Today, July 27, 2016 Donald Trump first said:
"They probably have her 33,000 e-mails. I hope they do. They probably have her 33,000 e-mails that she lost and deleted because you'd see some beauties there. So let's see," and
"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,"
And then he tweeted -
"If Russia or any other country or person has Hillary Clinton's 33,000 illegally deleted emails, perhaps they should share them with the FBI!"
Ex-CIA Chief Penetta said this goes beyond the "pale" and should be disqualified to run for President.
Granted, Penetta is a Democrat, but he is also ex-CIA and ex-Sec Def; but do you agree or disagree with his statement?
I agree with it. I know you all will think the backlash against Donald's idiocy is partisan, but this is truly serious. My husband is retired from intelligence and he is alternately flabbergasted, disgusted, and furious. If Donald wants to be president, he cannot be this stupid. His candidacy should now be over. Period.
The requirements for being President are pretty well laid out: what would be the legal reasoning behind disqualifying him? That the Democratic party had lost any semblance of ethics?
Only idiocy would disqualify HIM and let Hilary go free for her Totally Treasonous political career !
Can ANYBODY on the left spell sarcasm ?
No legal reason. Go ahead and vote for him. Your judgement. Your call.
?? Then why would anyone, let alone an ex-CIA director, say he should be disqualified? Have they joined Hillary in her contempt for the law and her insistence that it not apply to her?
You, PP, said you agreed - how can you support that opinion given that it is illegal to do so?
I didn't interpret his remarks to be referring to a precise legal definition of the qualifications for prsident. It doesn't surprise me that you went there, though.
Well, yes I went there. It's kind of important to follow the law, and I'm not affiliated with the Democratic party!
That's your prerogative to judge a person's qualifications for president by purely legal standards. Then you must also believe Hillary to be qualified, since there is no legal reason to disqualify her.
Absolutely Hillary is qualified! She is a master politician, extremely skilled at lying, manipulation of people, selling favors and ignoring the law. Just what the Democratic party wants and needs.
Although, come to think of it, not particularly what I or the country needs...but she IS qualified by everything it takes to win an election.
When it comes to what the "country needs"' , you need to speak for yourself. The electorate in November will determine what the country needs....
No, the electorate will determine whose lies are more believable. Character will play a small part, but the combover will play a larger one. The massive irritation with Clinton's ilk has become apparent and is what is driving the Trump success.
But nowhere is there much concern with what the country needs...unless you agree that the country needs a new brand, a whole new type, of leadership.
On the one hand we have an admitted thief and a liar without match that cares nothing for national security. And no one cares.
On the other we have a bigot with really questionable business practices and a mouth he won't control. Oh yes, a bad combover. And no one cares.
So no, I don't see the actual needs of the country as particularly germane. I could be wrong, though - some conservatives are concerned about the cost of keeping millions of illegals and about constitutional rights. And some liberals are concerned about the rights of those with a different sexual orientation.
Yes, I cannot deny that the country needs an entirely different style of leadership and I don't see any such choice being made available.
In the meantime, the show has to go on, with the electorate choosing between the least offensive candidate instead of having a direct attraction to the candidate and his or her platform.
Of course you see a choice available; you just don't like that choice either.
Yep - we will once more pick the least offensive candidate. Or, maybe, the one we think will do the least damage - that's my position as I think Trump will be the least effective president we've had in a long time, while Clinton will be quite effective...at causing massive damage.
Whatever the reasons Trump has when he makes the same claim. But, in reality "disqualifying" when used by anybody in this election is NOT intended to be a legal claim; it is a moral claim. You can elect a murderer to be President if you want for the Constitution is silent on character or even whether one is under criminal indictment or not. 35 and a natural citizen (which does not mean born on American soil) is all that's needed.
Trump is playing the game we call politics, same as every other candidate has in the past. Both sides spend too much time trying to frame their opponents actions as "disqualifying" when there aren't any statures to back those statements up. It's theater for the masses.
