5 ms·

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 S

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.
- cgriswald 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: 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.
  - lovehashbrowns 8y ago
    > 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. 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.
  - koube 8y ago
    It's true that they were already engaged in hacking attempts, but there was a definite new response "on or about" the date of the tweet: > 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.
liberte82 8y ago
Give me one example of a criticism of Trump that his supporters feel is "valid on its merits"? 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.
- belorn 8y ago
  I am sorry but this kind of cult behavior is a major part of political polarization and occurs on both side. After the DNC leak and people started to accuse Clinton of not playing fair a lot of Clinton support rejected that criticism and accused those that did of being unscrupulous in their conviction. It would not be called polarization and extreme-right and extreme-left if those voters accepted criticism based on its merits. 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.

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.

cgriswald 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: 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.
- lovehashbrowns 8y ago
  > 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. 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.
- koube 8y ago
  It's true that they were already engaged in hacking attempts, but there was a definite new response "on or about" the date of the tweet: > 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.

liberte82 8y ago

Give me one example of a criticism of Trump that his supporters feel is "valid on its merits"? 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.

belorn 8y ago
I am sorry but this kind of cult behavior is a major part of political polarization and occurs on both side. After the DNC leak and people started to accuse Clinton of not playing fair a lot of Clinton support rejected that criticism and accused those that did of being unscrupulous in their conviction. It would not be called polarization and extreme-right and extreme-left if those voters accepted criticism based on its merits. 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.