Could there be a Federal Inverstiagion into Trump Espionage?

[HoverBoarder]

Trump asks a foreign Country to carry out espionage against our country for his own gain, and they did.

Comparatively, this is FAR worse than the Watergate scandal. The Feds have begun an investigation into the recent hacking, but so far have not indicated whether Trump would be part of that investigation.

Essentially, all Trump did was invite a foreign country to carry out foreign espionage against the US after he had seen that they had recently carried it out before in a way that benefited him.

It was a targeted foreign espionage strike in exactly the way that Trump had called for them to do. However, beyond the public request, there was likely no exchange of money for the hit. It was more like making a free deal with the mob where they may call upon him at a later time for a 'favor.'

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/29/world/europe/russia-trump-clinton-email-hacking.html?_r=0


You have Hillary not being as careful as she could have been with classified information, while Trump has actively encouraged and tasked a foreign government with performing foreign espionage and stealing US secrets and potential classified information.

I don't think there is much that a Federal investigation would be able to do to Trump at this stage, or if it would be possible for him to face legal repercussions for his actions.

 

[The Man]

If I recall correctly the server in question is already, well, out of service. I don't think he was asking to hack other servers looking for remnants of traffic but instead asking for the release of data that would have already been hacked. Basically getting them to admit to that hacking or just getting the dirt from it. While the former is interesting, getting a government to admit to the hacking, it isn't probable (data could be released by other means thus no admission).The latter is more probable but also more problematic, just getting the dirt to use. Even more problematic that he made the request. Just having the dirt come out (if any), well that's happenstance (or helping stance from Putin) but actually asking for it. Which he'd really be asking for it if the 'shoot someone on the street' claim wasn't such an accurate description of devotees.

Naturally we have to use data and get data from foreign intelligence sources, even perhaps on internal issues but you generally don't broadcast your hand. Namely the weakness of it by advertising the need or desire for the data. If this gets people and the media looking closer at both Trump's and Putin's hands, then it works as well as it can for me.

 

[theprestige]

Trump asks a foreign Country to carry out espionage against our country for his own gain, and they did.

Comparatively, this is FAR worse than the Watergate scandal. The Feds have begun an investigation into the recent hacking, but so far have not indicated whether Trump would be part of that investigation.

Essentially, all Trump did was invite a foreign country to carry out foreign espionage against the US after he had seen that they had recently carried it out before in a way that benefited him.

It was a targeted foreign espionage strike in exactly the way that Trump had called for them to do. However, beyond the public request, there was likely no exchange of money for the hit. It was more like making a free deal with the mob where they may call upon him at a later time for a 'favor.'

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/29/world/europe/russia-trump-clinton-email-hacking.html?_r=0


You have Hillary not being as careful as she could have been with classified information, while Trump has actively encouraged and tasked a foreign government with performing foreign espionage and stealing US secrets and potential classified information.

I don't think there is much that a Federal investigation would be able to do to Trump at this stage, or if it would be possible for him to face legal repercussions for his actions.

Back up a moment. Are you saying Hillary exposed classified information to Russian hackers, and they actually hacked her and got the information?

Because that's the only way this "espionage" narrative even starts to make sense.

 

[BobTheCoward]

You can make any random invitation you want.

I hope Estonia gains control of NORAD.

Not treason or espionage.

 

[HoverBoarder]

You can make any random invitation you want.

I hope Estonia gains control of NORAD.

Not treason or espionage.

Sure, and that is probably what the Fed would conclude.

However, there is no way Estonia would gain control of Norad. Russia did hack the DNC, Trump invited them to do it again, and they did.

There is certainly a difference in the likelihood, capability, and repercussions.


There is also a question of what Russia gets in exchange for this very public espionage deal.

 

[HoverBoarder]

Back up a moment. Are you saying Hillary exposed classified information to Russian hackers, and they actually hacked her and got the information?

Because that's the only way this "espionage" narrative even starts to make sense.

Hillary made classified information more vulnerable for a short while before fixing the mistake.

Trump called for a foreign government to hack in and steal government information.

He was definitely interested in a specific part of what they would get from the hacking hit. Kind of like hiring a crew to break into a specific home, where you would get to keep the Monet painting, and they would get to keep everything else.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Sure, and that is probably what the Fed would conclude.

However, there is no way Estonia would gain control of Norad. Russia did hack the DNC, Trump invited them to do it again, and they did.

There is certainly a difference in the likelihood, capability, and repercussions.


