Did Trump admit on video he knew of hacking crimes?

[emilynghiem]

A friend claims there is a video showing Trump had knowledge of hacking crimes.
That he either knew or instructed Russians to go after the Democrats and that this was illegal.
And he either encouraged it or wanted it. And didn't report or stop it.

Is this true?

Why isn't the video anywhere when I search for it?

Does ANYONE have the source or link that meets this description.
If it was THAT obvious he had knowledge, wouldn't the opposition have USED it?

My friend says the information is out there, and people "don't care."
But the people who DO CARE about impeaching Trump would make
sure this footage got on the national news and everyone had access, right?

They are probably talking about the "Russia if you are listening, could you find Hillary's 33,000 missing emails."

Thanks Lewdog
I checked with one other source who cited this incident as a joke Trump
made that opponents took literally to mean he was inviting Russians to hack Clinton illegally.

So I voted WINNER for this reply as the first to give
what I guessed is the clip people like my friend are referring to.

I checked with my friend who confirmed that this "statement while Trump was campaigning"
was one of the references, in the context that Trump's "other associates claimed" that
Trump knew of illegal hacking, and also the "assumption" that Trump Jr. knew about illegal activity
when he was called to go meet with people claiming to have damaging evidence on Hillary.

So those three incidents are what my friend was citing,
and this campaign "joke" is indeed the specific reference
(while the other "accusations" provide the context around it).

Note: I contested all three
1. that Trump wasn't seriously pushing or asking anyone to illegally hack Clinton.

[Any more than Madonna was serious about blowing up the White House
when she made that controversial comment that was more of threat than Trump's
and nobody took her seriously (and that's why no charges were pursued, because
she wasn't pushing any real threat, and neither is Trump in his relative situation).]

2. that Trump Jr going to meet someone luring him with dirt on Clinton
does not indicate or confirm that he or Trump Sr knew of any illegal activity to get that dirt.

If anything that whole set up was to set the Trump team up to look bad for
looking into the possibility seriously for political gain at Clinton's expense.

3. and no, that just because other people accuse someone
doesn't automatically increase the chances they are guilty.

Those people's accusations or assumptions about Trump reflect on THEM not him.
It's the words out of his OWN mouth that implicate Trump.
What other people say is more a reflection on their character and biases.

 

[candycorn]

A friend claims there is a video showing Trump had knowledge of hacking crimes.
That he either knew or instructed Russians to go after the Democrats and that this was illegal.
And he either encouraged it or wanted it. And didn't report or stop it.

Is this true?

Why isn't the video anywhere when I search for it?

Does ANYONE have the source or link that meets this description.
If it was THAT obvious he had knowledge, wouldn't the opposition have USED it?

My friend says the information is out there, and people "don't care."
But the people who DO CARE about impeaching Trump would make
sure this footage got on the national news and everyone had access, right?

Stone knew about it. Its a pretty sure bet that Trump knew.
But apparently having someone working for you who works with felons is not a crime on Barr's watch.

when people go out of their way to pin bad things on the left, you mock them (and usually rightfully so) because of how willing they are to chase fantasies.

yet, here we are chasing ones that are important to you because you *want* them to be true. but for them to be true, you have to go through the same "hoops" you mock the other side for going through.

i'll never understand why one side mocks the other for believing in a reach and then turns around and does it themselves, but they're right, the other side so very wrong.

it all just seems so convenient to the point someone is trying to make but pretty void of reality. if we had such a video, do you really think the left would ignore it while russia blew up in their face? for this to happen:

1) trump had to know russia was helping (if they were) him.
2) mueller couldn't find that link in 2 years. is the video the ONLY elusive link? hardly.
3) someone had to video it
4) that someone would have to support trump and work to keep it from public eye
5) if kept from public eye, how does the public know about it?
6) given they know about it, then it must not be locked away in a secret sky-drive
7) pelosi, mueller, and the entire left trying to get rid of trump for 2+ years would have to now go "well that's the bullet we need but no, let's not ever bring it up.

how much of that is actually likely vs. a pipe dream for those who hate trump?

Its certainly not a reach. Stone tweeted that Podesta would have “his turn in the barrel” right after the DNC e-mails were released. What do you think Stone was talking about…a carnival ride?

