning brain. THERE IS NOTHING! Trump defeated Hillary because Hillary is a fucking corporate whore who was literally SELLING her access to government through the CLINTON foundation. SHE WAS LITERALLY SELLING OUT EVERY AMERICAN THROUGH THE FOUNDATION! and people realized how crooked hillary was and is that is why she lost. PEOPLE WOKE UP!... well most people. Seems that some are still in some liberal coma are still blaming the russians. CNN et al.

Have any evidence of anything you claimed? Because even the FBI hasn't confirmed any of this bullshit.

You know that Russian Dossier that came out a couple of months ago from Ex-MI6 agent Christopher Steele? Well, since Trump was elected, it has slowly been confirmed piece by piece. Not the golden showers part, yet, but a lot of the rest of it has been.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Theres nothing to blow. Its clearly a distraction. And they keep doing it because its working. Its a bunch of "oh someone on trump staff talked to a russian 2 months-5 years ago" "Collusion!!!!"

Its just stupid. One sides mad they lost and got exposed and are trying to turn it into "its Russia's fault" Except they forgot the "its Russia's fault our corrupted system failed to keep us in power"

ALL HAIL TRUMP. Nothing to see here people. Move along. No investigations please. We don't want any investigations. Trump is an innocent good God fearing man who would never do anything wrong. But that Hillary. Man Hillary is guilty of like everything ever because she sent some emails. Not that there was anything incriminating in them but... EMAILS. HILLARY. OBAMA. BUT HILLARY. BUH BUH BUH EMAILS, BENGHAZI!!!!!!!!!!!!!

- - - Updated - - -

No way man, its much more fun to play around with politically biased individuals by pointing out their hypocrisy.

This is fucking hilarious coming from one of the more biased on here.

Pot meet kettle.

[Orbitus]

There spreading false information and innuendo. Instead of getting upset with the FALSE NEWS NETWORKS for lying to them for over a year with misleading polls etc. They are trying to blame Trump for winning. Literally an unwinnable campaign. Its going to go down in history because no one in their right minds thought that Trump would win given the two parties were against him and yet the citizens rose up and said FUCK YOU! Washington!

Look at Trump's latest request to keep highly probable terrorists out of the country.... every disgusting judge or AG is going after him for trying to keep everyone safe... WHO DO YOU THINK PEOPLE WILL BLAME WHEN SOMETHING HAPPENS?! NOT TRUMP! He is doing everything possible to keep anything from happening... it will be the extremely misdirected AGs and judges that are literally making up new laws as they go along. Its ridiculous whats going on.

The irony the same small minded, one sided(god forbid you listen to the other side-looking right at you Berkley) will be blaming TRUMP! LOL its fucking tragic.

The only one spreading false information, is you. You claimed a lot of things and backed none of it up. I mean, your hyperbole screams of fucking Infowars and Breitbart.

[Svifnymr]

I'll ask again; how is a trump adviser and friend speaking directly with the hacker, by his own admission, a "rumor"?

I think the main problem is over stating their "meeting" like you did in #62 above, when it seems limited to some online messages. We can call it "speaking directly", sure. The other thing that is true, but possibly misleading, is the "trump advisor", given that he is a Breitbart Author, since I guess you can't call them journalists, really.

So, you have an author that did an article about a hacker, whom the hacker then contacted, and afterwards the two had more direct communication, to what purpose we do not know. This was quite obviously long after the DNC hack itself, and there was no record of contact before the article, I believe. Certainly I haven't read anything about any contact from the time-frame of the actual DNC hack itself.

I'm not saying by any means that he didn't have contact with the hacker later on as a part of the Trump political machine, just that what is in these articles isn't proof of that or much of anything else. Some of the communication was even public, I believe.

[Wells]

Its kind of amazing to live in a world where someone like Roger Stone is relevant.

[Bodakane]

That's not my line. It may be fun for you because you're a little to used to fabricating scenarios and deciding their outcome before knowing everything, or apparently anything =(

So instead of fabricating conversations in order to cling to your self serving narrative, how about you stick to the one actually taking place? I'll ask again; how is a trump adviser and friend speaking directly with the hacker, by his own admission, a "rumor"?