Conservatives claim that Russia is our biggest enemy and justifies the U.S. having the largest military on the planet (7X larger than any other country).
Then they justify having Russia interfere in our presidential election.
How incredibly hypocritical.
I sort of assumed that the Russians or some other country with a reasonably good intelligence apparatus already had them. So when I heard about what Trump had said, I interpreted it as he thinks the same thing and was saying "If you've got it, flaunt it."
If the emails were nothing but yoga discussions and wedding plans, then Russia having them wouldn't matter.
If the deleted emails were classified, it is proof that her negligent handling of classified data that has strict handling guidelines to prevent such leaks endangered national security. This proves she's unfit for office.
If they detail her abuse of being Secretary of State, giving various authorizations for export and business deals in return for millions in donations to the Clinton Foundation or $100,000 for Bill Clinton to give a 15 minute speech, then it is proof she's utterly corrupt and unfit for office.
Completely disagree. If someone could find the emails I would think that would be a good thing.
Unless, of course, she was deleting large quantities of classified information from a personal server. At that point, if Russia did find them, would it be Trump's fault or hers?
I can assure you if Russia was looking they would have been doing it before he made this statement. It wasn't a secret that they were gone. To imply that they are sitting around waiting for a presidential contender to make them aware of it and extend the invitation is ludicrous.
I think you miss the point Live. Granted, all that we know is after the fact like you say; but he is asking about the deleted emails, where ever they be. Effectively, he is asking Putin to go look for them, and that is espionage. Most probably, if the Russians had hacked her server, they might already have them ... but that is not a given. So he is encouraging them to spy on America.
I think this is a foolish argument. Unless, we are naive enough to think they weren't already snooping.
Seriously, I can't imagine a smaller molehill. It was a foolish statement on his part, but that's it.
Of course they have been snooping, or trying to anyway. But here have Trump asking the spy even more than they have; THAT is what the problem is ... an American candidate for President asking a foreign power to spy on America in the future-tense.
Seeing as HC used a private, entirely hackable system, and the DNC system was recently hacked by Russians, I'm led to the conclusion that Clinton's emails are already in their hands.....I think that's what Trump believes as well, even though his choice of language seems to be suggesting that the Russians "try" to find them.
"Delusional Donald" "Crossed the LINE" within MINUTEs of Announcing his Pseudo-Campaign months ago, a Kick-Off at Trump Tower which believe it or NOT, according to reports, was attended LARGELY by "Paid ACTORs" to Bolster the "APPEARANCE of Interest & Excitement", a Scheme he apparently felt was necessary because he was fearful that nobody would SHOW-Up ~ Look it Up, it's been reported on ~
This time HOWEVER, According to the EXPERTs, "Criminal INTENT" was indeed EXPRESSED by Donald when he ENCOURAGED Espionage by Communist Russian AGENTs ~ The CIA would be NEGLIGENT if a Comprehensive Criminal INVESTIGATION did not Transpire ~
Ummm...You do understand that while you are an expert in BS, you are NOT an expert in determining criminal intent? You thus cannot claim that because you think it was criminal that you have an expert opinion that says it was.
~ No COMMENT ~ Although I have an EXTENSIVE Law Background I'll simply refer ALL Readers to a Retired Admiral for STARTERs ~
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/d … son-226328
Your opinions are truly delusional , Why don't YOU ever hold Queen Hillary to the same standards as you do Trump ? Seriously - do doo doo do doo'odoo !
"Earth to Alternative Prime "....... are you out there ?
Because there is ZERO Comparison between the two ~
Donald is actually Mentally DISTURBED, he's Paranoid, Hate FILLED, he has SEVERE Anger Issues & he's Perhaps Schizophrenic ~ These Mental Illnesses are "CLEAR & Apparent" to any Professional ~
I have to hand it to you ,A.P. Every time I read one of your posts , I see the opposite faced opponent in all the words you chose ! You just perfectly described the Clintons ! BOTH OF THEM !
I mean Every time !
