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.
It's getting better all the time.
(It can't get no worse)
should hacked also to obtain trump irs statements
Headline doesn't match the quote.
decent PR move, lol
should he actually win however, I think the IC is goig to be trying to put kid gloves on him for good reason. Man's MADE of leaks
Asking foreing nations to attack US... what a douche
How else are we going to find out what people in our government are doing? Wait for the press to tell us?
If you want the press to uncover -- instead of helping cover up -- what the government is doing, you should support Trump for President. The press will actually investigate and report on a Trump Administration.
It's called "news". It's this thing where someone tells everybody facts about events that are occurring.
What's low about this is that the primary source they cite is Gawker.
Rawr
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?
person to ever be a candiate for the US presidency now prominently hits the Slashdot front page. Slashdot - how low can you go ?
Don't shoot the messenger. Trump might be an incompetent maniac, that much isnt news. Him calling out for a vaguelly hostile foreign power to break into the communications of what was at the time of the mails, the highest level diplomatic and security agent in the country, is malevolent, dangerous and definately news
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
You do realize that the Secretary of State (the office of which these emails would pertain to) would have lots of things to hide for national security reasons, right? That's kind of a big reason we have a classification system for government documents.
Rawr
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.
"Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing" probably refers to the data they have already stolen, after all the Clintons (or their team) did a good enough job of deleting them that the FBI couldnt find them.
So, Trump is speculating (hoping?) that Russia hacked and exfiltrated the emails before that happened. Hes not asking for a new hack, just appealing to known criminals to continue to use the fruits of their crimes to continue to impinge the Clinton presidential campaign. Nothing to see here, Trump has been and always will be a bully eager to use any means necessary to win.
But nothing she sent on that server was classified, right?
I mean, classified at the time, riight?
I mean, marked classified at the time, riiight?!?!?
So you don't think the Republican candidate for the Presidency of the US inviting a foreign power, one that is at the best of times in a rather tense relationship with the United States, to hack into US systems just to gain dirt on the other party's nominee is reasonable?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
A presidential candidate, asking a foreign country to attack us for his personal gain, and we ask if this is treason?! Wow, if this isn't nothing is.
Are you talking about Hillary? I agree.
This is just Trump using his standard campaign tactic, if your opponent is getting a good media cycle (ie the DNC generating good speeches and endorsements) then say something crazy and outrageous to take all the media attention.
I stole this Sig
This isn't Google, which has removed Trump from its search of "Candidate for the us presidency"
I don't know; he's better than people who start their comments in the subject line...
-SaNo
person to ever be a candiate for the US presidency now prominently hits the Slashdot front page. Slashdot - how low can you go ?
We won't know that until we find all her emails.
Sounds like a form of Treason if true. Inviting a foreign nation tho cyber-attack America and/or Americans... can;t believe people actually are willing to vote for this piece of garbage
If the federal judges who have asked her to hand them over can't get Hillary to do it, and the Russians are willing to do it for free ...
C'mon Anonymous, C'mon Putin, get us those Trump IRS returns and show the world that TRUMP is all smoke and mirrors
It was not only obviously a joke, but he suggested the hack could also be China or some other private hacker.
He also said that Russia and China have no respect for the United States.
Finally, fuck any link to Gawker. Slashdot deserves much better than this, even if such a ridiculous leading headline will falsely stoke the Hillary supporters without any further context. I mean, what's next? "Hillary shit herself regularly..." (...at one year old)?
Yes. Not content to jump the shark, The Donald (otherwise known as the Insane Clown and his Posse) now insists on being jumped by a shark instead, because, in Soviet Russia, shark jumps you.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
Firstly, anybody that could have wanted those emails already has them.
Secondly "Cybercrime"... is no crime at all if no one is harmed and the information that is put in the hands of those that should have had it to begin with. I mean who would the victim be!? If anyone was ever going to have harm come to them from those emails... it's already happened, the guilty party is Hillary for breaking federal law regarding the security of government communications.. not to mention basic common sense security measures.
I can't decide who's stupider: A leftist on here thinking that Trump was serious when he said that or a leftist on here thinking that Hillary was serious when she said she was opposed to TPP (or is she for it again? I can't keep up with her).
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
All he did was speak an opinion in public. If that's not what the first amendment protects, I don't know what it does protect.
Look up royal prerogative. Administrations, legislatures and courts exempt themselves from many of the laws that they impose on the serfs.
Have gnu, will travel.
Correction: Clinton violated our national security, Trump is asking the hackers who broke into the DNC to find those deleted emails.
When New York Times published illegally-obtained materials embarrassing a Republican, they got a Pulitzer Prize — because "the people deserve to know" all there is to know about their leaders.
Putin — or whoever really is behind the DNC leaks — certainly deserves a similar reward, does he not?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
break US law by uttering such a statement ?
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
That's high treason. He should be shot for that.
Is it just me, or does this smack of the same kind of childish lack of understanding of issues, brash posturing of someone who's never been in a fight, and willingness to make totally irresponsible statements that George W. Bush displayed, when he called on terrorists and insurgent groups to "Bring it on!" when trying to tout the prowess of our US military?
"I call on England to spy on our citizens and see what you come up with. I think the NSA will reward you for your efforts" - Last two Presidents
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
I know reading is difficult for you, but you'll learn one day if you try...
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?
Now, he can be charged and indicted on allegations of criminal activity, but strictly speaking he cannot be impeached at this point in time.
Rawr
Sending more jobs overseas? Sounds like Trump all right...
Phew, what a relief. When I saw your long reply I was afraid you had a coherent argument against my position - until I actually read what you wrote. Now I know you're just a mindless Demoncrap propaganda-programmed zombie.
what rubbish : an "invitation"?
So? Do you want an independent press or don't you?
First of all, the situation in Russia has changed over the past 4 years. Russia has gotten worse.
But that's irrelevant. There is a huge difference between not worrying about Russia and inviting them to attack us. If you can't tell the difference, then you are a fool.
I don't have to worry about my neighbor, but I am not going to dare them to break into my house and check my daughter's diary.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Wow, if this isn't putting words in peoples' mouths nothing is.
Correction: Clinton violated our national security,
So did Dick Cheney when he outed an undercover CIA agent for political payback. I don't see you whining about that breach of national security.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Its obviously a joke. After all, Hillary said she deleted those emails so how could Russia hack them? Unless, of course, Hillary was lying (again).
Russian leadership is exactly the same now as it was in 2012 when it was ridiculous to worry about them.
So you're saying that Russia should have all the emails sent and received by the Secretary of State?
Unless there are certain other parties out there that don't have access to those emails, but would gain access to them by the Russians releasing them publicly. Trump has said "the press" would reward them "mightily" for releasing the emails, how else would "the press" reward Putin if it didn't mean they had unfettered access to them so they could parse it themselves?
Which is a poor deflection of the point at hand. If I forget to lock my car and you come in the middle of the night and hotwire it and steal it, are you not still guilty of grand theft auto? Does my negligence absolve you of your criminal activity?
Rawr
yeah, Hillary is pretty bad.
Can they remove Trump? I mean, under their own bylaws aren't they kind of stuck with him?
Rawr
Trump invites Arabs to fly airplanes into the Wells Fargo Convention Center on Thursday night!
That'll show 'em!
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
I think the case claiming that was dismissed. And, that Richard Armitage was determined to be the source of the leak.
Your smokescreen of Dick Chaney is not relevant to the issue of who has the 30K missing emails and the redacted, confidential information in the known Clinton emails.
Where all think alike, no one thinks very much.
Um, they already have all her emails, including the ones she deleted. That was part of he big FBI investigation. Remember when Datto handed over the trove of information to the FBI?
Rawr
But you'll still have to call him Mister President.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
How is this working with? It's challenging them. The fact that those e-mails even exist should be the bigger story.
As if those hackers' decision on whether or not to attack is affected — even in the slightest — by such an invitation or absence thereof...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Your biases have blinded you to the fact that this was humor. I admit that I laughed when I read the story today. This is the same joke my colleagues in Germany have been making to me for the last couple of years ("we don't make backups anymore, if we lose data, we'll just ask you to call the NSA so they can send us their copy")
Trump is a walking train wreck, but your apolplexy over this is just as ridiculous as his candidacy.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
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
Which one, Clinton or Trump? Or do you mean both?
You say that like she could predict with 100% accuracy everything that could ever be desired to be classified at any time in the future by any other government agency in existence.
Say she's got some schedule of some Iranian government official's visit to the United States, and three years later that government official is implicated in funding of a terrorist group in the United States. The schedule says he was supposed to be at a meeting at a certain time on a certain day, but official records showed he never showed up, and all information available says he was in the right area at the right time to make his connection with the terrorist group. All of a sudden that schedule becomes classified, because we don't want the Iranians to know what we know, so all documents pertaining to this government official and their time in the United States is retroactively classified. Crazy, right?
Rawr
OH c'mob, lighten up Francis....
He's only saying something that MANY folks have been jokingly been saying since they first released the DNC emails....
I've heard numerous folks joking and saying "well, hell, if the US govt can't find the missing emails, maybe these Russian chaps can...."
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
It sounds like the subtext here is that "Hillary claims to have lost them, then maybe the Russians can find them." Seems like more of a poke at Hillary and the administration than a truly-meant invitation to cybercrime.
But when Trump talks, you never know what to expect or what it means, if anything.
"Calls for cyber invasion?" Really editors? This is the kind of hyperbole we used to make fun of trash sited for.
This kind of egregious propaganda is beneath this website. Stop insulting the intelligence of your audience and give up on this click baiting crap.
All you're doing is driving more cynical geeks over to Trump
I think the weasel words here would be that it's for personal gain, not to cause damage to the country. In his own mind, it would enable his Presidency, which would be good for the country, and therefore not treasonous. But then again, I'm not a lawyer, so I have no idea if that would stand up to any kind of legal muster.
Rawr
Hillary claimed there were no classified emails on that personal server. Are you saying she lied?
Sounds like a form of Treason if true.
No, it sounds like a fairly typical Trump sarcastic joke/jab.
Trump: "Oh yeah, let's just support the terrorists by pretending they don't exist."
Headline on CNN 20 minutes later: "Trump Supports Ignoring Terrorism"
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
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
Totally seems like a joke, tongue in cheek type of thing. "Oh the Russians can friggen find them I bet!"
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's not beyond possibility. They also routinely exploited security vulnerabilities in the DNC's databases to extract information from the Clinton campaign. Makes sense they'd have some insider information to aid in the execution of such an attack. Not that I'm saying it was Sanders supporters, just that it's not impossible.
Rawr
I'm guessing most of our largest enemies and likely many of our allies...DO HAVE copies of her emails from her "private server".
I've heard many of the Three Letter Agency types and experts saying that any intelligence agency worth their weight, had gotten into that server and gotten any info they wanted.
I personally have little to no doubt that Russia and many other foreign governments have Hillary's emails on that server in their files.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
he is inviting Russians to come screw with our political system!
You say that like our political system isn't already ass backwards going full speed behind.
Have you ever fallen asleep at the keybhanusdiog?
Sounds like a form of Treason if true. Inviting a foreign nation tho cyber-attack America and/or Americans... can;t believe people actually are willing to vote for this piece of garbage
US Constitution, Article III, Section 3: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."
If you thing saying, "Russia, I hope you find the missing emails" is to treason, you probably think saying, "I hope this person dies" is murder.
You just made the case that Hillary Clinton exposed National Security with her private email server, and isn't qualified to be president.
Because the "classification system" we have for government was subverted by Hillary, meaning SHE did exactly what you're accusing Trump of doing.
Vote Gary Johnson, and be done with the Clintrump criminals.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
What he's really asking is if Russia would be so kind as to pull a copy from their backups.
Ha!
His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
But this is a major party nominee calling for another country to commit cybercrime and violate our national security for his own political gain. That's kind of big news.
You mean, a politician calling for exposure of a criminal's crimes and illegally destroyed evidence, even though said criminal is a rich and well-connected elite. That's kind of big news, indeed.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
The GOP presidential candidate is encouraging a hostile foreign power to intrude into US government data systems in the hopes of revealing evidence Clinton may have acted contrary to the interests of the United States. Have I got this right?
now I could become Dictator or anything else that might please me—but nothing of that kind would please me—therefore I won't be Dictator. Admirable self-denial!
If you're going to say that he is the "vilest person ever" at least look back at the history, otherwise you're just a reactionary, bloviating fool.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
This is why a person holding the office of Secretary of State should always use an e-mail server protected at a classified level for any official business. You never know what seemingly trivial information sent or received could be a security risk if disclosed. Perhaps Hillary's favorite LOL cat videos pose a risk to some secret CAT Intelligence Agent...
Slashdot - how low can you go ?
Limbo Lower Now!
pretty much, yet the left and the media will run with it because somehow they cant find any real dirt
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Except that at that level, if your joke starts with 'If the Russians are listening...' it's not funny anymore. It's dangerous.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
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
What's low about this is that the primary source they cite is Gawker.
Better?
sorry? I couldnt hear though all the yelling
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Yup. Let us find a candidate running for president who has most likely committed treason. Trump is the obvious answer. Right?
Welcome to Bizarro World, where the person who makes a joke about Russia hacking emails is a traitor, and a person who takes a bribe to supply uranium to Russia is a hero.
Are you saying all those people owe Romney and the American people a sincere apology?
Well, some could interpret "levying war against them" as inciting a foreign nation to start a cyber war to undermine the democratic process.
But maybe that's too literal...or maybe Presidents & presidential candidates shouldn't go anywhere near a joke like that.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Firstly, anybody that could have wanted those emails already has them.
Secondly "Cybercrime"... is no crime at all if no one is harmed and the information that is put in the hands of those that should have had it to begin with. I mean who would the victim be!? If anyone was ever going to have harm come to them from those emails... it's already happened, the guilty party is Hillary for breaking federal law regarding the security of government communications.. not to mention basic common sense security measures.
Well, maybe we can start with the people who had their names, addresses, social security numbers, and credit card numbers inadvertently released. Maybe they are "collateral damage?"
I find it humorous and a little bizarre that in many people's minds the DNC emails and the emails on Hillary Clinton's private server seem to be one and the same.
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.
Not only is it not treason, it didn't happen.
At some point addressing the 'treason' argument gives a pass to the basic distortion of the facts behind the argument. Nobody 'allowed' soldiers and an Ambassador to die. Some pretty extensive security arrangements proved to be not secure enough. Nobody's best moment, but a far cry from 'allowing' people to die. And going on talk shows and saying "at this point, we think this happened as part of a protest over a YouTube video" is also a far cry from "blaming it all on a YouTube video". It's more "we don't have all the facts yet - there are rumors that we're looking into". All I can say is the OP statement about treason is way more of a blatant lie than "I didn't send emails marked classified" - which turned out to be pretty much true (in an 'exception that proves the rule' kind of way). But why let the nuanced facts get in the way of a stupid political diatribe...
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
If you're concerned with real treason then you can't vote for Clinton.
Yes just like good authors always start the first sentence of their novel with the title of said book.
Or newspaper articles that start their article in the title.
Or webpages that expect you to read the URL before you can understand what the author is saying in the first paragraph.
Yes your writing style leaves nothing to be desired.
He does have a point.
About the ONLY way we will ever recover those emails that Hillary and her team decided to wipe from her server is if some hacker type managed to infiltrate her server while they still existed and archived them. ( Russian, Chinese, American, who cares where they live )
At this point it's obvious that justice is right out of the question considering both the FBI and the Attorney General have decided to ignore the fact that Her Highness handled classified material in a negligent manner. ( Yes it's a crime. No you don't need to have intent. Folks are in jail today for doing the exact same thing. )
So in the absence of any sort of real justice ( which just doesn't happen if your last name is Clinton ) we have to resort to methods that will probably be frowned upon by those who pretend to be Champions of Justice. Seriously, when the rich and powerful OWN the whole system, relying upon our "justice" system is laughable.
Can you imagine the fallout if some hacker actually DID decide to post the entire archive ? How f*cking sad is it that we have to hope for such a thing if we're ever to learn the full truth about what Hillary decided she didn't want part of official records ?
It would make for the greatest election drama in the history of our nation :D
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".
Except that Hillary is the one being given a free pass. She's quick to shift the focus of her own wrongdoings with the email server and DNC hacks to Trump (based on NO evidence) to distract from the DNC and her own evils.
AND - she makes it look as if Trump is in collusion with Russia, when in fact she is the only person who illegally worked with Russia and took bribes. I'll copy and past a comment from an AC poster from another article here:
Story [http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html] about how she received bribes for allowing Russia to buy 20% of the USA uranium production. She clearly stated how she wouldn't take foreign donations to her foundation while at state, would ask for a waiver to do it if it came up, and would disclose if it happened. She took the bribe, didn't ask for a waiver, didn't disclose it, and failed to report it on her taxes and had to amend them years later after she was caught. She showed "Intent" in hiding the donations because they were bribes. This isn't even questionable campaign donations, this is direct bribes to her for approving something the State Department wouldn't normally even consider.
I'm not sure why people bring up her email scandal. As bad as it was, it wasn't taking bribes from Russia for State Department favours while she was in charge.
How is she even possibly considered for the DNC nomination after this came out?
Personally I'm still hoping he steps into his fridge and we drop a nuke on it.
Well if she had used the State Dept unclassified email server instead of her private email server for classified email we can be pretty sure that the Russians would have had her unclassified emails. Its known clearly that the Russians have owned State Dept and White House unclassified systems.
So while the use of a private server was poor judgment, the resulting impact to national security compared to the alternative is minor if not zero.
And for the morons ranting about classified emails, they weren't supposed to be on the unclassified system whether it was State or Clinton private server. But that shit happens. People make mistakes and sent her stuff they shouldn't have. Maybe it was slightly more likely to be released if it leaked onto her private server instead of the state dept unclassified server but since we know the state unclassified system was owned by the Russians that's a hard case to make.
You mean Hillary? Because Trump, despite all the mud being thrown this way, has done very little concrete evil in comparison.
Oh, I think Trump has done his share of evil. Let's put it this way: I wouldn't trust him with my money, much less my country:
http://www.theatlantic.com/pol...
So you think destabilization of international affairs, particularly against the larger more powerful competitor nations, along with unnerving long-standing and even newer allies is somehow beneficial?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I'm not a Trump supporter either. They are both awful choices. I'm still undecided, but unless something changes I'll be voting for one of the 3rd party candidates, or my dog if I can't find one that is better.
“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...
You are probably be aware that any hacking of HRC's personal State Dept. server would have had to be done before the deleted emails were deleted and the server taken offline. So at worst (making the probably incorrect assumption that Trump was serious), he was "asking" them to search through the data they had already snagged.
If the US government fails to care about blatant disregard of law because...it's a Clinton and she's a Democrat...then perhaps it's legitimate to appeal to other state-level actors to help throw aside the veil of secrecy?
At what point are the people of the US entitled to recognize that their government directly serves the interests of a small coterie of oligarchs, and try to work around it?
Again, let's recall:
"I don't have a private email server"
"It was only private and family correspondence"
"Well nothing secret went on that server"
"Nothing I knew was secret was on that server"
"Nothing ACTUALLY MARKED SECRET was on that server"
and then, after at least a week of denials, a carefully vetted pile of emails was 'given' to the FBI/DOJ and there were STILL secret things found in the correspondence.
