I find statements like this to be immediately discrediting of journalistic integrity. The intent was not to enter into an illicit agreement with a third party. Reacting in this ridiculous fashion only aids in his popularity. I think Democrat (obviously false) hyperbole is in danger of giving us a second term
The president was encouraging a foreign adversary to illegally hack into messages by a former secretary of state that might contain sensitive information, then release them publicly."
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/07/russia-...
Did he or did he not say that?
It is not a fact that "[He] was encouraging a foreign adversary to illegal hack into messages by a former Secretary of State...." That is an interpretation of the fact. Likely he is aware that Russia and other adversaries have already attempted such hacks.
One can disagree with him making such a statement without offering interpretations that are more complex than the obvious: a jab at Clinton. And one can offer more complex interpretations without resorting to obvious hyperbole.
The media "on both sides" is filled with hyperbole and rhetoric, and I am saddened that it is controversial to point this out, just because the underlying event is controversial.
The GP's point seems to be that we should attack things on merits rather than resorting to hyperbole and mischaracterization. In any other context, I think most of HN would agree with this idea, but whenever politics are mentioned, HN posters and voters seem to become a microcosm of American politics at large: anything is justified because the other side is wrong.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jul/13/russians-hil...
It's a fact that Trump made the request to the russians, and it's a fact that the russians interpreted the request as a request.
First, the allegations against the Russians and Trump can be 100% true without this particular item being a request made and fulfilled. Second, what the article claims as hard fact is not strictly supported by the indictment, which uses the legalese "on or about", which means prosecutors are sure it happened, but not exactly the timing. Third, per the indictment this was a part of an ongoing Russian campaign, so it is hard to imagine the Russians named were "encouraged" to engage in behavior they were already engaged in. Fourth, as the article notes, no link between the statement and the activity is alleged in the indictment.
Finally, this would be very foolish of Trump. That's not to say he can't be foolish, but it does suggest that we should think twice about such an interpretation; especially since the Russians win here regardless of the outcome. Either they get what they want or they create even more division in American politics and make the president weak. (And, for the record, this 'request' suggestion is some of the less hyperbolic stuff I've seen.)
I already think there's fire because I'm looking at fire. I just don't see the value in peddling weak interpretations (or, in many cases, egregious hyperbole) as fact.
This part confuses me. Is it not possible to encourage someone to do something if they're already in the process of doing so?
I think the only part of this puzzle that's in contention is if the public statement directly led to the hack of the emails taking place, as in a cause and effect thing:
1. Hack the servers.
2. Okay, the servers are now hacked.
But what the encouragement statement might have done instead is:
1. The servers are being hacked.
2. "... I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing ..." (encouragement/invitation).
3. The servers are now hacked.
So the statement that you had an issue with isn't wrong, technically or in spirit.
And this part:
> Finally, this would be very foolish of Trump. That's not to say he can't be foolish, but it does suggest that we should think twice about such an interpretation
is more frustrating than anything else. Based on part actions and statements, I disagree with being charitable and trying to find good interpretations. I would only agree on being charitable if he had been reading off of the teleprompter or a written statement, because that's when Trump actually appears composed.
> For example, on or about July 27, 2016, the Conspirators attempted after hours to spearphish for the first time email accounts at a domain hosted by a third-party provider and used by Clinton’s personal office. At or around the same time, they also targeted seventy-six email addresses at the domain for the Clinton Campaign.
Emphasis added.
I see your point that "on or about" is vague, but it seems like they just appended it to every date for legalese reasons. They would have the timestamps for most of the dates in the document, it's not like they're not sure when the phishing emails were sent. Plus, they're sure about the time, but not the date? How does that make sense?
Regarding the connection not being spelled out in the document, it's not legally relevant so they didn't think to include it. Just because a tangentially related legal document doesn't find it relevant doesn't mean the request being made and accepted is impossible. What's more likely, that Donald Trump made the request, and then the Russians stayed late at the office completely coincidentally to do exactly what was in the request, or that the Russians saw the tweet and stayed late at the office to fulfill the request?
I think most reasonable people would agree that the request was being made, but personal interpretation is moot here because the involved parties agreed that it was a request and fulfilled it.
The exact point is that this is not a fact. This is the conclusion you are reaching based solely on a coincidence of time and excluding other factors, including the months long campaign already operating by the Russians.
> What's more likely, that Donald Trump made the request, and then the Russians stayed late at the office completely coincidentally to do exactly what was in the request, or that the Russians saw the tweet and stayed late at the office to fulfill the request?
It's just as likely the Russians thought it would be worthwhile, funny, disruptive, or otherwise desirable to include these targets because he said this, but that it was neither a request nor a fulfillment of that request. The timing of the event can be significant without it being a literal request.
> Emphasis added.
Yes, this is the first time they attacked those particular accounts, yet it is a long list of attacks made by this group. This isn't really saying anything at all except repeating that you consider the timing of it to be significant.
This the most famous historical example of the concept that weasel words don't absolve you of responsibility. If everyone knows what you mean then you said it directly.
James Comey later referenced the quote "will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest" when Trump told him "I hope you can see your way to letting Flynn go."
The beginning and end of support for Trump is that we he says, goes, period, and anything that criticizes him is being unscrupulous in some way. There is no way to legitimately criticize Trump in the eyes of his supporters. It is a cult.
What is left is the wast majority in the middle and both left and right depend on their support to win elections. Those voters are usually receptive when politicians are criticized and may swing. The 2016 election had both side accusing the other of committing crimes worthy of jail time, which is when criticism in politics took a very dark turn. When you ask the public to conduct criminal trials through public debate and voting it should come as no surprise that criticism based on merits will fall on deaf ears at both camps, and anyone suggesting any validity in the criticism are labeled a traitor to the cause.
His guilt over Russia involvement can be inferred by his constant obsession and attempts to discredit typical law enforcement investigation practices. It is a big deal to have a sitting president acting similar to how a guilty defendant would with (1) a video inviting computer hacking, (2) documented lies or rewrites of "official" statements about a Trump tower meeting of senior Trump campaign officials with the representatives of the invitees, (3) an announcement of an upcoming press briefing about contents (emails) of the hacking target made at the time of the meeting, (4) news reports of surveilled increase in hacker activities at the time of the hacking invite.
All of the above are not credit-giving or childish. At the same time, an alternative of explaining government policies and trade numbers would likely not get through the electorate, and in my opinion unlikely to change hardened or media-saturated minds.