Unfortunate, isn't it, that there isn't a professional to verify the statements of angry laymen that haven't a clue what the words even mean?
I don't go quite that far in describing #LyinTrump. BUT, having said that he does fit the:
- Textbook definition of narcissistic personality disorder
- - Closely associated with NPD is sociopath and psychopathy
- - Together they equal Antisocial Behavior Disorder (not my observation but several psychologists who decided to go public with their opinions)
- The textbook definition of xenophobia
- The textbook definition of a bigot
- The textbook definition of a high-scoring person with a social domination orientation
That is who you want as your President?
Other people who have that combination of personality traits: Hitler, Stalin. Saddam Hussein, and their ilk.
I saw it as sarcasm... a poke at US agencies who were unable to recover any of the lost emails. Why are people upset if the deleted material all related to wedding plans and yoga classes?
Okay, then you would be fine with Hillary Clinton urging Germany to pore through Donald's email servers to find his tax returns?
As long as she does it sarcastically, during a public speech and doesn't use covert methods to achieve it what would be the harm?
Oh, yeh. One problem. Hillary doesn't know how to be open and honest.
Well, I thought you understood the seriousness of being president. I really did.
Sorry to have misjudged you. There is a reason intelligence officials are speaking out about Donald's reckless and dangerous statement.
Does it apply to any major Republican you can name?
Any major Republican I can name. Let me think.
I don't really pay attention to a politician until they are running for an office I will be voting for. I'll say that I considered Ted Cruz and Rubio would have said anything they felt would garner them a vote; regardless of whether it was true or not. I would say that Chris Christie had to be corrupt.
I don't think it is possible to find a career politician who isn't corrupt. It is part of the system and I doubt they could stay in the system without playing the game. Most of them are there for what they can get out of it.
"I don't think it is possible to find a career politician who isn't corrupt."
I think you're right. While many start at the very local level with a real desire to help run the (neighborhood, city, county, whatever) by the time they reach the Hill they have left that naive feeling far behind. It isn't possible there to get anything and maintain a set of ethics, not any more if it ever was.
Yes, I agree. I personally think it takes less than six months to corrupt a politician in Washington.
You don't seem to have much direct experience with politicians. They act the way they do because ignorant, vicious and self-centered voters force them to act that way.
I personally some some very good people who have spent years in politics.
Politicans are no different than any other group of people. Some are good and some are bad. If you don't like the system, then work to fix it.
But Trump didn't ask anyone to hack into any servers - he asked if they "found" them to bring them forward. It's not the same thing.
Oh so they're going to "find" them with what? Their spidey senses?
From my understanding it's implying they already hacked the servers and have the emails. Is the server still active and vulnerable to hacking? Or is there another way to obtain the emails?
Also, could you elaborate on why intelligence officials like your husband consider Trump's statements reckless and dangerous?
My husband: Any suggestion at all, toward Russia or any other country, that it is acceptable to obtain or have in their possession emails of a government official or an American citizen is bordering on treasonous if not legally considered to be treason. For a man who wants to be president, that is unacceptable.
Edited to add: My husband is a registered Republican who cannot stand either Hillary or Donald. He has been saying he will not vote for either of them. After this statement by Donald, he is wavering. I think there are a significant number of conservatives like my husband who are near the tipping point. Each one has a point at which the stupidity of Donald will become so overwhelming they will do what it takes to keep him away from that presidential chair.
Was he suggesting that what Russia did is acceptable? Or was he suggesting that Russia probably has the emails so they might as well provide them?
If you don't know why are you claiming it is borderline treason? There's a difference between condoning hacks, and asking for information that came from a hack.
I am not claiming it. I quoted my husband. It is his very qualified opinion. You're entitled to yours but I think those who are defending him on this are letting Trump get away with behavior that should not be tolerated in a presidential candidate, and would be disastrous from a president.
Quite a few intelligence officials have expressed their dismay with those remarks.
I shortened it to "you" meaning you and your husband. I was under the impression that you agreed with him.
