[Rushy]

But your statement link doesn't specify the emails are a national security issue, just that asking for a foreign power to hack anyone in the US is a national security risk.  If you have another statement I'm interested.

As for the second part.  Absolutely.  If they have them I hope they do share them. 

Though if Hilary was smart (and she's not) she'd have a bunch of people in India or Taiwan typing out 30,000 personal e-mails about Yoga or to her children.

That link was a campaign statement in direct response to Trump's email request from the Russians. If the link is referring to something else, then what is it referring to?

Yes.
And it is the act of asking a foreign power to do something illegal that is a national security, not the subject of emails.
It would still apply if Trump asked Russia to find Chelsea Clinton's baby pictures or to find evidence of corruption in Obama's cabinet.

Where did Trump ask a foreign power to do something illegal? In fact, if Russia has these emails, they're obligated by treaty to release them to the DoJ.

[Lord Dave]

But your statement link doesn't specify the emails are a national security issue, just that asking for a foreign power to hack anyone in the US is a national security risk.  If you have another statement I'm interested.

As for the second part.  Absolutely.  If they have them I hope they do share them. 

Though if Hilary was smart (and she's not) she'd have a bunch of people in India or Taiwan typing out 30,000 personal e-mails about Yoga or to her children.

That link was a campaign statement in direct response to Trump's email request from the Russians. If the link is referring to something else, then what is it referring to?

Yes.
And it is the act of asking a foreign power to do something illegal that is a national security, not the subject of emails.
It would still apply if Trump asked Russia to find Chelsea Clinton's baby pictures or to find evidence of corruption in Obama's cabinet.

Where did Trump ask a foreign power to do something illegal? In fact, if Russia has these emails, they're obligated by treaty to release them to the DoJ.

He asked them to find them.
So unless he knows they have them in a data archive, where else would they get them?

[Rushy]

But your statement link doesn't specify the emails are a national security issue, just that asking for a foreign power to hack anyone in the US is a national security risk.  If you have another statement I'm interested.

As for the second part.  Absolutely.  If they have them I hope they do share them. 

Though if Hilary was smart (and she's not) she'd have a bunch of people in India or Taiwan typing out 30,000 personal e-mails about Yoga or to her children.

That link was a campaign statement in direct response to Trump's email request from the Russians. If the link is referring to something else, then what is it referring to?

Yes.
And it is the act of asking a foreign power to do something illegal that is a national security, not the subject of emails.
It would still apply if Trump asked Russia to find Chelsea Clinton's baby pictures or to find evidence of corruption in Obama's cabinet.

Where did Trump ask a foreign power to do something illegal? In fact, if Russia has these emails, they're obligated by treaty to release them to the DoJ.

He asked them to find them.
So unless he knows they have them in a data archive, where else would they get them?

You believe the Russians can hack a server that's been offline for at least two years?

[Lord Dave]

But your statement link doesn't specify the emails are a national security issue, just that asking for a foreign power to hack anyone in the US is a national security risk.  If you have another statement I'm interested.

As for the second part.  Absolutely.  If they have them I hope they do share them. 

Though if Hilary was smart (and she's not) she'd have a bunch of people in India or Taiwan typing out 30,000 personal e-mails about Yoga or to her children.

That link was a campaign statement in direct response to Trump's email request from the Russians. If the link is referring to something else, then what is it referring to?

Yes.
And it is the act of asking a foreign power to do something illegal that is a national security, not the subject of emails.
It would still apply if Trump asked Russia to find Chelsea Clinton's baby pictures or to find evidence of corruption in Obama's cabinet.

Where did Trump ask a foreign power to do something illegal? In fact, if Russia has these emails, they're obligated by treaty to release them to the DoJ.

He asked them to find them.
So unless he knows they have them in a data archive, where else would they get them?

You believe the Russians can hack a server that's been offline for at least two years?

Absolutely not.  Why would you think that?
Even IF they could get to it and comb through it, the data is gone and probably has been long before the server went offline.  Trump knows that too.  He knows that locked away server doesn't have the emails.

