Trump Calls For Russia To Cyber-Invade the United States To Find Clinton's 'Missing' Emails (gawker.com) 1017
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.
irs statements (Score:5, Insightful)
should hacked also to obtain trump irs statements
Why not? (Score:4, Funny)
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.
Re:Why not? (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:Why not? (Score:4, Informative)
They told us it was ridiculous to worry about Russia [thefederalist.com] when Romney warned us about them.
Are you being ridiculous? What's today's official groupthink? Are we at war with Eastasia?
Re:Why not? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Russian leadership is exactly the same now as it was in 2012 when it was ridiculous to worry about them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Why not? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Why not? (Score:5, Funny)
Can this Make Russia Great Again?
Re:Why not? (Score:4, Insightful)
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!
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:Why not? (Score:5, Informative)
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 [twitter.com]. 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." [mediaite.com] 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." [mediaite.com] Or remember Jorge Ramos? Trump told him to "sit down" and ejected him from a press conference [cnn.com].
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.
Re:Why not? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Why not? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Joke ? (Score:4, Informative)
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?
Re:Joke ? (Score:5, Interesting)
Trump makes a lot of absurd comments. Can someone explain to me how you filter them in to "Serious Proposals" and "Jokes"?
Re: (Score:3)
If he opens his mouth to speak, or types into twitter or an email, it's garbage, the same as it was in his sad little mind...
Re:Joke ? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is one of the most dangerous things about Trump. He says a ton of things. His supporters filter out the things they don't like and just say "Oh, he was joking. He doesn't really believe that." You can pick and choose from Trump's statements and pretty much build your ideal candidate no matter what your political views if you're right of center. However, the stuff that gets ignored as "That's just Trump being Trump" isn't throwaway material. It's a pattern of reckless speech at best and advocating some really scary proposals at worst.
Re:Joke ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
So, in other words, providing a buy into the Trumpite "big media" conspiracy theory, it all makes sense. That's kind of like having to actually buy into Scientology before I can believe in e-meters and Thetans, right?
Re:Watch the video - he does NOT like Russia! (Score:5, Interesting)
Trump uses a very simple strategy - make no comments that CAN NOT be claimed to be an obvious joke. Then get all upset when people take you seriously. Whether he is talking about immigrants, women, Muslims, disabled, or pretty much anything.
The fact that you think this is a valid political strategy reflects poorly on YOU as much as it reflects poorly on
Anyone running for president has NO BUSINESS making jokes about other countries engaging in acts of War against this country. That's the equivalent of making a joke about having a bomb while in line at the TSA. When they take you seriously, you deserve NO sympathy.
But I do agree that Gawker is crap, and poor crap at that. At the very least we need should insist on a higher quality crap being spoon fed to the masses.
Re: (Score:3)
No it doesn't. This site has been a festering pile of shit (both technically and culturally) since before Taco sold it off.
Re: (Score:3)
Should espionage and violation of national security for political gain ever be something joked about by a major party Presidential candidate?
So instead of the candidate who made an already-made-several-times-by-other-people joke, you prefer the candidate who looks you in the eye and knowingly, deliberately, repeatedly lies to you about her handling of matters related to espionage and national security? Why?
Trump Trolling (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Trump Trolling (Score:5, Insightful)
Agree. The Donald is a raging, manic-obsessive attention whore. He doesn't even believe half of what he says himself. He's just happy to have everyone talking about him.
Re: (Score:3)
He doesn't even believe half of what he says himself.
How can we possibly know that? He doubles down anytime someone calls him out! Best case he believes it while the words are coming out of his mouth and changes his mind or forgets about it like a goldfish...hmm...borderline fetish for gold plating things, orange skin, short memory, always curls his lips into that "fish face"....TRUMP IS A GOLDFISH!!!
And give Putin a Pulitzer Prize (Score:4, Interesting)
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 [realclearpolitics.com] a similar reward, does he not?
Re: (Score:3)
I will send Putin a medal, it will be a great medal, only the best.
Re:And give Putin a Pulitzer Prize (Score:5, Insightful)
The New York Times isn't a governmental agency or a Presidential candidate. Those are held to different standards than the media. And the New York Times didn't call on foreign hackers to instigate an attack on a government server to get material - they published the results of the hack. Legally grey? Probably, but it could be argued that this falls under the leeway that is given to the media to help keep government honest. An active Presidential candidate calling upon a foreign power to target his opponent by attacking federal government computer systems, though? That's much, much worse.
I'm not sure if this rises to "treason" levels of bad, but it's certainly very bad.
Coming Next!!! (Score:5, Funny)
Trump invites Arabs to fly airplanes into the Wells Fargo Convention Center on Thursday night!
That'll show 'em!
let me get this straight... (Score:5, Insightful)
While most on Slashdot loathe Trump (Score:4, Interesting)
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
Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
OMG, control yourselves! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:The basest, vilest (Score:5, Interesting)
It's called "news". It's this thing where someone tells everybody facts about events that are occurring.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Wait... (Score:4, Interesting)
...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!