I'm not disagreeing with him regarding what constitutes treason - in fact, the reason I asked is because I wanted his very qualified opinion. I believe him when he says condoning hacks by other countries is at least borderline treason.
The question is: did Trump condone hacks by other countries? Since you don't know whether or not he did I'm going to assume that Trump either didn't condone the hacks or the evidence supporting that assertion is flimsy at best.
Ideally, with accusations as serious as treason you'd need a preponderance of evidence. You don't need to be an intelligence official to know that.
I agree with him that Donald's reckless need to say whatever comes into his stupid head makes him unfit to be president. Whether or not what he said is borderline treason, in legal terms, doesn't matter to me or to my husband. What matters is that he asked Russia to turn over emails, if they have them. It is my husband's opinion that this is borderline treason. This is asking another country to interfere in U.S. elections. If Russia has possession of the emails, then they obtained them through illicit means. If they don't have them, then they would have to obtain them through illicit means to turn them over. Either way, a presidential candidate suggesting that a foreign country do any of this is so wrong. I can't even describe to you how pissed off my husband is. He is not a partisan hack. He is a true patriot who has served three terms in Viet Nam, been to hell and back, and thoroughly understands the seriousness of being president. He is entitled to his opinion, just as you are. His opinion has no legal standing, and no effect on Donald whatsoever, so your nitpicking of it is meaningless.
But, whatever floats your boat. That is the beauty of America. We get to think what we want, say what we want, and vote our conscience. I hope Donald keeps saying out loud what's in that pea brain of his. It will only make him less electable.
You and your husband are Both wrong , Go back and watch the video , He never "asked " he simply stated , "If they have them .........But don't let the truth interfere with your fantasy world !
"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. Let's see if that happens"
Really? "if you have them" is the same as "I hope you're able to find"?
Maybe you are suffering a "sarcasm "deficit , I suggest you immediately apply for Obama encouraged SSI disability . You'll get on !
It doesn't matter if it was sarcasm or a joke or a brain fart. It is unacceptable.
Insults don't bother me, horse. I consider the source.
What exactly did I nitpick? I agreed with your husband that condoning hacking of government officials or U.S. citizens could be treason. I asked whether or not Trump did that, and you said you don't know. Just find it odd that you're accusing Trump of doing something that you don't know.
If the legal criteria for treason doesn't matter to you or your husband, does that mean you were using the word loosely, colloquially or as hyperbole? If so, why would you then bring up the opinions of very qualified intelligence agents? We don't need intelligence agents' expertise to know what constitutes colloquial or hyperbolical treason.
I would respectfully disagree. From the legal dictionary:
The betrayal of one's own country by waging war against it or by consciously or purposely acting to aid its enemies."
Unless you think the emails of the DNC contain top secret information like Clinton's did, anything there cannot do much to aid an enemy and he certainly did not wage war against the US.
You must have posted this before reading my reply above. Here is a part of it:
"Whether or not what he said is borderline treason, in legal terms, doesn't matter to me or to my husband. What matters is that he asked Russia to turn over emails, if they have them. It is my husband's opinion that this is borderline treason. This is asking another country to interfere in U.S. elections. If Russia has possession of the emails, then they obtained them through illicit means. If they don't have them, then they would have to obtain them through illicit means to turn them over. Either way, a presidential candidate suggesting that a foreign country do any of this is so wrong."
"He is entitled to his opinion, just as you are. His opinion has no legal standing, and no effect on Donald whatsoever, so your nitpicking of it is meaningless."
You're right - I missed that. Probably didn't refresh the screen before replying.
But if you didn't mean borderline treason it probably should not have been said. But I DID recognize that it is your "well qualified" husband making the statement, not you. I just disagree, as the definition has nothing to do with what actually happened, that's all.
Understood. And mine is that failing to come close to either possibility in the definition of treason means that it not only is not borderline the statement had nothing whatsoever to do with treason.