And yet, the response from half the electorate and most of the major news organizations is "What me worry?" and "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy*"
*now including Red Scare 2016(tm)
-Styopa
Yes, because 2012 marked a dramatic change in Russian behavior with it's neighbours! NOBODY saw the Russian aggression coming post 2012, not even Georgia!
This is why a person holding the office of Secretary of State should always use an e-mail server protected at a classified level for any official business. You never know what seemingly trivial information sent or received could be a security risk if disclosed. Perhaps Hillary's favorite LOL cat videos pose a risk to some secret CAT Intelligence Agent...
You do realize, that the State server she didn't use, but could have, was not for classified information? So, if these same emails had gone over that server, the problem of "classified documents over and unclassified channel" would still exist. And nobody has yet explained how the recipient of a classified email could have prevented it from being sent.
What it is is Birtherism 2.0. It has nothing to do with the Russians or treason or anything else remotely relevant. It's just another way to slip the sinister "missing emails" meme into the discussion. We all end up arguing about the inflammatory tone and whether it's a joke or not, but the basic message communicated (for which there's no evidence whatsoever) is "of course, Hillary was hiding nefarious stuff that was in deleted emails that she 'just claims' were personal. It doesn't matter that there wasn't likely anything earth-shattering there. It didn't matter that Obama was born in Hawaii. He's just feeding the fire of conspiracy theorists that are just looking for something to justify their gut hatred - of Obama back then, and of Hillary now.
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
I'm pretty sure Russia (a nation ran by perfect gentlemen), will only hack when requested to do so... after all we live in a civilized age right?
Trump knows darn well Russia OWNED that server, the damage is done, he was not the one who screwed our nations security by standing up that server, or the one that used it.
His statement is for shock factor and is merely drawing attention to the fact that Hilary has still gotten away with this whole thing. It seems we must call upon our "enemies" to expose the dirty laundry of the "untouchable".
What if by exposing those emails, we discover that Hillary has in fact crossed so many lines, that there is no doubt that allowing her to be president would make hacking our governments email seem like posting a secret family chocolate chip recipe in comparison.
What's low about this is that the primary source they cite is Gawker.
Trump blasts Obama, hopes Russia can find 'missing' Clinton emails
The many problems with Donald Trump's call for Russia to spy on Hillary Clinton
Trump Says He Hopes Russia Can Access Clinton's Emails
Trump Asks Russia to find Clinton's missing emails in Doral [Florida] Appearance
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.
Those emails were sent to other servers. Most of which are still up. And many of which are government email servers.
Russia may or may not have copies of all of them. Trump didn't ask them to go through their records.
He's asking Russia to go find them today. Not a year ago.
No other conclusion to make, based on his words, that he's asking them to hack other mail servers. And that's a basic form of cyber war.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
I think you're confusing "a press will actually investigate and report on a Trump Administration" with "Trump will cooperate with the press and answer all their questions". There's a big difference in how the media handles news about Republicans versus how they handle news about Democrats. It's almost like the media works for the Democrats and against the Republicans.
But not convicted, as no judge would be "worthy" to hear the case.
If this were easy, they wouldn't need us to do it!
But this is a major party nominee calling for another country to commit cybercrime and violate our national security for his own political gain.
I'm not so sure that is what he is encouraging by suggesting that they "find the 30,000 missing E-mails"
If they DO manage to pull it off, then this would mean that someone in Russia probably already got them before Hillary destroyed the messages.
This could be equally a matter of "scrounging data" that was already leaked.
On the other hand, if hacking any system in the US COULD reveal those, then it will most likely reveal another more severe incident of lawbreaking than already occured.
Exposing information to the media is much less an offense than corrupt practices by officials and Willful non-compliance with court orders or public disclosure requirements, so it's a net positive if it happens: since it mitigates the damage from a more severe crime.
...or maybe Presidents & presidential candidates shouldn't go anywhere near a joke like that.
What about referring to their bowling skills being on par with the special Olympics? Or threatening a drone strike to protect their daughter from a boy? Or chastising the police before knowing the facts?
While I agree with you, the last couple of presidents have said things that I find very inappropriate for that position. So it's certainly nothing new. At the rate we seem to be going, I think we'll be seeing president Camacho within the next couple of decades.
That's NATO's fucking job, to contain Russia, and Russia has demonstrated amply why it still needs to be contained.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Distributing classified e-mail on an unsecured, unapproved open Internet server, in violation of Executive Order 13526 and 18 U.S.C Sec. 793(f). No one denies this now.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
This "event" is no more than Trump trying (and succeeding) to steal attention away from the Democratic Convention with a few outrageous words calculated to provoke a response. As usual, Trump plays on the press as on a stringed instrument. I fear that we will soon learn what it is to have a Level 99 Troll for a President.
Kinda like the US court that has actually _jailed_ Scooter Libby? And then Bush just pardoned him, in violation of his own clemency requirements.
Translation: I'm ignoring the idiocy of Trump's statement, and inventing a rationale that allows me to not feel like a contemptible moron for supporting the man.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I guess he doesn't realize this could just as easily be used against him?
Sorry, none of those are anywhere near close to inviting foreign powers to invade domestic systems.
So, yes, that is new.
That doesn't mean that others haven't said inappropriate stuff, but this is a different level of inappropriate.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Except the cyber attack would have already occurred. So either the Russians already have the info, or they would need to hack somebody else who has the info and I'm pretty sure at this point the FBI files aren't on a networked server. Sooo, not treason.
Sounds like a form of Treason if true. Inviting a foreign nation tho cyber-attack America and/or Americans
Not treason. Gaining unauthorized access to systems and leaking information to the press is Not an "Attack" or comforting an enemy. The state of Russia is not an enemy, and even if it were - Trump is probably addressing individuals, not the state --- and also merely speaking in favor of something happening is neither comfort nor aid, But it might be not presidential by traditional standards, and people may judge it as in incredibly poor taste.
An attack would be more like defeating gates and security, Trespassing on a company's boat being held by customs to pay Tea taxes due, And dumping the assets into Boston harbor.... And if some of those involved happened to not be locals....... now THAT would be a treasonous attack.
Yes yes yes. Whenever Trump says something so blindingly idiotic it always is handwaved away as a joke... Unless of course the audience eats it up. You know, like making Mexico pay for a big wall, something Trump has no power to do, but because it gets idiots like yourself to jump up and down like five year olds in a blow-up castle, well, yay Trump meant it!
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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.
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.
Clinton exposed classified information by accident, and through a channel she (wrongly) felt was secure.
Libby deliberately leaked classified information to the press as part of a political smear job.
There's a vast difference.
Now I don't know that Cheney had anything to do with it, he may have explicitly ordered it, he may have created a culture where it was expected, or he may have stopped the idea dead in its tracks if he'd only been told about it.
I stole this Sig
The Trump campaign called for Hillary to be executed for mishandling email.
The Trump campaign could call for every Hillary supported to be shipped off to the moon if they wanted; that does not mean there's a snowball's chance in hell of that happening.
Just wishful thinking or mindless politico-babbling on their part to hopefully capitalize on the anger against Hillary to drive up their poll numbers.
The DNC leak emails show the Washington Post holding a fundraiser with the DNC that the lawyers said 'no' to and doing it on the sly.
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
What is even funner is that it is probably true. I would give a 99% chance, per each lost message, that message still exists somewhere. If nowhere else, then in the Outbox / outgoing and Incoming mail mail archives Of every person who corresponded with Hillary over E-mail. Gain access to the e-mail archives of 100% of the people who corresponded with her, then you can probably recover 99% of the messages.
And if not: Probably 50/50 odds for each message that it is in the hands of the Russians, and if not them Iran, or some other countries' intelligence department, or some random independent cybercriminal in one of those countries......
Both major parties are unfixable at this point. Right leaning voters should vote for Gary Johnson (Libertarian Party) and left leaning voters for Jill Stein (Green Party). At the very least, we need to all demand that they be included in the debates.
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
The blaming a Youtube video part happened pretty fucking definitely. The prior part was either criminally negligent unwillingness to deploy a rescue team in time to save an ambassador doing WH mandated arms deals under the table with AQ affiliated Syrian rebels, or complete and utter incompetence in not properly reinforcing the building and people there after any of the MULTIPLE requests Ambassador Stevens made for help given that 6 months prior the Brits pulled out of Benghazi EXPRESSLY because the security situation was complete shit. Either way, it demonstrates rather conclusively that Hillary shouldn't be in charge of a kindergarten, let alone the country.
where the person who makes a joke
I'll give you that trump may meet the definition of person but how do you know he is actually joking? Not counting insults is he even capable of joking? Quick aside, some podcast pointed out: has trump ever laughed on camera?
I thought the Pants-suit chick pushed a reset button.
Those emails were sent to other servers. Most of which are still up. And many of which are government email servers.
Russia may or may not have copies of all of them. Trump didn't ask them to go through their records. He's asking Russia to go find them today. Not a year ago.
No other conclusion to make, based on his words, that he's asking them to hack other mail servers. And that's a basic form of cyber war.
What he said was, "Hey Russia, I hope you can find ...." Where in there is he urging them to hack? Your "no other conclusion to make" is all in your head. Aside from that, if you believe Hillary they were all personal email. So by policy, none of them should have ended up on government servers. Right?
Totally seems like a joke, tongue in cheek type of thing. "Oh the Russians can friggen find them I bet!"
Except that the Russians exposed the DNC corruption scandal just a few days ago. The exposure was perfectly timed to deflate Hillary's "convention bounce". Asking them to repeat something that they just did, doesn't seem like a joke to me.
Maybe you should read that article you linked. It doesn't say what you think it does.
Loading...
Clinton, who has done much much worse.
For those curious to specifics, here is a handy list of all of Hillary's publicized transgressions:
http://www.marketwatch.com/sto...
None of us fucking care who stole the DNC emails. We're more interested in reading them.
I know it makes your voice shrill and squeaky to hear it, but nobody cares that your response is to redbait about 'the ruskies.' You're a pretty fucking loyal American, dude. Go back to 1958.
Yes, I was thinking that thought. You can't control what other people send to you, thus there is always the risk of spillage, but you would think that given the nature of the job tile, by default any official State Department email servers should be *protected* as if they were holding TS level data, as much as they can be residing on a network accredited at a lower classification level... of course this is no good if the before mentioned server is not used!
The most important thing is user training... even a lowly private in the army w/o a high school diploma is told, not to share anything that could compromise a unit over unsecured methods. It takes either a very special level of STUPID or a very high level of illegal to lead someone with her education and knowledge to do this. My vote is for illegal, she wants to keep her deeds hidden... plain and simple. No amount of security can fix the human element, but I know the government has a serious problem with security: lack of motivation (typical government employee) + lowest bidder earning contracts (poor quality products delivered) = untold problems. Seems like we are screwed on all sides.
Trump, despite all the mud being thrown this way, has done very little concrete evil in comparison.
A $7.8 million contract for Trump Plaza was awarded to S&A Concrete, owned by Anthony "Fat Tony" Salerno. Trump World Tower was built with concrete from Quadrozzi Concrete Company, associated with the Lucchese crime family.
I'm no Trumpist, I mean, I'm going to vote for Hillary Clinton in November and you have NO IDEA how little I want to do that,
So the main job of the Trump campaign is to get you to, just for a few seconds, let go of your nose in early November. Got it.
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
I wouldn't want any of your "numerous folks" running for President either.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Totally seems like a joke, tongue in cheek type of thing. "Oh the Russians can friggen find them I bet!"
That's a standard defense of his "it was a joke", along with "don't listen to the media, they're biased!".
Smarter people than either of us have speculated on that before. Indeed, I've joked about it before...
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
I never said I supported him - you assumed that.
I did not say what he said was right, but his comments for better or worse do get people talking. In a time where political correctness silences too many voices, even a "crazy voice" may be a good thing right now.
You mean Hillary? Because Trump, despite all the mud being thrown this way, has done very little concrete evil in comparison.
Don't disagree with you, but there's still a stink in the air:
* http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/trump-putin-yes-it-s-really-a-thing
Maybe you should read that article you linked. It doesn't say what you think it does.
"shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.
"the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton."
That's pretty much my take on it as well. Yes, at some point even Hillary would have to admit that mistakes were made (by her), which may cast doubt on her judgement. But nothing she has done that we actually have any credible evidence of rises to the level of justifying time in a federal prison. Probably something closer to fines for mishandling of classified material. As far as Benghazi, I don't follow the logic of holding one person solely responsible for the safety of all State Department staff, and giving everyone else a complete pass. Could she have done better? Yes. Does this disqualify her to be president? No, no more than Trump's draft dodging disqualifies him to be president.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
At least once things get halfway settled, there are cybercrimes that will be considered acts of war if state-sponsored. I don't know if there's anything definite now. Inviting a foreign power to commit an act of war isn't actually treason (Trump's comment isn't really an invitation, but it leans that way), but it's reasonable to be unhappy about it.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
In context, with Trump denying the DNC hack was Russia trying to help Trump out, yes, this one can be seen as a very obvious joke. Just because he frequently makes horrific statements doesn't mean he doesn't occasionally also make jokes.
I don't think he's ever claimed that the wall comment was a joke. I don't think he ever will.
<quote> <dl> <dt>.<dd>..
<br/>
</dl></quote>
.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
The Russians largely created the corruption scandal. It appears that some of the emails may have been tampered with, and the timing of the release is clearly intended to interfere in the US democratic process.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
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
That's not what he did. Most of the reporting is cutting out the preceding context where he notes that Russia already has the 30k emails. If they already have them, and he's saying he hopes they find them, then he's not calling for them to hack anybody.
Hey, I hope you can find the bills I left in my trash.
How else would you do that but by coming into my house?
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
It may seem that way until you watch him say it completely straight faced as he does when he says any other combination of words. It seems those in the "hes joking" camp are projecting how a normal person might act when they tell a joke. Think long and hard, has trump ever made an actual joke...that is not actually a personal insult?
Politifacts looked at the video claim. It isn't clear whether Clinton mentioned the videos to any of the families; some say she did, while Clinton and others say she didn't. It was an exremely stressful and emotional time, and it's no surprise that there are conflicting memories.
You don't seem to realize that lots of protests were going on elsewhere, and it wasn't clear at first that the Benghazi attack was a deliberate attack that coincided with the unrest. It was a confusing mess, and sending what security forces were available to Benghazi is obvious only in hindsight. It was entirely possible that, fifteen minutes after they were committed, they'd be wanted far more somewhere else.
The way to prevent that would have been for the Republican Congress to give Clinton the money she asked for for embassy security. Clearly, by your reasoning, Republicans should not be trusted in a kindergarten student council.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
plenty of asphalt, steel, and gold plated evil though!
You guys are silly if you think either Russia or China needed to hack Hillary's private server in order to get access to our classified information. It's almost insulting to those countries to believe they would think that small.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Instead, he's wrong about everything.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
1) I have a functioning sense of humor.
2) I'm not pre-programmed to treat everything Trump says as some ominous sign that he's the next Hitler.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Can someone please tell me which one of these candidates is the lesser evil?
Cthulhu.
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.
Again, Trump demonstrates here his insanely high ability as a first-rate troll. If there was a meter for such things, his rating would be off the scale.
Maybe a new department should be created under his leadership? The DOT moniker being taken, but somehow a Department of Trolling should be created with him at the helm... Maybe under Cyberwarfare?
It was a joke the same was "it would be a real shame if anything happened to those knees," is a joke. Plausibly deniable, but with malicious intent.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Except political assassinations do happen, unlike being put in a Moon-bound boxcar, and encouraging them tends to be not looked favourably upon.
Did I just Godwin the thread or will that be ignored in place of a petty argument about what is considered correct grammar?
"Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
That doesn't sound very free.
His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
2016: Still falling for the "we're a TWO party system" meme
No, you jackass, I am not voting for either one of them because so far as I am concerned NEITHER ONE is qualified for one reason or another! I'll vote for a 3rd-party candidate. That way my hands are clean. I'll not vote for the 'least bad of the two' again. I'd rather throw my vote away on someone who has no chance so at least I can say "I didn't vote for {whoever}, don't blame me!" with a clear conscience and a straight face. I suggest you all do the same!
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
Making fun of someone because of their name. How clever! It takes me back to first grade.
you forgot mocking the disabled and bragging about his dick
Oh look, yet another fool who forgets: WE HAVE MORE THAN TWO POLITICAL PARTIES IN THIS COUNTRY.
Read my lips: I am not voting for EITHER TRUMP OR CLINTON, I AM VOTING FOR A 3RD-PARTY CANDIDATE. I recommend YOU do the same, and tell your friends to, also.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
Drumpf has run most of his campaign by going from one conspiracy to another.
You're late to this party, but the Clinton campaign started the 'Russia leaked the emails' meme. Trump is responding to that meme here (I haven't verified that - the news conference was too long and I don't care enough to watch the whole thing). Adding his own whatever to it.
Do not be deceived: at the national level, it's cut-throat, and both campaigns are willing to lie and cheat if it helps them win. We see that in the emails where the Clinton campaign tried to use Sander's race against him.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
You know what? I owe you an apology. I thought you were just mocking me and didn't read past the first line. Good on you that you're not falling for the 'two party system' meme.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
No kidding, the Position of POTUS is NOT a joke, but Trump is, a wake-up BItchSlap of treason charges would do wonders
The Russians largely created the corruption scandal
Do we know that they were actually released by the Russians?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
"2) I'm not pre-programmed to treat everything Trump says as some ominous sign that he's the next Hitler."
Trump does that very well himself. I'm sure his "sense of humor" will serve the country well in matters of delicacy and diplomacy...
Maybe a blond-haired blue-eyed straight white conservative judge who isn't a Muslim (or a Jew, just to be safe) and has no disabilities?
Oh wait, also his blond hair is thinning on top so he grows it extra long and then swirls it around. Perfect.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Hillary! has been on the /. front page before...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
So nothing illegal occurred, or the deal couldn't have been allowed to go through. Nice try though
Are you talking Clinton or Trump. Because it is a tie IMHO.
Meanwhile Liberals are more concerned with Trump asking the russians for help finding Hillary's Missing Emails, than they are about Hillary's Missing Emails.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
It absolutely was tongue in cheek. Trump deftly took the embarrassing story about the hacked DNC e-mails, blew another day's worth of life into it, and used it as a touchstone to circle back and remind everyone about that OTHER famous e-mail server. He did this by taking the EEEEEVIL boogeyman of THE RUSSIANS! which the DNC tried to use to deflect away from the *contents* of the hacked e-mails, and made it all about Hillary again, when yesterday it was about Wasserman-Schultz. Of course, those 30,000 e-mails he is referencing are the ones that were supposed to be about yoga pants and Chelsea's weddings plans. So if they are really a matter of national security and we don't want the Russkies to see them, why were they deleted...? "Thank you for playing, Mrs. Clinton."
It's brilliant political jiu-jitsu. The thing is, I get the impression he or his team doesn't stay up late and plan it out this way, it's just some kind of natural squirrely viciousness he possesses.
It's very hard to tell what of Trump says is a joke or not, probably by design, but this doesn't look like a joke. He's repeated his request on Twitter. With no razz emoticons or anything.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
No, it still doesn't say what you think it does:
1) The subject U.S. uranium mines were already foreign-owned
2) The Russians already owned 16% of the company before acquiring the reminder in the time frame you mention
3) Bill Clinton routinely speaks around the world for fees of a half a million dollars. You know, he spoke in Mexico right before Guzman escaped.. is Hillary Clinton a drug cartel member?
