4 ms·
> and even invited Russia to hack the emails of his political opponent For the 1000th time. He didn't (and it's amazing how often this gets repeated) 'invite'
by gist 10y ago
> and even invited Russia to hack the emails of his political opponent
For the 1000th time. He didn't (and it's amazing how often this gets repeated) 'invite' them. He said they should release the documents if they already had them.
Note the story line and then the exact quote here:
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/trump-putin-no-relationship-226282 http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/trump-putin-no-relatio...
"I hope you are able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing".
Is not "hack Hillary Clinton". It's "if you've hacked Hillary Clinton release the emails". Key difference.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- nl 10y agoI think a reasonable person could interprete that quote both ways. I'd note that the politico headline you linked says "Trump urges Russia to hack Clinton's email", and it is only a campaign spokesperson who said the opposite.
- ch4s3 10y ago>For the 1000th time. He didn't (and it's amazing how often this gets repeated) 'invite' them. He said they should release the documents if they already had them. The direct quote is as follows: “I will tell you this, Russia: If you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” It's hardly a stretch to read this as an invitation, despite the later claims of his handlers.
- gist 10y ago> It's hardly a stretch to read this as an invitation It's an interesting Rorschach test. What would be fascinating is to do an experiment where someone didn't have an emotional attachment to the issue and see how this is interpreted by different parties. For that matter do the same with this issue merely see what people who fell on either side (or in the middle) thought.