But we crossed horns in the same issue (making personal definitions of legal requirements) when it came to denying Trump the right to be president without any legal reason to do so.
Okay. You and mrpopo like to hold people expressing their thoughts on an internet forum to a higher standard of precision than presidential candidates speaking for the entire world to hear. Your prerogative, of course, but seems backward to me.
Just my opinion. I'll brace my self to the parsing now. ;-)
LOL You complain, PP, about Trump doing it and then do it yourself. All to raise emotions and plant false impressions - something I've personally detested for many years when it comes to politics. I didn't watch either convention for that very reason - it is nothing but posturing and mudslinging without a hint of value.
Hey PrettyPanther, I hope you don't mind if I get a few kicks in...
As I follow this, it seems to boil down to whether folks take Trump's words seriously. As in, no one older than twelve would take his words to mean exactly what he said. My perspective is that no one would think he was committing the apparently treasonous act of inviting Russia to hack our computer systems. It was a jab, a barb tossed at Hillary.
Geesh! Mr. Trump's behavior and comments are enough in themselves... they don't need any help from his opponents, waiting, poised, ready to pounce on the next soundbyte.
It's like shooting fish in a barrel. Why do you folks think you need to argue over bait. You aren't being held to a higher standard, you are being used like a pinata because you tried to pretend you took his words seriously. You heard the choir.
You must have missed where I said it doesn't matter if his statement was a joke, sarcasm or a brain fart. It might have been on a different thread. In any case, it doesn't matter. He wants to be president. Most people think that job requires a minimum level of discretion. Employees have been fired for saying far less. But, hey, if you think I'm holding him to a ridiculous standard that's your prerogative.
Did you mean discretion ("the quality of behaving or speaking in such a way as to avoid causing offense or revealing private information:") as he should have kept his mouth shut, or
discretion ("the freedom to decide what should be done in a particular situation") as in "I'll put classified information wherever I dang well please!"?
I do hold you to higher standards. Most people here are smarter and more honest than either of the presidential candidates.
He is telling you to get the hell away from the keyboard isn't he?
Only that Trump was talking about the "private server emails", not the DNC emails.
I don't think DNC servers are anything BUT "private server emails", although I guess they could be ordinary servers for the rest of the public as well.
But they are certainly not official government servers, OK to send classified information on. That was my only point.
Mrpopo, some saying that's exactly what Donny meant: That Russia probably already has the emails. Hello, hello? Any HC supporters listening? Can you take your blinders off and see HC as the bought out security risk she is? What's worse than already being owned by foreign governments? Or being in a position (as Donny is suggesting - read between the lines) that she can be blackmailed by foreign powers, including the Russians? I'm not voting for either candidate, and I can't wrap my head around the idea that HC can possibly be better than The Donald.
Well according to the OP he did say this:
"They probably have her 33,000 e-mails."
"They probably have her 33,000 e-mails that she lost and deleted because you'd see some beauties there. "
So I'm going to go on a limb and say that's what he probably meant.
No "suggesting" about it. He said that IF they have them, divulge them, otherwise go "FIND" them. The quote that has gotten him in trouble is"
"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,"
By anybody's grammar, ".. you're able to find..." can have two meanings.
1. If you had them AND LOST THEM, then "I hope you find them" or
2. If you never had them at all, then "I hope you find them" means keep on looking.
It is definition number 2 that seems more reasonable to me since the alternative is that the Russians were incompetent enough to LOSE them to begin with, IF they had them.
Your implication of Trumps sarcasm fails miserably to indict him for the type of treason that Hillary has ALREADY performed with much grace since well before her election to senate . Her servitude in the State dept. or even her stupidity in the primaries , Good luck convincing people to believe your crap about a candidates sarcasm .
Do liberal mental midgets really expect this issue to gain traction ?, Well , I guess it only can given the complicity of a liberally slanted rag media !
No, he's saying "find" from the US perspective. This is obvious because he says "30,000 emails that are missing." As you correctly ruled out, they aren't missing from Russia's perspective.