Scooter Libby wasn't jailed for Valarie Plame, he was jailed for lying to the FBI during the course of the investigation. Of course, actual facts don't really matter. ;)
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
I am Never-Trump, but even to me, this seems obvious that he was making a joke.
The media has pivoted to "Russians did it!" to distract from the content of the emails themselves. Trump is just trying to call attention back to Clinton's crimes with respect to federal record keeping laws.
Clinton exposed classified information by accident
Accident? It was by design and gross negligence. Hardly an accident.
And yet, there are people who will vote for her, in spite of the fact that she is basically "too stupid" to follow security requirements.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
He's not wrong :)
Banning reporters is a totally Republican thing, isn't it?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
German's are the largest ethnic group in the United States. What are you implying?
Bring back the old version of slashdot.
You do realize the only person in this election cycle to have an assassination attempt is Trump, right? https://www.theguardian.com/us...
You're an idiot.
Well, let's be fair, after all a massive 7% of journalists identify as Republican, so you can't say ALL the media works for the Democrats... ;)
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Since Trump has been officially nominated, popular support for him on Slashdot has skyrocketed, even among individuals who I previously considered to be relatively sane and somewhat intelligent. Seems that all the conservatives have said to themselves "Well Trump is our party's candidate now, like or not, so I guess we better throw all our support behind this dangerous manchild."
I'm sure most of them know that he's by far the more dangerous choice compared to Republican Satan and the responsible, adult thing to do would be to write in a candidate/vote 3rd party and hope for the best or settle for their protest vote at worst, but they advocate for Trump, for the glory of The Party.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Cool about the 3rd party! So why do you care what the GOP or the Democrats do with their nominee? After all - you're going for a 3rd party... Wouldn't is help your 3rd party candidate if the GOP and the Democrats had candidates you think were terrible?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Given that logic, it may be cheaper and simpler to just use Slashdot to communicate all government information from now on. It may actually result in better decision making as all the AC's can provide valuable feedback guiding our trusted leaders to a glorious and prosperous future!
pretty much, yet the left and the media will run with it because somehow they cant find any real dirt
There's plenty to question - like Trump University, his 5 bankruptcies, his tax returns he refuses to release, his slander and libel, his personal attacks on reporters [anything to deflect attention!], his absolute BS "blue-collar billionaire" myth.
But yes, he's good at hiring professionals to bury the bodies...
I don't think even Donald Trump is oblivious enough to suggest that someone should hack a server that was decommissioned years ago.
I'll agree that man does a fine job of de-calibrating sarcasm detectors, but I just don't understand how anyone can take this seriously. The idea that professional journalists are doing so (apparently it was played as straight news by CNN as their top story) does not pass the smell test with me, and (in my opinion) is just an excuse to manufacture controversy.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
DONALD TRUMP: They should at least try to get it right. And if they don't do a retraction, they should, you know, have a form of a trial. I don't want to impede free press, by the way. That's - the last thing I would want to do is that.
We already have laws covering this. It's called libel. Go forth and sue, your Trumpness! Best of luck with that
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Actually, yes. The State Dept. said that the remaining emails that had classification markings were marked by mistake.
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.
Ahh, that "scandal", where an organization paid Bill Clinton $16.5 million and the State Department gave $55 million to a completely different organization.
The press stopped talking about Trump U because it's old news and there's so much other crazy Trump stuff to report.
The press never talked about the Laureate University scandal because it was a dumb idea for a scandal.
I stole this Sig
pretty sure the email leaks show there is real dirt on her now. and thats expected by politicians, however the media should be neutral
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Can this Make Russia Great Again?
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
It's well known that reality has a very liberal bias.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
Actually, thinking on this:
It might not even be ego but rather a fairly valid campaign strategy. If everyone is talking about him, then in essential the "other guys" (or "other gal" in this case) is losing attention. It's pretty hard to promote yourself when everyone is ignoring you.
I've often wondered if this strategy is employed somewhat already in various debates.
If you have two groups, and group A wants to silence group B, then one way would be to have a bunch of people with crazy agendas/opinions claim to be part of group B. Then, when everyone is paying attention to the crazy people, they basically take over group B since they're the only ones getting attention. There seems to be a lot of thing in controversies like "gamergate" etc where there were people in both groups with valid opinions, but they were getting overshadows by the crazies who took attention away from the people with serious opinions.
...These emails were deleted from a server that the Democrats were saying was never, ever, in a million years hacked.
But now they are saying that the Russians did hack it, at the behest of Trump, and they did it a year before Trump mentioned it?
I'm sooo confused!
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
I'm tempted to grant you your wish to live under a Trump Presidency, where anyone who dares ask questions is told to shut up...or else! The only thing that is pulling me back from granting your your wish for this hell on earth is that all the rest of us would have to suffer right along with you
Why would it matter? The government seems to do almost the same thing regardless of who gets elected. Not much really changes. The other side always goes nuts and says the world's going to end if the latest Hitler (all Republicans) or Stalin (all Democrats) gets elected. The world never ends though.
You. Did. Not. Just. Play. The. National. Fucking. Security. Card.
You. Did. Not.
Comey said she lied.
sig: sauer
Let me guess....Sean Smiths mother is a liar then?
The stupid part is that ignoring terrorists is what we actually should be doing! Freaking out about terrorism is the only thing that makes it effective.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
87 seems like a high number until you fucking realize it includes the attackers.
Hey, I hope you can find the bills I left in my trash.
How else would you do that but by coming into my house?
By waiting until you take the cans out to the street for pickup?
So nothing illegal occurred, or the deal couldn't have been allowed to go through. Nice try though
Actually, nothing illegal was prosecuted. I guess that means if I rob a bank and don't get arrested, no crime was committed.
Trump is just trying to call attention back to Clinton's crimes with respect to federal record keeping laws.
Well he did his usual great job on that. He has changed the topic of conversation from the emails to "trump wants russia to hack us". A few more fun facts now that trump himself has "pivoted"
- trumps businesses are heavily dependent on russian investment (source: trump jr)
- trumps campaign manager's last job was lobbyist for the Ukrainian dictator whos ouster set up the Crimea debacle
- the only change to the republican party platform that the trump campain made was erasing the hardline stance against russia
As for the emails themselves (DNC emails that is), they probably didn't matter much since Hillary won the primary popular vote by 25% and the DNC chair was forced out on the eve of the convention! What more can you ask for? Maybe $100M worth of congressional hearings that all end with no new findings?
Except they were never taken out to the street.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
I think we're afraid of the possibility of having a president who owes a favor to a country and a leader who'd prefer our country to decline.
Think about this for one minute...the emails were hosted on Hillary's private server. The server WAS hacked. The server was subsequently wiped and then confiscated by the FBI, where it now resides, disconnected and turned off. It would therefore be IMPOSSIBLE for a foreign nation to cyber-attack the server in order to recover the emails. So what Trump was implying is that Russia already potentially has the 30,000 emails from the previous hack, and just needs to find them in the trove of material they stole. Duh!
Yes, the 87 does include some attackers (duh), but if you actually read what I wrote, you would "fucking realize" that many more Americans died during those attacks than in Benghazi.
Were there nine investigations into them? No, zero. How many front page stories even mentioned them? Zero. Generally Americans don't give a shit about human life unless the victims are American citizens, so there's no point even mentioning total casualties. But aside from 9/11 (a day when GWB was "keeping us safe") it seems that even American lives are only valued when the GOP is not in power.
Can someone please explain to me how you are so stupid as to think any of his comments are serious?
Going to be funny watch Trump win and people like you utterly uncomprehending why.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The New York Times isn't a governmental agency or a Presidential candidate.
When they are a full-time propaganda machine FOR a presidential candidate, why do they deserve distinct protection?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
It's called "news". It's this thing where someone tells everybody facts about events that are occurring.
The news hasn't been about facts for a long, long time.
In context, with Trump denying the DNC hack was Russia trying to help Trump out, yes, this one can be seen as a very obvious joke. Just because he frequently makes horrific statements doesn't mean he doesn't occasionally also make jokes.
"Obvious"? How can you possibly tell the difference? Please let us know - what's the tell here? When you layer on the fact that Trump frequently contradicts what he has said (sometimes in the same sentence), and frequently denies saying things that are thoroughly documented that he said (video recordings are a thing he seems unaware of) how can one tell he means anything he says? Maybe his whole campaign is a joke?
Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
...well, with all of the money the Clintons have raked in from foreign countries, and with HRC supporting the TPP which allows foreign corporations to bypass US law, shouldn't you be afraid of Hillary?
It does not protect you from the consequences of that speech
It absolutely does protect from certain specific consequences. That is what freedom is: protection from certain consequences of action.
Sure, it doesn't protect from all consequences, but it protects you from government retaliation, and from violent retaliation by private parties, and a broad assortment of such consequences. If it didn't, and the government or private parties could punish you without limit for speaking, then there wouldn't be any sense in which speech was "free".
Sure, it doesn't protect from all consequences, but that just means that speech is not absolutely free.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
He's said it twice with a straight face, and he's said similarly ridiculous things in complete seriousness before. He's never done deadpan sarcasm before. Does he have to preface it with "This is not a joke, this is my serious face" before we can be sure he's serious?
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
He has changed the topic of conversation from the emails to "trump wants russia to hack us".
No, he didn't do that. The Democrat supporting mainstream media has done that. The server is no longer online, it is in the FBI's possession. It would be impossible to hack it now, and the media knows that, but they're going to spin the story as much as they can to try and knock Trump. The fact is, the Russians (and/or others) already hacked that server. Trump joking about them finding the emails is not a request for them to hack the server now, it's a suggestion that they already have and just need to find the missing emails among all the other data they stole.
So, he gets a special pass because he had been a target himself?
You're a cretin.
"Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
Did you read the news articles? Isn't Trump calling for the Russians to hack her mail server right now rather than a year ago??
Oh look, the double-digit IQ Trump supporters have moderation points! And they apparently figured out how to use them! Tough shit, idiots, your boy Trump is a fucking CRIMINAL, and his traitorous comment has drawn fire from both the Dems AND the GOP, as well as everyone else, it's ALL OVER the media now. Trump is DONE. HE NEEDS TO BE REMOVED. NOW.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
Pretty sure that the FBI already recovered the deleted personal E-Mails. It was reported that they had some time ago. Show that Trump is either clueless or just makes things up from whole cloth.
Those emails were sent to other servers. Most of which are still up. And many of which are government email servers.
So you are admitting that at least some of the "personal" emails she deleted without oversight, departmental review, or third party vetting are actually not personal. Otherwise why would they be in government email servers if they weren't sent to government email addresses?
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
You put your trash on the street last night.
Put the keyboard down bro, and back away slowly.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
No we don't. Anyone who tells you differently based on the currently available information is either a paid shill (respectable in a capitalist way) or so completely compromised mentally they cannot be trusted with any information.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
I have no idea, nor have commented on the contents.
I'm commenting on a presidential candidate asking a foreign country to 'look into' governmental emails.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Nobody who goes to an office in Langley is undercover. Just stop.
Wait, don't tell me, you think Mr. Bankruptcy-hide-my-tax-returns is interested in anyone who tells the TRUTH?
BWHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHA!
So you think destabilization of international affairs, particularly against the larger more powerful competitor nations
Well we already screwed the pooch on that in 2007 when we put Anti-Ballistic Missiles in Poland (over Russia's protestations), and we've been doing our damnedest to threaten China's maritime resource lifeline using the SCS "freedom of navigation" excuse. Newsflash: ~85% of SCS shipping goes to/from China....
I'm not sure why you think Trump would make these relationships worse. I would describe the Trump-Putin relationship as "cordial" ( http://www.businessinsider.com... ) ( http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07... ), which is more than I can say for Obama-Putin or Bush Jr. - Putin.
I recently watched a video of Trump interviews over the years, and in one he talks about how the Chinese are ruthless business people who are taking us to the cleaners. He's willing to do business and engage with them, as long as we make sure we aren't getting ripped off. Seems a more honest assessment of how we should handle China than the Clinton approach that we saw in the 90's.
along with unnerving long-standing and even newer allies
The vast majority of which owe their national security to the US. Security which we are not properly compensated for. Trump will force our lazier "allies" to get their houses in order and shoulder more of the burden for protecting themselves.
If you or I got a subpoena to produce emails from an illegal email system, then we produced a tiny fraction of the emails and deleted the rest, the judge would be shaking his head and muttering "the balls on this guy" as he threw us in jail for decades.
As if Trump's use of the "Pocahontas" moniker hasn't already had the candidate himself take us all back to first grade.
Actually Trump call on the Russians to release them if they had them.
And the server was hacked long ago, so why would anyone call for it to be hacked again, especially considering it is no longer on the net, probably turned off.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
That's a strange position. "You should vote for crazy stuff to happen because the press will then report on the crazy stuff"
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Yes, but since then they've amassed the largest Russian force on their Western border since WWII, invaded Ukraine, and are in Syria working to oppose us as well.
Trump's statement, recorded on video with audio, is tantamount to treason.
Try it yourself. Invite an adversarial nation or state to hack servers containing potentially Top Secret information (if the nuts are to be believed), and promise them "rewards" if they do so. You will go to PMITA Federal Prison.
It appears that some of the emails may have been tampered with
I have been following the story, and this is the first time I have heard of the "tampering" accusation. Can you provide a citation? Anyway, the head of the DNC has already been forced to resign, so it seems pretty clear that enough of the emails were real.
and the timing of the release is clearly intended to interfere in the US democratic process.
Sure, if exposing the truth counts as "interfering".
If you or I got a subpoena to produce emails from an illegal email system,
Illegal has a specific meaning, and it is not at all clear that said meaning is an accurate description of the email server Hillary used as secretary. Short-sighted? Certainly. Peculiar? Yes. Illegal? Hard to say. If you pull your keys out of your pocket and a gum wrapper gets away from you in the process are your pants now illegal for not holding the gum wrapper?
then we produced a tiny fraction of the emails and deleted the rest,
There is no evidence whatsoever that the emails were lost after the subpoena was issued. And frankly why couldn't they recover them from somewhere else if they were so important? Supposedly the lion's share of her email went between her and State Dept. employees; if you want to see State Dept email it should be possible to subpoena the State Dept for those emails.
as he threw us in jail for decades.
In this country the judge does need a reason to hand out a sentence that long. No such reason has been established yet in this case.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Vote for being told what's going on rather than having it hidden. What "stuff" are you predicting? It's safe to predict Clinton scandals based on history. And you can predict Trump will say stuff people will complain about. What else?
But this is a major party nominee calling for another country to commit cybercrime and violate our national security for his own political gain.
For his own political gain, or so the electorate can actually know the truth about what sort of incompetence and shadiness their Democratic-party overlords have been getting up to?
Slashdotters are by and large in support of Snowden's whistleblowing. But when Trump asks of Russia "Hey, since you guys probably already stole this shit, do you mind sharing Clinton and the DNC's secrets with the rest of us?", now people want to hang a guy encouraging transparency from the lamp posts?
Is sedition still a chargeable offense? Wow, the shit that Trump says....
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
You know, just in case he has an archived copy obtained by "private sources" and was saving for later ammunition in an ad campaign.
Irrelevant? Maybe, but who knows. If he isn't hiding anything, then this shouldn't be a problem. If he is not doing anything illegal, then he shouldn't have anything to hide, right?
Isn't that the crap he uses in his complaints about anyone or anything he doesn't like?
Except political assassinations do happen, unlike being put in a Moon-bound boxcar,
Calling for someone to be given the death penalty by the state and calling for them to be murdered with no due process are two different things.
I believe what Trump people were saying can only reasonably be held to imply the former, not the latter.
If Trump actually went to ask his supporters or others to commit the latter, then Trump himself could be committing a crime by attempting to incite people to do so, and Trump himself could even go to jail if one of his supporters attempted a political assassination after he "called on" people to do that.
So I'm 80% sure Trump is smart enough to not call on people to Kill non-combatant Americans outside a sentence handed down by the legal system, now or in the future.....
Bernie sold out for a handful of shekels
But don't you DARE call us racist.
I like music
If I recall, the question to Romney in that debate was who was the major threat to the US. Romney was criticized rightly for saying it was Russia over terrorism, esp at that time. He was wrong then and he is still wrong now.
You're basically rewriting the question so your answer fits.
"Russian leadership is exactly the same now as it was in 2012 when it was ridiculous to worry about them."
Which doesn't negate what the poster you replied to said. The situation in Russia has gotten worse.
Russia of 4 years ago was still involved in talks with the west, we were thinking about putting up trade and economic blocs with them, and even folding them into NATO more. (There's an idiotic poster that keeps up pointing out the Clinton's approval of the uranium deal; that was when Russia-US relations were still on the upswing.) Russia's economy was on the uptick, cooperation with the west was pretty much increasing, we worked on space and even military projects (Russian engines were necessary for military satellite launches), we had nuclear wind down pacts, natural gas agreements were more stable (though were still used as a threat), and while corruption was still a major issue, they were working to becoming a reliable partner, at least externally. The west didn't like Putin's move away from democracy and to a near monarchy, but that was seen as an internal matter that probably would come around.
What changed? The invasion of Crimea. Basically, the Russians were sick of the establishment of the EU and NATO on the Continent going into old Soviet bloc states. They didn't like the Ukraine overthrow and the subsequent move of the Ukraine to move into the EU. They invaded Crimera to stop that, thinking the repercussions weren't going to be as strong as they were.
Russia got hammered with punitive economic sanctions, and rightly so. They took a hit image wise in working with the west--they were seen as unreliable. And then when the Saudis, responding to US oil producers, undercut oil prices, Russia got hammered in their staple, oil exports.
As their internal economy pretty much crashed, Russia took the typical Russian steps to curtail any sort of domestic political threats--curtailing speech even more, controlling political parties, suppressing democratic steps even more that there isn't even a semblance to most observers.
Internationally, their crash had push-pull effect. There are many they explored, including Russia blatantly militarily invading boundaries and ship flybys (work with us, or we'll do this more), but the KEY thing the Russians came away with was the EU was a powerful bloc now, economically, that they needed to disrupt. They learned that with their dealings with Turkey, with ups and downs, still traded with them. They saw simply and plainly that a united Europe is a threat to Russian interests.
And as such, Russia seeks to break that apart, and through fortune and circumstances (Brexit, ISIS attacks in Europe), they found some success--West blaming, Russian troll industry actually had an effect, funding right wing groups in European countries (partly explaining their rise, in addition to bad policy decisions by European countries), and now plainly that partial hacking to influence elections.
There's a lot of fine details and lots of stuff I've left out, but same leadership, but let's not be stupid here, there are massively differences in our relationship with Russia 2012 vs 2016 (and I left out the whole Iraq->Iran->Syria->ISIS->Saudis->Russia bit that could blow up in our faces too, as well as why Trump is so friendly with certain Brexit advocates and Putin himself).
Hillary's email server isn't online, any more. Trump's assumption is that her server likely had been compromised (as the FBI director allowed was very possible), and that someone's got the emails. His comment was nothing more than a taunt, which reflects a running joke that had been common among conservatives for the past year or so, all during the hearings and investigations.
That's some excellent work, there!
