Pete's Prediction for Hillary's secret weapon at the DNC

[AI Wessex]

I assume this means there is no conclusive proof, which is another way of saying there's no way to travel back in time and change history. That being said, investigations into the technology of voting machines could help alleviate concerns about voter fraud, but it'll never happen. As for being directly involved, that's a bit of a laugh. Knowing who Hillary's contacts are there's no way she's just an innocent patsy being secretly helped without being involved. Even if her involvement is passive (meaning she sits back and lets them do the work) by allowing such illicit help one is already directly involved.

So while earlier you rejected the expert opinions that Russia was directly involved in the hacks into the DNC because that wasn't proof, you are taking the opposite approach here that she was involved because it makes sense to think so.  Ornery is becoming a house of mirrors.

[cherrypoptart]

It's sad if it takes our former enemies the Russians to come out with the proof of our own rigged primaries.

Where are our own investigative journalists? Of course it would have taken a  Democrat machine insider to get this scoop and the operational security on their end apparently is very solid with nobody in the entire organization willing to take a stand against evil. ISIS should take notes.

Oh well, too bad it looks like the next investigative reporting Pulitzer is going to a group of Russian government hackers but the fact is they earned it more than any of our own so-called journalists, also known collectively as Democratic party machine hacks.

If most of our "journalists" knew about this and had the proof they wouldn't hesitate to bury it just like they would bury our democracy.

[NobleHunter]

Former enemies? *blinks*

Someone hasn't been paying attention to geopolitics for the last decade.

[cherrypoptart]

It looks like Trump is making that Russian reset button great again; the one that Hillary couldn't quite figure out how to push.

[NobleHunter]

It looks like Trump is making that Russian reset button great again; the one that Hillary couldn't quite figure out how to push.

Gotta get that Moscow Hotel somehow.

[Fenring]

I assume this means there is no conclusive proof, which is another way of saying there's no way to travel back in time and change history. That being said, investigations into the technology of voting machines could help alleviate concerns about voter fraud, but it'll never happen. As for being directly involved, that's a bit of a laugh. Knowing who Hillary's contacts are there's no way she's just an innocent patsy being secretly helped without being involved. Even if her involvement is passive (meaning she sits back and lets them do the work) by allowing such illicit help one is already directly involved.

So while earlier you rejected the expert opinions that Russia was directly involved in the hacks into the DNC because that wasn't proof, you are taking the opposite approach here that she was involved because it makes sense to think so.  Ornery is becoming a house of mirrors.

This is quite the troll post. I rejected your opinion that Russia was directly involved, and challenged you to produce an actual expert opinion, which you couldn't. Because there isn't one. If you think that means I reject the possibility that Russia was, in fact, behind it, then you need to clarify your reading skills.

It's also funny you should compare Russia conspiring with Trump to Hillary conspiring with...her own political party, which emails conclusively prove were trying to help her win. Nice perspective there.

[Fenring]

Former enemies? *blinks*

Someone hasn't been paying attention to geopolitics for the last decade.

In what way has Russia been an "enemy" to the U.S.? Note that this isn't the same as asking whether anything Russia has done has annoyed or hindered the U.S.

[cherrypoptart]

Maybe it's less that the Russians love Trump than that they loved Bernie. Didn't he spend his honeymoon in Moscow or something?

Some of the older commies still hanging out on the fringes over there may not have appreciated one of their old comrades getting shafted by the greedy capitalist pigs who have purchased Hillary lock, stock, and barrel.

[cherrypoptart]

I don't see why the Russians should even be our enemies anymore. Sure, I hate what they did in Ukraine, a move most likely fostered in large measure by their hacking which revealed Obama's weakness and Obama's own actions which prove it every day. Now, probably the best we can do is try to help Ukraine get better compensation than the package Russia is offering. After that, there is no reason why we can't be good allies with the Russians against ISIS, al-Qaeda, the Taliban and the rise of radical Islam in general and the violence it is inspiring all over the world. Beyond that Russia could also be great economic partners with us especially concerning their oil reserves as we move to find other sources in order to starve the beast in the Middle-East out of the oil money they are using to fund terrorism to kill us. The reason we were enemies of the Russians was because they were communists. Now that reason no longer exists so we should be able to seek common ground and a strong alliance between our countries. Obama wasn't the man to do that because rather than feeling joy as Russia throwing off the shackles of communism he seeks to pick them up and try to re-use them on us.