So where else could they be?
How about everyone Clinton contacted with it?  Everyone who e-mailed her?  How about Obama's e-mail account?  the DoJ's email server?  The DNC's email server?  Various military generals e-mail accounts?  Heads of states in other nations e-mail servers?  Chelsea and Bill's e-mail accounts?  The e-mail account of whatever yoga class Clinton used?

Basically, everyone Hilary Clinton has ever contacted or received information from via e-mail.  Alot?  Sure.  But unless the e-mails were kept safe somewhere for some stupid reason, that's the only spot that they'd find it.

Unless you have another idea on where Russia can look for them if they don't have it.

[garygreen]

trump supporters: how do you feel about trump's encouragement to russia to release stolen/hacked documents?  does it trouble you at all?

I don't condone hacking, but if Russia already has Hillary's emails (and I'm like 99% sure they do, in fact I wouldn't be surprised if every country other than the US had them), then it would only be in US intelligence's best interest to have them as well. Why would the US want Russia to know what's in those documents without knowing themselves?

If Russia has Hillary's emails, they got them a long time ago; definitely before Trump announced his presidential candidacy. That private server has been air-gapped and sitting in Quantico for about two years.

Trump brought this up because Hillary claimed not only could people not have those emails, but that the emails were of no significance to the government and were all about yoga and shopping. Hillary is now admitting that the emails were of importance to national security and that Trump should be ashamed of talking about Russia hacking national security assets. Trump once again forced his opponent to reveal their own weakness. Should we really blame Trump for pointing to the consequences of Hillary's choice to have that private server?

but how do you feel about trump's particular encouragement to russia to release the stolen/hacked documents?  does it not trouble you at all?  forgive me, but this all seems like a lot of equivocation.  i have a hard time believing that you'd be this magnanimous toward clinton if in an interview she'd said anything at all like "and hey russia, if you have any dirt on trump that you've illegally stolen, now would be a good time to get some coin on that."

is this what we can expect from president trump?  foreign intelligence services are free to hack us so long as the info makes trump's enemies look bad?  that just sounds...crooked.

[xasop]

While his answer wasn't great, I don't think that's a fair way to paraphrase it. He wasn't talking about the money he makes personally, but the number of Americans he employs and pays money to.

That's how he makes his money though. It's just what a business owner does.

I'm aware, which is why I conceded that his answer wasn't great. There's still a large difference between saying "I make lots of money" and "I've helped lots of Americans with their education and health cover", so paraphrasing him as the former cuts out what little fragmentary points he did make.

A better answer would have been to focus on how he goes above and beyond what other employers do, or failing that, what the bare minimum legal requirements are (but this is America, so the latter wouldn't be saying very much). I don't know enough about his so-called "empire" to know if that is the case.

Ultimately, I can see what point he might have been trying to make, he just didn't make it very well. I think pretending he didn't go any way to making a point at all is intellectually dishonest. But hey, that's how the left operates in 2016.

[Rama Set]

Without granting Trump a lot of things he didn't say, which is also intellectually dishonest, he said nothing about the sacrifices he has made. Saying he employed a lot of people is neutral on the topic, and he has shown himself to have enough command of the English language and enough of a desire to answer directly that it is fairer to assume that he was intentionally avoiding the question. After all, he wades right in to hit-button issues with an admirable transparency, it's why he is on the ballot today, yet this straightforward line of questioning eludes him?  I find it hard to believe, it seems much more likely that he is an egoist concerned with profiting from others than sacrificing for others.

[beardo]

Well, at least he's not a criminal.

[garygreen]

i don't get how employing someone is a sacrifice.

[Rama Set]

i don't get how employing someone is a sacrifice.

Like Parsifal said, you could start doing mental gymnastics and posit things like: he paid 100% over the industry standard, or some such to say he sacrificed some of his profit. It takes a lot of tap-dancing though.