I have learned, mrpopo, to ignore ahorseback's comments since they are clearly emotionally driven by a deep-seated right-wing world view.
While it may not apply to him, many studies do show that those who willingly, unthinkingly follow authority figures, whether they be doctors, politicians, or demagogues will score high on surveys testing for such traits. They are known as Right wing (not to be confused with our political Right) Authoritarian followers (it is not uncommon to find those aligned with the far-Left exhibit the same characteristics). A common characteristic among these folks is to set aside their own ability to think and reason (of which they may be richly endowed) and assume those of the authority figure they have chosen to follow. - http://hubpages.com/politics/An-Analysi … llower-RWA
My Esoteric ,
Quite the fantasy of your obvious elitist liberal indoctrination there my friend , Lets make something clear I'm 62 years old and I began in life being raised by rural , working class , redneck parents in New England , during high school in the mid sixties I fell head over heels for the social revolution , sex ,drugs and rock and roll , all of it .This Socialist indoctrination hit the high schools and colleges al across America at an alarming rate of false indoctrination , in fact probably even faster than todays pseudo- intellectual , elitist ,pure entitlement revolution !
In a couple of years I was to realize that that entire movement was simply a social revolution of drug hazed , freedom grubbing , pseudo , commune dwelling pot heads , heroin addicts , LSD popping morons . Sad part was , I believed it all . I believed the new generation of teachers , of professors , of traveling lecturers . I believed then that the new enlightenment was a real change from the America of the past .
Today this movement is simply these same pseudo - socialism idealist dopes and drug infested knuckle heads that are now old , overweight intellectual professors .High school teachers , community leaders and politicians who drop the same old outdated ideas and ideals . Your calling me out as a conservative has been or whatever is your way of self stroking of your moronic elitist egos,
I have been through the wringer of your false revolutionary ,socialist , liberal intellectualist ,hogwash ! And you know what , I am waiting for the rest of you to intellectually catch up . Next time , See if you can come up with a real description of who I , ahorseback really am . Grow up and learn how to really debate an issue without typical liberal pigeon holing and your peer group hug ,rather bland rhetoric .
And I am 68 who went through the same period you did, but ensconced in California. I did not go the route you did, nor did I go the route in the other direction. If I had had professors which encouraged a political viewpoint, I would have ignored them for I am not an idealist, I am a person with high ideals but a pragmatist in trying to reach those ideals. I was liberal Republican (meaning I am somewhat fiscally conservative but with a social conscience) in college and I am the same today, except the GOP left me in the dust as it stampeded to the Right; so I guess that makes me a Democratic-leaning independent.
Extremism on either side, yours on the one or Bernie Sanders, say, on the other are an anathema to me. Both sides allow emotion to rule virtually every move and decision they make rather letting reason and logic lead to real solutions that can actually be implemented. Neither Trump nor Sanders fall into that category, nor do most of the GOP and most of the far-Left in the Democratic Party.
I admit that one of our faults is to categorize everything around us . Just as I do , just as you do . I always find my reasoning returning to Reagan ,at least the part of smaller government-- ALL THE WAY around , Is the only solution ! The minute that federal employees get their fingers into anything - it begins its decline in usefulness and increases tremendously in cost .
The absolute naiveté of mostly younger voters will destroy America . Socialism ,no matter how you classify it , is the decline of government of the people. That is where we are headed . Donald is merely the closest thing away from THAT available to us today .
The word "FIND" is ALL Inclusive ~ And WHY would anyone try Desperately to DEFEND Delusional Donald's Apparent "Collusion with Communists" to "FIND" anything anyway? I watched Numbskull Rudy Guilliani trying DESPERATELY to defend Donald with little success, the ONLY thing we gained out of his interview was how much his physical appearance is beginning to RESEMBLE "Tricky Dick Nixon" with every passing day ~
Being a Republican who fights for the WEALTHY is one thing, but how about being a Patriotic, Loyal American FIRST?