I was wrong, though. It hasn't been 6 months. It's been almost 8 months and counting.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Dude? That rescue team was made up. Four guys with 2 pistols that just came in country does not a rescue team make. Here's what happened from the senate hearings. Abbreviated of course. I'm still wondering what the Ambassador was doing at a CIA safe house 90 miles away from his Embassy without his full security detail. http://www.factcheck.org/2015/...
THAT's your standard of guilt? That's like the crackhead desperately flushing the drugs down the toilet with the cops knocking at the door. All reports I've heard said the deletions occurred after the State Department requested the emails: http://www.politifact.com/pund...
She knew she was under investigation, and she burned the emails as soon as she possibly good before anybody could question what she believed were the only relevant emails. What she did screamed guilt. Even her statement was sketchy as hell (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/07/08/hillary-clinton-emails-_n_7756106.html):
I turned over everything I was obligated to turn over. And then I moved on,â Clinton told Keilar on Tuesday. âoePeople delete their personal emails, their work-related emails, whatever emails they have on a regular basis. I turned over everything that I could imagine.â
Yeah, people mass scour/delete 30,000 emails on a regular basis -- right. I would like to see some kind of historical account showing she's engaged in this behavior in the past. Or even since. I'd bet a dime to a donut she hasn't deleted shit in the past (if she did, how would she accrue tens of thousasnds of emails?)
do you not?!
Most linux users don't know this, but the man pages were named after Chuck Norris. Chuck Norris fsck'ing hates noobs!
When doing long-term strategic planning, you don't plan against your adversary now - you plan for what they might be in a future worst-case.
No one has to try to make Trump look bad. The man is actively trying to destroy his own campaign, but morons like you seem to think that's some sort of master plan.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Except they were never taken out to the street.
Ah, you're the type that just allows a lifetime of trash to accumulate in your house. I guess I can't find those bills, then.
The media has two overriding objectives:
1. Report the news that'll get ratings.
2. Report it quick, before the rival news organisations.
Trump is getting a lot of press coverage, mostly negative. But it's not because of any conspiracy: It's because he has a habit of making outrageous statements. Every time he opens his mouth and says something ridiculous even by the standards of US politics, that's a story that people will want to hear about.
Yes, and this falls within that meaning because the point was to evade official records statutes and control evidence of other wrongdoing.
Lost? You mean, "lost" as in misplaced, or "lost" as in deliberately deleted? That's not a typical usage of the word "lost". And yes, we know it happened after the subpoena because Hillary's lawyers have admitted the process they used to comply with the subpoena. And this is kind of joke all on its own: They searched all the email for a handful of keywords and deleted the everything else. So they searched for "Libya" but not, say, "Lib", which would be a common abbreviation, along with probably "L". No judge would have tolerated that from a normal person.
Tampering with evidence carries a maximum sentence of twenty years. On top of that we have criminal contempt of court and destruction of federal records.
I don't recall any of those attacks being blamed on a youtube video by a Secretary of State and a President, let alone going after and investigating someone who made said video and using them as a scapegoat. Nor do I recall a Secretary of State lying to the families of those victims while telling people in private emails that it had nothing to do with a video.
Perhaps you could enlighten me?
Perhaps bold text can penetrate your thick skull. Once again, from the same 2014 article:
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.
If I do something to try and get someone elected do I need to wait for them to give me permission or ask before I do it? Or is it possible I may do something I believe will lead to support of a candidate or a drop in support for an opposing candidate? I haven't heard anyone claim that Trump asked the Russians to do the initial hack. I have heard rumors that they did it to support him, but I'm not sure if that's their primary intent. I do know that Putin has spoken in support of Trump, so it would not be unbelievable someone in Russia would do this with that motivation except the timeline does make that unlikely since no one considered him a contender last year. Maybe the hack was done with a different intent and the release of the emails was done with that intent?
Yeah, except someone got a felony conviction behind that.
Who's even indicted over the much larger breach of information security represented by the Clinton email fiasco?
Absolutely nobody.
So maybe you should redirect your misplaced outrage a bit.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
... The world never ends though.
Ah. Famous last words. It only has to go wrong once.
We already have laws covering this. It's called libel. Go forth and sue, your Trumpness! Best of luck with that
Just wait until he becomes president and manages to change the libel laws to his advantage. I think he mentioned something like that.
It's not violating our national security, it would merely be violating a personal server. Remember....that's what we've been told.
Can't believe people are willing to vote for the piece of garbage who violated law and procedure and got her servers hacked and jeopardized national security.
It's a lot easier to understand Trump making a joke at said person's expense.
If they did release them it would be the best course of action for everyone, except Hillary. It would prove that her personal email server that she used as Secretary of State was compromised. It would maybe force people to ask more questions like 'Did former Secretaries of State use private email servers or did former Secretaries of State use private email?'. Those are two different things, in case you were wondering.
Trump did not invite the Russians and Chinese (as he later mentioned) to hack, he asked them to expose the hack. Something our FBI couldn't do, even after the fact. Grandpa Pinetta and the other pin heads in the DNC and at the DNC in Philly, can't figure out that talking about this is awesome. Maybe this will force Hilliary to have an unscripted press conference. She can talk about wiping her server with a rag. It was in the bathroom, so it probably needed it.
First off the server doesn't exist any more - remember, it was 'wiped' (no, not 'with a towel')
When the server existed, Hillary told us it was never hacked, so there can't be anyone that has copies of her emails.
If the 30,000 deleted emails were copied off the server before it was wiped, we know it doesn't include any 'work-related' emails, because Team Hillary took 2 years and only deleted non-work related emails, like pictures of her granddaughter and yoga routines.
Please explain how making Hillary's yoga routines and granddaughter pictures are matters of national security, and if they truly are, it makes the Republican's case that housing such sensitive material on an insecure private server was, at the minimum, a grossly irresponsible thing to do.
The issue is, has been, and always will be her decision to conduct 100% of her work while Secretary of State on an insecure private email server.
But please, stop trying to convince Americans that asking someone to share Hillary's self-described non-work related emails is an act of treason - you just sound stupid.
Yes. . Exactly.
Why can't people just understand that Hilary will push the envelope of what is legal to the point it looks illegal but isn't technically chargeable. You know, it depends on the meaning of the word "is" type shit. So many loopholes it will give you whiplash trying to follow the action.
This is why she should be the next president. We know that despite how it looks, no matter how deplorable, unethical, or blatantly violating the law it appears, it will all be legal. . At least what can legally be proven anyways.
The vast majority of which owe their national security to the US. Security which we are not properly compensated for. Trump will force our lazier "allies" to get their houses in order and shoulder more of the burden for protecting themselves.
The United States pays only 22.1% of the direct costs of NATO- about $500 million annually. (Germany pays 14.6%, France pays 10.6%, the UK pays 9.8%, Italy pays 8.4%, Canada pays 6.6%, Spain pays 5.8%, Turkey pays 4.3%, and the remaining 20 NATO allies- the Netherlands, Luxembourg, etc.- pay about 1% each on average.) On a per capita basis, the U.S. spends considerably less on NATO than either Germany or France.
The indirect costs of NATO, of course, are somewhat higher, as you'd naturally expect when a country voluntarily spends 54% of its discretionary budget on defense. That's totally nuts, and the way to address it would be to simply reduce military spending. But that's obviously not what he's proposing, since he knows it would get him booed off the stage. He's talking about keeping the military budget at present levels, and instituting a shakedown of NATO allies with an explicit threat to disregard our treaty obligations if countries don't pay up and are subsequently attacked. (The NATO treaty has been ratified by a Congressional supermajority, so this would be unconstitutional, but Trump insists that he can "negotiate" his way out of it and get a "better deal"- albeit one that could not possibly net us any more than $1 billion.)
Regardless of whether he intends to follow through on these statements or not, the mere fact that he's describing NATO in public as a protection racket instead of a treaty has already undermined national security. It's not as if both our NATO allies and Putin can't hear these rants (via "our Internet"), and the leaders of several of these countries have already expressed their suspicions that the United States might be willing to abrogate its treaty obligations if this fool gets elected. In fact Trump is making it clear that there could be no point in signing a treaty with the United States at all. It's now obvious to the rest of the world that the American political system has reached an ominous level of instability which is possibly sufficient to elevate a cretin like this to the presidency.
"I don't care"
"Politicians have been doing this for decades"
"Regan Got away with it"
"So did Cheney"
"We can indict Hilary for her email server right after we finish sentencing Cheney for war crimes".
Seriously. We let monumental crap following the Afghanistan & Iraq wars just slide. Admit it, you just don't like Hilary, and you'll do literally anything to break her. Maybe you've got a good reason. Maybe you don't. But none of those matter. It's about how you _feel_. But hey, don't take my word for it. Listen to John Oliver.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
There's a problem with what you are saying then. Trump asked Russia to give the media copies of the 30,000 "personal" emails Hillary deleted from her home-brew personal server. The only way there would be "personal" emails from her server residing in a government server is if they weren't personal. They would be "government" emails, sent to members of the government, that she deleted for some reason. Definitely not "personal" emails.
And, furthermore, what's up with the treason accusations? Even if Trump did say to hack her email (which he didn't), the head of our justice department, Hillary, and the FBI have all declared there is nothing on her email server that was classified. No need to worry how insecure it was, or that it was a violation of policy to use it, everything there was as safe as tap water. Furthermore, it is not a government owned server. It's a personal server, so there are definitely no "treason" issues as it's not government property being talked about.
Not siding with either one of these juvenile, puerile, and corrupt imbeciles, I just want all parties to keep their heads when discussing the issues. Hyperbole and sensationalism backed by rabid self interest and self justified irrational beliefs don't help the conversation one bit. All it does is show that some people are so hopelessly wrapped up in the ideology they have been sold that they are willing to sacrifice their integrity and honesty to scratch out a couple of imaginary hash marks on the internet scoreboard of shame.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
The minute you call a person names.... you use the battle.
What the mother loving fuck? Can Slashdot editors READ? Is the data now in CURSIVE?
Oh, and your video doesn't say what you say it says.
Slashdot fucked the duck on this one.
Mis-quoted, taken out of context after letting the main stream media run it through their overlords at the DNC and you fucking droolers post this shit?
I hope your daddy lied to your mummy like that and actually did cum in her mouth.
And, that's also stacked on the unsubstantiated LIE that the Russians did the DNC hacks. Hello, I can make my computer type cyrillic characters, and I can use proxies or compromised devices in other countries. Does that make me Russian?
What a bunch of pathetic nonsense.
Sure.... That's what the Reset button was for. How did that turn out for HRC? We're just asking them for their help.
With her cankles.
was a page out of the LBJ playbook, when he called a fatuous press conference as Fannie Lou Hamer was about to address the 1964 DNC. Not a politician my ass.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
Just the same for Billary and the DNC. That's what everyone who vots this year is going to do.
Bernie sold out for a handful of shekels But don't you DARE call us racist.
Don't forget the airplane. I hope he hires some good technicians... or he may end up on the list of unfortunate deaths surrounding the Clintons. "Oops! I guess we forgot to put the hydraulic fluid back in that... think they can fly without the tail working?"
Assange has stated he has more, and more damming emails. It wouldn't be too hard to leave out the stuff they don't want us to know they know but still put out enough to hang Hillary with. We may not have to wait very long. They won't be as much use after the election.
Even if he wasn't joking, are you really saying that this quote about hacking into someone's personal email system, to acquire personal emails, that America has been assured to have ZERO classified details in them and ZERO government affiliation, is considered "inviting them (Russia) to attack us"? Hacking into a non-government server to retrieve details about a wedding and what to wear is not "an attack." Calling it one is blatant stupidity or baldfaced partisanship.
Your political thinking cap is on waaaaay too tight, homey. Its cutting off the circulation to what's left of the rational part of your brain. You know, the part that isn't pwned by a false ideology sold to you be shysters in government garb and media shills.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
I know it's really really hard to fact check, but give it a try sometime. As others have pointed out, there is a crafted narrative regarding Trump which the media across the board is spreading. Almost every major news outlet has the same exact story and spin, yet numerous third party people and sites read things completely differently and there are fringe shows which make it abundantly clear that the propaganda engine is running full steam.
Context matters. Not just with Trump but with anyone get their quotes in context. The nature of Trumps comment was easy to see sarcasm.
Non quoted quotes. Trump never said what TFA claims he said. The headline was a complete fabrication created by moving words around and removing context.
The massive amount of propaganda is known by a majority of the populace. This is why Hillary is down today to 40% versus Trumps 47%. The massive lies being spread by media is making things worse for Hillary.
There are whole lot of things to argue with Trump about, yet those arguments are ignored and the DNC and Hillary resort to race baiting and fear mongering with all kinds of easy to see false claims regarding his character.
The allegory of the cave is a 2 way lesson. It's not simply about why it's important to pull people out, it's a message for people seeking power that people don't go back into the cave easily.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
I heard him today. What "acts of war" are you talking about?
:)
If the Russians hacked Hillary's email, it was done years ago when she was Secretary of State. Trump's not asking them to hack a live server right now. Hillary's email server is long-gone. She wiped it with a cloth, remember?
He fed the press and Democrats (almost one and the same) a bit of bait, and they took it before they knew what was happening. Now the Democrats say the emails are matter of "national security". If they truly are, and the Russians have them, and any of them contain classified material, then Hillary is guilty and should be in prison. She can't have it both ways.
Trump is playing chess while the Democrats are playing checkers. He's a move or two ahead of them and they're bewildered. This is not politics as usual.
I'm really looking forward to the next email release. This call for not just popcorn, but hot wings flavored popcorn!
She doesn't need press conferences. Did you miss the part where major news sources go to the DNC for "approval" on what they may or may not print about Clinton? Seeing as how that's WaPo, the DNC probably approved that very article.
An interesting attempt by them to appear unbiased, though.
More likely she can't do press conferences. She hasn't owned a high enough percentage of the "journalists" to guarantee she only gets softball questions.
She can't hack the pressure anymore. The little seizures, strokes, or whatever are catching up to her.
I fully expect to see her to drop with some medical reason right there on live TV. The debates aren't going to be about who "wins" they'll be about watching to see if the vessels in Hillary's head pop during the questions or not.
What's even more contemptible is the situation that has arisen from a civil servant's willfulness to skirt her responsibilities to the people who employ her. She created this issue. Now everyone who isn't a zombified Hillary supporter has questions about what was in those emails.
Openness and transparency was promised. Obama assured us we would have it. Instead we have secrecy, zero accountability, and willful stonewalling...by our employees!!!. But hey, it was a personal server, and the 30,000 emails in question were only personal emails. If she wants to play it that way you can't go back and now say Trump is advocating anything having to do with government email systems, inciting harm to the government, etc. No silly "treason" accusations, no false cries of tampering with a government email system. It was a personal server, not a government server.
And, furthermore, the contents of the entire server (with the exception of the deleted "personal" emails" that no one saw but Hillary, her inner circle, and her lawyer) were all approved by the justice department, the FBI, Loretta Lynch, and Barak Obama. No classified emails were sent. Nothing that would violate her clearance protocols at all. That server was as harmless as a kitten during her term as Secretary of State. How much less relevant are the things in there now that time has passed? Well I guess we won't ever know will we?
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
How many of those embassies were in areas that fellow allied countries explicitly pulled out of because the security situation was 'untenable' and had multiple requests from the ambassador at the post for MAJOR personnel and site upgrades?
It's well known that reality has a very liberal bias.
There's proof of this in the DNC emails. Monetary payments, access as reward, and outright orders about what to write and when to release it.
No, The reason no one heard of those is because security measures were in place and there wasn't a record of people asking and being denied extra security.
The reason benghazi is so known is because it was one blunder after another and we know that the political nature was in not sending support in or even attempting a rescue in order to avoid political fallout of the appearance of U.S. troops invading a foreign country.
For what it is worth, I think the host country of any embassy should protect it and if they appear unable or unwilling we should be able to send an entire army in if necessary for the protection and removal of people and they can kiss our asses if they object.
WE HAVE MORE THAN TWO POLITICAL PARTIES IN THIS COUNTRY.
That's only technically true. The U.S. Constitution doesn't actually specify that there can only be two parties, but it arranges a winner-take-all system that organically results in the emergence of a two-party system. For a third party to gain a foothold, one of the two major parties has to fission roughly in half. (The last time this happened was before the Civil War, when the Whigs split up.) The U.S. has always had third parties, but each one is a satellite of one of the two major parties. (The Libertarian Party is a splinter off the Republican Party, and the Green Party is a splinter off the Democratic Party.) The reason that these parties stay small is obvious- if a Democrat votes Green, he knows it will help the Republicans, and if a Republican votes Libertarian, he knows it will help the Democrats. So the third parties only get a small number of protest votes (and only if these people don't stay home and watch Netflix).
This clearly has an effect on Senate elections. Also on the Electoral College during presidential elections, but states are reluctant to apportion electoral votes by the proportion of voters- since it means voters in that state exert less of an effect on the outcome of a presidential election than voters in winner-take-all states nearby.
Meanwhile the House of Representatives is controlled not by a majority of voters, not even by a majority of seats, but by a majority of a majority of seats. And that majority-of-a-majority isn't even answerable to the majority of voters in their districts, but to the (generally nutcase) minority that votes in primaries. Even if you disregard the ridiculous gerrymandering of districts, this isn't government by the people; it's government by a minority of a majority of a minority of the people. It's an absurd perversion of democracy and one of the biggest bugs in the Constitution.
If you believe HRC, the emails are all about yoga, Chelsea's wedding centerpieces, and probably a bunch of questions from HRC about how she can get minesweeper to work. The only risk to Russia having those emails is if HRC is full of shit and deleted pertinent email whole under subpoena. Which of course she is.
But anyway, never Trump.
Nope. It has to be enemies. It specifically says enemies.
And nobody has yet explained how the recipient of a classified email could have prevented it from being sent.
When you have a clearance, you (at least contractors do, I suppose government types might be different) have to undergo "training" on how to handle classified information. One of the things that you're taught is how to deal with receiving classified material on an unapproved computer.
Bottom line (for contractors at least) is that basically you immediately disconnect from the Internet, immediately stop using the computer (but do not close any running programs or turn it off), and immediately contact security who will start making arrangements to deal with it. Failure to do so is essentially a crime. (Or at least I sure thought it was. Apparently it isn't, if you're a Clinton.)
Receiving classified information isn't itself a crime, but receiving it and then not doing anything about it is. Or, at least, that's what I've been taught every time I'm forced to retake the Security Clearance Refresher Training.
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
Assuming you know the legally defined charge of treason in the U.S., what exactly did trump do that meets this definition?
To be even more specific he was jailed for getting a date 'wrong' and thus lying to the court about the date, not content of, of a conversation that happened 18-24 months prior to the testimony in question. A call which was neither in his calendar nor was anything written down about said phone call afterwards. He was not allowed to introduce expert testimony at his own case pointing out that the human memory is, in point of fact, quite fallible.
In the land where the handgun is a common combined penis and flag substitute the "assassin" didn't even bring a gun. Not much of an attempt. File him with the thousands of other crazies who "would have done something" but were dragged off from events like that.
The real thing, a guy who shot Reagan, is being released today. He didn't just turn up with some stupid "plan" to steal a gun from a cop.
Moron. Armitage leaked the info. Libby was convicted of perjury for not remembering the exact date of a phone call.
u r dum.
