The First Amendment allows you to speak whatever you wish. It does not protect you from the consequences of that speech. The government cannot prevent me from spilling all sorts of internal secrets, but that doesn't mean my employer cannot sue me for breaking my non-disclosure agreement.

Likewise you're legally free to advocate for treasonous action, and say things that "give comfort and aid to our enemies," but that doesn't mean you can't be indicted for it.

I think the weasel words here would be that it's for personal gain, not to cause damage to the country. In his own mind, it would enable his Presidency, which would be good for the country, and therefore not treasonous. But then again, I'm not a lawyer, so I have no idea if that would stand up to any kind of legal muster.

But nothing she sent on that server was classified, right?

I mean, classified at the time, riight?

You say that like she could predict with 100% accuracy everything that could ever be desired to be classified at any time in the future by any other government agency in existence.

Say she's got some schedule of some Iranian government official's visit to the United States, and three years later that government official is implicated in funding of a terrorist group in the United States. The schedule says he was supposed to be at a meeting at a certain time on a certain day, but official records showed he never showed up, and all information available says he was in the right area at the right time to make his connection with the terrorist group. All of a sudden that schedule becomes classified, because we don't want the Iranians to know what we know, so all documents pertaining to this government official and their time in the United States is retroactively classified. Crazy, right?

Um, they already have all her emails, including the ones she deleted. That was part of he big FBI investigation. Remember when Datto handed over the trove of information to the FBI?

Can they remove Trump? I mean, under their own bylaws aren't they kind of stuck with him?

Secondly "Cybercrime"... is no crime at all if no one is harmed and the information that is put in the hands of those that should have had it to begin with.

So you're saying that Russia should have all the emails sent and received by the Secretary of State?

If anyone was ever going to have harm come to them from those emails... it's already happened

Unless there are certain other parties out there that don't have access to those emails, but would gain access to them by the Russians releasing them publicly. Trump has said "the press" would reward them "mightily" for releasing the emails, how else would "the press" reward Putin if it didn't mean they had unfettered access to them so they could parse it themselves?

the guilty party is Hillary for breaking federal law regarding the security of government communications.. not to mention basic common sense security measures.

Which is a poor deflection of the point at hand. If I forget to lock my car and you come in the middle of the night and hotwire it and steal it, are you not still guilty of grand theft auto? Does my negligence absolve you of your criminal activity?

Actually, yes. You cannot be impeached before you are elected.

Now, he can be charged and indicted on allegations of criminal activity, but strictly speaking he cannot be impeached at this point in time.

Should espionage and violation of national security for political gain ever be something joked about by a major party Presidential candidate?

The press will actually investigate and report on a Trump Administration.

An NBC reporter tried to press him for details about his statements during this press conference, and was told to "be quiet" when she tried to catch him dodging the question. The response from Trump supporters? She was "rude," referring to her as part of the "bully media," and that she was "yakking on." He's taken time out to call a reporter "sleaze." When a reporter pressed him on not following through with his promise to donate to vets he responded by calling the reporter "a nasty guy." Or remember Jorge Ramos? Trump told him to "sit down" and ejected him from a press conference.

Trump's supporters eat this up and heap praise upon him for "standing up to the media." As President that wouldn't change, and I'm sure he'd have press credentials revoked on a regular basis.

You do realize that the Secretary of State (the office of which these emails would pertain to) would have lots of things to hide for national security reasons, right? That's kind of a big reason we have a classification system for government documents.

If this were some kind of third party candidate, I might agree. But this is a major party nominee calling for another country to commit cybercrime and violate our national security for his own political gain. That's kind of big news.

What's low about this is that the primary source they cite is Gawker.

So Soviet Earth?

There aren't any 'management controls' to speak of on the modem firmware.

Pretty sure Comcast has a remote management interface so they can turn on and off that Xfinity Wifi access point. Or so you can customize your Wifi access point via an app on your phone.

Your telecom/ISP may not have full access to any hardware you own, but there's still hardware you rent, and publishing the source of the firmware for that is something I doubt they would want.

D-Link already got your money. Unless they're charging for firmware updates, and unless you're going to sue them, they've already won.

What grade of problem is high enough to warrant a fee? It responds to pings and can be DDoS'd? It's SMB client has a vulnerability that lets anyone on the LAN access an attached drive? What about people who don't update their firmware? What about older devices that are no longer supported?

The problem is that almost everything is going to have some sort of a security problem at some point, so where is the line drawn?