CDZ Riddle me this

[OldLady]

I thought the "treason" was in the effort to retrieve emails not belonging to them--that THAT is the "espionage"

Which is a totally ridiculous bunch of malarkey. The Repubs are getting a taste of their own medicine, blowing up the e-mail scandal into such a monstrosity of allegations and suspicions that served them well politically for going on two years. And amounted to basically nothing. She was careless. We all realize she probably deleted e-mails she's damned glad no one got to see. But it amounted to a tempest in a teapot and now the Dems are trying to do it back. Malarkey all the way around.

It certainly does NOT amount to a tempest in a teapot. She got away with crimes. That however is not what this thread is about.

You asked how Trump can be accused of espionage and I replied it's malarkey. Per usual, you dismiss answers you don't agree with, including Comey's.

 

[Divine Wind]

Right, but those have been found, there are still MANY that are completely lost, even to the FBI, I took Trump's comments as being directed towards those. Maybe I'm wrong.

Agreed many are still missing. The only way they could be found is if they are on a computer other than Hillary's computer or server. In other words; the recipients of those emails. How else would Russian intelligence access the computers of Hillary's staffers other than hacking? Do you think they'd just reply to a request from Putin?

 

[2aguy]

IF the only emails Hillary and company deleted off her private server were of a private nature, how would it POSSIBLY be treason or espionage or any related federal crime for Trump to ask the Russians to find them?

Started in the CDZ on purpose because I'm hoping we can stay away from whether Hillary broke any laws or whatever, we've had those discussions. My question here is simple. IF the emails in question were personal, why do SOME liberals believe espionage type laws would apply at all?

Because they need an easy talking point to attack Trump. Nothing he said is wrong.....but it is easy to have their allies in the media push it...then the uninformed will repeat it....and it allows them to attack Trump...that is all....

 

[TheOldSchool]

Still with the e-mails?

 

[Divine Wind]

Still with the e-mails?

Even Democrats have a hard time trusting Hillary. Her dishonesty about the emails is part of the problem. This is one reason why so many support Bernie.

4 brutal poll numbers that greet Hillary Clinton at the Democratic National Convention

 

[Tresha91203]

True, but he didn't ask someone to hack into anyone's email. AT MOST he said "hey if you already have the emails., make them public."

Now, I personally didn't think it was a funny joke, and it cost him my vote. BUT that doesn't' change the fact about liberals who claim that it was treason or espionage are full of shit.

Seems to me like he did:
“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.”

Other than hacking, how else do you think the Russians would find deleted emails?

Hacking them is not possible as the server has been offline a looooong time. Trump wants Russia to "find" them like Hillary "found" subpoenaed documents in her office only after the statute of limitation expired. It is a way of saying, I think you were very bad and have them, but I don't have proof so cannot accuse outright.

AFAIK, it was a personal server with personal accounts in a nongovernmental location dealing with purely personal correspondence so no way it was a security threat.

 

[hjmick]

IF the only emails Hillary and company deleted off her private server were of a private nature, how would it POSSIBLY be treason or espionage or any related federal crime for Trump to ask the Russians to find them?

Started in the CDZ on purpose because I'm hoping we can stay away from whether Hillary broke any laws or whatever, we've had those discussions. My question here is simple. IF the emails in question were personal, why do SOME liberals believe espionage type laws would apply at all?

what makes you use the word "PERSONAL"? because it was a personal account? The issue is whether or not the content of the e-mails included information of a SECRET nature-------it would not matter if they started out as "DEAR DARLING" and ended up "LOVE, HILLIARY"

What? No, Sheesh

Hillary claims that ONLY personal emails were deleted, no work related emails. So, if that is true, then what harm to national security would come from the Russians having those emails?

THAT is the point, the Dems are wanting have their cake "oh no we only deleted personal emails" and eat it too "Trump is calling for the Russians to expose state secrets"

And there you have it, "Hillary claims." And we're just supposed to believe her? Take her word for it? Because she is just so trustworthy...

