Slashdot Mirror
Trump Calls For Russia To Cyber-Invade the United States To Find Clinton's 'Missing' Emails (gawker.com)
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump publicly called on the Russian hackers allegedly responsible for the recent leak of DNC emails to launch another cyber-attack on the United States, this time to hack emails from Hillary Clinton's tenure as secretary of State, according to reporters who attended the press conference Wednesday. (Alternate source: NYTimes, Quartz, and MotherJones) "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing," Trump said. "I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press."
Clinton came under investigation for her use of a personal email address while serving as secretary of state. After turning over to the FBI all correspondence about government business during her years in the State Department, Clinton revealed at a press conference last year that she had deleted about half of her emails that pertained to personal matters, like her daughter's wedding. Attorney General Loretta Lynch ultimately decided not to pursue criminal charges against Clinton. Update: Here's a video of Trump saying that.
Clinton came under investigation for her use of a personal email address while serving as secretary of state. After turning over to the FBI all correspondence about government business during her years in the State Department, Clinton revealed at a press conference last year that she had deleted about half of her emails that pertained to personal matters, like her daughter's wedding. Attorney General Loretta Lynch ultimately decided not to pursue criminal charges against Clinton. Update: Here's a video of Trump saying that.
Headline doesn't match the quote.
I am not in any way a Trump supporter but is it not more likely that he was making a joke trying to tie the DNC email issue with the Clinton personal email server issue?
Story where she took bribes from Russia to approve the sale of 1/5 of US uranium to them.
So much for lack of factual support. Perhaps if you spent a minute looking you would have seen this, or the university thing where she took $16.5 million of taxpayer money for herself.
You mean Hillary? Because Trump, despite all the mud being thrown this way, has done very little concrete evil in comparison.
An NBC reporter tried to press him for details about his statements during this press conference, and was told to "be quiet" when she tried to catch him dodging the question. The response from Trump supporters? She was "rude," referring to her as part of the "bully media," and that she was "yakking on." He's taken time out to call a reporter "sleaze." When a reporter pressed him on not following through with his promise to donate to vets he responded by calling the reporter "a nasty guy." Or remember Jorge Ramos? Trump told him to "sit down" and ejected him from a press conference.
Trump's supporters eat this up and heap praise upon him for "standing up to the media." As President that wouldn't change, and I'm sure he'd have press credentials revoked on a regular basis.
Rawr
They told us it was ridiculous to worry about Russia when Romney warned us about them.
Are you being ridiculous? What's today's official groupthink? Are we at war with Eastasia?
University thing? You mean Trump University where he defrauded people to the tune of tens of millions of dollars? The University where employees were told to extract as much money as possible from people via high pressure sales tactics?
That's the University you're talking about, correct? The one run by the shyster.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Likewise you're legally free to advocate for treasonous action, and say things that "give comfort and aid to our enemies," but that doesn't mean you can't be indicted for it.
Rawr
Do you mean like having secret government emails on a home server?
That's not treason.
Like knowingly allowing soldiers and an Ambassador to die in Benghazi and then blaming it all on a Youtube video?
That also is not treason.
Treason is the only crime defined in the Constitution. You strike me as the kind of person who gives a shit about the Constitution, did you skip the part where it defines treason or did you just not understand it? James Madison even spelled out why they defined treason - to stop partisan idiots from accusing each other of treason when it was never committed.
As treason may be committed against the United States the authority of the United States ought to be enabled to punish it: but as new tangled and artificial treasons have been the great engines by which violent factions, the natural offspring of free governments, have usually wreaked their alternate malignity on each other, the Convention has with great judgment opposed a barrier to this peculiar danger by inserting a Constitutional definition of the crime.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
He's also said he wants to change libel laws so that he can sue reporters who say bad things about him - even if those things are true. So if President Trump would have his way, press reporting on him negatively could first get their credentials revoked and then wind up being sued into oblivion. At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if, after the election if he wins it, he declares that criticizing the President was grounds to be tried for treason.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
it was a well known secret.
