Donald Trump invites Russia to hack Hillary Clinton

[Gauthier]

Trump asking them to constitutes a violation of the Logan Act, forbidding negotiation with a foreign power which the United States has a contentious relationship with. The US relationship with Russia is literally the definition of contentious, and asking a foreign power to hack your political opponent's emails is literally the definition of negotiating. So, actually, Donald Trump committed a crime. A felony in fact.

Trump didn't ask the Russians to do anything. He said that if they have more emails then they should release them.

Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing; I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.

Doesn't sound like he figures they already have it.

[Austrasien]

Trump asking them to constitutes a violation of the Logan Act, forbidding negotiation with a foreign power which the United States has a contentious relationship with. The US relationship with Russia is literally the definition of contentious, and asking a foreign power to hack your political opponent's emails is literally the definition of negotiating. So, actually, Donald Trump committed a crime. A felony in fact.

noep

The Logan Act forbids US citizens from acting as unauthorized representatives in a dispute between the United States and a foreign country.

Unless one defines Hillary's emails as a dispute between Russia and the United States it isn't remotely applicable. As Hillary and her campaign have repeated at length her emails were never compromised by foreign powers, so there couldn't possibly be a dispute between Russia and United States relating to them, now could there? Unless they were, in which case she would need to admit de facto she compromised national security and allowed the Russian government to read potentially sensitive US government communications by placing emails on her sketchy bathroom server.

Which might even be a crime or something!

[Austrasien]

Also, storing classified material improperly (like in your bathroom server) is a crime.

So if there is anything which could damage US security in those emails, Clinton is a felon.

If there isn't Donald didn't do nuffin wrong.

[Geilinor]

Also, storing classified material improperly (like in your bathroom server) is a crime.

So if there is anything which could damage US security in those emails, Clinton is a felon.

If there isn't Donald didn't do nuffin wrong.

The FBI has investigated and found that there is nothing to charge Clinton for.

Donald did plenty wrong by calling for a foreign power to get involved.

[Austrasien]

The FBI has investigated and found that there is nothing to charge Clinton for.

Donald did plenty wrong by calling for a foreign power to get involved.

If there was nothing that would endanger US security in there, what has he done?

Endangered Clinton's privacy? Oh. No.

[Lady Scylla]

Also, storing classified material improperly (like in your bathroom server) is a crime.

So if there is anything which could damage US security in those emails, Clinton is a felon.

If there isn't Donald didn't do nuffin wrong.

Strange, you'd figure she'd been charged and convicted, then. Conspiracy, maybe?

[Gauthier]

Also, storing classified material improperly (like in your bathroom server) is a crime.

So if there is anything which could damage US security in those emails, Clinton is a felon.

If there isn't Donald didn't do nuffin wrong.

Strange, you'd figure she'd been charged and convicted, then. Conspiracy, maybe?

Hillary obviously bribed the Benghazi committee (including the partisan Republicans), the FBI and the entire Justice Department.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Also, storing classified material improperly (like in your bathroom server) is a crime.

So if there is anything which could damage US security in those emails, Clinton is a felon.

If there isn't Donald didn't do nuffin wrong.

The FBI has investigated and found that there is nothing to charge Clinton for.

She was just that stupid.
Which, incidentally, should probably also cover Trump in this instance as well. Did he have any intent to encourage foreign surveillance? No. He's just an idiot.

[Individual Concerns]

Also, storing classified material improperly (like in your bathroom server) is a crime.

So if there is anything which could damage US security in those emails, Clinton is a felon.

If there isn't Donald didn't do nuffin wrong.

The FBI has investigated and found that there is nothing to charge Clinton for.

Donald did plenty wrong by calling for a foreign power to get involved.

Not quite.
The FBI found plenty to charge, but just decided not to.

And considering that Trump has no official capacity to encourage Russia's traditional and ongoing malfeasance against US interests, unless there was some Putin/DT telepathy going on, making wisecracks at a presser seems an odd venue for such a less than impotent conspiracy of collusion.

Considering the heinous deeds Democrat illuminaries typically call for publicly against those that vex and oppose them, their lack of graciousness and sense of fairness about this much ado about nothing is just further par for the course.

[Austrasien]

Strange, you'd figure she'd been charged and convicted, then. Conspiracy, maybe?

I know rite?

Obviously there was nothing that was really important in there. Otherwise we might get the impression she was willing to endanger the security of the United States in a poorly conceived effort to protect her personnel privacy from nosy journalists.

But then, why the big hubbub over nothing of particular importance?

[Mikoyansk]

Also, storing classified material improperly (like in your bathroom server) is a crime.

So if there is anything which could damage US security in those emails, Clinton is a felon.

If there isn't Donald didn't do nuffin wrong.

Strange, you'd figure she'd been charged and convicted, then. Conspiracy, maybe?

Well, the Democrat version of the Benghazi report did mention Donald Trump quite a few times, so he must be the Supreme Overlord of the Illuminati we've been looking for. It's all a big ol' conspiracy.
[/sarcasm]
In all honesty, I wouldn't have that big of a problem with her if she'd just admit what she did was wrong. But then again, she's gotten away with whatever else she's done thus far, so why should she?