As for this video, this post was the first I heard about it. I doubt there is a video. This sort of thing would not happen in person unless the conspirators were especially stupid.

Trump’s advisor knew about the felonies being committed. Unless you want to posit that Stone was acting on his own…and why would he…you’d have to assume he was in contact with these felons on the Trump Campaign’s behalf.

You "assume" a lot, Candy and you know what they say about those that assume...

No assumptions.

 

[blastoff]

A friend claims there is a video showing Trump had knowledge of hacking crimes.
That he either knew or instructed Russians to go after the Democrats and that this was illegal.
And he either encouraged it or wanted it. And didn't report or stop it.

Is this true?

Why isn't the video anywhere when I search for it?

Does ANYONE have the source or link that meets this description.
If it was THAT obvious he had knowledge, wouldn't the opposition have USED it?

My friend says the information is out there, and people "don't care."
But the people who DO CARE about impeaching Trump would make
sure this footage got on the national news and everyone had access, right?

Um...your friend is a fuckin’ idiot.

 

[Oldstyle]

A friend claims there is a video showing Trump had knowledge of hacking crimes.
That he either knew or instructed Russians to go after the Democrats and that this was illegal.
And he either encouraged it or wanted it. And didn't report or stop it.

Is this true?

Why isn't the video anywhere when I search for it?

Does ANYONE have the source or link that meets this description.
If it was THAT obvious he had knowledge, wouldn't the opposition have USED it?

My friend says the information is out there, and people "don't care."
But the people who DO CARE about impeaching Trump would make
sure this footage got on the national news and everyone had access, right?

Stone knew about it. Its a pretty sure bet that Trump knew.
But apparently having someone working for you who works with felons is not a crime on Barr's watch.

when people go out of their way to pin bad things on the left, you mock them (and usually rightfully so) because of how willing they are to chase fantasies.

yet, here we are chasing ones that are important to you because you *want* them to be true. but for them to be true, you have to go through the same "hoops" you mock the other side for going through.

i'll never understand why one side mocks the other for believing in a reach and then turns around and does it themselves, but they're right, the other side so very wrong.

it all just seems so convenient to the point someone is trying to make but pretty void of reality. if we had such a video, do you really think the left would ignore it while russia blew up in their face? for this to happen:

1) trump had to know russia was helping (if they were) him.
2) mueller couldn't find that link in 2 years. is the video the ONLY elusive link? hardly.
3) someone had to video it
4) that someone would have to support trump and work to keep it from public eye
5) if kept from public eye, how does the public know about it?
6) given they know about it, then it must not be locked away in a secret sky-drive
7) pelosi, mueller, and the entire left trying to get rid of trump for 2+ years would have to now go "well that's the bullet we need but no, let's not ever bring it up.

how much of that is actually likely vs. a pipe dream for those who hate trump?

Its certainly not a reach. Stone tweeted that Podesta would have “his turn in the barrel” right after the DNC e-mails were released. What do you think Stone was talking about…a carnival ride?

As for this video, this post was the first I heard about it. I doubt there is a video. This sort of thing would not happen in person unless the conspirators were especially stupid.

Trump’s advisor knew about the felonies being committed. Unless you want to posit that Stone was acting on his own…and why would he…you’d have to assume he was in contact with these felons on the Trump Campaign’s behalf.

You "assume" a lot, Candy and you know what they say about those that assume...

No assumptions.

"Trump’s advisor knew about the felonies being committed. Unless you want to posit that Stone was acting on his own…and why would he…you’d have to assume he was in contact with these felons on the Trump Campaign’s behalf."

First you assumed, Candy and then when you got called out on it...you lied about assuming. Typical for you...

 

[candycorn]

Stone knew about it. Its a pretty sure bet that Trump knew.
But apparently having someone working for you who works with felons is not a crime on Barr's watch.

when people go out of their way to pin bad things on the left, you mock them (and usually rightfully so) because of how willing they are to chase fantasies.

yet, here we are chasing ones that are important to you because you *want* them to be true. but for them to be true, you have to go through the same "hoops" you mock the other side for going through.

i'll never understand why one side mocks the other for believing in a reach and then turns around and does it themselves, but they're right, the other side so very wrong.

it all just seems so convenient to the point someone is trying to make but pretty void of reality. if we had such a video, do you really think the left would ignore it while russia blew up in their face? for this to happen:

1) trump had to know russia was helping (if they were) him.
2) mueller couldn't find that link in 2 years. is the video the ONLY elusive link? hardly.
3) someone had to video it
4) that someone would have to support trump and work to keep it from public eye
5) if kept from public eye, how does the public know about it?
6) given they know about it, then it must not be locked away in a secret sky-drive
7) pelosi, mueller, and the entire left trying to get rid of trump for 2+ years would have to now go "well that's the bullet we need but no, let's not ever bring it up.

how much of that is actually likely vs. a pipe dream for those who hate trump?

