Yo , check this out doe lol . What if those mercs gets rounded up right . LOL . Strip them naked . Give those rubber bullet guns to protesters . It ' ll be a turkey shoot LOL . After that hose them with watervideo that shit and put it all over the internet LMAO . After that , give them a pepper spray shower . Hell yeh ! !! What say you ? <| sep |> Depends on how long she can life on their own shit <| sep |> Oh , I see where you fail to grasp reality . You think that is confident that means is sure that , that are consistent with means are definitely the , that e believe , based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts actually means we have definitive proof that , and could have are just extra words . You are reading with your heart , not your mind , and that ' s exactly what made you buy into the bullshit . This is an actual statement based on fact . Notice the wordingThe USIC and the Department of Homeland Security DHS assess that it would be extremely difficult for someone , including a nationstate actor , to alter actual ballot counts or election results by cyber attack or intrusion . This assessment is based on the decentralized nature of our election system in this country and the number of protections state and local election officials have in place . The part where you tripped up , the backbone of your little outburst , is thisWe believe , based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts , that only Russia ' s seniormost officials could have authorized these activities . Notice how one reads our perception of the intention and the other one reads based on how it ' s built . The difference should be obvious . And I ' m using evidentiary standards as an analogy to expose the logical flaws in your argument . You were using hearsay at the time , and I was using evidence . There is no need for a crime to be committed just to expose your infantile thought process . If we were to use what was , at the time , your standard for proof , we should just listen to anyone that walks in and quotes someone else having said something . To further explain why hearsay is inadmissible , it is because of exactly what is taking place now . You are blowing up a press release which is worded poorly as evidence that the ties to Russia were legitimate . I have provided proof that long before this loosely worded statement by DHSDNI was even made , there was collusion on behalf of the DNC to connect Trump to Russia , which was my original point . Even after , the statement is we think this without proof , and you ' ve provided thirdhand evidence that it ' s definitely true . I am sure this will all go past you , so I ' ll stop trying to explain . The short of it is , there was DNC propaganda to call Russia the source of the hacks , you agree that this always took place , HRC delivered a debate answer which you thoroughly believed as truth and presented as evidence , you learned what hearsay means , you poorly understood the statement on which the statements were based , and you still think that any of this changes the fact that the ties to Russia were a DNC hit job . Thanks for playing .