C-SPAN
4 HN mentions · mentioned in 4 months, 2018–2021
0:58 · 357K views · Jul 27, 2016
C-SPAN clip of Donald Trump in 2016 saying 'Russia, if you're listening' and hoping they find Hillary Clinton's missing emails.
Cited as a primary source for what was actually said, in arguments about Russia and the 2016 election.
4 comments from Hacker News
> Available evidence strongly suggests Trump and his campaign coordinated with representatives of Russian government interests that involved both significant lawbreaking and a targeted media campaign that resulted in a victory for Trump that would not have occurred otherwise. Whether that's semantically equivalent to "colluded with Putin to cheat in the election" I don't know. The Mueller report disagrees. What available evidence exactly do you have which the special council investigation did not? Cite your sources please. > What you're saying, is itself an example of propaganda, in the sense that it's a simplification that while technically true leads a reader to reach a different conclusion that what actually occurred. And it's easy to do, because reality is complicated while disinformation can be simple. No it's not, what I am saying is almost verbatim from the Mueller report. No evidence was found implicating Trump or his campaign of colluding (conspiring) with Russians. I can dig out quotes from it verbatim or cite page numbers for you if you have not read it or disagree. EDIT: I have done so in another reply, if you are interested. > No, Donald Trump did not sit down in a hotel or pick up a phone and directly conspire with Vladimir Putin to scheme about how to change vote totals. Strawman, that is not what was being argued against. > Here's what is known to have happened: > Trump publicly asked Russia for help [LINK] ... Firstly, Rachel Maddow has a very poor and biased
To be fair, the media was also talking about Russia before the election too, and so was Trump himself: this video Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "didn't stick as planned": [LINK] [LINK] but I'm glad we both agree about the correctness of the article title.
This? this video Clearly a joke at the expense of the ineptitude of his opponent's campaign. The fact people point to this as their "evidence" is pretty clearly desperation and self-delusion. There was no evidence. You were lied to.
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: this video