Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Taro who wrote (951073)	7/28/2016 11:07:52 AM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1577123

but can't you get into your limited brain, that here there is no stuff on US soil to rifle through? "We have Hillary's word for that! " Uh, no. There's lots of stuff to hack. That's why people are talking about DNC emails. Hillary's server was only one of them. You need to get it thru your mind that Trump called on Russia to hack the emails. The fact that they can no longer hack her server doesn't change the fact that he pleaded with them to do it. Donald Trump's Russia hack plea a new low — and maybe a crime

To: Taro who wrote (951073)	7/28/2016 11:14:34 AM
From: combjelly	1 Recommendation Recommended By zax Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1577123

It doesn't matter. You are assuming Trump knew what he was talking about, and there is no evidence that is true. In fact, given his ignorance on a wide variety of subjects, it is a fools bet to assume he did. But all of that is irrelevant. Krauthammer is trying to argue that it would only be a national security issue if those email, deleted or not, contained classified information. And that isn't true. It doesn't matter if they contained classified information or cookie recipes. Having foreign intelligence agencies rifle through stuff on US soil has national security issues regardless of what that stuff is. Now I realize that because of your advanced age, your cognitive abilities are probably impaired. So you probably didn't realize that you are arguing something very different than what my post addressed. Because you wouldn't be deliberately trying to obfuscate the issue? Now would you? Because that would be dishonest.