She could claim anything and I have no doubt you'd believe her... "Oh, those emails? They were personal correspondence between me and the Pope."


I bet you still believe her momma named her after Sir Edmund Hillary...

There is no discussion on this topic here in the "everyone gets a trophy oh GOD please don't hurt my feelings" CDZ, or anywhere else on this board, because no one but Hillary knows what was really in those emails. Any discussion is pointless.

 

[Divine Wind]

Hacking them is not possible as the server has been offline a looooong time. Trump wants Russia to "find" them like Hillary "found" subpoenaed documents in her office only after the statute of limitation expired. It is a way of saying, I think you were very bad and have them, but I don't have proof so cannot accuse outright.

AFAIK, it was a personal server with personal accounts in a nongovernmental location dealing with purely personal correspondence so no way it was a security threat.

Disagreed about hacking, but agreed on the server.

Let me rephrase what I already wrote a few times. Let's say I send you an email saying "Bill Clinton is an adulterous asshole" then I erase the email from my computer and shut down my server. Does that email still exist or not? Could someone hack your computer to see it if you don't destroy it first? What if I sent the email not only to you, but to everyone I know? Are you saying that my deleting the email and server also deletes every copy of the email I sent out?

 

[OldLady]

Still with the e-mails?

Even Democrats have a hard time trusting Hillary. Her dishonesty about the emails is part of the problem. This is one reason why so many support Bernie.

4 brutal poll numbers that greet Hillary Clinton at the Democratic National Convention

Yup. As with her husband, it wasn't so much the blow jobs as it was the lying about it. You'd think she would have learned from that.

 

[Tresha91203]

Hacking them is not possible as the server has been offline a looooong time. Trump wants Russia to "find" them like Hillary "found" subpoenaed documents in her office only after the statute of limitation expired. It is a way of saying, I think you were very bad and have them, but I don't have proof so cannot accuse outright.

AFAIK, it was a personal server with personal accounts in a nongovernmental location dealing with purely personal correspondence so no way it was a security threat.

Disagreed about hacking, but agreed on the server.

Let me rephrase what I already wrote a few times. Let's say I send you an email saying "Bill Clinton is an adulterous asshole" then I erase the email from my computer and shut down my server. Does that email still exist or not? Could someone hack your computer to see it if you don't destroy it first? What if I sent the email not only to you, but to everyone I know? Are you saying that my deleting the email and server also deletes every copy of the email I sent out?

You cannot access Hillary's server now, nor in the recent past. You cannot hack an offline server unless you have possession of it. The FBI already thoroughly investigated, searching high and low through even recipients' emails and have found all they can or all they are willing to find. Any bombshells NEED to come out BEFORE the election to minimize the damage to our country.

Russia, China and North Korea already hack us, as well as corporations and anarchists. We already know this. That's why we don't use private, non-encrypted servers. Even our allies spy on us, just as we do to them. No one needs to be invited

I get what you are saying. Trump is an egotistical blowhard who's foot is constantly in his mouth. That does not change the FACT that this is a crisis brought to you by Hillary. Her selfish and careless attempt to avoid oversight got us here, not Trump's bloviating.

 

[oldsoul]

True, but he didn't ask someone to hack into anyone's email. AT MOST he said "hey if you already have the emails., make them public."

Seems to me like he did:
“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.”

Other than hacking, how else do you think the Russians would find deleted emails?

Huh? How is saying "...I hope you have the 30,000 e-mails..." Asking someone, ANYONE, to go and hack into anything to get them? He was merely saying, IF you already have them (by whatever means), make them public. I don't get your logic, maybe you can explain this for us all...
Asking someone to release information that has already been obtained is in no way asking that someone to commit an act to obtain them. It is asking them to release information they ALREADY have.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

True, but he didn't ask someone to hack into anyone's email. AT MOST he said "hey if you already have the emails., make them public."

Seems to me like he did:
“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.”

Other than hacking, how else do you think the Russians would find deleted emails?

