ASPartOfMe wrote:
It probably is not legally treason as we are not in a war with Russia by in my view what Trump did was morally treason. We put Jonathan Pollard in prison for decades for stealing information from us for an ally. How is advocating a competitor steal information from us morally better?
It wouldn't be better. It's a good thing that's not what happened.
"They probably have her 33,000 e-mails. I hope they do. They probably have her 33,000 e-mails that she lost and deleted because you'd see some beauties there. So let's see,"
"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."
The reality is that he opined Russia already has the 33,000 emails that Hillary Clinton erased so the FBI couldn't see them. He then said the U.S. media would probably "reward" Russia for disclosing them. Every bit of that is probably true.
What he did NOT say is that Russia should continue hacking U.S. politicians.
I know we are autistics here but politicians send signals to each other using as indirect language as possible. There is the issue of if Trump had said "I think you have the emails but if you do not have the emails get them release them and when I am President I will give you a more favorable deal" he might face prosecution. There not to many people that have read about politics a lot or have been business world that does not understand what was meant here. Trump is a master markerter and a lot of marketing involves sending these indirect signals.