[NobleHunter]

In what way has Russia been an "enemy" to the U.S.? Note that this isn't the same as asking whether anything Russia has done has annoyed or hindered the U.S.

Russia's interests in the Middle-East and Europe are in direct conflict with the US. They've adopted an aggressive posture towards American friends and allies, including violating (at least one) international treaty. They appear to be inclined towards actively diminishing US influence and prefer to hurt the US rather than help them. They're a non-allied, non-friendly wannabe imperial power, which makes them enemies by default.

cherry, you think we should use Russian oil? Good plan. How'd that turn out for Ukraine?

So Clinton has been bought? And your response is to support the someone of the sort who supposedly bought her? Good plan.

[cherrypoptart]

Russia must be more friendly toward us now though than they were when Bernie went there for his honeymoon. Surely.

[NobleHunter]

And? I'm pretty sure our gracious host has been to Russia. I don't see why you keep bringing up a failed candidate for the nomination.

Not to mention the Democrats decided not nominate the crypto-communist. Pity the GOP didn't do the same with their crypto-fascist.

[AI Wessex]

This is quite the troll post. I rejected your opinion that Russia was directly involved, and challenged you to produce an actual expert opinion, which you couldn't. Because there isn't one. If you think that means I reject the possibility that Russia was, in fact, behind it, then you need to clarify your reading skills.

Seriously, first you wanted a direct quote from Putin, which I hastily provided, and now you want the name of an expert (which isn't what you wanted -- you wanted "proof", which an expert can only offer his analysis and opinion about)?  This one you'll have to find for yourself, but they are there or else no one would be referring to them in article after article.

[Fenring]

Seriously, first you wanted a direct quote from Putin, which I hastily provided, and now you want the name of an expert (which isn't what you wanted -- you wanted "proof", which an expert can only offer his analysis and opinion about)?  This one you'll have to find for yourself, but they are there or else no one would be referring to them in article after article.

I never asked for a direct quote from Putin. A direct quote from him would be satisfactory, of course, however I already called BS that Putin said that. I just Googled "putin trump bff" and came up with zero, even from the whacko sites. Again, where is your source for Putin having said that?

[Fenring]

Russia's interests in the Middle-East and Europe are in direct conflict with the US. [snip] They're a non-allied, non-friendly wannabe imperial power, which makes them enemies by default.

This is a very strange comment. It is simply untrue that a political adversary is a nation's "enemy", and also untrue that Russia is directly adversarial with the U.S. They are a competitor, that's true, but why shouldn't they be since they're being sanctioned anyhow. Look at the layout of military bases and missile deployments in Eastern Europe and tell me who is whose 'enemy.'

Not to mention the Democrats decided not nominate the crypto-communist. Pity the GOP didn't do the same with their crypto-fascist.

NH, is that really you posting? It doesn't sound like you 

[NobleHunter]

cherry inspires me to vicious sarcasm and hyperbole.

How would you define enemy?

[Fenring]

How would you define enemy?

If not in direct military conflict with, then actively taking aggressive steps to destabilize the other's infrastructure, national security, and the safety of its people. Being an adversary defines pretty much any nation that isn't a direct ally; any nation would gladly knock someone else down a peg to gain for themselves. Diplomatic nicety aside, that's the reality of international competition. No nation acts 'nicely' in reality unless it benefits them to do so, although many do try to keep up good relations to keep the trade flowing. But that's quite different from realizing that another nation is actually trying to destroy you. Is Russia actively trying to destroy America in any way you can see? Is there some tactic they're using whose endgame is to have the Russian flag flying in Washington, or to have America in ruins? I don't see it if there is one. That used to be the case, but not any more.