Its certainly not a reach. Stone tweeted that Podesta would have “his turn in the barrel” right after the DNC e-mails were released. What do you think Stone was talking about…a carnival ride?

As for this video, this post was the first I heard about it. I doubt there is a video. This sort of thing would not happen in person unless the conspirators were especially stupid.

Trump’s advisor knew about the felonies being committed. Unless you want to posit that Stone was acting on his own…and why would he…you’d have to assume he was in contact with these felons on the Trump Campaign’s behalf.

You "assume" a lot, Candy and you know what they say about those that assume...

No assumptions.

"Trump’s advisor knew about the felonies being committed. Unless you want to posit that Stone was acting on his own…and why would he…you’d have to assume he was in contact with these felons on the Trump Campaign’s behalf."

First you assumed, Candy and then when you got called out on it...you lied about assuming. Typical for you...

The phraseology would force one to otherwise take the absurd position that Stone was working with hackers for no reason. Its called making an argument.

 

[candycorn]

A friend claims there is a video showing Trump had knowledge of hacking crimes.
That he either knew or instructed Russians to go after the Democrats and that this was illegal.
And he either encouraged it or wanted it. And didn't report or stop it.

Is this true?

Why isn't the video anywhere when I search for it?

Does ANYONE have the source or link that meets this description.
If it was THAT obvious he had knowledge, wouldn't the opposition have USED it?

My friend says the information is out there, and people "don't care."
But the people who DO CARE about impeaching Trump would make
sure this footage got on the national news and everyone had access, right?

They are probably talking about the "Russia if you are listening, could you find Hillary's 33,000 missing emails."

Thanks Lewdog
I checked with one other source who cited this incident as a joke Trump
made that opponents took literally to mean he was inviting Russians to hack Clinton illegally.

So I voted WINNER for this reply as the first to give
what I guessed is the clip people like my friend are referring to.

I checked with my friend who confirmed that this "statement while Trump was campaigning"
was one of the references, in the context that Trump's "other associates claimed" that
Trump knew of illegal hacking, and also the "assumption" that Trump Jr. knew about illegal activity
when he was called to go meet with people claiming to have damaging evidence on Hillary.

So those three incidents are what my friend was citing,
and this campaign "joke" is indeed the specific reference
(while the other "accusations" provide the context around it).

Note: I contested all three
1. that Trump wasn't seriously pushing or asking anyone to illegally hack Clinton.

[Any more than Madonna was serious about blowing up the White House
when she made that controversial comment that was more of threat than Trump's
and nobody took her seriously (and that's why no charges were pursued, because
she wasn't pushing any real threat, and neither is Trump in his relative situation).]

2. that Trump Jr going to meet someone luring him with dirt on Clinton
does not indicate or confirm that he or Trump Sr knew of any illegal activity to get that dirt.

If anything that whole set up was to set the Trump team up to look bad for
looking into the possibility seriously for political gain at Clinton's expense.

3. and no, that just because other people accuse someone
doesn't automatically increase the chances they are guilty.

Those people's accusations or assumptions about Trump reflect on THEM not him.
It's the words out of his OWN mouth that implicate Trump.
What other people say is more a reflection on their character and biases.

What his advisor Roger Stone tweeted is that Podesta was going to be hacked; he knew about it weeks before the release of Podesta’s e-mails….