[Individual Concerns]

Strange, you'd figure she'd been charged and convicted, then. Conspiracy, maybe?

I know rite?

Obviously there was nothing that was really important in there. Otherwise we might get the impression she was willing to endanger the security of the United States in a poorly conceived effort to protect her personnel privacy from nosy journalists.

But then, why the big hubbub over nothing of particular importance?

Again, the investigation was quite thorough and revealing, as Congress' grilling of Comey made apparent.
But just like judges will sometimes inexplicably forego a grand jury when one is plainly warranted, Comey, for his own reasons, balked on pulling the trigger on Hillary's negligence.

It is Washington, it is politics, and typically trying to make sense of it makes no sense.

[Lady Scylla]

Strange, you'd figure she'd been charged and convicted, then. Conspiracy, maybe?

I know rite?

Obviously there was nothing that was really important in there. Otherwise we might get the impression she was willing to endanger the security of the United States in a poorly conceived effort to protect her personnel privacy from nosy journalists.

But then, why the big hubbub over nothing of particular importance?

Hmm. No-one from the Bush Administration email scandal saw charges.

None of these have seen charges so far, either.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryla ... story.html

And to add;

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... ry-clinton

In short, Hillary isn't the only one that has gotten flak for emails. People from both parties have gotten flak for this at one time or another, expressing a greater problem in confusing regulations and laws. If the FBI believed Hillary had committed a crime, she would have been charged. The hyper-focus on Hillary, at the moment, is because she's a presidential nominee, and naturally any dirt is fair game. Though, as we see in the Bush email controversy, they got just as much public flak about it -- which just goes to show the short memory people seem to have.

[Austrasien]

Hmm. No-one from the Bush Administration email scandal saw charges.

None of these have seen charges so far, either.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryla ... story.html

And to add;

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... ry-clinton

In short, Hillary isn't the only one that has gotten flak for emails. People from both parties have gotten flak for this at one time or another, expressing a greater problem in confusing regulations and laws. If the FBI believed Hillary had committed a crime, she would have been charged. The hyper-focus on Hillary, at the moment, is because she's a presidential nominee, and naturally any dirt is fair game. Though, as we see in the Bush email controversy, they got just as much public flak about it -- which just goes to show the short memory people seem to have.

Oh I do not dispute this.

The issue really is the Hillary messaging machine is simultaneously maintaining the positions that "Hillary did nothing wrong and was vindicated by the FBI" by storing the emails improperly and "Donald Trump is a criminal who is taking orders from Moscow" for inviting Russia to find those same emails. This simply doesn't add up. How can anyone insist with a straight face that the person who lost the secrets did nothing warranting a charge, yet the person who invites someone else to read those secrets has committed a serious crime?

Either both deserve to be punished, or neither do.

[The Alma Mater]

Hmm. No-one from the Bush Administration email scandal saw charges.

None of these have seen charges so far, either.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryla ... story.html

And to add;

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... ry-clinton

In short, Hillary isn't the only one that has gotten flak for emails. People from both parties have gotten flak for this at one time or another, expressing a greater problem in confusing regulations and laws. If the FBI believed Hillary had committed a crime, she would have been charged. The hyper-focus on Hillary, at the moment, is because she's a presidential nominee, and naturally any dirt is fair game. Though, as we see in the Bush email controversy, they got just as much public flak about it -- which just goes to show the short memory people seem to have.

Oh I do not dispute this.

The issue really is the Hillary messaging machine is simultaneously maintaining the positions that "Hillary did nothing wrong and was vindicated by the FBI" by storing the emails improperly and "Donald Trump is a criminal who is taking orders from Moscow" for inviting Russia to find those same emails. This simply doesn't add up. How can anyone insist with a straight face that the person who lost the secrets did nothing warranting a charge, yet the person who invites someone else to read those secrets has committed a serious crime?

Either both deserve to be punished, or neither do.

The same way that not locking your door should not be a crime, but someone else standing in front of your door telling people to steal your stuff is.

[Lady Scylla]

Hmm. No-one from the Bush Administration email scandal saw charges.

None of these have seen charges so far, either.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryla ... story.html

And to add;

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... ry-clinton

In short, Hillary isn't the only one that has gotten flak for emails. People from both parties have gotten flak for this at one time or another, expressing a greater problem in confusing regulations and laws. If the FBI believed Hillary had committed a crime, she would have been charged. The hyper-focus on Hillary, at the moment, is because she's a presidential nominee, and naturally any dirt is fair game. Though, as we see in the Bush email controversy, they got just as much public flak about it -- which just goes to show the short memory people seem to have.

Oh I do not dispute this.

