Classic example of damned if you do damned if you don’t.
Obama probably thought that like many of us did that the American people were smart enough not to elect Trump in spite of all of this, and so it would be better to wait until after the election to do a through investigation so as to not politicize it.
If Obama had come out in the middle of the election and started throwing allegations around that Putin was trying to manipulate our electoral process to elect his favorite candidate Trump, you don’t think that you might have made posts tearing Obama a new one for using the FBI and CIA to serve his political agenda?
As to the OP it really depends on what you mean by complicit.
Complicity level 1: Trump publicly advocating Russian hacking and being gleefully giddy at the result
Complitity level 2: Putin lets Trump know that he is going to hack, and gives Trump any dirt he finds.
Complicity level 3: Putin asks Trump what he can do to help him, and Trump suggests hacking the DNC.
Complicity level 4: Trump makes a deal with Putin that if Putin helps put him in power he will act favorably to Russia
Complicity level 5: Trump makes a deal with Putin that if Putin helps put him in power he will take specific actions on Putin’s behalf.
I think Watergate falls around level 3 on this list, in that Trump took certain actions that led directly to the hacks. In terms of political fallout, I think that he would be safe from consequences for levels 1-3, but starting at level 4 and certainly by level 5, Trump would be seen as too much of a liability for even the GOP to handle, and they would be relieved to get rid of him and install a much more reliably conservative president Pence.
No, I don’t. After months of singing Trump’s praises, encouraging people to vote for him, and staunchly pointing out his terrific grasp of all things policy and politic, I certainly can’t concede now that Trump did something repugnant. Why, that would be crazy.
Sterling Archer wrote: "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."
You assume that because trump heard or was told something that he knows it.
Bob Gates did refer to him as “stubbornly uninformed”.
As I understand it, one of the goals was to undermine confidence in our political system in the eyes of the world. This damages our standing in the eyes of the global community, which may lessen our influence in certain circles, which has possible repercussions in all kinds of areas. Russia wants to be something close to the USSR again. Weakening us internationally may help them achieve that.
At least, I believe that is the thinking behind the statement you are questioning.
Honestly, I believe you’ll hear 2 catch phrases around here for the next 2 to 4 years.
The first is “Putin’s useful idiot.” Trump will truly become Putin’s useful idiot, as this hacking has proven and will continue to prove. Putin is laughing his ass off.
The second involves the slang word our British friends use do define expelling gas from their anus, aka the fart. It’s referred to as “to trump.” They don’t read that as Trump Tower, they read it as Fart Tower. How would you view a 757 with the word FART painted on the side? The Fart International Hotel in Washington DC? Think there might be a lot of guests from the UK lining up to stay in the Fart International Hotel?
If you find it repugnant, then why did you use the law as a defense for why nothing should be done about it? No one even brought up the law. Nixon wasn’t done in by the law. He was done in because he was impeached.
What’s more, you even added a hostile comment at the end, implying the OP might not understand why you can’t be convicted for inciting a crime that had already happened. (Though you neglected to note that releasing the hacked emails is also a crime.)
Does the First Amendment provide protection to speech that discloses the contents of an illegally intercepted communication?
Conclusion
Yes. In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court held that the First Amendment protects the disclosure of illegally intercepted communications by parties who did not participate in the illegal interception. “In this case, privacy concerns give way when balanced against the interest in publishing matters of public importance,” wrote Justice Stevens. “[A] stranger’s illegal conduct does not suffice to remove the First Amendment shield from speech about a matter of public concern.”