Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re:The basest, vilest (Score 2) 966

Maybe you should read that article you linked. It doesn't say what you think it does.

"shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.

"the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton."

Comment Re:The basest, vilest (Score 1) 966

Those emails were sent to other servers. Most of which are still up. And many of which are government email servers.

Russia may or may not have copies of all of them. Trump didn't ask them to go through their records. He's asking Russia to go find them today. Not a year ago.

No other conclusion to make, based on his words, that he's asking them to hack other mail servers. And that's a basic form of cyber war.

What he said was, "Hey Russia, I hope you can find ...." Where in there is he urging them to hack? Your "no other conclusion to make" is all in your head. Aside from that, if you believe Hillary they were all personal email. So by policy, none of them should have ended up on government servers. Right?

Comment Re:The basest, vilest (Score 1) 966

You are probably be aware that any hacking of HRC's personal State Dept. server would have had to be done before the deleted emails were deleted and the server taken offline. So at worst (making the probably incorrect assumption that Trump was serious), he was "asking" them to search through the data they had already snagged.

Comment Re:Joke ? (Score 1) 966

Eh, people make jokes. Shrub had his little lexidudlies that he'd throw out. One time someone caused the Soviet Far East to go on alert for half an hour..."My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes."

It's all great fun.

That wasn't Bush; it was Reagan.

Comment Re:The basest, vilest (Score 4, Insightful) 966

Yup. Let us find a candidate running for president who has most likely committed treason. Trump is the obvious answer. Right?

Welcome to Bizarro World, where the person who makes a joke about Russia hacking emails is a traitor, and a person who takes a bribe to supply uranium to Russia is a hero.

Comment Re:The basest, vilest (Score 4, Insightful) 966

Sounds like a form of Treason if true. Inviting a foreign nation tho cyber-attack America and/or Americans... can;t believe people actually are willing to vote for this piece of garbage

US Constitution, Article III, Section 3: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

If you thing saying, "Russia, I hope you find the missing emails" is to treason, you probably think saying, "I hope this person dies" is murder.

Comment Re:thats (Score 1) 206

Meanwhile, Trump has had four bankruptcies and is the subject of multiple class action suits over the scam that was Trump University.

Multiple is a bit of an understatement 3500 would be more accurate

Wasn't Bill Clinton raked over the coals by the Reps. for having just one!

Of the 3500 lawsuits mentioned in the USA today article, Trump was the plaintiff in 1900 and the defendant in 1450. I say 'was' because the number of current open civil suits is 50.

Comment Re:So, why? (Score 5, Insightful) 190

Why doesn't someone sue the government over this? They are circumventing Constitutional rights with this type of behavior but until it gets before the SCOTUS nothing will change.

Probably because the people whose rights are being violated, don't have any specific knowledge that their rights have been violated. The people who know other peoples' rights are being violated (Microsoft in this example) aren't having their own rights violated. Thus, nobody has standing to sue.

Slashdot Top Deals

Help fight continental drift.