The issue really is the Hillary messaging machine is simultaneously maintaining the positions that "Hillary did nothing wrong and was vindicated by the FBI" by storing the emails improperly and "Donald Trump is a criminal who is taking orders from Moscow" for inviting Russia to find those same emails. This simply doesn't add up. How can anyone insist with a straight face that the person who lost the secrets did nothing warranting a charge, yet the person who invites someone else to read those secrets has committed a serious crime?

Either both deserve to be punished, or neither do.

Well, I'm of the opinion that, despite Hillary's fuck-up, it wasn't done with the intention of threatening national security. Which is probably why she wasn't charged. Laws on the use of private emails are more clear, and more strict when one is President, so I doubt she'd do it again. As for Trump, I dislike him, I dislike his politics, and I'd much rather Hillary win the election than him. Yet despite this, his statement is ambiguous enough for him to avoid charges, I feel, though I do think it teeters extremely close to the line of what could be considered treason.

[Transoxthraxia]

good

[Austrasien]

Well, I'm of the opinion that, despite Hillary's fuck-up, it wasn't done with the intention of threatening national security. Which is probably why she wasn't charged. Laws on the use of private emails are more clear, and more strict when one is President, so I doubt she'd do it again. As for Trump, I dislike him, I dislike his politics, and I'd much rather Hillary win the election than him. Yet despite this, his statement is ambiguous enough for him to avoid charges, I feel, though I do think it teeters extremely close to the line of what could be considered treason.

I tend to use the collective "you". Admittedly this is not always so clear.

It wasn't really you, Lasy Scylla, I was addressing those remarks too.

[Lady Scylla]

Well, I'm of the opinion that, despite Hillary's fuck-up, it wasn't done with the intention of threatening national security. Which is probably why she wasn't charged. Laws on the use of private emails are more clear, and more strict when one is President, so I doubt she'd do it again. As for Trump, I dislike him, I dislike his politics, and I'd much rather Hillary win the election than him. Yet despite this, his statement is ambiguous enough for him to avoid charges, I feel, though I do think it teeters extremely close to the line of what could be considered treason.

I tend to use the collective "you". Admittedly this is not always so clear.

It wasn't really you, Lasy Scylla, I was addressing those remarks too.

I didn't take it as such, just clarified my position for clarity's sake.

[Mieraskya]

Well, Trump seems to want to let Russia have all the leverage over the United States it wants to do the fuck as it pleases.

I know and it's worrying. Trump also has stated he doesn't want to honor NATO (OK, that's an oversimplification, but you get the gist), he wants to pull out of NAFTA and yet also have more friendly relations with Russia.

don't get me wrong, I love Russia, but their current government isn't one I'd want to align with on much at all.

^^^ agreed

[Greater Germania Reich]

Trump Putin 2016

Russo-Anglo alliance 2016

"B-but Russia is your enemy goy! Why, those dirty anti-Semites are assisting Iran and taking out ISIS targets with Iran's cooperation! We can't have that, how would we destabilize Syria and remove Assad from power who is literally the only non-radical leader left in the Middle East? It's not like toppling Libya or Iraq did anything to destabilize the region further, we brought democracy and freedom goy! Also please remember to keep paying your tax dollars, need more shekels for bulldozing Palestinians and giving medical aid to ISIS figh- I mean "insurgents" ;^)." t. Israel

[Arkinesia]

“Sectarianism in the Middle East today is back to its heights as we saw in the times of Aquinas.” — George Friedman, 2012

Wahhabists aren't special, everyone is going fucking batshit right now.

Most of the struggle is ultimately between Saudi Arabia, which is Wahhabiist, and Iran. We were bound to back the House of Saud due to the Cold War, and even afterward due to the Petrodollar, but Israel's geopolitics, which align with Saudi Arabia's, have also become a major element in play. Even the Christian massacre of Shiites I just mentioned was driven completely by Israeli geopolitics (though Christian partisans in the Middle East today are mainly aligned with the Shiites, even alongside Hezbollah).

Again, you're not wrong, but that's a highly oversimplified version of events.

[Trumpostan]

Also, storinglassified material improperly (like in your bathroom server) is a crime.

So if there is anything which could damage US security in those emails, Clinton is a felon.

If there isn't Donald didn't do nuffin wrong.

You forgot the part where Trump owes his 1990s business resurrection to Russian investors, many of whom are now in Putin's camp. Then there is the Trump campaign staff and advisers (Manafort, Flynn ea) who are all close to Kremlinites. And Trump insisted on ONE change to the RNC platform: remove language supporting Ukraine against Russian encroachment.

That suggest a pattern. Is his campaign a quid pro quo?

And then this: false representation and fraud (Trump Uni) are definately felonies at the very least. Stiffing creditors isn't legal either, nor is doing business with organized crime (Trump and the NY mafia in the 1980s). And then there is the intimidation of tenants because Trump wanted to rip down buildings to build luxury condos.

[Vassenor]

Looks like Moscow has responded.

tl;dr: "Short answer: No. Long answer: No, and go *EFF!* yourself, you ignorant scare-mongering cockbag."

[Nacesa Plana]

Trump is a troll. A good one.

And for that reason he should be the next US president. We certainly gonna have a good laugh.