[xasop]

Without granting Trump a lot of things he didn't say, which is also intellectually dishonest

Good thing nobody has done that.

he said nothing about the sacrifices he has made. Saying he employed a lot of people is neutral on the topic, and he has shown himself to have enough command of the English language and enough of a desire to answer directly that it is fairer to assume that he was intentionally avoiding the question. After all, he wades right in to hit-button issues with an admirable transparency, it's why he is on the ballot today, yet this straightforward line of questioning eludes him?  I find it hard to believe, it seems much more likely that he is an egoist concerned with profiting from others than sacrificing for others.

Sure. As I said, it wasn't a great answer. It just wasn't as hilariously terrible of an answer as Snupes's paraphrasing made it sound.

[Rama Set]

Without granting Trump a lot of things he didn't say, which is also intellectually dishonest

Good thing nobody has done that.

Unless you start granting him things he did not say, he did not answer the question about what he had sacrificed.

he said nothing about the sacrifices he has made. Saying he employed a lot of people is neutral on the topic, and he has shown himself to have enough command of the English language and enough of a desire to answer directly that it is fairer to assume that he was intentionally avoiding the question. After all, he wades right in to hit-button issues with an admirable transparency, it's why he is on the ballot today, yet this straightforward line of questioning eludes him?  I find it hard to believe, it seems much more likely that he is an egoist concerned with profiting from others than sacrificing for others.

Sure. As I said, it wasn't a great answer. It just wasn't as hilariously terrible of an answer as Snupes's paraphrasing made it sound.

[/quote]

Agreed, but Snupes interpretation seems plausible. More context should have been given, but then it would not have been funny.

[xasop]

Unless you start granting him things he did not say, he did not answer the question about what he had sacrificed.

Correct. He didn't.

[Lord Dave]

Unless you start granting him things he did not say, he did not answer the question about what he had sacrificed.

Correct. He didn't.

Wouldn't that strongly imply that he has no answer?  Which means he either does not sacrifice or can't remember the last time?

[Rama Set]

Or he thinks that "having a lot of success" is a sacrifice somehow.

[xasop]

Wouldn't that strongly imply that he has no answer?  Which means he either does not sacrifice or can't remember the last time?

It might simply imply that he couldn't bring an answer to mind at the time. The impression I got from watching the interview was that the question took him by surprise.

[Rushy]

but how do you feel about trump's particular encouragement to russia to release the stolen/hacked documents?  does it not trouble you at all?  forgive me, but this all seems like a lot of equivocation.  i have a hard time believing that you'd be this magnanimous toward clinton if in an interview she'd said anything at all like "and hey russia, if you have any dirt on trump that you've illegally stolen, now would be a good time to get some coin on that."

is this what we can expect from president trump?  foreign intelligence services are free to hack us so long as the info makes trump's enemies look bad?  that just sounds...crooked.

Actually, this is exactly what the problem with Hillary's server was about. Her documents were easily seen by every foreign power with an internet connection.

I don't feel that Trump is encouraging Russia to hack her. Rather, he's encouraging them to release the emails if they have them (they would in fact be legally obligated to do this, though they would need to disclose them to the DoJ, not the public).

[beardo]

DO NOT QUESTION THE GOD-EMPEROR!

[Lord Dave]

but how do you feel about trump's particular encouragement to russia to release the stolen/hacked documents?  does it not trouble you at all?  forgive me, but this all seems like a lot of equivocation.  i have a hard time believing that you'd be this magnanimous toward clinton if in an interview she'd said anything at all like "and hey russia, if you have any dirt on trump that you've illegally stolen, now would be a good time to get some coin on that."

is this what we can expect from president trump?  foreign intelligence services are free to hack us so long as the info makes trump's enemies look bad?  that just sounds...crooked.

Actually, this is exactly what the problem with Hillary's server was about. Her documents were easily seen by every foreign power with an internet connection.

I don't feel that Trump is encouraging Russia to hack her. Rather, he's encouraging them to release the emails if they have them (they would in fact be legally obligated to do this, though they would need to disclose them to the DoJ, not the public).

Do you have proof of this rather bold claim that every foreign power could see it?

And why would Russia admit to breaking international law?

[sandokhan]

http://buchanan.org/blog/trump-peace-candidate-125499