[NobleHunter]

That's a more restrictive definition of enemy than I'd work with. I think part of our disagreement hinges on "actively trying" and the extent of opposition. Even if Russia isn't actively trying to destroy the US, they certainly seem to want to reduce US influence and damage their interests wherever possible; even if they aren't able to do much. Similar to Iran or North Korea. It's not what they are doing or could do, it's what they'd do given the opportunity.

Though speaking of America in ruins, trying to get Trump elected certainly seems like it could qualify.

[Fenring]

Even if Russia isn't actively trying to destroy the US, they certainly seem to want to reduce US influence and damage their interests wherever possible; even if they aren't able to do much.

I can name several instances where Russia took active steps to try to improve America's situation on certain fronts. Granted, it would have been a mutually beneficial outcome, but I wouldn't expect Russia to ever accept a loss on America's behalf anyhow.

But let me focus my question differently: If one nation starts picking on a second one, and the second one begins to adopt reactive measures to counteract what the first is doing, is the second one treating the first as an 'enemy', or is it merely attempting to make the best of the situation? Can a nation be called an enemy if they don't see you as one? Some forces in America have been trying to portray Russia as an enemy for some time, that's true. But them pushing the narrative in the media doesn't mean it's true as some kind of official policy position in Washington. Putin, on the other hand, has repeatedly make attempts to increase interactivity between Russia and the U.S. We may well suspect that his intentions were gain some kind of upper hand in so doing, but even making the gesture is very different from the rhetoric we were seeing from the USSR.

I think what you may be seeing is an result of the fact that Russia's ally (Syria) is Saudi Arabia's enemy. That may make it seem like Russia is somehow directly opposing the U.S. in the mid-East, but that would have to rely on the premise that Saudi Arabia is an ally of the U.S. Which it isn't.

[NobleHunter]

Russia's support for Assad seems to have at least a secondary objective of preventing more American influence in the region.

The situation in Europe is much more confrontational, though. Actual treaty allies are being threatened there.

One can also work with enemies if the situation requires. It just takes a longer spoon.

[Fenring]

Russia's support for Assad seems to have at least a secondary objective of preventing more American influence in the region.

Is that American influence their legal right to have? Is it permissible under international law to try to depose foreign leaders against which you have no declaration of war? Trying to prevent an illegal action might hamper the objectives of certain parties in American politics, but it could be argued that preventing America from committing an illegal action is, in fact, doing America a good turn in the grand scheme.

The situation in Europe is much more confrontational, though. Actual treaty allies are being threatened there.

Can you give an example of what Russia has been doing there that you think qualifies under your statement? Please exclude mention of Ukraine, unless that's the only one you were thinking of.

One can also work with enemies if the situation requires. It just takes a longer spoon.

I just don't see what the point is of calling someone an enemy unless you are planning to destroy them or go to war with them. Breedlove et al were pushing for...I don't know what...an eventual war? They were certainly acting, on an individual basis, as enemies of Russia. But I doubt the American public (or the Congress) wants to go to war with a nuclear power. Iran has actively called for the destruction of Israel (which by proxy might as well mean the U.S.). Has Russia said anything to that effect?

[NobleHunter]

Legality? What does that have to do with the acquisition and exercise of imperial power? I mean it was helpful in keeping the US from sticking its sausage back into a meat grinder but it was decidedly favorable for Russia.

The Baltic states come to mind if for no other reason than the rhetoric over Russians in the Ukraine is just as applicable to them.

No one sane ever wanted to go to war with the USSR.

I'm not sure there's much utility in calling out enemies but it provides a context for their actions. See cherry's attempt to portray the alleged Russian meddling as doing the US a favor.

[Fenring]

Legality? What does that have to do with the acquisition and exercise of imperial power?

My post was unclear. Read it as "Is that American influence America's legal right to have?

In other words, did America lose anything that was really theirs to begin with? Having dominion over the airspace of a foreign country like Syria doesn't seem to me like a domain that can legally contest and be upset over having lost.

