Hearing something from a foreigner is inactive. You were just told something. Actually SOLICITING that information from a foreign source is proactive. You have to be TRYING much harder to get it and it is actual WORK PRODUCTION that you are paying for.
Either one can still be legitimate, if the information was legitimately obtained, but the notion that a passive listening is less virtuous than active HIRING of foreign governments is preposterous.
Why did the Clinton campaign try to HIDE their hiring of foreigners by calling it “Legal services”? Because they thought it was legitimate???
Here’s the quote. What he said was illegal. And in case you are unaware, deleted files can be recovered.
“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”
You forgetting that the Clinton campaign was freely given information from Ukraine and they used it? How is that any different?
And, by the way, there is NOTHING against the law for Putin to give Trump a watch. As a private citizen he can do what he wants with it - even during an election. As president he has to turn it over to the government. But in either case it is perfectly legal to accept.
The Clinton campaign took dirt from Ukraine that was offered to them for free and they used it. Why didn’t the FEC get all over them for it?
Donald Trump was NOT asked if he would accept what he knew to be illegitimately-obtained information. He was asked if he would accept information from a foreign government.
He said he would and there is NOTHING wrong with doing so. Just ask the Clinton campaign, which did exactly that.
He said that he might also call the FBI and that was if he saw it was wrong - as in, if he found out it was illegitimately obtained.
AT NO TIME was Trump offered hacked emails and AT NO TIME did he try to get hacked emails. To conflate getting legitimate information from ANY source with trying to obtain illegitimate information is where the left goes off the rails, in this case.
Timing, schmiming. The Russians were doing things all Summer. This one hack just happened to be right after his statement, so you’re trying to claim that THEY would not have acted in this particular case unless he gave them some kind of green light, as if he had power over them.
Why would the Trump campaign call the FBI to say, “The Russians just lied to us to get a meeting!!”
And by the way, there is NOTHING wrong with the Russian state prosecutor giving the Trump campaign or any other campaign legitimate information, so there would be no reason to contact the FBI UNLESS, after getting the information, Trump had information that the FBI would want to know about the Clintons breaking laws in Russia.
That the FBI would like to know and need to know, so they could corroborate it and possibly investigate the Clintons.
AT NO TIME is it either illegal or unethical for Trump or anyone else to receive legitimately-obtained dirt on their opponents from ANY source. Just ask the Clinton campaign, which got dirt on Paul Manafort from the Ukrainian Department of Justice and USED IT.
It is called “Opposition Research” and has ALWAYS been legal.
Not at all. Trump requested Russian help on s specific matter and they got to work on it later that day.
Evidence of a causal relationship, based on precedence. This is something that idiots who study logic believe in
I noticed you’ve changed your tune. In your previous comment on how idiotic I am being you suggested the Russians weren’t involved at all. In this post about how idiotic I am you are saying the Russians were doing things all summer. Might I suggest, form my position as the idiotic one, that changing one’s story from post to post does not enhance credibility.
Also, while rhyming is impressive, it helps if you use actual words. Instead of “timing, schmiming” might this idiot suggest:
“Timing, sliming
Russian support for Trump was climbing
While Trump’s supporters dumbshow were miming
Turning the back on all of Trumps crime thing”
What he said was NOT illegal. He didn’t say, “HACK Hillary Clinton’s server!”
He asked them to PRODUCE them for both the American public, who OWNED them, and for the FBI, who was investigating Clinton and those deleted emails, but that was contingent on if indeed they had ALREADY hacked them, before she had deleted them, as the server was in the possession of the FBI and COULD NOT be hacked, at that point.
So NO, he could not be telling them to hack a server in the possession of the FBI.
He didn’t say, “Hack Hillary Clinton!” He never ONCE told them to do something illegal.
He CANNOT tell them to hack a server that is in the possession of the FBI and is already EMPTY by deletion.
He only asked them to produce the SPECIFIC 30,000 emails that she deleted against the law, from her private server when she was SecDef under Obama, and only IF THEY HAD THEM already, as that would be the only way they could have produced them.
You’re trying desperately to make this something that IS NOT POSSIBLE.
Whatever else the Russians wanted to do they were ALREADY doing all Summer.
They should have called the FBI to say, “We’ve been contacted by someone offering dirt from a foreign government about another candidate.”
I’ve never seen so many otherwise smart people so comfortable with encouraging foreign interference in our elections. It’s like 2016 never happened and if it did it didn’t effect voting machines so no harm, no foul.
Speaking as an idiot, I find misquoting people does not help one’s credibility. I did not say Trump said “Hck Hillary Clinton”
Speaking as an idiot, making points that are easy to disprove does not help credibility. The server was not in FBI possession.
Speaking as an idiot, capitalization does not make an argument more credible. Trump asked the Russians to produce materials and they did so. Thus what I am describing is possible and the proof is that it did happen.
I think I’ll include all this when I publish “The Idiot’s Guide to Winning Arguments.”
