5 ms·

>Donald Trump publicly invited Russia to hack Hillary Clinton’s email server I find statements like this to be immediately discrediting of journalistic integri

>Donald Trump publicly invited Russia to hack Hillary Clinton’s email server 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

swarnie_ 8y ago
Its The Guardian, they are about as far removed from Trump and his base as its possible to be. Not that i approve of what their doing here, just explaining the motivation.
- kryogen1c 8y ago
  That's kinda my point. They're discrediting Trump in the most credit-giving way possible and minimizing their following while maximizing his. there are so many legitimate issues to try and take a win on, but they do childish things like this instead. Definitely heading towards a republican in 2020 at this rate.
  - siosonel 8y ago
    To me, it's definitely not the "most credit-giving way" or the "most childish thing". The Russia angle is a really big deal, it goes to the core of the legitimacy of Trump's presidency. Not only that, it demonstrates the direction his authoritarian tendencies is likely to lead the country into, with his open admiration of strongmen and inexplicable questioning of the historic goodwill within the NATO alliance. 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.
    - liberte82 8y ago
      Why do you think Trump spent so much time attacking Hillary for being "crooked"? It was to muddy the waters so that when Trump's own crooked actions came to light, the average person would just throw up their hands and say "they're all bad".
  - frockington 8y ago
    I don't understand why the DNC took the results from 2016 and decided that alienating even more voters was the way to go. By 2020 they'll have called so many people a racist bigot that their only reliable voting block will be high schoolers
guessthejuice 8y ago
It's why recent polls have foxnews rated more trustworthy than almost every other news organization. We are in such a sorry state of affairs right now.
liberte82 8y ago
We all heard him say it, and it was controversial at the time and has remained so, especially given everything that has happened since. What are you "concerned" with, exactly? If you're a supporter, you should be happy that things are playing out in a way that helps him, if you believe what you're saying.
pjc50 8y ago
>"“I will tell you this: Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” he said. “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.” 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-hacking-trump-mueller/565157/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/07/russia-... Did he or did he not say that?
- cgriswald 8y ago
  It is a fact that he said those words. 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.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - koube 8y ago
    Russia also apparently interpreted the tweet as encouragement to illegally hack into messages by a former Secretary of State, because they were encouraged to attempt to illegally hack into messages by a former Secretary of State: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jul/13/russians-hillary-clinton-email-server-trump-indictment 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.
factshurtfeels 8y ago
Ad hom nonsense. What's discrediting to journalistic integrity about stating the fact that he stated this? His "intent" doesn't matter, that is precisely what he said, verbatim and clear as day on national television: https://youtu.be/3kxG8uJUsWU?t=39s https://youtu.be/3kxG8uJUsWU?t=39s
root_axis 8y ago
Just curious, what do you think a fair articulation of the facts would sound like?

swarnie_ 8y ago

Its The Guardian, they are about as far removed from Trump and his base as its possible to be. Not that i approve of what their doing here, just explaining the motivation.

kryogen1c 8y ago
That's kinda my point. They're discrediting Trump in the most credit-giving way possible and minimizing their following while maximizing his. there are so many legitimate issues to try and take a win on, but they do childish things like this instead. Definitely heading towards a republican in 2020 at this rate.
- siosonel 8y ago
  To me, it's definitely not the "most credit-giving way" or the "most childish thing". The Russia angle is a really big deal, it goes to the core of the legitimacy of Trump's presidency. Not only that, it demonstrates the direction his authoritarian tendencies is likely to lead the country into, with his open admiration of strongmen and inexplicable questioning of the historic goodwill within the NATO alliance. 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.
  - liberte82 8y ago
    Why do you think Trump spent so much time attacking Hillary for being "crooked"? It was to muddy the waters so that when Trump's own crooked actions came to light, the average person would just throw up their hands and say "they're all bad".
- frockington 8y ago
  I don't understand why the DNC took the results from 2016 and decided that alienating even more voters was the way to go. By 2020 they'll have called so many people a racist bigot that their only reliable voting block will be high schoolers

guessthejuice 8y ago

It's why recent polls have foxnews rated more trustworthy than almost every other news organization. We are in such a sorry state of affairs right now.

liberte82 8y ago

We all heard him say it, and it was controversial at the time and has remained so, especially given everything that has happened since. What are you "concerned" with, exactly? If you're a supporter, you should be happy that things are playing out in a way that helps him, if you believe what you're saying.

pjc50 8y ago

>"“I will tell you this: Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” he said. “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.” 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-hacking-trump-mueller/565157/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/07/russia-... Did he or did he not say that?

cgriswald 8y ago
It is a fact that he said those words. 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.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- koube 8y ago
  Russia also apparently interpreted the tweet as encouragement to illegally hack into messages by a former Secretary of State, because they were encouraged to attempt to illegally hack into messages by a former Secretary of State: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jul/13/russians-hillary-clinton-email-server-trump-indictment 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.

factshurtfeels 8y ago

Ad hom nonsense. What's discrediting to journalistic integrity about stating the fact that he stated this? His "intent" doesn't matter, that is precisely what he said, verbatim and clear as day on national television: https://youtu.be/3kxG8uJUsWU?t=39s https://youtu.be/3kxG8uJUsWU?t=39s

root_axis 8y ago

Just curious, what do you think a fair articulation of the facts would sound like?