He didn't invite Russia to do anything, he implied they already had and joked that he wanted the emails they already have. He did not invite them to do it. This is a bald faced lie dreamed up by the DNC and their media crony buddies.
Take a step back, try it with a different name for the person who "lost" the emails and you'll see why. If Trump was serious instead of it being a silly joke it would be condoning espionage versus something trivial.
Give up on the emails. They are never going to be found it's a distraction from what looks like real crimes like taking a bribe from Pfizer. The only reason Republicans haven't gone after that is that a crackdown on bribery may bring up some historical dirt that will also make some Republicans look bad (eg. Cheney).
Is it better to owe a favor or be forced to give favors or else some comrade will release your hacked emails, implicating you for handing out political favors for donations to your "charity"?
You should be tired and worn out with all those hoops you are jumping through to maintain that point.
Seriously, do you not understand how convoluted you are trying to get here? Let me simplify it for you. If i said find a pencil that is missin , i don't expect you to break into a house, I don't expect you to mug anyone, i expect you to look around the areas in your control to see if you can find it.
Indeed - Rice, Powell, Clinton and many others were doing what the lowly private was trained not to do.
That was Kaiser Wilhelm II's theory of international affairs, right up until he was forced to leave Germany as the country collapsed. Being a blow hard is not some sort of positive character trait, even when you think you have the upper hand.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Where's your source on this. Julian Assange made a statement just a couple days where is specifically did not identify the source of the leaked material.
"Asked about claims that Russian intelligence had hacked the DNC to obtain the emails, Wikileaks founder Julian Assange told NBC Newsâ(TM) Richard Engel âoethere is no proof of that whatsoeverâ and said âoethis is a diversionâ pushed by the Clinton campaign."
- http://nypost.com/2016/07/25/j...
It's not ridiculous for Ukraine to worry about Russia, but it is a bit for the USA to worry about Russia any more than the background concern and attention that has been paid since the fall of the Berlin wall. It's at the "keep the dog from next door from digging under the fence" level of worry, not a "they are arming our enemies" level of worry.
Romney was trying out a cold war scare campaign - very bad move. That's a lot more than just worrying about Russia.
It looks like a spectacularly massive ego trip that will mostly be paid for by people other than Trump. Not a joke, it just looks that way to those of us who are not narcissists.
How can anyone be this obtuse? I'm referring to the clown, MightyMartian, not Trump (a high bar for clownhood, indeed). I saw the video of what Trump said. What he clearly is referring to is the complete and utter softball Clinton's carelessness tossed to the Russians/Chinese/skritptkiddies for an espionage target. He's not telling the Russians to hack us. He's basically saying, Clinton made it easy and I'm sure you've got the info. Spare us the theater and just give the folks that want to hold Hillary to account a copy of what she was dangling out there for anyone to take.
I find it even more remarkable that Team Clinton took this bait and now her shenanigans are all over the news again. A more clever approach would have been to ignore Trump. Now he's got the front page again while the Democrats whitewash their nomination process that was clearly rigged to disenfranchise the Sanders crowd from the beginning.
Trump might be an asshole and a windbag, but Clinton is clearly a corrupt politician and a criminal, regardless of how you dance around the facts.
I would call it Rupert Murdoch picking a side and expecting to collect later when his bet pays off. That's how he did it in the UK and some other places.
You mean like blatant criminality by Clinton that the media just can't bury fast enough....got it.
Russia has actively influenced American politics since 1918.
This is the first time democrats have minded.
He's the guy that demanded that Obama should show his penis to everyone so this new thing isn't enough to put off Trump supporters.
It's just another, although somewhat trivial, example of how he can not be trusted.
Illegal has a specific meaning...
Yes, and this falls within that meaning because the point was to evade official records statutes and control evidence of other wrongdoing.
That is speculative, to be kind. You have absolutely no way to prove that the email server was setup for that purpose. To demonstrate their intent you would need something that you have no evidence to support.
Lost? You mean, "lost" as in misplaced, or "lost" as in deliberately deleted?
You are, again, claiming to know the intent of the user. You are also claiming knowledge of a timeline that you cannot possibly demonstrate.
And yes, we know it happened after the subpoena because Hillary's lawyers have admitted the process they used to comply with the subpoena.
Do you have a source for that? I have never heard anyone make that claim before. For such a claim to be true and to support your claim, it would require them to have done what you claim they did and then subsequently have gone and told their lawyer that they did it. Why would anyone ever do that?
In this country the judge does need a reason to hand out a sentence that long. No such reason has been established yet in this case.
Tampering with evidence carries a maximum sentence of twenty years.
Nobody has shown that such an offense happened. A conviction on such a charge requires showing that someone did that intentionally.
I'll tell you the same thing I've told the other people who have been running around with these conspiracies - there is plenty wrong with Hillary Clinton. Why not pick on her for something you can support with facts? When you instead put this much energy into propagation of conspiracies you just make yourself look silly and desperate.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
The minute you call a person names.... you use the battle.
If you believe that then can you explain why is Drumpf still in the race? He started calling people names long before he announced his candidacy.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Does not mean that full context does not exist. It simply means you are lazy. Do you need me to provide a LMGTFY link to "Donald Trump Full Speech 7/27" or can you do that much all by yourself? And just because it seems to be rocket science, change the goddamn date to what ever date you wish and you can find other speeches that he has made.
Since you are too lazy to perform a Google search I know damn well that you won't actually read, therefore here is a link so you can listen. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
No, I do not believe you actually will listen either. You may hear some noise but listening requires some level of motivation.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Er, what shall we call it, then, The Chill War?
His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
Translation: I'm ignoring the idiocy of Trump's statement, and inventing a rationale that allows me to not feel like a contemptible moron for supporting the man.
Well, you're ignoring the obvious joke in Trump's statement and inventing a rationale that allows you to continue to hate him. I mean, if it's the "damn ruskies" who hacked the DNC to help support Trump as the Democrat theory goes, then why wouldn't they support him by divulging Hillary's illegal emails? It's poking a very big hole in the "Russian" conspiracy, reminding people as well of Hillary's "vast right wing conspiracy" theory.
I think the dead giveaway is the bit about being "rewarded mightily by our press". If you can't see the sarcasm in that statement you are, as gurps puts it, a fool. The US press doesn't give a damn about Hillary and her issues with handling secret documents. After all, the FBI guy said she was innocent, right? (Reminder: no, he didn't, but that's how the press spun it.)
You sound like the kind of guy who would jump up and down shouting how much a liar Trump is if he answered "banana" when you asked him "who's there" as part of a knock-knock joke. He's not a banana, he must be INSANE! It's TREAASON to say you're a banana! It's racist towards true banana republics!
Nonsense! I believe that Trump speaks well at the 3rd grade level.
His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
Wait wasn't trump the one who said NATO needs to be dismantled or something?
If Trump kicks NATO to the curb is he going to just make a deal with Russia so they don't invade Europe in the power vacuum that happens?
Sounds like the Naiveté of a certain Neville Chamberlain person from the not terribly long ago past.
The minute you call a person names.... you use the battle.
Agreed.
"Lyin' Ted"
"Little Marco"
"Low Energy Jeb"
"Crooked Hillary"
"Crazy Bernie"
"Goofy Elizabeth Warren"
His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
Russian leadership is exactly the same now as it was in 2012 when it was ridiculous to worry about them.
That's the problem with and a feature of dictators. Putin plays the long game.
His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
And NATO didn't provoke Russia by putting troops and missiles on their borders, no sir!
So, are you implying that the converse is not true? That Russia has not provoked NATO "by putting troops and missiles on their borders"?
His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
Stop, you're embarrassing yourself.
The server doesn't exist. The server never had classified material on it (Per HRC).
The server was never hacked (Per HRC)
The 30,000 'deleted' emails that Trunp is asking the Rusdians 'or whoever has them' were about wedding plans, her granddaughter, and yoga routines (Per HRC)
Hacking into a non-existent server to retrieve non-existent emails that were non-classified and non-work-related is not a matter of national security .
Given that logic, it may be cheaper and simpler to just use Slashdot to communicate all government information from now on. It may actually result in better decision making as all the AC's can provide valuable feedback guiding our trusted leaders to a glorious and prosperous future!
Sounds good. And the modders can mod away! Democrazy in action!
His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
No, of course not. The first time I was aware of this happening was during Shrub's administration. Dems put up a howl, naturally.
I don't know how far back or how common it was before then.
His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
" I can still openly say precisely what I think of our leaders in Washington without fear that I might face retribution."
I too can still openly say precisely what I think of the leaders in Washington without fear that I might face retribution!
Regards, Ivan Kratkiy
His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
Reminds me of that bit from "Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy", where the job of president is not to wield power, but to draw attention away from it.
His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
All reports I've heard said the deletions occurred after the State Department requested the emails: http://www.politifact.com/pund...
It does not appear you felt the need to read the page you linked to. It wasn't merely that they were deleted after the request, they were deleted after fulfilling the request. In other words the state department had them before they were deleted. If the state department did not retain the emails from a former employee, that is a different matter than what you allege here.
she burned the emails as soon as she possibly good
Burned them to where? Optical media somewhere? Sure, she's a bit on the older side for a presidential candidate but I'm pretty sure her email server doesn't run directly on fire.
Yeah, people mass scour/delete 30,000 emails on a regular basis
You're trying to read deeper into that statement than where it actually goes. Being as you couldn't be bothered to read the piece you linked to earlier enough to realize that it does not support your allegation, I guess I shouldn't be surprised by this misread either.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Regardless of whether he intends to follow through on these statements or not, the mere fact that he's describing NATO in public as a protection racket instead of a treaty has already undermined national security.
*Who's* national security is undermined? There isn't a single nation-state that poses an existential threat to the US, short of a nuclear exchange. Even if the Russians were to sweep all the way to the French Atlantic coast.....the domestic citizens of the US would not be at risk. It's one of the advantages of having your continent-sized country separated from the rest of the world by giant oceans, patrolled by the world's largest Navy.
The "Russian threat" is largely trumped-up fearmongering by the military-industrial complex....and that's coming from someone who's been in said MIC for 13 years.
Hell, considering that the US is a net importer of foreign goods, a collapse of US-European trade due to a Russian conflict would probably be good for domestic US employment.....
In fact Trump is making it clear that there could be no point in signing a treaty with the United States at all.
The US's credibility for sticking to its word has long been on shaky ground, since we first invaded Iraq (we supported Saddam against Iran....then turned around and crushed him). Gaddafi made efforts to reconcile with the West ( http://www.foxnews.com/politic... ). But then he had the great idea of a gold-and-oil-backed Libyan/African dinar. That wasn't well-received in the land of fiat money, and he too found himself turned on by Western leaders who smiled in his face just a few years prior.
Unless you are willing to prostrate your economy before the implements of Western banking manipulating (IMF, etc...), you can't take anything Washington says at its word. Why else do you think regional powers that have had targets painted on them (Iran, North Korea) put so much effort into acquiring nukes? Why do you think Russia puts so much funding into the development and readiness of its Strategic Rocket Forces? Because if you disagree with the US's world order, MAD is the only system guaranteed to prevent a US invasion.
As Glenn Greenwald of The Intercept reminds us, "Governments do spy on each other and do try to influence events in other countries, certainly the U.S. government has a very long and successful history of doing exactly that.". So hearing Americans, particularly Democrats, complain about Trump's request here reminds us the US has unclean hands and about far more important things than distracting us away from the ugliness the Democrats apparently sic on each other to win political races. Some of that increased ugliness includes voter shenanigans (possibly voter suppression) to make it harder for would-be Bernie Sanders voters to vote in the Democratic primary, collusion with news outlets to suppress unfavorable stories, and possible illegality from the DLC. These strike me as far more interesting considering the veracity of the DLC emails remains unchallenged.
The last thing the Democrats really want is people thinking about Hillary Clinton's voting record, or campaign funding sources. That analysis won't go down well with anti-war, pro-universal health care, pro-organized labor, anti-fracking, anti-TPP voters the Democrats seem to be losing. Such discussion might lead these voters to notice that the Democrats are apparently as interested as the Republicans in using a distractionary fear-based campaign against the only competition they're willing to admit to (no talk of Greens or Libertarians, for instance, people might defect or demand inclusive debates).
Digital Citizen
Is the DNC a government agency? This day in simple answers for simple questions...
Sure, there are some trends which are pretty well known during the 2 weeks of National conventions. Generally the Rs go up during theirs and the Ds go up during theirs. Ds have not gone up at all, and I don't expect they will. Sanders threw his whole revolution under the Hillary bus, and she backed over it a few times. Hiring Wassermann-Schultz was the most idiotic move possible for Hillary to make on Monday, and what did Hillary do? This added to a massive decline which was already in progress.
FWIW I'm not a Trump supporter either. I would rather have had Paul or Carson. Neither perfect, but both real conservatives who believe in the Constitution. The Republican party messed up big time, trying to put in a phony puppet in Bush and then panicking when the people didn't play along. They don't have who they want, but they can at least recover. The RNC actually supported the people's choice despite him not being a true Republican. That was a smart move given the climate.
The Democratic party and Hillary are still train wrecks in progress. It's actually just as fun to watch as the Republican side was. The difference is that Hillary was not wanted by anyone except for Hillary and the Party. Unlike her Husband Hillary sucks at faking it. The Democratic party didn't care and put her up anyway, cheating and lying as much as needed to get her wedged in. The people are pissed, and that is the theme of this whole election cycle (for both parties).
It's funny to keep listening to the paid for media claim that Sanders people are all going to vote Hillary. Not one group I have read or talked to will vote for her. She is the reason people supported Bernie to begin with, people are tired of the corrupt politicians working for the mega wealthy. Trump may be wealthy, but he's the smaller enemy on the field. The best hope the Ds have is that all the Bernie supporters stay home. Many are so disenfranchised that they will, but others are so pissed off they will vote for Trump.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
So you don't think the Republican candidate for the Presidency of the US inviting a foreign power, one that is at the best of times in a rather tense relationship with the United States, to hack into US systems just to gain dirt on the other party's nominee is reasonable?
It's obvious to a native speaker of English (who isn't astroturfing the Democrats' talking points) that Trump was NOT inviting the Russians to initiate a new crack on his opponent's servers.
He was ribbing his opponents, and keeping their lax security (and their "The Russians are aiding him!" attempt at distraction) in the public eye, by pointing out that the Russians probably ALREADY have the emails that Clinton's people "can't find", and inviting them to dig them out of their own archives and provide them to investigators and/or the press.
People claiming he is inviting new espionage don't just look foolish. They also play into his hands, by keeping the issue in the face of prospective voters.
But feel free to continue. B-)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Even if the Russians were to sweep all the way to the French Atlantic coast.....the domestic citizens of the US would not be at risk.
[Noted without comment...]
The Russians didn't create it, at most they broke it. The DNC fucking created it when they were shown to have actually been engaging in conspiracies that the conspiracy theorists alleged. Your party is totally and completely corrupt, and you are going to vote for her come November.
Of course not. What they haven't explained is why they didn't prosecute Karl Rove and George Bush for the TWENTY-TWO MILLION emails they deleted from their illegal server in order to conceal their involvement in illegally firing several prosecutors who refused to serve as their pawns by selectively prosecuting Democrats.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Yes, and they gave them to the state department, so it could do its own "investigation" of itself. They will never see the light of day. We actually depend on Russia for transparency from the democratic party.
Its in her fucking email, David. The ones that were released. Get your head out of the vat of koolaid before you drown.
Typically later actions are enough to prove intent. You're really bending over backward to give her the benefit of the doubt, and I understand that. But if it were you or I this is extra jail time.
Yes, in fact I do.
Yes, that's tampering with evidence. Try pulling this kind of nonsense if you're involved with a subpoena and see what happens. Prosecutors and judges will not accept "You can't prove what I deleted has any connection to the case" as a valid defense.
*Who's* national security is undermined?
Everyone's. The core principle of NATO is that an attack on any NATO member will be treated as an attack on all NATO members. Thus, traditionally, Russia would be very reluctant to attack any NATO member because it would be guaranteed to bring about a strong counterattack, which at best would be costly to all parties and at worst could escalate into World War 3, which not even Putin wants.
However, if Russia has cause to believe that the USA will not honor its commitments to NATO, that could tempt Russia to try to "take back" one or more of the East European countries it lost after the cold war (similar to the way it "took back" part of the Ukraine in 2014).
By his loose talk, Trump has given Russia (and the world) cause to believe that he might decide not defend all NATO members; that the commitments of the USA might not be honored if Trump is elected.
So let's imagine that Trump is elected, and then Russia bets that Trump won't bother to defend, say, Lithuania, and so Russia sends in their troops to "reclaim" Lithuania.
Now what happens? Either Trump doesn't respond, in which case NATO is exposed a paper tiger, and Russia (and potentially others) now feel free to invade more countries when they want to; or Trump does respond, and now we're involved in a hot war with Russia that could easily turn nuclear.
Either outcome sucks. That's why politics at this level isn't a game, and shouldn't be treated as one. Trump's words have real consequences, even if he thinks he is only joking (or more likely, just isn't thinking at all).
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
That's from last year, idiot. Go read the final congressional report and learn something that's actually true.
No, we should be killing them everywhere we find them. They would be perfectly happy to kill us while the democratic party ignores them.
Cheney did no such thing. It was Richard Armitage at the state department who outed her. And because of the fact that it was know early on in the investigation and he was never charged its pretty clear outing her was not illegal.
What are you smoking? Richard armitage being the leaker is undisputed common knowledge.
This is such fucking bullshit. He did NOT phrase it clearly, I grant you, but anyone watching should have been able to see he was suggesting IF the Russians or Chinese, or whoever had the emails, they should look on THEIR computers to "FIND" the missing emails.
I had a sucky sig.
Except for Ted Kennedy, of course. Yes it actually happened in 1984. Go read about it so you don't sound like an idiot.
Bam!
Sure he does. He signs a law taxing remittances to mexico at a 90% rate. Done.
If you're right then surely this merits an investigation. Oh wait... there have been NINE already that all came up with nothing.
I can predict he'll start isolationist trade policies (his only consistent position for 30+ years), that he'll prefer Putin to our historic allies (he's been working on Putin for Trump Tower - Moscow for 15 years), that he'll poison our relationship with Mexico (at least offically and for the length of his presidency), that he'll cause a crazy debt default incident (the Republicans already went half-way, and he's never said anything indicating he understands what works well for a casino doesn't work well for a country).
Is that sufficent?
And,yeah, Clinton's no prize. But if the worst that happens is she takes a few million bucks to pardon a tax cheat who already fled to a non-extradition country or gets eaten out in the Oval Office, I honestly don't care about those scandals.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Well, they didn't come up with nothing. They came up with patterns of incompetence and knowledge that we (as in Clinton and Obama as well as our intelligence community) knew it was a terrorist attack instead of some protest over a movie the night it happened (before the movie claim). This was illustrated by Hillary's email to Chelsea stating an al qeada stile attack and comments from witnesses and department heads. We know that the decision not to send a rescue team was a political one based on appearances instead of any logistical problems.
That may not mean much to you but it says we acted callously with regard to the safety of our diplomats because of political reasons which shows extreme incompetence to me.
The fact that you keep bringing it up and saying we found nothing is sort of telling. It somewhat says you think the same but feel the need to gloss over it. And the reason there was 9 investigations instead of just one is because the administration (not necessarily Hillary) kept stonewalling and facts were being discovered after the process was winding down including facts revealed by the eventual release of Hillary's email. Or in other words, the administration want it stretched out through multiple sessions of congress for whatever reason. Given what we know, it was likely a shrewd political calculation too.