[NobleHunter]

Legally contest? That's one tool, sure, but there are others. At this level, laws suggestions rather than rules.

Whether or not it should have had that influence doesn't mean that Russia didn't undercut it.

[AI Wessex]

I never asked for a direct quote from Putin. A direct quote from him would be satisfactory, of course, however I already called BS that Putin said that. I just Googled "putin trump bff" and came up with zero, even from the whacko sites. Again, where is your source for Putin having said that?

Yes, I would also be very much surprised if Putin said that.

[Pete at Home]

Former enemies? *blinks*

Someone hasn't been paying attention to geopolitics for the last decade.

In what way has Russia been an "enemy" to the U.S.? Note that this isn't the same as asking whether anything Russia has done has annoyed or hindered the U.S.

Putin is an enemy to the Clintons, and more sinned against than sinning in that regard.  I actually think Trump is right that he could deal better with Putin than Hillary could.  Anyone not a friend of the Clintons could do better. 

Russia is anti-NATO, but that's misleading, since NATO was from its inception an organization dedicated to containing Russia.  That's like saying that Heretics are anti-Inquisition.

[cherrypoptart]

I remember Russia warning us directly about the Tsarnaevs and our own government deciding that it knew better with tragic consequences.

They aren't friends or enemies and you know what's coming. They're frenemies.

[cherrypoptart]

Recent events have also proven that Russia was correct about the Islamist threat coming out of Afghanistan and the rest of the Middle-East while Bush was incorrect in thinking that relieving the Muslims of a secular dictator would lead to a stable and peaceful democracy and Obama doubled and tripled down on that mistake and continued Bush's folly thereby turning a large swath of the Middle-East into a bloodbath that is now spilling over into Europe with terrorist attacks almost every day now over the last week.

[Greg Davidson]

Meanwhile, the Democratic Convention continues to progress.

In my call above, I did not anticipate the Michelle Obama speech that was powerful on Monday. And on Tuesday, Bill Clinton provided a discussion of what Hillary has accomplished that will not affect the Fox News crowd or the 5% of Bernie supporters who walked out, but should help peel off moderate Republicans. At the same time on Tuesday night at the Republican Convention, the arena was half-full and the speaker was the guy who ran the Trump Winery.

Tomorrow is Bloomberg, probably to make the case about  Trump's business practices. Followed by Biden and Obama. 

[Pete at Home]

Meanwhile, the Democratic Convention continues to progress.

In my call above, I did not anticipate the Michelle Obama speech that was powerful on Monday. And on Tuesday, Bill Clinton provided a discussion of what Hillary has accomplished that will not affect the Fox News crowd or the 5% of Bernie supporters who walked out, but should help peel off moderate Republicans. At the same time on Tuesday night at the Republican Convention, the arena was half-full and the speaker was the guy who ran the Trump Winery.

Tomorrow is Bloomberg, probably to make the case about  Trump's business practices. Followed by Biden and Obama.

"Dear Secretary Clinton,
There's no question that you started you political career as one of us, a liberal idealist bent on doing good. Somewhere along the way you broke bad, made what you called "Hard Choices." But many of us want to believe in redemption. Hillary, give us reason to believe that you've gone back to what you once were. Don't make a public confession (giving ammo to Trump). Leave Bernie in the Senate where he can do more good than in some token cabinet appeasement. Instead, make a clean BREAK with Debbie Wasserman Schultz and everyone else not immediately related to you that has done dirty work on your behalf. Purge your camp of those that cheated the Sanders voters. Give us an excuse to believe in you, and we will flock to your camp."

[Fenring]

The joke really is that there is so much wrong with Clinton's image there are any number of things she could do to improve it, but she does none of them. She continues to double down on pretending she's never done anything wrong or associated with bad people. I kind of agree with Pete that many liberals would probably turn their swords into plowshares and support her if they gave them any reason at all to believe she represented their interests in the slightest.

