Let ' s have some fun . foreign policy advisor with ties to the Russian government Wow , a foreign policy advisor with connections to other countries . GASP ! sentence you quoted as the only comment Amazing how I only included the only part of the email that was actually typed by DNC people , and not the remainder of what is essentially a public newspaper article . Maybe because I was referring to what the DNC actually said , and not trying to mislead anyone . Shocking . DNC thought it would be politically advantageous to paint Trump with a proRussia brush This happened in April of 2016 . DNC leaks didn ' t happen until July 2016 . They were planning to smear Trump with Russian ties BEFORE their emails got leaked . hardly treason No one said it was treason . Here is a quote from Hillary at the final debate Where are the 17 quotes from 17 agencies ? Or Hillary said it bust be true is the logic we ' re trying to apply here ? Clarify . If you wanted to know where 17 came from So either she ' s wrong or there ' s secret information , and I just have to trust that the remainder of the statement is true without any confirmation ? Seems like a leap . multiple entities in our intelligence community arrived at the conclusion You state this as fact , but it is clearly fiction . Please show me 17 PR statements . The DHS statement clearly says consistent with Russian . and severs in Russia , but cannot say with certainty . uphro provided However , we are not now in a position to attribute this activity to the Russian Governmentconjecture This is all you ' ve done . Now , face the fact that this email was sent April 4 th , and that the DNC email leaks didn ' t happen until later . Also , the content of the email doesn ' t say that this is starting now , but adds it to ongoing narrative based on the the proRussia stuff ties in pretty well to idea quote . I quoted source material which brings to the table refutable , but direct proof that this was collusion prior to the leaks even being reported . On the other hand , you gave secondhand information which only fits the description of my proof , and in no uncertain terms , does not , in any way , shape , or form , give credibility to federal agencies stating otherwise . I even offered to lower the standard of proof , and to accept just a list of agencies which would have the capacity to comment on such matters . More specifically , a list of agencies that can investigate it . Your reply was a list of mostly military intelligence agencies that do not deal with nonmilitary matters . You provide no proof for your false hope that multiple entities in our intelligence community arrived at the conclusion . This is unsubstantiated . We already know your claim . Where is the evidence ? To break down for you the thought process here , let ' s say that you have a car , and in the car you ' ve left evidence of a crime . Let ' s say someone steals your car , and the authorities recover it . Should you not be prosecuted for the crime because your car was stolen ? What if it wasn ' t a car , but instead the stolen property was emails ? Should you not still be prosecuted ? We call that a limitation on the exclusion of evidence . Here is supporting case law supremecourt 256465 . htmlNow , you provided a statement said by Hillary Clinton as she interpreted information provided by unknown sources , which she said as an attack on her political opponent . Further , this attack is consistent with the collusive tactics clearly premeditated in the evidence I put forth , and is clearly unsubstantiated , inflammatory rhetoric . We call this hearsay . If you have questions , let me know , and I ' ll be glad to explain further . Basically , you lose .