Wouldn’t that be the equivalent of what happened in Watergate? Nixon was wiretapping the DNC.
If Trump was aware of the Russian hacking of the DNC, did nothing to report it, in fact encouraged it by asking them to publicize Hillary’s deleted emails, isn’t this nearly exactly what Nixon did? We’ve just replaced listening devices with email hackers, and replaced direct agency with a foreign government.
MSNBC has reported:
Putin was directly involved in hacking (I would like to see the proof here)
Trump knew about the hacking, knew his campaign was benefiting from it. (again, proof?)
If they find the smoking gun that proves communication between the Trump campaign and Russia, where do we go from here?
He warned about it. And now that a more clear intelligence view of it is available, he’s talking about it. He’s asked intelligence agencies to have their assessment on his desk before he leaves office.
What should he have done, emerged from the shadows and garroted a Russian neckbeard at his computer?
There’s a lot wrong with this post. Just two points to start off with:
“did nothing to report it”? It was reported by the FBI, to the DNC, well before Trump or the rest of us were aware of it. Trump only found out about it because the media reported on it.
He didn’t “encourage it” because “it” (the hacking of the DNC & Podesta) happened well before he said he hoped they’d find HRC’s 33,000 emails.
Is there proof Obama knew something he wasn’t telling us? That would also be a problem, yes. But my question is about Trump’s involvement. Shouldn’t we be more concerned with the perpetrator and beneficiary of a crime, rather than Obama’s transparency on the subject?
Of course Trump “knew about the hacking”. The DNC emails were published on July 22nd, and almost immediately Russians were widely and publicly accused of doing that (I can give you cites for that if you like).
So yes, Trump knew about the hacking. So did you and everyone else who reads NBC News, Wired, CNN, NY Times etc. etc. etc.
And yes, he knew his campaign was benefiting from emails being published. So did you and everyone else who saw the emails.
I’m not sure if you’re just trying to be coy or if you know something the rest of us don’t. Who do you think the perpetrator of a crime is? Are you talking about Trump?
As usual, all the time is spent arguing about what happened. Can we focus on my question here? How is this different from Watergate? And furthermore, even if it was exactly like Watergate, would the American people today even care?
I suspect that even if Russia wasn’t involved at all, and Trump’s campaign had hacked the DNC directly, and we had PROOF, I doubt it would hurt him in the polls one bit.
That’s what we’re trying to figure out. Is it just the Russian hackers? Or are there Americans in Trump’s campaign, maybe Trump himself, who are complicit? I am not in a position to know these things, but I think investigation is required. (and probably already happening)
Totally agreed. It seemed from the way MSNBC reported it as “breaking news” they had some new communication from Trump explicitly stating this, but maybe they are just trying to imply collusion without proof.
I didn’t do any “equivalence”. I asked a question. Do you think these people would be “complicit” in the crime? I really don’t see how the specific identity of the person in question matters for the answer.
If those people have millions of followers and an enormous soapbox to stand on and get media coverage for every piece of garbage that fell out of their mouths? Then yes.
Average people on the street asking to see Trump’s returns are not equivalent to a leading presidential candidate asking a foreign power who has already proven to have the capability to hack our systems to go after specific info. That is a false equivalence.
If Bill Gates, for example, were to ask Anonymous to hack Facebook, that would be a more similar scenario, and yes he would be complicit.