[Seriati]

It's not so easy to fix as you imply Fenring.  Her best argument for being the candidate is her competence and sheer gravitas, walking back on errors and begging forgiveness (as Bill would have done) undermines that persona.  People liked Bill because he appeared to be human, she's always shooting for superhuman.  Her strategy is exactly the same as what AI does on these threads, no matter how serious the fault, say that the other guy's faults are worse.

[AI Wessex]

Her strategy is exactly the same as what AI does on these threads, no matter how serious the fault, say that the other guy's faults are worse.

As that comes from someone who so often confuses opinions with facts, I'm willing to shrug that off.  Or correct me if I'm wrong, is it an actual fact that if Clinton is elected will there really be 6 SC justices who don't "honor the Constitution"?

[Seriati]

Are you intentionally being ironic by asserting that I held up my opinion as fact (thereby demonstrating conclusively, which of us can't tell the difference between opinions and facts)?

[AI Wessex]

I wish I were, but you have a pattern of flat statements that reflect a clear political viewpoint, but never seem to realize that they are opinions.  Seriously, there are 4 justices now who don't "honor the Constitution"?  Is that really a fact?  How do I even respond to that, except to say that's just your (lopsided) opinion?

[Wayward Son]

And in somewhat related news, when asked about the hacking of Democrat's e-mail, Trump asked Russia to do more hacking (presumably for his benefit).

Donald J. Trump said Wednesday that he hoped Russia had hacked Hillary Clinton’s email, essentially encouraging a foreign power’s cyberspying of a secretary of state’s correspondence.

“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” Mr. Trump said, staring directly into the cameras. “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”

Mr. Trump’s call was an extraordinary moment at a time when Russia is being accused of meddling in the U.S. presidential election. His comments came amid questions about the hacking of the Democratic National Committee’s computer servers, which researchers have concluded was likely the work of two Russian intelligence agencies.

Later in the news conference, when asked if he was really urging a foreign nation to hack into the private email server of Mrs. Clinton, or at least meddle in the nation’s elections, he dismissed the question. “That’s up to the president,” Mr. Trump said, before finally telling the female questioner to “be quiet — let the president talk to them...”

The Clinton campaign immediately accused Mr. Trump of both encouraging Russian espionage against the United States and meddling in domestic politics.

“This has to be the first time that a major presidential candidate has actively encouraged a foreign power to conduct espionage against his political opponent,” said Jake Sullivan, Mrs. Clinton’s chief foreign policy adviser. “This has gone from being a matter of curiosity, and a matter of politics, to being a national security issue.”

I'd ask what he was thinking, but it's clear by now that Trump usually doesn't. 

[Mynnion]

It also sounds like there may be more the Wikileaks is holding back to release at other critical points.  It kind of pisses me off.  I have an issue with the DNC but why wait until after Hillary is appointed?  Assange just lost any sympathy I had for him when he started manipulating the election.  If he was really in it for truth he would have released everything immediately as soon as it became available.  Maybe if enough junk had come out early enough we would have a better candidate.

[AI Wessex]

Are you intentionally being ironic by asserting that I held up my opinion as fact (thereby demonstrating conclusively, which of us can't tell the difference between opinions and facts)?

I think what you're saying is that when you say something as if you have solid evidence behind it, I should just stick "IMO,..." in front of it?  If so, I'll start doing that and we'll probably have a lot less to argue about.

[LetterRip]

Mynnion,

yeah Assange is in it for maximum publicity, and consequences be damned.  I suspect he also has a personal vendetta against Clinton.

[cherrypoptart]

It is amusing to be so concerned with the Russians and Assange supposedly manipulating our election simply because they pointed out the truth along with the evidence of the fact that the Democrats actually did manipulate the election and lied constantly about it while giving the actual criminals in the Democratic party a pass for their dirty deeds.

It's almost as if, and call me crazy here if you want, some people wish we would have never known about this at all and certainly never had the proof of it. They are more mad about the truth coming out than they are about the Democrats in charge who actually violated our democracy and rigged an election. And one has to wonder if this is what they are willing to do to their own party what won't they do to the opposing party? Is there any level they won't sink to, any cheating they wont try, and lies they won't tell or deceptions they won't try to pull or fraudulent votes they won't cast or ballot boxes they won't stuff? And after they did all of this to corrupt our entire system of government if the proof of it is exposed will they again be more mad at the people who got the truth out than the ones who destroyed our democracy and treasonously subverted the will of the people?