That's a weird definition of "secret".
Anyway, a relevant part of the description about what happened with Valerie Plame. I've bolded the part that is pertinent to this discussion.
A week after Wilson's op-ed was published, Novak published a column which mentioned claims from "two senior administration officials" that Plame had been the one to suggest sending her husband. Novak had learned of Plame's employment, which was classified information, from State Department official Richard Armitage. David Corn and others suggested that Armitage and other officials had leaked the information as political retribution for Wilson's article.
The ONLY people offended by her "outing" were people who hate Cheney.
The only people who were offended that a journalist was given classified information were people who already hated Cheney, got it. How about the people "offended" at Hillary's handling of classified information? Am I allowed to be "offended" at that even if I didn't already hate Hillary Clinton, or are the only people who care about that issue people who already hated her?
Hate him all you want, just don't do it for this, it is a non-issue.
Giving classified information to a reporter is a non-issue. Well, then giving classified information to another nation would also be a non-issue, right? I mean, if the reporter publishes that classified information then it's not like the distribution of it can be controlled, it's going to get to any country that cares to pay attention, right? So if Hillary left her email server wide open, for example, and another nation went in and got that information, it's really a non-issue because that's essentially the same thing as officials in the presidential administration just giving the classified information to a journalist and encouraging them to publish it. In other words, it's a non-issue.
I also find it simply amazing that this is a huge deal to certain people, while at the same time, those same people are voting Clinton, who has done much much worse.
You really find it amazing that partisan idiots would find one person's disclosure of classified information to be a big deal, but then claim that another person's disclosure of classified information is a non-issue? That seriously amazes you? Have you looked in a mirror?
What about those of us who think that what Clinton and Cheney each did are both a big deal? Are you amazed at us also?
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Clinton Cash - Official Movie Premiere
Valarie Plame was not a "undercover" agent. And Dick Cheney didn't out her, it was a well known secret.
The ONLY people offended by her "outing" were people who hate Cheney. Hate him all you want, just don't do it for this, it is a non-issue. I also find it simply amazing that this is a huge deal to certain people, while at the same time, those same people are voting Clinton, who has done much much worse.
"a well known secret"?
The Intelligence Identities Protection Act provides criminal penalties for the intentional,
unauthorized disclosure of information identifying a covert agent.
Regardless of whether or not you believe it is a "well known secret".
Now, what was that about it being a "non-issue"? And, please enlighten us as to what deliberate actions Clinton has actually taken that are "much, much worse".
“They probably have them. I’d like to have them released. It gives me no pause, if they have them, they have them,” Trump added later when asked if his comments were inappropriate. “If Russia or China or any other country has those emails, I mean, to be honest with you, I’d love to see them.”
- Wash Post.
The real estate mogul sought to distance himself from allegations that the Russian government hacked into the Democratic National Committee to benefit his campaign, which Clinton’s campaign manager suggested earlier this week.
“It is so farfetched. It’s so ridiculous. Honestly, I wish I had that power. I’d love to have that power, but Russia has no respect for our country,” Trump said.
I'd say Trump was at least half-serious. He said in no uncertain terms that he'd have no problem if Russia stepped in to do some dirty work on his behalf.
Of course, if the Russians actually deliver, Trump would owe Putin a favor. Ukraine, maybe? Disband NATO?
Dumb not-so-funny, off-the-cuff comments may be fine in reality TV, but they have consequences in international politics. An ex-KGB like Putin could make a predictable narcissist like Trump dance on a string. I'm talkin Godfather II, waking up next to a dead prostitute.
Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
Wrong. They recovered some of her emails, but not all of them. Some of the emails they were able to recover from the official state.gov servers, but an unknown quantity of emails were never recovered. To quote from Comey himself:
It is also likely that there are other work-related e-mails that they did not produce to State and that we did not find elsewhere, and that are now gone because they deleted all e-mails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.