No at all. "The Facts of Live Are Conservative" is a well-known meme.
Leftist Collectivism generally leads to destruction in the long term, because it is predicated on the idea that the State (which means politicians, bureaucrats, plus supporting., academia, and media of the modern world) know how to live your life better than you do. That is why the Left (Modern 'Liberals') intend to micro-regulate every aspect of your life.
The Classic Liberals of the political Right want to resist Collectivism and prefer Individual Liberty where individuals decide what happens - which is why they call for "Limited Government". Of course, the Collectivists don't want you to understands this - they need you to believe they are more competent than you in running your life and you should cede your money and liberty to them - for the "common good" (which means, opulence for the elites, and scraps left for the commoners).
If you want to be a Borg drone enslaved in the Collective then fine, but don't threaten State force (eg. threat of imprisonment or worse for not following the dictates of the globalists) against those that don't !
I can predict he'll start isolationist trade policies
Which is just a lot of talk and not much else. A president isn't a king. He has to follow the law. Especially Trump, because he won't have allies in the press actively hiding information that might be bad for his administration.
that he'll prefer Putin to our historic allies
Like the current President prefers Iran over Israel and Cuba over the UK. But, again, mostly talk.
that he'll poison our relationship with Mexico
Our relationship with Mexico is valuable to Mexico. How valuable is it to us? Since Mexico has less to offer than the benefit they receive from our "relationship", they're hardly in a position to hold a grudge over some meaningless talk and the US deciding to secure the border.
that he'll cause a crazy debt default incident
Good. The last one of those helped slow down runaway spending. It was the end of the world for about a week though. I'm sure there will be a lot of pearl-clutching and dramatic gasping and head-shaking by people who think it makes them superior to the rest of us.
Is that sufficent?
I'm not panicked yet. Keep telling your stories though. It's fun to tell stories.
Well, for one thing, I can still openly say precisely what I think of our leaders in Washington without fear that I might face retribution.
Like Catherine Englebrecht thought she could?
"Translation: I'm ignoring the idiocy of Trump's statement, and inventing a rationale that allows me to not feel like a contemptible moron for supporting the man."
Have you heard of the word "rhetorical"? Or do you use Google Translate for all your professional communication needs? Non-disclosure: I'm neither a Trump fan nor a hater.
On his own money? I think if you dig you will find there is a lot of russian money behind Trump.
After several failed ventures, a lot of what Trump has been doing has been backed by russian investors close to Putin.
Putin has been rather clever, funding and supporting the far right anti Eu parties in Europe. Would you believe Nigel Farage is a great admirer of Putin too.
Perhaps that explains some of his actions such as going into the EU Parliament after Brexit and after saying we must all act like adults launch into a childish attack on EU Parliament members saying things like "you lot have never had a real job in your lives".
It's been over 50 years since russia had burgess philby maclean and blunt is it likely that there hasn't been other recruits put in place since then to do damage to Britain Europe and the USA?
If you look at Trump and Farage (and possibly their wives have you seen where they are from),
Consider their destabilizing influence on Europe and the USA which favours Russia. For example Trump has already said that he wouldn't support NATO members from former soviet block countries if Russia was to invade them.
It isn't easy to provide proof that these Politicians are working for Putin but their actions seem to be firmly in the interests of Russia. Nuclear weapons make a regular war to be out of the question but an Economic War can be played out and Putin seems to be winning it with the use of well placed actors in his enemy's camp.
Is it likely Russia has agents working in the US and Europe? Would it make sense that Trump and Farage are agents? That both are wreaking havoc in Europe and the USA is clear, how they can be stopped is not.
Are we at war and don't even recognise it's taking place?
Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
I would have gone with something old and regurgitated like "The ends justify the means".
But you sir, you reduce something eloquently to its core essence moreso than most of us already do.
Bravo !
Stability
Mutual Economic Benefit.
Who benefits from the resurgence of an aggressive communist empire?
*Who's* national security is undermined?
Everyone's.
Really? Show me the OPLAN (Operations Plan) of a plausible scenario, with a Commander's Intent, Mission, Purpose, End State, and Scheme of Maneuver, where the Russian military would engage in a conventional attack against the continental US. Otherwise this statement is false. This is why I rank Woodrow Wilson as the worst US President of All Time: He really put into practice this idea that "Europe's problems are America's problems", and it's saturated the minds of Americans ever since.
However, if Russia has cause to believe that the USA will not honor its commitments to NATO, that could tempt Russia to try to "take back" one or more of the East European countries it lost after the cold war (similar to the way it "took back" part of the Ukraine in 2014).
The Russians are deeply pragmatic. What would they have to gain by annexing the Baltic states? The Russian minorities are small and their economies, while decently developed, are small in the aggregate. They can only expect unplanned 2nd and 3rd-order effects of an invasion, and probably a costly insurgency, not to mention souring their relationship with the rest of Europe. Europe is still their primary customer for natural gas exports. Even in the shoddy condition of their military in the late 90's/early 00's, there were no indications they were even *thinking* of such a course of action. It's only been the constant expansion of NATO right up to their border, combined with the US's deployment of Anti-Ballistic Missiles on their doorstep, that has led to a belligerent reaction.
Russia's nuclear arsenal is the primary tool for assuring national survival, and US attempts to undermine the MAD balance are rightly taken as an extreme national security threat. Obama won't even discuss the ABM issue with Putin. ( http://www.zerohedge.com/news/... ) The last time someone built a military alliance up to their Western doorstep, it cost the Russians 20 million+ lives to rectify the situation. Do you think they are willing to give us the benefit of the doubt and risk repeating such a nightmare? Re: Ukraine. Sevastopol is Russia's only warm-water port, which they had been leasing from Ukraine. It's a vital part of their national security strategy. Given the possibility of Ukraine slipping entirely into NATO/the EU, could they really risk hoping to maintain their base lease with a government totally hostile to them possibly in power? No. So they snatched up the whole peninsula, and with virtually-no casualties (theirs OR Ukrainian) in the process. The insurgency in the separatist eastern states is meant to a) keep some semblance of a buffer between Russia's official land border and the obviously-less-than-friendly NATO military alliance b) keep Ukraine as a whole unstable enough to make full NATO/EU integration unlikely, and a forward-deployment of NATO troops in the east even less so. It's entirely reactionary to the US's attempt to move Ukraine out of Russia's orbit (here's where Nuland affirms her quote about $5 billion spent in Ukraine "to promote democracy": http://iipdigital.usembassy.go... and here is her caught on tape playing kingmaker after the Maidan riots: https://youtu.be/r5n8UbJ8jsk ).
Russia was content with the status quo vis-a-vis Ukraine, for the most part. How would the US react if China quietly funded NGOs to "promote Communism" in Mexico, culminating in the Mexican government being overthrown and replaced with a single-party Communist state? How would the US react if the Chinese built anti-ballistic missiles in *Canada* to "protect against rogue Iranian warheads" (Note: this is the actual BS argument the US gav
...both for Slashdot, and for the USA. Clearly, a majority of posters here have identified the story as the bull excrement that it is -- a DNC-media talking-point collusion, that has no basis in reality.
Pres. Obama also said that there was "not a smidgen of evidence" that his IRS intentionally targeted conservative groups before and during the 2012 campaign season. Then people found evidence the IRS did just that.
Often, when people say there is no evidence of something, they're talking about what they think others can show, rather than what the truth is.
Invited a foreign nation to assault US-Based computer systems.
He invoked Russia to start a Cyber war to help him in his political campaign.
That is speculative, to be kind. You have absolutely no way to prove that the email server was setup for that purpose. To demonstrate their intent you would need something that you have no evidence to support.
Typically later actions are enough to prove intent.
Don't quit your day job. There are no later actions in this case that are strong enough to prove intent.
You're really bending over backward to give her the benefit of the doubt,
Here's a tip for you - try only making arguments that you have a chance of supporting. This is not one of them.
and I understand that
No, you really do not. You assume that, and you assume incorrectly there.
But if it were you or I this is extra jail time.
Another strange assumption there.
Do you have a source for that?
Yes, in fact I do.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here - even though you have not once done the same for anyone in this discussion - and clarify what it was that I was asking you to provide a source for (as this is not a source for my request related to your earlier statement).
Your earlier claim was that the emails were deleted after the subpoena was issued. I asked you if you had a source to support that claim. The source you offered describes how they came up with the emails that were handed over to the state department, but says nothing about when emails were deleted. That is an important distinction, especially in the context of the allegations you are trying to level against Mrs. Clinton.
Nobody has shown that such an offense happened.
Yes, that's tampering with evidence.
Except it isn't, for reasons we have already discussed. Particularly as nobody can establish when the emails were deleted, it is impossible to state that anyone knew them to be evidence. Furthermore if they are only interested in emails that were official government correspondence then there should be copies of those emails on the other end as well.
Imagine a situation where someone close to you goes missing tomorrow. If the police thought you were suspicious would you immediately hand over ever email you ever sent to that person? What about ones that were deleted well before tomorrow? What if this is someone you have been emailing since the 90s, can you find the emails you sent to them back then?
Prosecutors
Don't get to decide the validity of a defense. Their job is to present the state's case as best they can.
judges will not accept "You can't prove what I deleted has any connection to the case" as a valid defense.
That is a dubious claim based on dubious assumptions.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Why do you think she has stopped at "technically chargeable", or even "enough to convict a normal person"? It only takes one hold-out to hang a jury, and she has excellent odds of finding at least one person on any jury who will refuse to convict her unless there is crystal-clear video evidence of her emailing marked-classified information to Vladimir Putin.
Should we congratulate you on learning how to lie by citing irrelevant numbers, or just remind you that Mark Twain enumerated the three kinds of lies long before you were born?
For example, despite your claim that "many more Americans died during those attacks than in Benghazi", PolitiFact (or at least the distilled version you linked to -- which doesn't identify its sources in any useful way) doesn't say that more than 4 Americans died in all those attacks. It says only that three Americans died in those attacks. A useful comparison would exclude attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan, where we were engaged in military activity at the time.
Because despite all appearances of illegality and wrong doing, she has yet to be charged with something to get in front of a jury in the first place.
Of course that is not good if done by a corporations but a future president it is aces. It instills trust and creates a roll model for future citizens.
I called Trump a train wreck and said his candidacy was ridiculous. In what universe does that make me a supporter of his?
If you want to see a fool, look in the mirror.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
rofl
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Well - no he didn't. He invited a foreign power to find something. Any assault or other intention attributed is purely in your mind. It is wishful thinking too as last we heard the server was permanently off line. However, there is already a presumption in the republican camp that the server was already accessed years ago so it is more likely he was suggesting they search through whatever documents they already have.
Either way, anything outside of looking for or finding something is all something the viewer has to read into the statement. I'm certain Russia might take it differently - perhaps even as a joke. It depends on what they read into it.
The WSJ page one headline is “Trump Urges Russia To Wade Into Race”. The lead sentence says Trump “invited Russia on Wednesday to Unearth some of Hilary Clinton’s missing emails from her time as Secretary of State, drawing sharp criticism that he was urging a foreign power to spy on the U.S.”
Now this is profoundly silly; we spy on them and they spy on us. Both countries treat spying as a crime when someone else is doing it and a necessary when they are doing it.
But what did Trump actually say? The WSJ uses a sophisticated way of hiding the actual quote; they put half of it at the end of page A1 and the rest after the jump on page A8. The aim of this traditional and widespread ploy is to make it unlikely that the reader will read the jump and be able to get the whole sentence. It is a surprisingly effective trick. The full Trump Twitter quote is buried in the following WSJ sentence: “Russia- if you are listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” Mr. Trump told reporters at (Now the Jump to Page A8) his resort near Miami. “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press”.
Upps! So Trump is simply noting the obvious. The Clinton server was probably hacked by multiple parties- the Russians, some Romanian kids and probably others. These parties have the missing 30,000 Clinton “Personal” emails which her attorneys say they would love to turn over to the Court for review but they can’t because they erased them from her computer after deeming them as “Private” (without actually reading the emails- they just looked at the subject line). Trump is calling their bluff. “Fine if you can’t find them I’m sure the Russians can give us a copy”. Then he takes a slam at the press which loves to call the dumps “dangerous leaks” but then proceeds to publish the texts to boost circulation.
The NYT gave the full quote on P1 under the headline “Trump Challenges Russia To Find Clinton’s Emails” with a sub-head “Urges Moscow to Spy on His Rival Amid Hacking of Democratic Committee”. Sorry guys, wrong verb tense. He isn’t encouraging them to spy (neither Russia nor the U.S. neads any encouragement). The spying was done months- maybe years- ago because all the emails were in an insecure server in the Clinton’s New York home. If there is anything incriminating in them, so be it. We Americans have a right to see them.
how can something be both intentional ("by design") and accidental ("gross negligence") ??
at this point you're just a mini trump, spouting word salad without a care as to meanings.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
If you thing saying, "Russia, I hope you find the missing emails" is to treason, you probably think saying, "I hope this person dies" is murder.
Who will rid me of this turbulent priest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
While it is likely that Trump was being sarcastic and using this is a media grabbing tactic to go after HRC (I'm not a fan of either and not American - so my views aren't relevant.
This is, however, a historical precedent on why having the leader of a nation state make off the cuff remarks is dangerous to peace.
Consider way back in 1770 when Henry the II was getting annoyed at the Archbishop of Canterbury because he was doing things the king didn't really approve of, Henry uttered those infamous words, 'Who will rid me of this turbulent priest.' 4 knights overheard and long story short, one dead arch bishop.
The impact of this was huge - even by medieval standards.
Now imagine a modern day scenario where a president who has a well known temper, lashes out against those who 'oppose' him, and isn't known to staying on message.
Terrifying.
"Omnis tuus capsa sunt inesse nos"
Prosecutors don't prosecute solely on the basis of "technically chargeable", dumass, so the fact that she hasn't prosecuted doesn't mean her actions were not "technically chargeable".
Wow, I can actually hear the Russian accent as I read this!
What is it about republicans that makes them feel like it’s okay to commit any kind of crime, as long as it serves some other moral crusade they have?
Hacking is wrong and should be punished with jail time unless we’re doing it to attack the Democrats. Then it’s okay.
Lying is wrong and sinful except when creationists flat out lie to you about the evidence for evolution. Then it’s okay, because they’re on a mission to lead you to God by any means necessary, no matter how morally questionable those means would be under an other circumstances.
Those are all nice ideas, but when we have tens of millions of our own people who go hungry, who lack health care, then perhaps Europe should be spending more for its own defense.
Europe can afford all their social programs because most of those nations spend next to nothing on defense, knowing the US will be there.
I voted against Clinton and think she's a horrible candidate. While she may have exhibited patterns of incompetence and knowledge when dealing with embassy security, look who she's running against.
The guy who wrote The Art of the Deal said it was difficult working with Trump because he has a five minute attention span, and says he thought he was a sociopath even as he was writing the book. (Trump responded with a lawsuit.) Psychiatry professors are presenting Trump in lectures as a classic example of narcissistic personality disorder. The DSM V lists several mental disorders with symptoms that describe him perfectly. You can't pin him down on any policy, other than building a wall (across a 2000 mile border where the net traffic has started going south), dismantling the EPA, not allowing Muslims into the country, reforming the First Amendment so he can sue for libel, etc. It's mostly amorphous stuff about "hiring the best people", "making things work again", shutting things down "until we can figure out what is going on", etc. He can't keep a promise, abuses eminent domain to seize property, stiffs people once their legal fees would exceed the amount he owes, and runs scams like Trump University.
Are you comfortable being one tantrum away from a nuclear war? Ask any ambassador if they're more worried about Trump or Clinton. If you can't see all the red flags around this guy you must be a blind partisan.
So it's OK for a foreign power to hack US computers as long as Trump doesn't like the person they are hacking?
Wow, more proof that the republican-apologists are worse than the democrat-apologists.
If you really believe that there has been a voting free and without manipulation in Crimea - you're an imbecile. And your "Fuck the EU" disqualifies you as a serious discussion participant. I suppose you're one of those European right-wing nuts? Let me tell you something - go fuck up your own country. We don't need you.
... Hacking into a non-government server to retrieve details about a wedding and what to wear is not "an attack." .....
Well - it is. It is at least an attack on one's digital self-determination. It is also an unlawful attack to gain access to information that otherwise wouldn't be available to you. For years we are fighting against the governments intrusion into our digital lives. But it's not an attack if foreign governments hack us - personally or our representatives or companies? What's the difference between physically breaking into a house to read the printed documents and a digital break in to read digital documents? Do you regularly invite unknown Romanians working for Russia into you house or email server? Thinking about it - why not give us the location of your accounts so that we are able to "not attack" you?
m.
FTFY. Actually, I'd settle for his tax returns, at least for the moment.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Certainly Europe could pay for more of its defense. Japan should as well. I would certainly say our allies need a bigger stake in the game.
However,the idea of willy nilly backing out of arrangements which have had a stabilizing effect on the entire globe would be exceedingly foolish is such a thing were to come to pass.
How would doing so bring our own people healthcare or food?
Our society has such vast wealth that nobody really would need to be hungry or lack healthcare and yet they do.
Why?
Priorities.
We simply have set up society in such a way where this is allowed to be.
We have a free enterprise system where people are allowed to fall through the cracks.
We say it is up to the individual and not the government to secure their way in the world and as a consequence some will be cast aside.
The individual has responsibilities to manage their lives.
Pulling back from our alliances is to invite further chaos into the world and seems a poor way to have economic prosperity.
Chaos would put even more of our citizens under pressure perhaps. Less economic prosperity would lead to greater uncertainty for individuals and likely result in greater hunger and lack of healthcare.
Allowing aggressive players to resurge in the world to and be unchallenged would amount to capitulation.
We have seen such foolishness before.
The President can't "illegally fire" someone. That issue was settled back in the 1860s and 1870s with the impeachment of Johnson and subsequent court cases - that was essentially what his impeachment was all about, at least publicly advertised as. The Executive retains the absolute right to purge Executive Branch personnel.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
The top article on Google said that Bill had been paid an unusually large amount of money by a huge for-profit University chain, and that Hillary had given tens of millions of dollars in business to the founder of the chain. It calls for further investigation. The rest of the page is from organizations that don't look particularly trustworthy (not that I'm fond of the Post as a source of facts).
In other words, you've got innuendo and speculation going for you, and a flexible interpretation of the law. If someone had solid evidence of wrongdoing, I'd expect to find mentions of it in a reputable news source. The best the Post could do was ask why nobody's looking into it.
As far as I can tell, the reason she hasn't been prosecuted is that she hasn't done anything to warrant prosecution. Nobody's been prosecuted for unintentionally having a small number of classified documents where they shouldn't be, with no evidence that this did any harm. Congress investigated Benghazi over and over, and couldn't find wrongdoing. What you call theft isn't theft, legally speaking, and it's not clear that there was any wrongdoing (although I always suspect for-profit Universities).