[AI Wessex]

It is amusing to be so concerned with the Russians and Assange supposedly manipulating our election simply because they pointed out the truth along with the evidence of the fact that the Democrats actually did manipulate the election and lied constantly about it while giving the actual criminals in the Democratic party a pass for their dirty deeds.

It's interesting that of all the "truths" they could have revealed they chose this specific set.  Will you be sanguine if they dump Trump's tax returns into the airwaves?

[Wayward Son]

Actually, the contents of the e-mails and where they came from are two separate issues.

We should discuss what those e-mails said, and whether the Democrats actually "manipulated the election."  (For instance, the fact that Bernie isn't a Democrat should make it unsurprising that he wasn't favored by the Democrats. And exactly how did the Democratic National Committee manipulate the election?  By publishing stuff about him?  Wow, what an innovative strategy!  I wonder why no one else has done that? )

But it is also of concern who released these e-mails.  Is Russia trying to manipulate our elections?  Perhaps Putin himself?  Why would he care?  Does he favor one candidate above the other?  Why does he favor one?  Does he think one would be better for him or his country than the other?  Should we allow him to influence our elections?  After all, Obama was condemned for accepting money from China through a third-party (which, IIRC, was given back when the source was discovered) because of possible influence of our elections and the candidate.  Hillary is condemned for donations to the Clinton Foundation, because it is supposed that such donations influence her.  Is money the only way to influence elections and candidates? Or would providing information that will help a candidate get elected leave that candidate in debt to the provider?

The conversation should not be exclusively about one issue or the other.  Both have serious implications for the election and our nation.  It isn't one or the other; it's both.

[Fenring]

Mynnion,

yeah Assange is in it for maximum publicity, and consequences be damned.  I suspect he also has a personal vendetta against Clinton.

I'm actually starting to think that both Edward Snowden and Assange are both mostly full of it. They have claimed for years to have all sorts of damning information, and mostly they've released little to nothing of consequence. I don't know why Wikileaks decided to release the emails right at this moment, when supposedly they have so much material on other subjects they claim to be sitting on.

I can see three realistic possibilities:

1) What they have is too dangerous for some reason and they have to be super careful about what they release.

2) They are publicity hounds who have little substance to back it up.

3) They're controlled opposition being occasionally used as sock puppets by someone (in this case, perhaps by Trump, who knows; maybe it's on a contract basis).

Take #3 for a moment, and consider why they timed this release for after Bernie was already out of the race. It certainly wasn't to help Clinton, since then they'd never have released it at all. At this point releasing such things only helps Trump. So there's that to consider. Or maybe they literally just hacked these emails the other week and released it right away, which I find a bit of a dubious possibility but I guess it could be true.

[LetterRip]

If you thought Edward Snowden released 'nothing of consequence' - you weren't paying attention.

http://mashable.com/2014/06/05/edward-snowden-revelations/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surveillance_disclosures_(2013%E2%80%93present)

Snowden turned everything over to trusted journalists and also distributed failsafes.  He isn't the one making revelations, it is the reporters he entrusted the information to who do so.

[Fenring]

If you thought Edward Snowden released 'nothing of consequence' - you weren't paying attention.

http://mashable.com/2014/06/05/edward-snowden-revelations/

Oh, he made an initial reveal about all sorts of things, virtually all related exclusively to the NSA. That makes sense, because it's where he was. I mean since then, he still claims to have tons more stuff, more damaging than what he released, hidden 'in a safe place' (certainly not on him). To date he seems to mostly be a twitter presence who rides on what he already did. I'm not saying he never released anything, but am suggesting he blew most of his load early on and may not have all that other supposed goodies he keeps promising.

Snowden turned everything over to trusted journalists and also distributed failsafes.  He isn't the one making revelations, it is the reporters he entrusted the information to who do so.