 

[Oldstyle]

when people go out of their way to pin bad things on the left, you mock them (and usually rightfully so) because of how willing they are to chase fantasies.

yet, here we are chasing ones that are important to you because you *want* them to be true. but for them to be true, you have to go through the same "hoops" you mock the other side for going through.

i'll never understand why one side mocks the other for believing in a reach and then turns around and does it themselves, but they're right, the other side so very wrong.

it all just seems so convenient to the point someone is trying to make but pretty void of reality. if we had such a video, do you really think the left would ignore it while russia blew up in their face? for this to happen:

1) trump had to know russia was helping (if they were) him.
2) mueller couldn't find that link in 2 years. is the video the ONLY elusive link? hardly.
3) someone had to video it
4) that someone would have to support trump and work to keep it from public eye
5) if kept from public eye, how does the public know about it?
6) given they know about it, then it must not be locked away in a secret sky-drive
7) pelosi, mueller, and the entire left trying to get rid of trump for 2+ years would have to now go "well that's the bullet we need but no, let's not ever bring it up.

how much of that is actually likely vs. a pipe dream for those who hate trump?

Its certainly not a reach. Stone tweeted that Podesta would have “his turn in the barrel” right after the DNC e-mails were released. What do you think Stone was talking about…a carnival ride?

As for this video, this post was the first I heard about it. I doubt there is a video. This sort of thing would not happen in person unless the conspirators were especially stupid.

Trump’s advisor knew about the felonies being committed. Unless you want to posit that Stone was acting on his own…and why would he…you’d have to assume he was in contact with these felons on the Trump Campaign’s behalf.

You "assume" a lot, Candy and you know what they say about those that assume...

No assumptions.

"Trump’s advisor knew about the felonies being committed. Unless you want to posit that Stone was acting on his own…and why would he…you’d have to assume he was in contact with these felons on the Trump Campaign’s behalf."

First you assumed, Candy and then when you got called out on it...you lied about assuming. Typical for you...

The phraseology would force one to otherwise take the absurd position that Stone was working with hackers for no reason. Its called making an argument.

What's an absurd position, Candy...is first telling someone that we need to "assume" something...then claiming "No assumptions" and then claiming that you're simply making "an argument"! You assumed something. Admit it and move on. You look like an idiot at the moment!

 

[candycorn]

Its certainly not a reach. Stone tweeted that Podesta would have “his turn in the barrel” right after the DNC e-mails were released. What do you think Stone was talking about…a carnival ride?

As for this video, this post was the first I heard about it. I doubt there is a video. This sort of thing would not happen in person unless the conspirators were especially stupid.

Trump’s advisor knew about the felonies being committed. Unless you want to posit that Stone was acting on his own…and why would he…you’d have to assume he was in contact with these felons on the Trump Campaign’s behalf.

You "assume" a lot, Candy and you know what they say about those that assume...

No assumptions.

"Trump’s advisor knew about the felonies being committed. Unless you want to posit that Stone was acting on his own…and why would he…you’d have to assume he was in contact with these felons on the Trump Campaign’s behalf."

First you assumed, Candy and then when you got called out on it...you lied about assuming. Typical for you...

The phraseology would force one to otherwise take the absurd position that Stone was working with hackers for no reason. Its called making an argument.

What's an absurd position, Candy...is first telling someone that we need to "assume" something...then claiming "No assumptions" and then claiming that you're simply making "an argument"! You assumed something. Admit it and move on. You look like an idiot at the moment!

No. Thinking Stone was working with Russian hackers on his own is an absurd position that you’re taking.

 

[Oldstyle]

You "assume" a lot, Candy and you know what they say about those that assume...

No assumptions.

"Trump’s advisor knew about the felonies being committed. Unless you want to posit that Stone was acting on his own…and why would he…you’d have to assume he was in contact with these felons on the Trump Campaign’s behalf."

First you assumed, Candy and then when you got called out on it...you lied about assuming. Typical for you...

The phraseology would force one to otherwise take the absurd position that Stone was working with hackers for no reason. Its called making an argument.

What's an absurd position, Candy...is first telling someone that we need to "assume" something...then claiming "No assumptions" and then claiming that you're simply making "an argument"! You assumed something. Admit it and move on. You look like an idiot at the moment!

No. Thinking Stone was working with Russian hackers on his own is an absurd position that you’re taking.

Ah, we're back to assuming again?

 

[Oldstyle]

The truth is...we have no more proof that Stone was working with the Russian government to hack the DNC than we do that someone in the DNC leaked those emails to Wikileaks because they were so upset about how Clinton's minions had screwed over Bernie Sanders! But I won't "assume" that...I'll just mention it as something that very well may have taken place...especially since the DNC refused to allow the FBI to look at it's servers.