Re: Liberal heads Exploding Everywhere (Score:3)
Re:The basest, vilest (Score:4, Insightful)
What's low about this is that the primary source they cite is Gawker.
Re:The basest, vilest (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re:The basest, vilest (Score:4, Insightful)
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...."
Re: (Score:3)
No kidding, the Position of POTUS is NOT a joke, but Trump is, a wake-up BItchSlap of treason charges would do wonders
Re:The basest, vilest (Score:4, Insightful)
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"
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
"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...
Re:The basest, vilest (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: The basest, vilest (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: The basest, vilest (Score:5, Insightful)
Except that at that level, if your joke starts with 'If the Russians are listening...' it's not funny anymore. It's dangerous.
Re: (Score:3)
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?
Re: The basest, vilest (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: The basest, vilest (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: The basest, vilest (Score:4, Informative)
Heck, the right wing has been using fake dirt against the Clintons for decades for lack of the real thing.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:The basest, vilest (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:The basest, vilest (Score:4, Insightful)
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...
Re:The basest, vilest (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:The basest, vilest (Score:5, Informative)
The blaming a Youtube video part happened pretty fucking definitely.
This is from a New York Times [nytimes.com] 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. [tampabay.com] 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.
Re:The basest, vilest (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:The basest, vilest (Score:4, Insightful)
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 [nytimes.com] is a hero.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
So nothing illegal occurred, or the deal couldn't have been allowed to go through. Nice try though
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:The basest, vilest (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Re: (Score:3)
But don't you DARE call us racist.
Re:The basest, vilest (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:The basest, vilest (Score:4, Interesting)
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?
Re:The basest, vilest (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:The basest, vilest (Score:5, Informative)
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?
Re:The basest, vilest (Score:5, Informative)
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".
Re:The basest, vilest (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The basest, vilest (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:The basest, vilest (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The basest, vilest (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:The basest, vilest (Score:5, Informative)
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 [fbi.gov]:
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.
Re: The basest, vilest (Score:5, Interesting)
C'mon Anonymous, C'mon Putin, get us those Trump IRS returns and show the world that TRUMP is all smoke and mirrors
Re:The basest, vilest (Score:5, Funny)
Sending more jobs overseas? Sounds like Trump all right...
Re: (Score:3)
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... [theatlantic.com]
Re:The basest, vilest (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Trump University. (Score:5, Informative)
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 [usatoday.com]
Re:Does this surprise anyone? (Score:5, Informative)
Story [nytimes.com] 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.
Re:Does this surprise anyone? (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:Does this surprise anyone? (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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 [washingtonpost.com].
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.
Re:Does this surprise anyone? (Score:4, Interesting)
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 [cnn.com]. 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.
Re: (Score:3)
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... [politifact.com]
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
Re: Why not? (Score:5, Insightful)
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?!?!?
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:Shark jumping (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes it is getting better. Donald Trump is making what is known as a "joke." Get over it.
Re: (Score:3)
decent PR move, lol
You mean inciting espionage(1) and virtual treason (1), then yeah great move.
P.S. Yes, I saw the lolz.
(1) - Is there such a thing?!?
Re:Decent PR Move, Bad IC Feelz (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, I think the responses to Trump's comments actually need a "woosh".
He's being unpresidential, but what he's really saying is that: maybe those emails aren't as lost as they would like everyone to believe. Which is to say that if people with the right skills, an inability to be arrested by the government, and a lack of interest in keeping Hillary out of trouble were looking, perhaps they would magically appear.
Just like: maybe the Democratic National Committee wasn't quite as unbiased as they said they were, but no one could prove that... until they could.
Many people think that Russia putting up Edward Snowden is helping out someone who helped America. Do those same people believe Snowden is a traitor for making use of Russia's good graces? Does anyone believe Russia is doing it to help out the cause of civil rights in America?
Of course they're not in it to help us out, but perhaps they might be helping out America in the long term by helping someone who dropped some short term troubles on us.
In this case, calling Trump a "traitor" is missing the point, since I imagine many, if not most of the people calling him a traitor think that Edward Snowden is a great guy. Even though I dislike Trump and just about everything about his campaign, I can see that this is just a little bit too easy and self-serving a distinction between the two.
The point is, if Russia finds something that destabilizes the USA by actually finding the truth, is that good or bad? I don't want Trump to win, but I don't want to excuse Clinton simply because the other option is somewhat worse. Its sort of like picking death by hanging or firing squad. Sometimes a choice isn't really a choice.
In any case, it's all theoretical. I'm sure Clinton had real experts delete those emails, as opposed to the amateur hour IT that got her in trouble to begin with. If anything, the Clintons do seem to come through in the clutch when there's an investigation in the works.
Re:That's the last straw: TRUMP IS A TRAITOR (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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?
Re: Is that treason yet? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
What He Said (Score:4, Informative)
“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. [washingtonpost.com]
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 [nationalreview.com]?
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.