Huh? How is saying "...I hope you have the 30,000 e-mails..." Asking someone, ANYONE, to go and hack into anything to get them? He was merely saying, IF you already have them (by whatever means), make them public. I don't get your logic, maybe you can explain this for us all...
Asking someone to release information that has already been obtained is in no way asking that someone to commit an act to obtain them. It is asking them to release information they ALREADY have.

My logic is obvious, to the literate.

The left wants to claim that the missing emails are NOT classified material while at the same time screaming that Trump is committing treason by suggesting they should be released by Russia.

That makes no sense.

 

[oldsoul]

True, but he didn't ask someone to hack into anyone's email. AT MOST he said "hey if you already have the emails., make them public."

Seems to me like he did:
“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.”

Other than hacking, how else do you think the Russians would find deleted emails?

Huh? How is saying "...I hope you have the 30,000 e-mails..." Asking someone, ANYONE, to go and hack into anything to get them? He was merely saying, IF you already have them (by whatever means), make them public. I don't get your logic, maybe you can explain this for us all...
Asking someone to release information that has already been obtained is in no way asking that someone to commit an act to obtain them. It is asking them to release information they ALREADY have.

My logic is obvious, to the literate.

The left wants to claim that the missing emails are NOT classified material while at the same time screaming that Trump is committing treason by suggesting they should be released by Russia.

That makes no sense.

Agreed, I was posing the questions for Divine. Wind.
Sorry for any confusion...

 

[Votto]

IF the only emails Hillary and company deleted off her private server were of a private nature, how would it POSSIBLY be treason or espionage or any related federal crime for Trump to ask the Russians to find them?

Started in the CDZ on purpose because I'm hoping we can stay away from whether Hillary broke any laws or whatever, we've had those discussions. My question here is simple. IF the emails in question were personal, why do SOME liberals believe espionage type laws would apply at all?

The FBI has them. The question becomes, will an outside source reveal them that is not tied to the hip with Barak Obama?

 

[BuckToothMoron]

IF the only emails Hillary and company deleted off her private server were of a private nature, how would it POSSIBLY be treason or espionage or any related federal crime for Trump to ask the Russians to find them?

Started in the CDZ on purpose because I'm hoping we can stay away from whether Hillary broke any laws or whatever, we've had those discussions. My question here is simple. IF the emails in question were personal, why do SOME liberals believe espionage type laws would apply at all?

Wow, that is so simple and brilliant. I wish I had posted it. Excellent point!

 

[BuckToothMoron]

IF the only emails Hillary and company deleted off her private server were of a private nature, how would it POSSIBLY be treason or espionage or any related federal crime for Trump to ask the Russians to find them?

Started in the CDZ on purpose because I'm hoping we can stay away from whether Hillary broke any laws or whatever, we've had those discussions. My question here is simple. IF the emails in question were personal, why do SOME liberals believe espionage type laws would apply at all?

what makes you use the word "PERSONAL"? because it was a personal account? The issue is whether or not the content of the e-mails included information of a SECRET nature-------it would not matter if they started out as "DEAR DARLING" and ended up "LOVE, HILLIARY"

His point is that Hellary claims she only deleted emails of a personal nature, while those on the left claim DT's statement about Russia having the missing emails and exposing them is treason or siding with a foreign government. It's a catch 22 for the left. If the emails were all personal then Russia exposing them at Trump's request does not go against US interest. It only goes against US interest if Hellary is lying and those emails contained secretive info of the US.

 

[Divine Wind]

Huh? How is saying "...I hope you have the 30,000 e-mails..." Asking someone, ANYONE, to go and hack into anything to get them? He was merely saying, IF you already have them (by whatever means), make them public. I don't get your logic, maybe you can explain this for us all...
Asking someone to release information that has already been obtained is in no way asking that someone to commit an act to obtain them. It is asking them to release information they ALREADY have.

First, that's not what he said. He said "I hope you are able to find...". Quite a bit different than "I hope you have..."