 

[candycorn]

No assumptions.

"Trump’s advisor knew about the felonies being committed. Unless you want to posit that Stone was acting on his own…and why would he…you’d have to assume he was in contact with these felons on the Trump Campaign’s behalf."

First you assumed, Candy and then when you got called out on it...you lied about assuming. Typical for you...

The phraseology would force one to otherwise take the absurd position that Stone was working with hackers for no reason. Its called making an argument.

What's an absurd position, Candy...is first telling someone that we need to "assume" something...then claiming "No assumptions" and then claiming that you're simply making "an argument"! You assumed something. Admit it and move on. You look like an idiot at the moment!

No. Thinking Stone was working with Russian hackers on his own is an absurd position that you’re taking.

Ah, we're back to assuming again?

You can tell us your interpretation of the tweet if you like. Or not. I don’t really care.

 

[Oldstyle]

"Trump’s advisor knew about the felonies being committed. Unless you want to posit that Stone was acting on his own…and why would he…you’d have to assume he was in contact with these felons on the Trump Campaign’s behalf."

First you assumed, Candy and then when you got called out on it...you lied about assuming. Typical for you...

The phraseology would force one to otherwise take the absurd position that Stone was working with hackers for no reason. Its called making an argument.

What's an absurd position, Candy...is first telling someone that we need to "assume" something...then claiming "No assumptions" and then claiming that you're simply making "an argument"! You assumed something. Admit it and move on. You look like an idiot at the moment!

No. Thinking Stone was working with Russian hackers on his own is an absurd position that you’re taking.

Ah, we're back to assuming again?

You can tell us your interpretation of the tweet if you like. Or not. I don’t really care.

My interpretation of what Stone tweeted? My interpretation of that is the same as for most of what Stone says! That he's someone who's constantly trying to impress people by what he knows...even when he knows very little.

 

[edward37]

there ya go ..

Trump admits to Russian hacking even as he attacks U.S. intelligence ...

Dear Siete candycorn and Crepitus
This isn't the same as what my friend was claiming was confirmed in a video.
He is talking about Trump SAYING he discussed this hacking by Russia in advance,
not after the fact by "suspecting" that the leaks were by Russian hackers.

He is basically saying Trump had ADVANCE or CONCURRENT knowledge of Russians doing or planning the hack attacks.
And/or Trump approved and asked or encouraged it proactively.

Thanks but what you posted was talking about the leaks and hacking AFTERWARDS.

I am asking does anyone have sources or video showing Trump knew or discussed these PLANS in ADVANCE
or CONCURRENTLY with the Russians.

If that person had that info his or her life would be endangered Either by Trumps hit man scum or one of the idiots supporting him

 

[Oldstyle]

there ya go ..

Trump admits to Russian hacking even as he attacks U.S. intelligence ...

Dear Siete candycorn and Crepitus
This isn't the same as what my friend was claiming was confirmed in a video.
He is talking about Trump SAYING he discussed this hacking by Russia in advance,
not after the fact by "suspecting" that the leaks were by Russian hackers.

He is basically saying Trump had ADVANCE or CONCURRENT knowledge of Russians doing or planning the hack attacks.
And/or Trump approved and asked or encouraged it proactively.

Thanks but what you posted was talking about the leaks and hacking AFTERWARDS.

I am asking does anyone have sources or video showing Trump knew or discussed these PLANS in ADVANCE
or CONCURRENTLY with the Russians.

If that person had that info his or her life would be endangered Either by Trumps hit man scum or one of the idiots supporting him

Trump's hit man? Really, Eddie? Starting the day off with a full dose of stupid?

 

[candycorn]

The phraseology would force one to otherwise take the absurd position that Stone was working with hackers for no reason. Its called making an argument.

What's an absurd position, Candy...is first telling someone that we need to "assume" something...then claiming "No assumptions" and then claiming that you're simply making "an argument"! You assumed something. Admit it and move on. You look like an idiot at the moment!

No. Thinking Stone was working with Russian hackers on his own is an absurd position that you’re taking.

Ah, we're back to assuming again?

You can tell us your interpretation of the tweet if you like. Or not. I don’t really care.