The downfall of the USA, if it happens, is likely to be related to people blindly accepting what others say, with no effort to see if what they want to believe is true. This is, I think, the most pernicious development on the Internet.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
In that case, you should start with yourself.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Russia isn't really our enemy, in a strict sense, although we've got pretty hostile relationships. Nor does this give "aid and comfort" in the strict sense. This isn't treason, according to the Constitution. I do consider it unpatriotic and disloyal. Since it was an exhortation for others to commit a felony, it's legally shaky, but I doubt anyone will prosecute.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
If, as HRC claimed, there was nothing in the 30,000 emails, other than personal stuff, where's the danger? Or, could it possibly be that wasn't factual??? Oh, say it isn't so.
Just another day in Paradise
Please google treason. Clue: This isn't.
Just another day in Paradise
This is politics, guy. It's a dirty business sometimes, and that applies to both major parties. Mining the DNC emails, and perhaps forging some, is not going to give you a balanced view, because it's going to be designed to make the DNC look bad, and is going to ignore what is common practice. As Otto von Bismarck said, those who like sausages and laws should watch neither of them being made.
Is it really your opinion that a level of patriotism that disapproves of invitations to an unfriendly major power to commit felonies in the US and interfere with US politics belongs in 1958? I'd say a minimal level like that is perfectly appropriate for everyone.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
This is nothing more than the DNC/media distracting everyone from the hot story about how the democratic nomination was stolen from Bernie. The entire primary was a farce, but we'll just fire the chairwoman, and call it all good. NO, NO, NO, NO, NO. This is not democracy, this is a coronation by a group of inside elitists, and the rest of you plebes can suck it up. We'll just point to Trump and scream about how everything is his fault.
Just another day in Paradise
Are you saying we shouldn't be killing terrorists?
She set up an email server of unknown security that inadvertantly hosted a small number of classified documents, and someone could have hacked into it. I'm sure the Russians are still trying to hack into US State Department servers, and I don't know whether they'd have more or less success.
Presenting a soft target is not an invitation. You're making up false parallels.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I listened to his comments. I was truly shocked. At some point, it becomes not at all funny, and the great irony is that he calls Hillarhy a criminal, yet as far as I am concerned, with the utterance of those sentences, he committed high treason. There is a level at which they take this stuff very very seriously.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
he is inviting Russians to come screw with our political system!
You say that like our political system isn't already ass backwards going full speed behind.
You say that like you approve espionage against the USA. Do you?
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
I don't think even Donald Trump is oblivious enough to suggest that someone should hack a server that was decommissioned years ago.
I'll agree that man does a fine job of de-calibrating sarcasm detectors, but I just don't understand how anyone can take this seriously. The idea that professional journalists are doing so (apparently it was played as straight news by CNN as their top story) does not pass the smell test with me, and (in my opinion) is just an excuse to manufacture controversy.
The former hed of the CIA seems to take this pretty seriously. One does not commit treason even as sarcasm. It isn't funny, and at some point, this is taken pretty seriously.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/28/... It was just a big joke and expert trolling. Just like the rest of his candidacy...
Maybe a blond-haired blue-eyed straight white conservative judge who isn't a Muslim (or a Jew, just to be safe) and has no disabilities?
Oh wait, also his blond hair is thinning on top so he grows it extra long and then swirls it around. Perfect.
You forgot - no Hispanics either.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
However,the idea of willy nilly backing out of arrangements which have had a stabilizing effect on the entire globe would be exceedingly foolish is such a thing were to come to pass.
Your mistake is that you think in 2D, Trump thinks in 3D...
If you honestly believe he'd just walk away "willy nilly" then you simply don't understand the situation...
He is placing an opening position in a negotiation, you never open with the "reasonable middle option", because you'll be forced to move from that. He starts with a far off position and works towards the middle.
the crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government.
So. If Hillary gave away control of 20% of US Uranium deposits to Russia whos leader has stated multiple times he wants to bring back the USSR (An Enemy of the US) in exchange for massive donations to the Clinton foundation, I would say that it meets the definition of "betraying ones country". Not that anything will ever come of it.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
When has any country waited for permission to hack another? They aren't vampires. They're not waiting for an invitation from the man of the house to attempt to break in.
I'm more worried about our own country hacking us. I'd be willing to bet that the NSA has at least 2 copies of all her emails.
Ops, I shuld have usd the prevuwe but in.
Ah, so if a person is a victim of a bully, if they can't stand up for themselves, then truly, we should not aid them, as it is no problem of ours!
You cannot help someone else if you aren't taking care of yourself first...
I'm sorry if your kids are hungry, but if mine are hungry I'm going to feed them first. Once that is taken care of, then I'll worry about yours.
Seriously, the moral and economic analysis is already existent, and you're asking these questions? Why?
Because I'm more intelligent than you, because you're an idiot to even post what you posted... That's why. :)
I would reply to the rest of your post, but why bother when you're unable to understand the situation as it actually exists?
Slashdot, I don't so much mind the blatantly-whatever articles, but could you at least not make your bias so flamingly evident in the headlines?
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
You are bringing up different issues, implying I said things I specifically did not, and straying far afield from what the original poster stated and what I stated in return. He said "attack us" as in a foreign government attacking our country. That is light years away from invading a single person's privacy, and you damn well know it.
The last part of your emails is what I can only assume to be a rebuttal of the part of my post that says the Russians should, with all haste and justification, immediately start hacking all of Hillary's emails. The only problem with that is I never said that. I don't advocate for it in any way. YOU added that to what I wrote, from your own mind. I don't know what you have going on in your head that led you to this conclusion, but it's obviously affecting your ability to think logically and critically.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
How else are we going to find out what people in our government are doing? Wait for the press to tell us?
If you want the press to uncover -- instead of helping cover up -- what the government is doing, you should support Trump for President. The press will actually investigate and report on a Trump Administration.
really? because i'm still waiting for the press to report on what trump's investigators in hawaii found about obama's birth certificate. remember? the "unbelievable" stuff he told us they found? the press just left it hanging. inquiring voters need to know.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
So you don't think the Republican candidate for the Presidency of the US inviting a foreign power, one that is at the best of times in a rather tense relationship with the United States, to hack into US systems just to gain dirt on the other party's nominee is reasonable?
does anybody not think putin isn't shaking his head "i can't believe this moron is trying so desperately to be my friend. i am the luckiest SOB on earth"
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
"“Probably it was China or somebody else."
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
Your mistake is that you think in 2D, Trump thinks in 3D...
?
Not even sure what this really means. I know of zero 2D thinking in our 3D universe.
We are all 3-D thinkers since that is what we live in. a 3D world.
If you honestly believe he'd just walk away "willy nilly" then you simply don't understand the situation...
He is placing an opening position in a negotiation, you never open with the "reasonable middle option", because you'll be forced to move from that. He starts with a far off position and works towards the middle.
Perhaps you could be correct, but I think it is either very transparent bluster on the part of Trump that will soon be found out for what it is... nonsense. Either that or it is in fact Trumps expression of wanting to move in a more isolationist manner with the US. To me it seems that neither is actually all that effective behavior for a Superpower. We must keep our big boy pants on and man up to our role in the world. Superpower adults don't whine and throw fits.... 3 year olds like North Korea do.
Is it I who don't understand the situation? Or is it you? I'm not sure you are privy to Trumps thoughts any more than anyone else... but if you think you have a bead on the situation or are able to divine what Trumps thoughts truly are, then go ahead an believe what you will. I am just dubious. He spends a lot of time saying what people want to hear in many contradictory directions. He is a man of the moment and a man of fluctuating mood. He will say what is on his mind now and may say something entirely different when his mood changes.
I view Trump as a simpleton in the matters of nations.
Being a businessman does not make a person de facto good at governance of a Nation. A nation and a business are not equivalent entities. A business can be run much more top down than can a republic. In a business, the vision and guidance of the owner of said business determines the direction the business goes.
Anyhow... you apparently like Trump from your lauding of his amazing 3D thought process. From my perspective, I suspect he would be a horrible leader. Never has someone with so little understanding of the governance of a Nation been on the cusp of being elected to a post he is so ill equipped for. The US has never elected a president with no experience in the political arena. Franklin would likely be appalled.
However, if Trump is elected which he could easily be, it will make for some interesting times. He will likely be displeased with constantly having to tussle with an unruly legislative body that is likely to give him nothing but grief. I'm sure he will revel in how powerless the president really is. He will have to rely on a lot of people to get things done because he really won't understand much of it. But empty vessels such as him will get filled up by someone. The nation will move forward no matter who is elected.
Hopefully, will Trumps election be of benefit to our Republic and for the betterment of the lives of all of our citizens. Or will he like all elites push for laws which benefit primarily those like him? I think his is likely to push for things that benefit him the most and the debt of our nation will soar. It will certainly be an interesting roll of the dice.
I don't think either of the current candidates is very good and would rather vote no confidence. That way we could get some better options.
Gary Johnson for me is the most interesting candidate although he is also a bit of a question mark as to what he would do. I am interested in hearing more of what he has to say as the campaign wears on.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/us... The legal definition is the only one that matters. It's defined in the Constitution.
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
We are not at war with Russia. They are not a declared enemy. Nobody has ever been charged with treason under lesser circumstances.
Just another day in Paradise
She could be a liar. There are liars out there. She could also be misremembering what was said to her in an extremely high-stress situation. That happens. Ask a police investigator about the testimony they'll get from several honest witnesses about something they saw. It's quite possible that everyone talking about this believes they're telling the truth. What we've got is several after-the-fact statements about extremely emotional conversations with no independent record, and so we can't know what actually happened.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Not even sure what this really means.
Of course you don't, because you think in 2D...
I know of zero 2D thinking in our 3D universe.
No, you ONLY know of 2D thinking, you just mistake it for 3D thinking...
Actually, no, we live in a 4D world... if you prefer, you think in 3D while Trump thinks in 4D.
Feel better now?
I view Trump as a simpleton in the matters of nations.
Of course you do, because you're a simpleton, thus you can only see the simple view of such things...
Trump is where he is and you're where you're at because he is better at this than you are...
Look how many hyperbolic posts that breathlessly support the narrative we're supposed to swallow are upmodded +5 insightful, in comparison to the low scores of posts that point out how absurd and deliberate this hyperbolic spin is. Makes me wonder if the editors with their unlimited mod points aren't moonlighting for Correct The Record.
The DNC is not totally corrupt, and their degree of corruptness isn't all that relevant to the actual Democratic candidates. I think Clinton will make an excellent President, and that's why I'm going to vote for her.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
My apologies. I was going along with the general tone of the thread, which implicated the Russians. I have no independent information on who got the information.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The accusation was on Facebook, and I don't feel like wading through all that stuff again to find it. It wasn't from what I consider a trustworthy source.
However, we do need to consider the possibility. I hate to disillusion you about human nature, but people who commit felonies are not always completely honest and truthful, and upstanding felons who release material for political purposes might be suspected of changing some of it to enhance the impact.
And what do you mean by "the truth"? There are lots and lots of truths out there, and it's possible to be pretty darn deceitful while sticking to the truth. Revealing a certain truth, but not others, can be done as a lie*. We know that the DNC misbehaved. What we do not know is whether this is normal or exceptional behavior. Politics is an ugly business sometimes.
*Feynman was in a fraternity once, and it was suspected that a member of the fraternity had stolen a door. (I don't think it was explained, in my source, why Feynman stole the door.) The fraternity officers went down the line, asking members if they'd stolen the door. When it came to Feynman, he said, "Yeah, yeah, I stole the door." The response was "Shut up, Feynman, this is serious" and the questioning continued.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I do know the legally defined charge of treason in the US, and Trump has, to my knowledge, done nothing that meets the definition. The statement we're discussing is, to my mind, unpatriotic and disloyal, but those are not crimes. Regrettably, I don't find his statement to be surprising or unexpected.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
he is inviting Russians to come screw with our political system!
You say that like our political system isn't already ass backwards going full speed behind.
You say that like you approve espionage against the USA. Do you?
No I don't, but that doesn't mean it's not going to happen. Our government spies on us and other countries all the time, what makes you think they won't do the same?
Have you ever fallen asleep at the keybhanusdiog?
Where are my mod points when I need them? Trump is just feeding more half truths to the media, and getting attention as a result. This re-enforces the beliefs of his base, and feeds the flames on the anti Hillary crowd. The Republicans have done a very good job of whipping up the anti Hillary rhetoric over the last four years, making this kind of thing easy for who ever was nominated. Trump just takes it to a lower lever than most.
The Russians are doing us all favor, by hacking our systems and showing it to the public.
It wakes us up, and gives us a chance to fix the leaks before we actually lose critical operational info.
Now if they would just hack the Republicans, too... 8-)
(And maybe a few big companies.)
I don't think even Donald Trump is oblivious enough to suggest that someone should hack a server that was decommissioned years ago.
I'll agree that man does a fine job of de-calibrating sarcasm detectors, but I just don't understand how anyone can take this seriously. The idea that professional journalists are doing so (apparently it was played as straight news by CNN as their top story) does not pass the smell test with me, and (in my opinion) is just an excuse to manufacture controversy.
I have no doubt that Trump was betting that the newsies would do exactly that! That is how he is saving money on his publicity.
No, but I'm completely in favor of you Russian-paid trolls shutting the fuck up due to your idiocy. Treason? Get the fuck outta here with that shit.
The incredibly, deliciously ironic thing is that despite Clinton's crazy-high unfavorable ratings, shes going to win the election and it's going to be the efforts of trolls like you that turn the tide. I mean, people don't really like Clinton, but they HATE foreign powers fucking with their democracy.
This comment is my opinion and does not represent an official position of Donald Trump or others I do not work for
Yes, asking enemy to invade your country is great way to do internal politics. You know what is the word to call it? The fact that it is computer only doesn't change anything, nowdays everything is done on computers and wars are started and fought by propaganda on computer networks too.
Another problem with such "services" from your enemy is that it only provides what suits the enemy. And alters information the way it suits enemy too. Nothing new here really.
If it was sarcasm in response to the deflection of Russia being behind the dnc email hack to favor trump, i don't think it would be either. If he thinks the Russians already have the emails and just need to do a search, it might be. If he wants Russia to hack U.S. infrastructure, it would be.
He says it was sarcasm.
he is inviting Russians to come screw with our political system!
You say that like our political system isn't already ass backwards going full speed behind.
You say that like you approve espionage against the USA. Do you?
No I don't, but that doesn't mean it's not going to happen. Our government spies on us and other countries all the time, what makes you think they won't do the same?
This is not about whether Russia or North Korea or any country is spying on us. oe vice versa. This is inviting them to spy on us.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Humor in the form of hyperbole. Even if the Dems are so humor impaired as to take it seriously, what Trump was asking for is the release of e-mails the hackers already have because they were capturing everything that ran over Hillary's unsecured connections the entire time she was circumventing the law. Still, a joke at the expense of Hillary.
The former hed of the CIA seems to take this pretty seriously. One does not commit treason even as sarcasm. It isn't funny, and at some point, this is taken pretty seriously.
Your copy of the constitution must have a different definition of treason than mine does (mine's pretty specific, and though people have LOVED to throw the word around for the last 15 years at both the Rs and the Ds at various times, very little of it has actually come even close, much less passed muster).
The really amusing part (to me) is all the people that are getting worked up shouting "treason" etc can't seem to remember that (according to Hillary) none of the contents of that server were classified or sensitive, the data in question is "missing or deleted," and that we're talking about a "personal email server" and not a computer belonging to the US government (a computer that doesn't even exist to be hacked anymore).
I stand behind my statement that this is manufactured controversy. "hey russia, you guys have those 30,000 emails that Hillary didn't turn over to the FBI?" is not an inducement to hack something--at best, it's a request to provide something they may have ALREADY hacked in the past. It's VERY obviously a dig at Hillary's other email problem, and pretty much anyone "viewing with alarm" right now is probably anti-Trump to some degree or another.
I can't believe I'm put in a position where I'm actually defending that walking carrot with a toupee, but the sheer lack of critical thinking involved in this "controversy" is mind boggling.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
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.
It is in no way the same thing.
When an administration leaks information, it wants the information to be published, and it puts thought into exactly what information will be leaked and to whom it will be leaked.
On the other hand, we know that some effort was made to keep the email server secure (about as well as a small two-bit IT firm could manage), and there were scared reactions when weird behavior made people think that it might have been hacked; and if it was hacked, the operators of the server had absolutely no control over which entities hacked it, or what subset of the stored information was exfiltrated.
Yeah, that sounds like "essentially the same thing."
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
Considering that I'm a African-American from the Northeast, any Russian accent you hear is entirely in your head. I'll take your lack of a substantive counter-argument to any of my points as proof of your concession.
The linked page is obviously not clear then, because she did not turn over the full contents of her inbox to the State Department (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/26/us/politics/state-department-hillary-clinton-emails.html?_r=0): "It was only then that Mrs. Clinton instructed her aides to cull through roughly 60,000 emails that had passed through the server and turn over those involving official business. Those amounted to roughly half of the total.
This is confirmed on a number of sites (http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/25/state-dept-admits-that-hillary-clinton-failed-to-turn-over-secretive-email/): "While more than 30,000 emails were turned over in all, an equal number were deleted because they were deemed by Clintonâ(TM)s team to have been personal in nature."
So basically she personally chose the ones she believed were work-related, turned them over, and then promptly deleted the rest.
"Burned" as in "deleted".
You clearly have spent zero time actually researching this, as you've gone out of your way to form a singular opinion based on one website that doesn't clearly portray what actually occurred. In simple terms: "State Department requested work emails. Hillary (not a third party) singlehandedly decided which of her emails were work-related. She handed approximately 50% of her emails to the State Department and then immediately afterwards (at some point in the several months following) deleted the other 50%. The implication here is that she didn't want an independent third party scouring through the contents of the remaining 50% of the emails, so she deleted them before anybody could dig deeper into the investigation. And shes trying to justify it under some claim of "everybody cleans up their inbox from time to time". You're deluded if you don't see the shadiness.
Technically, if they cannot charge you, it is technically not chargeable. Sure prosecutors can use their discretion but none has said that was the reason she wasn't prosecuted. Hillary was an investigator for Watergate for crying out loud. Do you think she doesn't calculate and understand the boundaries of the laws standing in her way?
Btw,
Was I being too facetious for you? You were right to get in a tizzy trope. It was what I was going for.
This is why I rank Woodrow Wilson as the worst US President of All Time: He really put into practice this idea that "Europe's problems are America's problems", and it's saturated the minds of Americans ever since.
Unfortunately it didn't. We stood by for two years while Hitler took over almost all of Europe, and it took Pearl Harbor to crack through our isolationism.
Your assertion that an Atlantic Wall is enough to protect us also makes me suspect that you're forgetting what happened in WWII.
The Russians are deeply pragmatic. What would they have to gain by annexing the Baltic states?
Russia just invaded Ukraine in 2014. What did they have to gain in that case? I hate to send you to a George Will article but it popped up in my first Google search and I have to go now.
How about selling 20% of the nations Uranium reserves for 1 million dollars in speaking fees. Is that treason?
Selling to whom? An enemy of the United States? If so, then that might qualify. If the buyer is not an enemy of the United States, then no.
How about not controlling the borders of the United States and allowing a foreign army to invade the USA selling drugs, raping it's citizens, and spreading disease. Is that treason?
Which nation's armed forces are you referring to? Are they an enemy of the United States? Is there an actual specific act of providing aid and/or comfort to them? If not, then no, that's not treason either. If the army of another nation simply invades our country then people are not automatically guilty of treason simply for not being able to keep them out. A soldier who is unable to repel an enemy advance, for example, is not guilty of treason. A soldier who aids an enemy advance is.
