[gist]

> and even invited Russia to hack the emails of his political opponent

For the 1000th time. He didn't (and it's amazing how often this gets repeated) 'invite' them. He said they should release the documents if they already had them.

Note the story line and then the exact quote here:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/trump-putin-no-relatio...

"I hope you are able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing".

Is not "hack Hillary Clinton". It's "if you've hacked Hillary Clinton release the emails". Key difference.

[ch4s3]

>For the 1000th time. He didn't (and it's amazing how often this gets repeated) 'invite' them. He said they should release the documents if they already had them.

The direct quote is as follows:

“I will tell you this, Russia: If you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,”

It's hardly a stretch to read this as an invitation, despite the later claims of his handlers.

[gist]

> It's hardly a stretch to read this as an invitation

It's an interesting Rorschach test.

What would be fascinating is to do an experiment where someone didn't have an emotional attachment to the issue and see how this is interpreted by different parties.

For that matter do the same with this issue merely see what people who fell on either side (or in the middle) thought.

[nl]

I think a reasonable person could interprete that quote both ways. I'd note that the politico headline you linked says "Trump urges Russia to hack Clinton's email", and it is only a campaign spokesperson who said the opposite.