Donald Trump invites Russia to hack Hillary Clinton

I don't think charges will be filed. But it will be quite interesting if more is released after Trump shot his mouth off. He may get in even hotter water. I think Harry Reid was already saying it's bigger than Watergate.

About the Clinton arms sales stuff: that is a whole huge huge other area, which I do not think is treasonous per se. But relations to Saudi Arabia etc. go into a massive other area for me, which touches on 9/11. True, Trump may be truly outside the 9/11 network, but I don't think he would object to being granted membership, if they would have him, which they won't.

It's true: Clinton is a pure extension of status quo 9/11 America, in which we are getting progressively squeezed economically and low-intensity war is being waged on the folk through paid gunmen, to justify all these arms sales and oil grabs and development contracts etc. etc. Clinton is my old, not-beloved 9/11 reality. Trump is just a lunatic. So that's how revolted I am by Trump. It's Clinton or bust.

 

For those who put party over country, like FoxNews, there would be non-stop coverage of this invitation until the campaign responsible is dead and buried. This demagogue only has legs due to friendly media coverage and the right wing information bubble.

I'm voting for the Democratic platform and the Democratic candidate and not for the party that ceded its values to a maniacal, compulsive liar who leverages fear and racism in Trump. My country is better than that. No one who would
Invite a hostile foreign nation to conduct espionage, to attack, our nation is fit for office.

 

Ooh the Drama......He can't invite anyone to hack a server that's no longer online functioning. Do you comprehend that? He invited them to release data they already have hacked. Of course you are putting your disgraced party over facts

Again you keep touting how great she is so there's nothing there right? So you'd be super pissed if she lied and not vote for her.....

.

 

Trump doesn't think 2 second ahead.

But I agree the bar is low. Self evidence given the GOP nominee. To be clear, it's the GOP, not the general public. And as time move on, the GOP have to keep on lowering that bar. It's probably below ground level at this point.

 

It is funny seeing all the reactions here. Hillary doesn't even have an email server to hack anymore. This was clearly a jibe at the accusations being leveled that Trump and Putin were in cahoots on the DNC leaks. Come on, if they were in cahoots, don't you think they'd have a better communication medium than broadcasting the request through the media?

This just demonstrates how easily the masses jump onto any rumour that is out there.

One could also say it demonstrates that Trump just needs to keep quiet more (which I agree with, and which he has been doing more of)...but, as some have already pointed out, he seems to jump in the polls every time he does speak.

 

The prospect of having a leader who would joke about being in cahoots with a brutal dictator is pretty frightening. It is pretty terrible that we don't know whether he is joking or serious. Given the balance of power and checks and balances built into the US government, you could argue that the President's ability to communicate is the most important aspect. As you said, Trump needs to keep quiet more, but he has repeatedly shown he is incapable of holding his tongue. This alone makes him completely unfit to hold office.

 

The mere notion that you believe Trump needs to 'be quiet' more should speak volumes to you if you actually valued the qualities needed to be head of state of a modern nation state.

Just think about what you stated. You think Trump needs to talk less. What do you think he is going to do with all the other heads of states if he is elected? You don't think almost any sane rational head of state is going to immediately loose respect for our commander in chief the moment they attempt to engage in a 5 minute convo with this clown?

What ever accusations you have of Hillary(narcissist, cheat, liar etc) understand that Trump has all of them in spades. The only difference is that you can hide it better in the private sector.

So, in all actuality, the only difference that separate the two is the level of rationality and temperament that each possess.


The only reason most sane people prefer Hillary is precisely because of temperament. And the reason why these people value this quality is because as educated individuals they understand HOW MUCH the president interacts with other heads of states and diplomats.

 

Faux outrage over these comments is a bit weird to me, some of the same people that are pretending to be the most outraged over Trump's stupid comments are some of the same people who tried to play down Hillary's gross incompetence while Secretary of State and who tried to play down how she put national security at risk and broke the law just so she could keep her emails free from FOIA requests and be able to delete them when she saw fit (but she didn't do a very good job of it).

I mean, sure Trump's comments were stupid, but they are certainly nowhere near as bad as mishandling classified information and putting national security at risk...

 

Clinton may have put some confidential information at risks to outsider. FBI didn't think it was intentional and see no reasonable reason for prosecution. Case close except for a few that can't never be satisfy.

Trump invited outsiders to hack us, to mess with our election and even many on the GOP side are completely outrage at his invitation. Something about nation first.

One is fit to be presidential. The other is not.

 

No, not just "confidential", that's the lowest level of classification and sure there was a ton of that but there was also "secret" and "top secret" information that she put at risk to outsiders......the fact that it was done out of incompetence rather than done on purpose doesn't really make it any better (or any more legal).

I mean that's a MUCH bigger deal than someone suggesting that hackers should release the information they hacked from Clinton when she was being grossly incompetent as Secretary of State. Sure, it's a stupid comment, but honestly it's not as serious as putting national security at risk due to gross incompetence.

Hillary isn't fit to be the president's personal secretary or even be a janitor in a SCIF, and when I say that I mean that if she applied for one of those jobs she'd be turned down because her gross incompetence while Secretary of State would prevent her from getting past the security clearance review necessary for one of those jobs.......but you think she's "presidential" because partisanship I guess.

Both candidates are complete disasters and trying to defend either just shows your partisanship.

 

I disagree

We should openly be asking people to try to hack us so that we can improve our infrastructure and make it impenetrable. Find the weak points.

Much like the guy with the identity theft company asking people to try to steal his identity. It's good for business.

 

Wrong again. Actually, neither one of them is.

 

But one of them will become president.

 

The people we ask should be security people that are United States citizens. They shouldn't be hostile foreign powers.

Having those people trying to hack you, isn't good for business in any way.

 

Which is horrifying.

 

I'm sure there are domestic hackers that hacked Hillary's private email server where she kept classified information too, but any of them who came forward would be facing criminal charges for it. A Russian hacker wouldn't be, so they'd be more likely to admit what information they took from her.

 

Trying in a stupid way to keep sensitive documents out of hackers' hands is stupid and negligent. But it isn't worse than willingly hoping for those documents to be in foreign hands and be released to the public.

 

She didn't care at all about keeping sensitive documents out of hackers' hands, she just cared about having complete control over her emails so that she could avoid FOIA requests and delete them as she saw fit. Even putting that information on those servers was illegal to begin with.....but she got away with it.

Hoping that people who already have that information will release it and show the extent of her incompetence and gross negligence isn't really wrong. It's not hoping that hackers will obtain the information now, they already have it. In fact, if things were reversed, you'd probably call it whistleblowing.

 

It was not clearly a jibe. If it was a jibe he would have mentioned it once possibly with a wink or a smile. Trump kept talking about it over and over. If you're making a joke, you don't keep saying it over and over.

 

I just don't think that we should forget that the ONLY reason a request like this could be made in the first place was because of total and complete incompetence by Hillary while she was Secretary of State. If she hadn't endangered national security, and instead had just done a good job when trusted with high office and access to classified information, then no one would potentially have that information to begin with.

I don't think anyone has been more vocally anti-Trump than me on this forum, but we really shouldn't lose sight of just how awful a candidate Hillary is as well.