The bottom line is that we'll never know just how bad Clinton's handling of email was, unless someone (like Russia) comes forward with the emails they copied off her insecure server during the time it was running.
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
No, Laureate University she dumped $55 million of taxpayer money into and got Bill $16.5 million of it personally.
Trump, questionable ethics and conflicting story. Clinton, stole taxpayer money.
Ever wonder why the Trump U stories disappeared and never came back? He mentioned the Clinton sealing taxpayer money and they freaked out and told the press to be quiet about it.
Kinda like the US court that has actually _jailed_ Scooter Libby? And then Bush just pardoned him, in violation of his own clemency requirements.
And yet, Clinton stole 16.5 million in tax money (on this 1 project alone) and never charged. The cases of fraud stack up, but nobody will prosecute her. Thats the downfall of the USA, political elite that are criminals and get away with it.
You mean Hillary? Because Trump, despite all the mud being thrown this way, has done very little concrete evil in comparison.
Yeah, if you look past all the scams, lawsuits, lies about donating to charity, racist comments, racist acts, misogyny, donations for explicit political favours, mob connections, and rape allegations then he's practically a saint.
I stole this Sig
You mean Hillary? Because Trump, despite all the mud being thrown this way, has done very little concrete evil in comparison.
Trump has never held an elective or appointive office in his entire life.
But there is damn little reason to believe that he is capable of playing by the rules or accepting responsibility for anything that goes wrong.
The legal actions provide clues to the leadership style the billionaire businessman would bring to bear as commander in chief. He sometimes responds to even small disputes with overwhelming legal force. He doesn't hesitate to deploy his wealth and legal firepower against adversaries with limited resources, such as homeowners. He sometimes refuses to pay real estate brokers, lawyers and other vendors.
As he campaigns, Trump often touts his skills as a negotiator. The analysis shows that lawsuits are one of his primary negotiating tools. He turns to litigation to distance himself from failing projects that relied on the Trump brand to secure investments. As USA TODAY previously reported, he also uses the legal system to haggle over his property tax bills. His companies have been involved in more than 100 tax disputes, and the New York State Department of Finance has obtained liens on Trump properties for unpaid tax bills at least three dozen times. Exclusive: Trump's 3,500 lawsuits unprecedented for a presidential nominee
Heck, the right wing has been using fake dirt against the Clintons for decades for lack of the real thing.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Who cares about the friggin emails.
This was an attempt by Russia, who considers the US a rival and possible enemy, to create political upheaval in US and change the outcome of an election.
These distinctions matter, the NYTimes did what it did to inform the public and make the country stronger, that's why functioning Democracies give freedom of the press such high regard.
Russia's actions are literally intended as an attack on your country and are carried out in a way to inflict damage. That's why the NSA and CIA exist, to engage in this kind of soft warfare.
I stole this Sig
The blaming a Youtube video part happened pretty fucking definitely.
This is from a New York Times article in 2014:
On the day of the attack, Islamists in Cairo had staged a demonstration outside the United States Embassy there to protest an American-made online video mocking Islam, and the protest culminated in a breach of the embassy's walls- images that flashed through news coverage around the Arab world.
As the attack in Benghazi was unfolding a few hours later, Mr. Abu Khattala told fellow Islamist fighters and others that the assault was retaliation for the same insulting video, according to people who heard him.
In an interview a few days later, he pointedly declined to say whether an offensive online video might indeed warrant the destruction of the diplomatic mission or the killing of the ambassador. "From a religious point of view, it is hard to say whether it is good or bad," he said.
No one who obsesses about Benghazi seems aware that during the George W Bush administration, there were 39 attempted attacks on U.S. embassies, 20 of which resulted in fatalities. The total death toll in those attacks was 87, including three confirmed to be U.S. civilians, and another 21 who worked at U.S. embassies or consulates and were either of American or foreign nationality.
The reason you might not have heard of those tragedies is that unlike Benghazi, no one exploited them for politics.
Banning reporters is a totally Republican thing, isn't it?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!