Does everyone truly UNDERSTAND the DANGER in his Reckless Behavior? He's PARTNERING with Communists to Infiltrate the United STATEs of AMERICA ~ Get it Trumpeteers??
Apparently Trump's ALLEGIENCE is elsewhere, NOT the United States ~
Preety Panther , You've got to get serious , THERE IS NO HILLARY SERVER to relocate the Emails from , There are E mails of Queen Hillary's , there are no 33,000 to even recover , They were deleted .
Are you losing it or what !
These questions are wishful thinking. They are both coated in teflon. Neither will be out of the race until the last hanging chad has been counted.
Trump crossed the line by miles years ago. He's now crapping on the "line " and scrubbing the line underfoot.
So, the message I'm getting from Trump defenders is that he can say anything, as long as it is "sarcasm" or "a joke" or he "doesn't really mean it"?
If that is not accurate, please set me straight?
Everyone should HAVE to check out the Clinton foundation "pay for play " influence peddling .
he entire left could use a lesson in the entire Clinton - Putin relationship ! Google up - Canadian Uranium for traded cash to the Clinton Foundation !
Jun 22 2016
“Her server was easily hacked by foreign governments, perhaps even by her financial backers in Communist China, putting all of America in danger,” Trump explained. “There are the 33,000 emails she deleted. While we may not know what is in those deleted emails, our enemies probably do...
...so they probably now have a blackmail file over someone who wants to be President of the United States. This fact alone disqualifies her from the Presidency. We can’t hand over our government to someone whose deepest, darkest secrets may be in the hands of our enemies."
- Donald Trump
July 05, 2016
"The FBI Director laid out today a detailed case of how Hillary Clinton compromised the safety of the American people by storing highly classified information on a private email server with no security. He confirmed that her email could easily have been hacked by hostile actors, and confirmed that those she emailed with were hacked.
Our adversaries almost certainly have a blackmail file on Hillary Clinton, and this fact alone disqualifies her from service....
...On top of it all, Hillary Clinton’s lawyers wiped the servers clean to delete another 30,000 emails – hiding her corrupt dealings from investigators...
... and that too disqualifies Hillary Clinton from being President."
So yeah, he wasn't joking. He's an idiot, but he knew that his comment would get him the attention he so desperate needs.
The media is constantly holding Trump to a standard that no one else has to endure , while they give the Great Queen Hillary basically a free ride . Long before this election cycle the news media decided somehow that it had to tell the American people HOW to think rather be informative .
I have decided that I will never again buy a newspaper or give a dime to any of their outlets for information. I wish America would truly awaken to the bias of the press and stop promoting it .
by Grace Marguerite Williams2 weeks ago
To Liberals, what do you fear about President-Elect Donald Trump? His sociopolitical stance on immigration & health care? Why do you contend that under Trump's presidency, America will regress to...
by Sychophantastic4 months ago
Donald Trump suggested that Russia should hack into Hillary Clinton's servers to obtain deleted emails. Is a presidential candidate suggesting that a foreign power commit an act of espionage in the United States an act...
by Greensleeves Hubs3 weeks ago
So it's the final day. Let's be clear about the choice;Hillary Clinton is deeply unpopular. She may not be a nice person. There are so many negative reports about her, it is difficult to believe there is 'no smoke...
by Catherine Mostly8 months ago
I am really curious about what other women think; because I've only recently started paying attention to politics since the media is ramping up Trump so much, lately. Before that, I'm sorry... I was not even SORT of...
by Greensleeves Hubs2 months ago
On 16th September Donald Trump finally came out of the closet and admitted the truth - Barack Obama was born in America. After years of insinuating otherwise, he has finally accepted - but without I gather, any kind of...
by Susie Lehto2 hours ago
After THUMPING Clinton in Monday night’s debate, Trump headed to the sunshine state for a YUGE RALLY in Melbourne, Florida. (National poll has Trump 46.7% and Clinton 42.6%: http://www.latimes.com/politics/...
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.