There is also a question of what Russia gets in exchange for this very public espionage deal.

I hope Russia hacks centcom.

Better?

 

[theprestige]

Hillary made classified information more vulnerable for a short while before fixing the mistake.

This is what Shilliaries actually believe. This is what Shilliaries actually excuse.

Trump called for a foreign government to hack in and steal government information.

Hack into what, exactly? Steal what, exactly?

He was definitely interested in a specific part of what they would get from the hacking hit. Kind of like hiring a crew to break into a specific home,

Except without the hiring part,

where you would get to keep the Monet painting, and they would get to keep everything else.

and information doesn't work that way.

So basically nothing like that. Instead of trying to foist a flawed analogy, why not discuss the thing in its own terms?

 

[Mumbles]

I doubt it. Trump's clearly untrustworthy among many other odious traits, but it's not, to my knowledge, a direct crime to say what he did.

 

[fuelair]

Trump asks a foreign Country to carry out espionage against our country for his own gain, and they did.

Comparatively, this is FAR worse than the Watergate scandal. The Feds have begun an investigation into the recent hacking, but so far have not indicated whether Trump would be part of that investigation.

Essentially, all Trump did was invite a foreign country to carry out foreign espionage against the US after he had seen that they had recently carried it out before in a way that benefited him.

It was a targeted foreign espionage strike in exactly the way that Trump had called for them to do. However, beyond the public request, there was likely no exchange of money for the hit. It was more like making a free deal with the mob where they may call upon him at a later time for a 'favor.'

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/29/world/europe/russia-trump-clinton-email-hacking.html?_r=0


You have Hillary not being as careful as she could have been with classified information, while Trump has actively encouraged and tasked a foreign government with performing foreign espionage and stealing US secrets and potential classified information.

I don't think there is much that a Federal investigation would be able to do to Trump at this stage, or if it would be possible for him to face legal repercussions for his actions.

You might want to ask the mods to fix the title of the thread: investigation.

 

[Bogative]

When asked to respond to Trump openly encouraging Russia to hack her server, Mrs. Clinton replied, "hack? You mean, like, with a hatchet or machete?"

 

[Foolmewunz]

Back up a moment. Are you saying Hillary exposed classified information to Russian hackers, and they actually hacked her and got the information?

Because that's the only way this "espionage" narrative even starts to make sense.

Oh, c'mon.... you guys are experts in Schrodinger's evidence. Recall the year of "oh, but what if one of those emails contained something and what if the Rooskis or Red Chinese got a hold of it.... she's guilty, guilty, guilty..."

Does all your creative accusation ability go away because it's a GOP figure? How about....

"Well, ya know. If those 33K emails exist, and the FBI has said that they did find them all, haven't they, then they are in the system of the United States Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation. Inviting your buddies to hack the DoJ? That sounds like something certain, er, non-partisan posters here would love to get their hands on, had Hillary Clinton done it."

There ya go. You work on it. Just pretend a Democrat said that. It'll all fall into place.

 

[theprestige]

Oh, c'mon.... you guys are experts in Schrodinger's evidence. Recall the year of "oh, but what if one of those emails contained something and what if the Rooskis or Red Chinese got a hold of it.... she's guilty, guilty, guilty..."

Does all your creative accusation ability go away because it's a GOP figure? How about....

"Well, ya know. If those 33K emails exist, and the FBI has said that they did find them all, haven't they, then they are in the system of the United States Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation. Inviting your buddies to hack the DoJ? That sounds like something certain, er, non-partisan posters here would love to get their hands on, had Hillary Clinton done it."

There ya go. You work on it. Just pretend a Democrat said that. It'll all fall into place.

I don't think the narrative has merit. But I do think in order for it to even make enough sense to test its merit, we need to agree that there was something substantial there to hack in the first place--and that it was actually hacked at the time.

I've always agreed to the first point. I've always thought the second was likely, but unproven.

I think that Trump is essentially trolling the Shillaries who assure us to this day that her email server was not an unacceptable security risk. Even now you're still trying to be agnostic about it, even as you try to insinuate charges of "espionage" against Trump for cracking a joke about our former Secretary of State's inexcusable behavior in security matters.

Hillary Clinton took steps to ensure that the communications of America's chief diplomat would be no more secure than the communications of DNC. If that's a problem for you, then we can talk about whether Trump cracking a joke about it at her expense is also a problem. If that's not a problem for you, then Trump's joking about it is a non-issue.