I do not believe any of these things would in your mind rise to the level of treason.
Well, the Constitution is pretty clear. You're welcome to start up a debate about terms like "enemy", "aid", and "comfort" if you'd like to, though.
However if we turn the tables, and said that a tribe of Algonquin indians did the exact same thing, except it was not South Americans spreading disease, drugs and crime, but white Europeans, you would say that was deffinately treason, and that whatever Chief decided not to fight those evil whites was indeed guilty of a crime.
Does this tribe of Algonquin indians have a legally-binding document which specifically and narrowly defines the crime of treason, or is this just an exercise in mental masturbation?
I would also say that if it was the Bush family tradin with the Nazi in WWII you would say it was treason
If the United States was at war with Nazi Germany and a US citizen was engaged in trade with them for profit (and thereby aiding the Nazis), then yes, I believe that would be treason. If that occurred before we declared war, then no, that would not be treason at that point. Are you beginning to understand the distinction or do you want to ask a few more hypotheticals?
Seriously, this isn't difficult. Treason is specifically defined, and it's not a long definition. I'm not trying to suggest that anyone is not guilty of committing a crime, I'm trying to suggest that Hillary is not guilty of treason, specifically. I'm sure there is a long list of crimes which she is in fact guilty of, but I don't think that treason is one of them.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Troll more, APK. While you're at it, you should also link to another thread which shows how much of an idiot you are.
Wait, you already did that.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Sounds like a form of Treason if true. Inviting a foreign nation tho cyber-attack America and/or Americans... can;t believe people actually are willing to vote for this piece of garbage
I can't believe anyone would consider voting for her either. Such a pathological liar and she'll surely be a despot. She's above the law after all. It'll only get worse.
Technically, they could have charged Hilary Clinton under the Espionage Act. Prosecutors have convicted others for less than what she did. Go back and closely read what Comey said -- he all but said the reason they didn't recommend charges was because they didn't have enough evidence to win a conviction from a partisan jury.
calling upon a foreign power to target his opponent by attacking federal government computer systems, though? That's much, much worse.
Um, the 30,000 emails that were deleted were never stored on a federal government computer system. That is one of the fishiest things about this matter.
Do you realize that the system they were stored on is now offline, and therefore impossible to attack? Trump realizes this, and that is what makes his joke funny. You don't seem to realize it.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
It does not appear you felt the need to read the page you linked to. It wasn't merely that they were deleted after the request, they were deleted after fulfilling the request. In other words the state department had them before they were deleted. If the state department did not retain the emails from a former employee, that is a different matter than what you allege here.
The linked page is obviously not clear then
No, the Time article is perfectly clear. What is not clear is where you get your twisted ideas from. You haven't been able to support them yet.
she did not turn over the full contents of her inbox to the State Department
I've just spent some time looking for the subpoena that demanded her to turn over all of her email - which, mind you, is different from just "the full contents of her inbox" as you just stated - and I have not found it yet. Can you? I'd love to see a source that says what was actually subpoena'd. I found several links to threats of subpoenas but I can't find one of a subpoena that was actually issued. It is certainly possible that I need to craft a better search query, but I started with "clinton email subpoena" (no quotes) and couldn't find anyone showing that a subpoena was actually issued.
Regardless of the existence - or lack thereof - of a subpoena, your phrase
full contents of her inbox
It itself troublesome. I don't know how you organize your email, but I can tell you that my inbox is only a small fraction of all my mail. I sort lots of mail into separate folders that are not part of my inbox - as I have done for decades. There also are some emails that go in to my inbox that I end up deleting for various reasons as time goes on. I am quite sure I am not the only person on earth who does this.
So basically she personally chose the ones she believed were work-related, turned them over, and then promptly deleted the rest.
Do you have a source for that grand statement?
Being as you couldn't be bothered to read the piece you linked to earlier enough to realize that it does not support your allegation, I guess I shouldn't be surprised by this misread either.
You clearly have spent zero time actually researching this
The overwhelming majority of what you have said, you have not been able to support with facts (including the statement you made that I just quoted). It appears likely that I have spent more time reading up on this than you have. Just because it makes you angry and me only mildly annoyed does not mean your assumptions are somehow magically made valid.
as you've gone out of your way to form a singular opinion
You're making huge and unsupported assumptions about my opinions, here. I suggest you back that down a bit and try reading.
based on one website that doesn't clearly portray what actually occurred
What website would you think that is? I have been trying to see what sources you think support your beliefs on the matter, and so far the sources you have provided do not do that.
immediately afterwards (at some point in the several months following)
You're getting wishy-washy here. Unfortunately you didn't adjust your time line in the correct direction.
"everybody cleans up their inbox from time to time"
Are you telling me you leave all your email in your inbox and never delete anything? Maybe you don't get much email, but for those who use email for work that would be a huge volume of email. One email address I use has over 10,000 emails in the main inbox currently and a search can be a long process. It certainly doesn't get easier when that number goes up to 60,000.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
This is a poorly manufactured political story to reinforce the "Trump is a madman" theory. The server that once contained the Clinton emails is in the possession of the FBI and presumably no longer connected to the internet. When it did exist it was a private server of the Clintons in their New York home. The only reason it would have sensitive information on it would be because it was being illegally used to conduct State Department business by the former Secretary of State Clinton. The emails in question would be the ones that were deleted by Secy Clinton's lawyers as being her personal correspondence with friends and family. The story has more holes than four wheels of delicious Swiss cheese. It is an indication of the desperation of supporters of a deeply flawed candidate who claimed the nomination of her party by devious and probably illegal means as described in the emails of the DNC released by Wikileaks.
JoeR
... evidence for a partisan jury..
Yep. A technicality for sure.
Listen. I wasn't trying to say she is without fault, I was trying to highlight the similarities of how she is always trying to shoehorn loopholes to do what from a layman's view is a clear violation of the law and contrast that with evil corporations who appear despicable when they do it. Somehow Hillary is admired for this behavior while corporations are vilified. It is sort of the ultimate cognitive dissonance.
Well.... There's one way to de-escalate and chill-out some of the heated rhetoric between America and Russia of late, which the current Administration has seen fit to continuously escalate. These career politicians keep bashing Trump saying he's got no clue on how to handle foreign policy, and yet here he may just prove to be the best man to repair much of the broken relations we're experiencing with Russia. I can't tell if the man does it on purpose, or is just lucky as hell. Either way... He's got my vote.
She's the lesser evil of the two evils
Voting for Trump is a vote for pure, world-destroying chaos...
Don't even pretend that Trump's obnoxious behaviour is in anyway comparable to any previous candidate, red or blue.
All sides of politics get up to sneaky tricks, but Trump is an obnoxious bully that has no place in the White House. If for some reason he wins, we (us non-Americans too) are all fucked, make no mistake about that.
is it a clown???, a buffoon ???, no it's Donaaald
Sounds like a form of Treason if true.
How do we know? I mean he has no actual policy so do we assume everything he says is a joke/jab? When can we expect some real policies?
No, it sounds like a fairly typical Trump sarcastic joke/jab.
How do we know? I mean he has no actual policy so do we assume everything he says is a joke/jab? When can we expect some real policies?
(reposted to get the right quote in this time)
Trump's statement, recorded on video with audio, is tantamount to treason.
Try it yourself. Invite an adversarial nation or state to hack servers containing potentially Top Secret information (if the nuts are to be believed), and promise them "rewards" if they do so. You will go to PMITA Federal Prison.
Well, at least one person agrees with me.
Meh. Trump has intentionally branded himself as being non-diplomatic. So this shouldn't really surprise anyone. At the same time him saying what he did really changes nothing. He mentioning China while being undiplomatic is also something that is obvious to anyone on Slashdot so I don't see how that can upset anyone. I doubt any of it is really true to be honest. However both countries, and in particular China, have had many accusations towards them in hacking, espionage etc... It is just that is publicly "said" it.
I'm sure if Russia did hack the DNC or Hillary it was probably just because of curiosity while watching the shitshow that is the American politics the last year or so. Kinda like someone might hack a network to see the next crazy episode of some reality show (which is probably way Trump is doing so well, he's figured out early that he can just treat this as a reality show which he has a lot of experience at).
Putin: OK I gotta know what happens next it's killing me! Russian Hackers Assemble!
Face it, Hilary Clinton plays her privileged elite card all the time.
Any regular person who conducted official, classified, business via an insecure private email account would be prosecuted and sent to jail. Any regular employee that deleted (destroyed) electronic records in defiance of legally mandated public record retention regulations would be censured and at least fired of not prosecuted and jailed.
You may disagree, but the blatant disregard for following the rules that the rest of us are forced to follow by the Clinton scam master couple has me seriously considering voting Trump for "Clown in Chief".
NRRPT/RCT
Crimea. Syria. Putin wants Trump to be elected because he knows it will damage the US and the West. Funny how idiots so often do precisely what their enemy wants them to do.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
His assumption was spot on.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Switch on a TV in Russia and you'll see that it is already great. On all the channels.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
You think Trump is a dyed in the wool Republican? He opted for the party with the most fucking idiots. It's working wonders.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
The turkeys are determined to have their orange christmas.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
He is unpaid chairman of board of directors. You really need better evidence to call someone a crook.
Where do you think you're writing that statement? On this website it is considered 100% appropriate and fully supported to call Hillary - or anyone she has ever met or talked with - a crook just for being Hillary. The favorite presidential candidate of this community for 2016 supports that idea, so it must be true.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
hahahah
All humans think and reason using the same models of brain that evolved for our species.
Thus we all have the same general types of brains and thinking.
None of that has to do with 2D, 3D, 4D or Infinite D if you will
"Actually, no, we live in a 4D world... if you prefer, you think in 3D while Trump thinks in 4D."
Or maybe 5D if you consider space/time... so whatever. The point is all human brains are constrained by the same limitations of our evolution in the universe.
Trump thinks using the same limited brain we all have evolved on this earth.
What each of us thinks varies quite a bit based upon our experiences.
What you seem to be suggesting is that Trump somehow thinks beyond the capacity of mere mortals such as myself.
Would you say that Trump is a genius of unfathomable intellect? What might be evidence for such an assertion.
"Of course you do, because you're a simpleton, thus you can only see the simple view of such things..."
Ah... resorting to turning back a statement upon itself. I am referring to Trump and his vast lack of experience, history, political savvy, diplomacy, or any sort of metric that would make him anything other than a simpleton in such affairs.
You resort to generalized labelling of someone you know zero about.
Reflexive labelling of me in response to my opinion does little to lend any heft to what you say you must realize.
"Trump is where he is and you're where you're at because he is better at this than you are..."
And where is Trump at exactly?
How does one measure better?
What fundamental metrics are you drawing upon exactly.
Since you don't know me I would have to conclude that your statement is founded upon pure ignorance and fanciful thinking.
You're deliberately being obtuse, or ignorant. I've produced 3 links and at least 2 quotes. You've produced nothing. If you'd like another link showing the timeline, here (https://sharylattkisson.com/hillary-clintons-email-the-definitive-timeline/). But I'm done trying to talk to a brick wall. Again, the basic timeline:
October 2014: State Department subpoenas work related emails
December 2014: Clinton turns over ~30k "work related" emails that she filtered herself (no third party) and deletes the other ~30k which she has deemed "personal"
March 2015: Investigation deepens and two more subpeonas are produced seeking additional emails on her server (however, these emails cannot be searched for, since the remaining emails are now deleted)
If you'd like to produce any facts than contradict the above points, other than just rambling, feel free. But I've yet to see a single link from you. Quite simply, she unilaterally deleted half her emails when she knew she was under investigation. Not a single person other than her or her staff made the determination of which of the emails were personal and which were work related. Since no third party made the determination, there is then no way to know if any of the 30k emails that were deleted were "work-related." Since they no longer exist, they can no longer be produced in further subpoena requests.
Yes, at this point I've produced 3 links, all of which say the same timeline/details. You're clearly ignoring all of them, and I'm tired of reproducing links that say the same damn thing. You're either a Hillary shill, or just dense.
No, I do not routinely delete 30,000 emails on a "regular basis". Nor do you. Nor does she. You're choosing (seemingly deliberately) to ignore scope and timing. Because the use of the term "routinely" and "30,000 emails" (which represented HALF of all her mail at the time) together is the part that flies in the face of logic. And verifying that "routine" is trivial...ask her if she's deleted 30,000 personal emails from her work account in the past 6 months. If she hasn't, she's a liar.
She's the greater of two evils. She's demonstrated that in abundance over the decades.
Trump is just a Democrat that wanted to just get publicity and in spite of his best efforts to deep six his campaign, succeeded because we're all really really really tired of the PC bullshit. We've had Presidents just like him in the past, they did fine. BTW, he's not a king. There is Congress and such.
Not the end of the world unless Hillary gets in. She doesn't care about laws. She's above them and she's very good at being a pathological liar.
#DemExit
No, the Time article is perfectly clear. What is not clear is where you get your twisted ideas from. You haven't been able to support them yet.
You're deliberately being obtuse
I suggest you look up the meaning of obtuse. It is not synonymous with questioning, nor is it synonymous with challenging someone's partisan beliefs.
ignorant
I have been asking you questions. You have been failing - repeatedly - to answer them in a factual manner.
I've produced 3 links and at least 2 quotes.
And I have shown how they do not actually support your statements. If these are your only sources, then you are at best spouting nonsense that you cannot support and at worst simply lying.
December 2014: Clinton turns over ~30k "work related" emails that she filtered herself (no third party) and deletes the other ~30k which she has deemed "personal"
You've gone back to your huge assumption, there. In fact, you have multiple huge assumptions in that one statement that you have shown repeatedly you cannot support with facts. You cannot support the claim that the emails were deleted only after the others were turned in, you cannot support the claim that Clinton deleted them herself, you cannot support the claim that she alone decided which emails were and were not personal.
But I've yet to see a single link from you.
You have provided several links that contradict or fail to support your assumptions. Not yet have you provided a single link that supports them.
You really should try reading some time.
Yes, at this point I've produced 3 links, all of which say the same timeline/details.
No , you have not. Had you bothered to read the pages you have linked to, you would know that they do not support your claims. In fact you would have done almost as well to link to goatse.
Are you telling me you leave all your email in your inbox and never delete anything? Maybe you don't get much email, but for those who use email for work that would be a huge volume of email.
No, I do not routinely delete 30,000 emails on a "regular basis".
You really suffer mightily at reading comprehension, here. Try reading what I wrote before you reply to it.
Which is probably why you also missed my statement before that there are a LOT of problems with Hillary. It just so happens that you are obsessing over making up shit about a problem that you cannot demonstrate to be an actual problem. You have a lot of egg on your face now, and throwing silly accusations at me doesn't help clear it.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
I covered why Russia was forced to *react* in Ukraine. Re-read my post. And that WaPo article tells us nothing. It links to another WaPo article ( https://www.washingtonpost.com... ) with nuggets of ridiculousness such as:
IF ANY international norm can still be called uncontroversial, it is the stricture against cross-border aggression by one sovereign state against another. Certainly any failure to enforce it in one place invites violations elsewhere.
...
But given the global repercussions of this struggle, the United States and its allies cannot afford to let Mr. Putin break the rules.
This is the same Cold War "domino effect" logic that had us fighting in Vietnam for a decade. And the hypocrisy on display is clear as day. How many sovereign states have been on the receiving end of "cross-border aggression" from the US in this century alone? Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Yemen, Syria..... "The Rules" basically boil down to "Do as the US says, or else."
http://www.vox.com/2016/7/27/1...
In GOD we trust, all others we monitor.
Use all the flowery language you want.
The red meat the Clinton Machine was throwing to the American Public is 'Trump is working with the Ruskies!'
Yep, it's a dirty business. The Clintons are a shitstain on this country.
Trump will start WW3 with his mental damage and god-godplex
Please use a dictionary yourself, and look up the word "tantamount". Oh, wait. Wait, wait, wait. The internet and logic are probably difficult for you. I can help. CLICK THIS LINK FOR HELP.
Perhaps I should have used the word "sedition" instead?
If these aren't enough, and you would like to argue the finer points, take it up with Lawrence Tribe, the distinguished Harvard Law Professor. He knows a lot more than I do.
Trump will start WW3 with his mental damage and god-godplex
He can't start WW III, it's already been started. Haven't you even noticed? Look at history, look at what they call a war and how it started. Obama will almost certainly go down as the despot that started it.
We aren't. And source on your allegation that Plame's husband was identifying her as CIA at parties...and if so, which ones. People with high security clearance actually do get together once in a while. Mentioning Plame's employer there isn't the same as blasting it out to the world, which is what those Republican traitors did.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Ah yes, you far-right religio-fascists republicans who have LOST , not just once, but TWICE to Obama, because in the choice between Obama or your candidate, the nation chose Obama over the hate and greed you preach. Nice to know you guys haven't learned a thing. THe only hope you have is that Hillary is Trump's opponent and BOTH candidates suck. This is the year for a third party to push hard and make a real run for it.
If you think I'm far right and religious - man, you really don't know me. Not religious and I'm dead center when I take political tests. Registered Democrat for well over 30 years. So to call me a religio-fascist, well that's just crazy.
We really really need to come together and save the country. Stop this name calling bullshit. Otherwise, we'll be just like Brazil or Venezuela, and other leftist countries that all fail when they run out of other people's money. Obama has been spending our money on the credit card like no tomorrow and that's intentional. Otherwise, you, me, everyone we know - we'll be slaves or dead. That's generally what happens.
High time to elect a third party candidate. I'm not a Trump supporter. However I'm a lot less of a Hillary supporter. She's just an above the law despot and liar. Even today lying about the e-mails that we all know were classified and above. That's pathological.
About fascism - a fascist is on the left, not the right. It's to the right of communism, however solidly to the left. Hillary is a fascist. Don't believe me? Look at her platform and look at the Nazi's platform of 1938. There is no difference. I know you won't of course. Threatens your world view. Look up fascist. Nearly everyone I ask, they can't come up with what a fascist really is. So far only one man has, and he's a history major.
Just read Obama's book, or have him read it to you because he reads his own book - "Dreams from my father" He lays it all out and he's done what he said he would in the book. Try to destroy the nation. "Fundamentally change America" - what do you think that means? Yea, men in the women's bathroom, bullshit like that. Not that it didn't used to happen, it all used to. He just made an issue out of it, as if there was a problem. It's all there in black and white if you bother to read it.
Seriously, if you don't think WW 3 has already started, you really need to look around. Look at the attacks. Look at the "refugees" that look a lot more like an invading force than women and children needing aid. Look at how they said they'd bring terrorism to America and they have. Clearly. There are thousands out there just waiting for the right time. Then they'll kill thousands and thousands and thousands of us. Unless we round them all up. Probably people like you, not me. I'm in the country. They like urban areas, especially gun free zones.
I don;t like either choice either, but Hillary is the lesser evil than that delusional egomaniac Hollywood-idiot Trump. I'm waiting for Nov, the day before election day when Trump announces it was all just a publicity stunt to hype him for his next reality show and drop out of the race.
May not take that long.
I'm willing to have a redo for both parties. Both of them have an unfavorable rating over 65%. Trump beat Hillary by 1%. Have a new primary without them, new convention in October... then election.
Maybe this is all just a bad dream of ours and we'll wake up shortly.