He turned over material he wanted to have at the time, but if we take his claims seriously, that was only a little bit of it that he wanted released at that time. He's claimed to have a huge stash of treasure buried somewhere (maybe literally). My point is that his contributions since he's been in hiding seem to have tapered off to nothing other than Tweeting.

[cherrypoptart]

Is Russia really manipulating our elections though by revealing to us that and how they are rigged and who is rigging them?

It seems to me that they aren't manipulating our elections so much as Un-manipulating them.

[Mynnion]

As Wayward pointed out the issue is not either or but both.  While we know that the GOP actively tried to undermine Trump I am guessing that there would be plenty of dirty laundry in their private emails as well.  If a hacker from China releases Trump's tax returns and they end up hurting his chance for the presidency would you call that manipulation?

[Pete at Home]

And in somewhat related news, when asked about the hacking of Democrat's e-mail, Trump asked Russia to do more hacking (presumably for his benefit).

Donald J. Trump said Wednesday that he hoped Russia had hacked Hillary Clinton’s email, essentially encouraging a foreign power’s cyberspying of a secretary of state’s correspondence.

“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” Mr. Trump said, staring directly into the cameras. “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”

Mr. Trump’s call was an extraordinary moment at a time when Russia is being accused of meddling in the U.S. presidential election. His comments came amid questions about the hacking of the Democratic National Committee’s computer servers, which researchers have concluded was likely the work of two Russian intelligence agencies.

Later in the news conference, when asked if he was really urging a foreign nation to hack into the private email server of Mrs. Clinton, or at least meddle in the nation’s elections, he dismissed the question. “That’s up to the president,” Mr. Trump said, before finally telling the female questioner to “be quiet — let the president talk to them...”

The Clinton campaign immediately accused Mr. Trump of both encouraging Russian espionage against the United States and meddling in domestic politics.

“This has to be the first time that a major presidential candidate has actively encouraged a foreign power to conduct espionage against his political opponent,” said Jake Sullivan, Mrs. Clinton’s chief foreign policy adviser. “This has gone from being a matter of curiosity, and a matter of politics, to being a national security issue.”

I'd ask what he was thinking, but it's clear by now that Trump usually doesn't. 

Stop the brainwashing and think a bit about this crap that you're parrotting.  What Trump has rhetorically "asked" Putin to do isn't an act of "hacking" but an act of time travel.   All the Congress' horses and all the Congress' cybersleuths couldn't find those 30,000 emails under a lawful discovery order. How could Putin "hack" what is no longer there without a time machine?

Think harder, damnit.

What Trump is actually asking Putin (assuming that Trump isn't so psychotic to assume Putin has a time machine) is that IF Putin already did hack those 30,000 emails, back when Clinton had them all on an illegal an undersecured personal server, that he should produce them now.  That isn't an illegal request, since if the hacking's been done, then it's already done, and the information already in a foreign power's hands.

But Clinton and all assure us that no one hacked her server, so we can all be secure that Russia does not have and cannot acquire those emails.

Right?

[Pete at Home]

The joke really is that there is so much wrong with Clinton's image there are any number of things she could do to improve it, but she does none of them. She continues to double down on pretending she's never done anything wrong or associated with bad people. I kind of agree with Pete that many liberals would probably turn their swords into plowshares and support her if they gave them any reason at all to believe she represented their interests in the slightest.

Her best argument for being the candidate is her competence and sheer gravitas, walking back on errors and begging forgiveness (as Bill would have done) undermines that persona.

She doesn't need to apologize.  Just fire Wasserman-Shcwartz, sending the message that she's breaking with her evil henchmen.

[Pete at Home]

Mynnion,

yeah Assange is in it for maximum publicity, and consequences be damned.  I suspect he also has a personal vendetta against Clinton.

There's no evidence of personal motive and his actions can be fully explained by political motive.  Assange stands for political transparency.  Who would he hate more than a US presidential candidate who supported the suppression of the whistleblower statute, and supported coups that the American people for the most part aren't even aware of?