 

[Foolmewunz]

I don't think the narrative has merit. But I do think in order for it to even make enough sense to test its merit, we need to agree that there was something substantial there to hack in the first place--and that it was actually hacked at the time.

I've always agreed to the first point. I've always thought the second was likely, but unproven.

I think that Trump is essentially trolling the Shillaries who assure us to this day that her email server was not an unacceptable security risk. Even now you're still trying to be agnostic about it, even as you try to insinuate charges of "espionage" against Trump for cracking a joke about our former Secretary of State's inexcusable behavior in security matters.

Hillary Clinton took steps to ensure that the communications of America's chief diplomat would be no more secure than the communications of DNC. If that's a problem for you, then we can talk about whether Trump cracking a joke about it at her expense is also a problem. If that's not a problem for you, then Trump's joking about it is a non-issue.

I'm not in the least agnostic on the topic. I think both sets of charges and speculation are ridiculous. I'm pointing out, hopefully to one or two knee-jerk conservatives, that if this pantsuit was on the other foot, they'd be jumping up and down on their seats chanting "lock her up... lock her up..... lock her up".

 

[The Man]

I don't think the narrative has merit. But I do think in order for it to even make enough sense to test its merit, we need to agree that there was something substantial there to hack in the first place--and that it was actually hacked at the time.

I've always agreed to the first point. I've always thought the second was likely, but unproven.

I think that Trump is essentially trolling the Shillaries who assure us to this day that her email server was not an unacceptable security risk. Even now you're still trying to be agnostic about it, even as you try to insinuate charges of "espionage" against Trump for cracking a joke about our former Secretary of State's inexcusable behavior in security matters.

Hillary Clinton took steps to ensure that the communications of America's chief diplomat would be no more secure than the communications of DNC. If that's a problem for you, then we can talk about whether Trump cracking a joke about it at her expense is also a problem. If that's not a problem for you, then Trump's joking about it is a non-issue.

And the joke or trolling, what is required for those narratives to have merit? That nothing actually happened so it was just a humorous exaggeration? That if something was released Trump wouldn't use it?

Personally, I don't think Trump was asking for the release of classified information but just any personal or damaging information he could use. Again as the hacking would have already had to have been done it would just be the release of data someone already has. Also for the joke or trolling there are other ways to get the point out there without actually requesting the data. For example "I sure hope those 30,000 (or whatever) missing E-mails weren't hacked and now released!". Perhaps a pledge that if the results of such hacking were released he and his campaign wouldn't use them (but of course others and the media would).

 

[HoverBoarder]

You might want to ask the mods to fix the title of the thread: investigation.

Sure

 

[alfaniner]

"No one expects the Federal Inverstiagion!"

 

[HoverBoarder]

I doubt it. Trump's clearly untrustworthy among many other odious traits, but it's not, to my knowledge, a direct crime to say what he did.

I think that's definitely right. Legal charges against Trump are extremely unlikely. The primary reason is that there has been no directly mentioned exchange of money or specific favors for instigating the Trump specified espionage hit carried out by what analysts can reasonably conclude is a foreign cyber military intelligence team. At least talking to the person who instigated the foreign espionage hit of a very specific target would be a reasonable step for Federal investigators though.

Russia is not going to put themselves on the line to carry out an attack against a foreign country at the request of a foreign National unless there is something in it for them. A reckless presidential candidate with a pattern of burning others for his own gain would certainly have a lot to offer to the Russians.

In this case, money would not have been enough of a motivator for Russia to carry out the attack against Trump's rivals in the US. They would only have done something of this nature for a larger reward. The analogy of owing the mob a 'favor' for an illegal service is fairly apt in this case.

Trump publically called for a specific foreign military intelligence team to carry out a specific espionage cyber attack on his rival, and they did exactly that. That really skirts the line of what's legal and not, and is comparatively FAR worse than Watergate.

If this were a different situation, and Trump was say a Shiite who specified a specific US target to be hit by a cyber attack by Iran, and espionage attackers from Iran carried out an attack on that specific target, it would be far more likely that the Feds would at least be talking to him.

At the very least it should add bring up serious questions about Trump's ability, judgement, and competency to lead a Country.

I hope Russia hacks centcom.

Better?

Russia is not going to care, or know that you made the request. An out of control presidential candidate briefed on National Security secrets provides the motive for them to carry it out.

 

[Myron Proudfoot]

of course not, he's a republican. Only Democrats get investigated.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

of course not, he's a republican. Only Democrats get investigated.

He's a Republican (or even, republican)?