“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.”​

Second, why is any American politician asking the fucking Russians for help in attacking any fellow American? I don't give a shit if they are L or R, D or R, any American who asks a hostile foreign power for help in taking down anyone inside our borders is acting against the best interests of our nation. Certainly not acting very Presidential.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

IF the only emails Hillary and company deleted off her private server were of a private nature, how would it POSSIBLY be treason or espionage or any related federal crime for Trump to ask the Russians to find them?

Started in the CDZ on purpose because I'm hoping we can stay away from whether Hillary broke any laws or whatever, we've had those discussions. My question here is simple. IF the emails in question were personal, why do SOME liberals believe espionage type laws would apply at all?

The FBI has them. The question becomes, will an outside source reveal them that is not tied to the hip with Barak Obama?

No, the FBI does NOT have all of them, there are still several tens of thousands that event he FBI couldn't find.
For instance, assume she sent emails TO Iran (unlikely, but go with the scenario) and deleted them off her server. At this point the only way the FBI could retrieve them is if they had access to the server and or devices in Iran which received them. Highly unlikely.

 

[oldsoul]

Huh? How is saying "...I hope you have the 30,000 e-mails..." Asking someone, ANYONE, to go and hack into anything to get them? He was merely saying, IF you already have them (by whatever means), make them public. I don't get your logic, maybe you can explain this for us all...
Asking someone to release information that has already been obtained is in no way asking that someone to commit an act to obtain them. It is asking them to release information they ALREADY have.

First, that's not what he said. He said "I hope you are able to find...". Quite a bit different than "I hope you have..."

“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.”​

Second, why is any American politician asking the fucking Russians for help in attacking any fellow American? I don't give a shit if they are L or R, D or R, any American who asks a hostile foreign power for help in taking down anyone inside our borders is acting against the best interests of our nation. Certainly not acting very Presidential.

First, that's not what he said. He said "I hope you are able to find...". Quite a bit different than "I hope you have..."

“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.”

Oh, right, my apologies. Still, how does "I hope you find" equate to asking them to find? He was simply expressing a hope, not asking for action. A subtle, but important distinction.

Second, why is any American politician asking the fucking Russians for help in attacking any fellow American? I don't give a shit if they are L or R, D or R, any American who asks a hostile foreign power for help in taking down anyone inside our borders is acting against the best interests of our nation. Certainly not acting very Presidential.

I agree that it is not very presidential, however, I do not see how it is illegal, much less treasonous. Maybe you can cite the law(s) he violated....

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Huh? How is saying "...I hope you have the 30,000 e-mails..." Asking someone, ANYONE, to go and hack into anything to get them? He was merely saying, IF you already have them (by whatever means), make them public. I don't get your logic, maybe you can explain this for us all...
Asking someone to release information that has already been obtained is in no way asking that someone to commit an act to obtain them. It is asking them to release information they ALREADY have.

First, that's not what he said. He said "I hope you are able to find...". Quite a bit different than "I hope you have..."

“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.”​

Second, why is any American politician asking the fucking Russians for help in attacking any fellow American? I don't give a shit if they are L or R, D or R, any American who asks a hostile foreign power for help in taking down anyone inside our borders is acting against the best interests of our nation. Certainly not acting very Presidential.

First, that's not what he said. He said "I hope you are able to find...". Quite a bit different than "I hope you have..."

“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.”

Oh, right, my apologies. Still, how does "I hope you find" equate to asking them to find? He was simply expressing a hope, not asking for action. A subtle, but important distinction.

Second, why is any American politician asking the fucking Russians for help in attacking any fellow American? I don't give a shit if they are L or R, D or R, any American who asks a hostile foreign power for help in taking down anyone inside our borders is acting against the best interests of our nation. Certainly not acting very Presidential.

I agree that it is not very presidential, however, I do not see how it is illegal, much less treasonous. Maybe you can cite the law(s) he violated....

Yep, completely un Presidential. I'm sick of his mouth and won't vote for him, but there was no crime here.