# If Trump is complicit in Russian hacking **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [December 16, 2016, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-trump-is-complicit-in-russian-hacking/774866 "2016-12-16T16:38:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2016, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-trump-is-complicit-in-russian-hacking/774866/41 "2016-12-16T19:47:13Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > There’s no mention of an unnamed source in that article. > Sorry. I forgot you don’t read links. I apparently read it a good bit better than you. “according to U.S. officials” “according to U.S. officials who have seen the message” “according to the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters” If you don’t understand that that’s the very definition of an “unnamed source”, I can’t help you. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2016, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-trump-is-complicit-in-russian-hacking/774866/42 "2016-12-16T19:49:56Z")
> [@](#): > > …CIA and FBI officials do not think Russia had a “single purpose” by intervening during the presidential campaign. In addition to helping Trump, intelligence officials have told lawmakers that Moscow’s other goal included undermining confidence in the U.S. electoral system… This struck me as somewhat hinky. OK, the Russians try to help Trump win. Why then would they also seek to “undermine confidence” in elections? Why would they want to sow doubt on _his_ election? ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2016, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-trump-is-complicit-in-russian-hacking/774866/43 "2016-12-16T19:54:39Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I apparently read it a good bit better than you. > > “according to U.S. officials” “according to U.S. officials who have seen the message” “according to the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters” > > If you don’t understand that that’s the very definition of an “unnamed source”, I can’t help you. Multiple officials, not one source. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2016, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-trump-is-complicit-in-russian-hacking/774866/44 "2016-12-16T19:55:00Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > Multiple officials, not one source. And not a single one of them named. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2016, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-trump-is-complicit-in-russian-hacking/774866/45 "2016-12-16T19:57:04Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > And not a single one of them named. [How about the Director of the FBI?](https://www.rawstory.com/2016/12/fbi-now-agrees-with-the-cia-russia-intervened-to-help-trump-win-the-election/) > [@](#): > > Previously, the FBI had maintained that it didn’t know the true motives behind Russia’s hacks on Democrats, but The Washington Post reports that FBI Director James Comey has now acknowledged that the FBI shares the CIA’s conclusions. > > “Earlier this week, I met separately with FBI James Comey and DNI Jim Clapper, and there is strong consensus among us on the scope, nature, and intent of Russian interference in our presidential election,” wrote CIA Director John Brennan in a message to employees cited by the Post. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2016, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-trump-is-complicit-in-russian-hacking/774866/46 "2016-12-16T19:58:23Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I apparently read it a good bit better than you. > > “according to U.S. officials” “according to U.S. officials who have seen the message” “according to the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters” > > If you don’t understand that that’s the very definition of an “unnamed source”, I can’t help you. If its bogus, then the FBI will release something quite soon. Right now, the Prez is giving his swan song press conference, so they most likely won’t interrupt that. Shortly thereafter, you can scoot down here and do some nose-rubbing. And if they don’t, then the story is most likely not bogus, if not necessarily complete. We can talk more about it then. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2016, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-trump-is-complicit-in-russian-hacking/774866/47 "2016-12-16T20:00:27Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > [How about the Director of the FBI?](https://www.rawstory.com/2016/12/fbi-now-agrees-with-the-cia-russia-intervened-to-help-trump-win-the-election/) To be fair to **HurricanDitka** , that quote is according to an unnamed source. [Here’s the WP article cited](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-backs-cia-view-that-russia-intervened-to-help-trump-win-election/2016/12/16/05b42c0e-c3bf-11e6-9a51-cd56ea1c2bb7_story.html?postshare=9351481916341770&tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.fd00c594addc). > [@](#): > > “Earlier this week, I met separately with (Director) FBI James Comey and DNI Jim Clapper, and there is strong consensus among us on the scope, nature, and intent of Russian interference in our presidential election,” CIA Director John Brennan said in a message to the agency’s workforce, **according to U.S. officials who have seen the message.** Bolding mine. I’m from your side of the fence, but I hate this unsourced shit, too. I know sometimes that’s the only way you can do it, but I don’t like it. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2016, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-trump-is-complicit-in-russian-hacking/774866/48 "2016-12-16T20:01:57Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > [How about the Director of the FBI?](https://www.rawstory.com/2016/12/fbi-now-agrees-with-the-cia-russia-intervened-to-help-trump-win-the-election/) What’s the Comey quote there? Oh, what’s that? there isn’t one? That’s because he’s not the source of this information. He’s not a “source”, named or unnamed. The Washington Post tried to spin the alleged CIA memo, and [rawstory.com](http://rawstory.com) tried to spin it even further. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2016, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-trump-is-complicit-in-russian-hacking/774866/49 "2016-12-16T20:03:21Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > [How about the Director of the FBI?](https://www.rawstory.com/2016/12/fbi-now-agrees-with-the-cia-russia-intervened-to-help-trump-win-the-election/) Its been known for some time that the FBI accepted the probability of Russian involvement, but held to the line that the purpose was to disrupt confidence in our elections. They initially shied away from any notion of purpose, as in electing Trump. They may not have had that much time to investigate, what with assuring America that Anthony Weiner’s dick pics did not violate national security. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2016, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-trump-is-complicit-in-russian-hacking/774866/50 "2016-12-16T20:10:12Z")