Aaaaaaaaaannnnnndddddd writing a glowing article of the hacker for Breibart.

[Valsaber]

Is he crucified yet? You can't have any ties with Russians, even if through an intermediary.

[Bodakane]

Is he crucified yet? You can't have any ties with Russians, even if through an intermediary.

Jesus. Read the OP before you post.

Stone basically fellated the DNC hacker.

[Tijuana]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ges-innocuous/



Lemme guess Trumpers...still nothing to see here...right?

Although that hacker claims to have hacked the DNC, we don't actually know if that is true yet. WikiLeaks insists their source is an insider. Recent reports have indicated the CIA has the ability to mimic Russian hackers; others likely have this capability as well.

I don't really think we have any idea what actually happened, until the investigations are complete.

Also, Roger Stone is hardly a "Trump adviser". He is a dirt digger who left the campaign in August. I'm not sure why it's surprising that a professional dirt digger was digging dirt. /shrug

This whole Russian hacking thing could lead to some sort of Watergate revelations, but I sort of doubt it gets back to Trump.

[callipygoustp]

Because they believe ANYTHING that is anti-Obama/Hillary
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...a7623441.html?

That was good for a laugh. To be fair though, would be interesting to see the same done for Obama/Hilary supporters. I suspect, based on what I see all over the place, results would be somewhat similar. Regardless, still pretty dammed funny though.

[NYC17]

I think the main problem is over stating their "meeting" like you did in #62 above, when it seems limited to some online messages. We can call it "speaking directly", sure. The other thing that is true, but possibly misleading, is the "trump advisor", given that he is a Breitbart Author, since I guess you can't call them journalists, really.

So, you have an author that did an article about a hacker, whom the hacker then contacted, and afterwards the two had more direct communication, to what purpose we do not know. This was quite obviously long after the DNC hack itself, and there was no record of contact before the article, I believe. Certainly I haven't read anything about any contact from the time-frame of the actual DNC hack itself.

I'm not saying by any means that he didn't have contact with the hacker later on as a part of the Trump political machine, just that what is in these articles isn't proof of that or much of anything else. Some of the communication was even public, I believe.

He was an adviser and remains a confidante of Trump. Hes a longtime friend of Trump. That is not arguable.

But yes, I misspoke and called it a meeting the first time, and corrected it the 2nd time around. However, what we have is a longtime friend, adviser, and confidante of Trump having self-admitted direct backchannel communications. What that tells us is there is a connection that needs to be scrutinized and investigated; not dismissed and handwaved.

- - - Updated - - -

Although that hacker claims to have hacked the DNC, we don't actually know if that is true yet. WikiLeaks insists their source is an insider. Recent reports have indicated the CIA has the ability to mimic Russian hackers; others likely have this capability as well.

I don't really think we have any idea what actually happened, until the investigations are complete.

Also, Roger Stone is hardly a "Trump adviser". He is a dirt digger who left the campaign in August. I'm not sure why it's surprising that a professional dirt digger was digging dirt. /shrug

This whole Russian hacking thing could lead to some sort of Watergate revelations, but I sort of doubt it gets back to Trump.

He's more than a "dirt digger" who left the campaign. It seems odd that there is a constant effort to downplay any connection Trump associates have when they suddenly reveal they have connections to Russians or hackers. Well, it's not really odd as much as it is expected.

[Tijuana]

He was an adviser and remains a confidante of Trump. Hes a longtime friend of Trump. That is not arguable.

But yes, I misspoke and called it a meeting the first time, and corrected it the 2nd time around. However, what we have is a longtime friend, adviser, and confidante of Trump having self-admitted direct backchannel communications. What that tells us is there is a connection that needs to be scrutinized and investigated; not dismissed and handwaved.

- - - Updated - - -



He's more than a "dirt digger" who left the campaign. It seems odd that there is a constant effort to downplay any connection Trump associates have when they suddenly reveal they have connections to Russians or hackers. Well, it's not really odd as much as it is expected.

His job is to dig up dirt. That is how he has spent his career. I don't know why anyone would refute that basic fact.

This guy is not a key campaign person, any more than that dossier guy was a key Clinton adviser. Since Stone is so irrelevant, it isn't exactly a scandal that reaches the president, imo.