My interpretation of what Stone tweeted? My interpretation of that is the same as for most of what Stone says! That he's someone who's constantly trying to impress people by what he knows...even when he knows very little.

Hmmm…

In this case he happened to know 6 weeks before the public did that Podesta was going to be hacked.

Again, no assumptions are being made.

 

[edward37]

there ya go ..

Trump admits to Russian hacking even as he attacks U.S. intelligence ...

Dear Siete candycorn and Crepitus
This isn't the same as what my friend was claiming was confirmed in a video.
He is talking about Trump SAYING he discussed this hacking by Russia in advance,
not after the fact by "suspecting" that the leaks were by Russian hackers.

He is basically saying Trump had ADVANCE or CONCURRENT knowledge of Russians doing or planning the hack attacks.
And/or Trump approved and asked or encouraged it proactively.

Thanks but what you posted was talking about the leaks and hacking AFTERWARDS.

I am asking does anyone have sources or video showing Trump knew or discussed these PLANS in ADVANCE
or CONCURRENTLY with the Russians.

If that person had that info his or her life would be endangered Either by Trumps hit man scum or one of the idiots supporting him

Trump's hit man? Really, Eddie? Starting the day off with a full dose of stupid?

Old you really think that's above this crooked piece of trash ? And hit men might be referring to his team of lawyers who he sends out to shut people up

 

[edward37]

Cohen was his hit man wasn't he ?/ Sent out to bribe all his whores not to talk??

 

[dannyboys]

there ya go ..

Trump admits to Russian hacking even as he attacks U.S. intelligence ...

Dear Siete candycorn and Crepitus
This isn't the same as what my friend was claiming was confirmed in a video.
He is talking about Trump SAYING he discussed this hacking by Russia in advance,
not after the fact by "suspecting" that the leaks were by Russian hackers.

He is basically saying Trump had ADVANCE or CONCURRENT knowledge of Russians doing or planning the hack attacks.
And/or Trump approved and asked or encouraged it proactively.

Thanks but what you posted was talking about the leaks and hacking AFTERWARDS.

I am asking does anyone have sources or video showing Trump knew or discussed these PLANS in ADVANCE
or CONCURRENTLY with the Russians.

IF such a video really existed then Mueller would have got ahold of it. The Andrew Wiesman would have leaked it to the NYT.
THINK!

 

[edward37]

there ya go ..

Trump admits to Russian hacking even as he attacks U.S. intelligence ...

Dear Siete candycorn and Crepitus
This isn't the same as what my friend was claiming was confirmed in a video.
He is talking about Trump SAYING he discussed this hacking by Russia in advance,
not after the fact by "suspecting" that the leaks were by Russian hackers.

He is basically saying Trump had ADVANCE or CONCURRENT knowledge of Russians doing or planning the hack attacks.
And/or Trump approved and asked or encouraged it proactively.

Thanks but what you posted was talking about the leaks and hacking AFTERWARDS.

I am asking does anyone have sources or video showing Trump knew or discussed these PLANS in ADVANCE
or CONCURRENTLY with the Russians.

IF such a video really existed then Mueller would have got ahold of it. The Andrew Wiesman would have leaked it to the NYT.
THINK!

IF it did exist how many millions would Trump pay to have it burned?

 

[Oldstyle]

there ya go ..

Trump admits to Russian hacking even as he attacks U.S. intelligence ...

Dear Siete candycorn and Crepitus
This isn't the same as what my friend was claiming was confirmed in a video.
He is talking about Trump SAYING he discussed this hacking by Russia in advance,
not after the fact by "suspecting" that the leaks were by Russian hackers.

He is basically saying Trump had ADVANCE or CONCURRENT knowledge of Russians doing or planning the hack attacks.
And/or Trump approved and asked or encouraged it proactively.

Thanks but what you posted was talking about the leaks and hacking AFTERWARDS.

I am asking does anyone have sources or video showing Trump knew or discussed these PLANS in ADVANCE
or CONCURRENTLY with the Russians.

If that person had that info his or her life would be endangered Either by Trumps hit man scum or one of the idiots supporting him

Trump's hit man? Really, Eddie? Starting the day off with a full dose of stupid?

Old you really think that's above this crooked piece of trash ? And hit men might be referring to his team of lawyers who he sends out to shut people up