> [@Sterling\_Archer](#): > > 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: > > 1. Putin was directly involved in hacking (I would like to see the proof here) > 2. 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? Nowhere. The Nixon Watergate impeachment movement arose after the revelation that the President sought to use the power of his office to cover up crimes committed either at his command or at the command of his senior staff. “Communication” between Trump and Russia proves nothing criminal. If you could prove that there was communication between Trump and Russia that satisfied the elements of conspiracy, then presumably Trump could be indicted for violations as a conspirator of 18 U.S. Code § 1030 eq seq. But as a quick primer on elements of criminal conspiracy, it cannot be satisfied by a public statement of, “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,” made on Wednesday, July 27th . . . if for no other reason that the evidence shows that the hacking in question was completed well prior to that statement. Do you understand why this is? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2016, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-trump-is-complicit-in-russian-hacking/774866/51 "2016-12-16T20:13:27Z")
> [@Sterling\_Archer](#): > > The hacking is not a one time thing, it is ongoing. When Trump asks Russia to find and release more info, he is encouraging hacking. What legal significance do you attach to this observation? If any? Do you believe that the DNC server and the Clinton private e-mail server are the same thing? Do you believe that the Clinton private server was also hacked? ---
**Author:** ![Drunky\_Smurf](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drunky_smurf/32/449_2.png) [@Drunky\_Smurf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drunky_Smurf)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2016, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-trump-is-complicit-in-russian-hacking/774866/52 "2016-12-16T20:16:23Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > And fixating on Trump’s “involvement” is purely partisan. Party before country. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2016, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-trump-is-complicit-in-russian-hacking/774866/53 "2016-12-16T20:17:31Z")
> [@Drunky\_Smurf](#): > > Party before country. That’s sure catching on around here. Is it the retort we can expect for the next 4/8 years in place of reasoned arguments? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2016, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-trump-is-complicit-in-russian-hacking/774866/54 "2016-12-16T20:18:14Z")
So Donald conned a veteran KGB spook into trusting him? Now, _that_ is a _closer_! > [@](#): > > …What legal significance do you attach to this observation?.. I think, Counselor, that very few of us are thinking in terms of a criminal indictment, much less conviction. You don’t have to convince us that we are wrong about thinking that, because we are not. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2016, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-trump-is-complicit-in-russian-hacking/774866/55 "2016-12-16T20:19:08Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > Please. > Nice try to Bricker the conversation. This is uncalled for. Bricker had not been a participant in this thread at that point and introducing him in this fashion is bordering on trolling, or jerkishness, or both. [/moderating] ---
**Author:** ![GrandWino](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/grandwino/32/67_2.png) [@GrandWino](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GrandWino)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2016, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-trump-is-complicit-in-russian-hacking/774866/56 "2016-12-16T20:22:35Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > That’s sure catching on around here. Is it the retort we can expect for the next 4/8 years in place of reasoned arguments? Sure, good suggestion thanks. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2016, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-trump-is-complicit-in-russian-hacking/774866/57 "2016-12-16T20:24:20Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > So Donald conned a veteran KGB spook into trusting him? Now, _that_ is a _closer_! > I think, Counselor, that very few of us are thinking in terms of a criminal indictment, much less conviction. You don’t have to convince us that we are wrong about thinking that, because we are not. The OP: > [@](#): > > 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. Me: > [@](#): > > The Nixon Watergate impeachment movement arose after the revelation that the President sought to use the power of his office to cover up crimes committed either at his command or at the command of his senior staff. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2016, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-trump-is-complicit-in-russian-hacking/774866/58 "2016-12-16T20:28:28Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But as a quick primer on elements of criminal conspiracy, it cannot be satisfied by a public statement of, “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,” made on Wednesday, July 27th . . . if for no other reason that the evidence shows that the hacking in question was completed well prior to that statement. > > Do you understand why this is? Do you understand why even though it may not rise to the level of prosecutable crime, the very fact that a presidential candidate publically encouraged a foreign power to continue stealing information from his opponent’s campaign is REPUGNANT? Trump is not your client, and you are not obligated to get him off on a technicality. There is a greater moral imperative at stake. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2016, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-trump-is-complicit-in-russian-hacking/774866/59 "2016-12-16T20:32:10Z")
Oh, what the heck, **Bricker** , knock yourself out. Here, I’ll even ditto. I doubt very much that there is any value in seeking an indictment or a trial against Trump. First off, as I said, I doubt very much that he was “in on it”. When Lenin talked about useful idiots, he wasn’t talking about co-conspirators, indicted or otherwise. So, no. All I dream of at this point is not having his grubby little mitts on the levers of power. I don’t need him to go to Club Fed. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2016, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-trump-is-complicit-in-russian-hacking/774866/60 "2016-12-16T20:41:34Z")
Leaving aside _whether_ Trump actually was complicit, it would seem pretty obvious that _if_ he was complicit that he needs to be impeached. And if Pence was complicit then he should be impeached along with him. (IIRC that would make Paul Ryan president, but I could be wrong.) This needs to be investigated, and I assume it will be. However, the one thing that could really sink it is Democrats jumping the gun and making it a partisan issue, thus provoking a counter-reaction by Republicans. In that case, they might circle the wagons. Of course, this is all theoretical. Personally I highly doubt if Trump was complicit. Even if you assume that he would have been complicit if offered the chance, there’s nothing that the Russians needed him for, and no reason for them to involve him. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-trump-is-complicit-in-russian-hacking/774866.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-trump-is-complicit-in-russian-hacking/774866.md?page=4)