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

[Pete at Home]

Here's my prediction of Hillary's counterattack.  She's not going to go as publicly hardball on screen like Trump and friends did, but she's going to point to conservative allies, real and fake.

Real ones are Republicans whose lives have been saved by Obamacare.  That's a solid argument and I support it.

Fake allies will include, I predict, the Wall Street Journal, which I believe will write articles supporting Hillary and/or denouncing Trump at an unprecedented tone, between now and the end of the DNC.  It's been planned already, but they are saving it as one of those lefty "spontaneous" things.  a god out of a machine.  What pundits will be too slow or too inept to explain adequately, is that this position is nothing more than a product of Rupert Murdoch buying out the Wall Street Journal, one of the last bastions of American conservative honesty.  He made this purchase seven years ago, right about the time that it became clear that Clinton was going to be running for president in 2016.  He's a clinton supporter, and the only reason that FOX news continues to bash hillary and offer lukewarm support for Trump is that they were losing their viewership when they fought against Trump.  Expect FOX to continue to act as cheerleader for Trump and to offer facts skewed in his behalf, but don't expect them to do any serious investigative work against Hillary or on Trump's behalf.

[Greg Davidson]

Secret weapon - competence.

Bernie Sanders - will give articulate and full support for the need to elect Hillary Clinton (even while he promises to keep pushing her from the left).

Elizabeth Warren (same thing). And by the way, people will perceive Clinton as more centrist than her platform actually is by the signal from those that are disappointed that Clinton is not as far left as them

Barack Obama - with a 54% favorability rating (which is huge when you consider that Republicans in Congress, for example, have about a 9% favorability rating).

Bill Clinton - Possibly the most effective advocate at the conventions when Obama was running

Tim Kaine, a pick that met with some immediate dissatisfaction on the left, just came out with one of the best introductory speeches for a Vice Presidential candidate (to see him at length, start the cspan video at minute 27 https://www.c-span.org/video/?413100-1/hillary-clinton-campaigns-miami-running-mate-senator-tim-kaine).

Hillary will still have negatives. And she's not a natural speaker in large groups. But as Kaine summed up in minutes 53-56, Trump is ultimately about fear and his own selfishness. Clinton can campaign on hope, courage, and focusing on voters and not herself.   

[Pete at Home]

I think it's sad that so many people think that Bernie's sole or main appeal was "go left, young lady."

Trump at least pays lip service to the issue that many Americans are tired of the 1% taking everything and running everything.  That was one of Bernie's good points.

Bernie also understood that when the system fails to protect people, that you don't reassure them by taking away what they regard as their sole means of defense.

Most importantly, Bernie didn't lie to us, and he didn't talk down to us.

If Clinton wants to fill Bernie's shoes, she doesn't need to zig left so much as zag towards honesty.

[Fenring]

If Clinton wants to fill Bernie's shoes, she doesn't need to zig left so much as zag towards honesty.

We should probably be satisfied if she zigs left, since that's at least plausible.

[AI Wessex]

Michelle Obama will have a prime time slot at the convention Monday night.  I heard on the radio today a suggestion that she might do a rendition of Melania Trump's rendition of her 2008 speech.  It should be pretty polished by this time...

[Pete at Home]

Michelle Obama will have a prime time slot at the convention Monday night.  I heard on the radio today a suggestion that she might do a rendition of Melania Trump's rendition of her 2008 speech.  It should be pretty polished by this time...

I doubt it.  She's too classy for that and I doubt she's going to adopt Trump's attack the wife strategy for the sake of Hillary Clinton.

[Pete at Home]

If someone at the DNC DOESN'T come forward and make an issue of this, then I think Cruz' outburst will make the DNC look like a bunch of hypocritical Stepford Wives.

Not sure how Al, self-identified as Jew by birth and atheist by religion, sits comfortable that the Chairwoman of the DNC, who was supposed to oversee the objectivity of the primaries, was the one who came up with the plan to destroy Sanders by spreading rumors that he is an Atheist.  I don't care if Sanders is Jewish, Atheist, or freaking Raelian; it's unconscionable that the person charged with overseeing the DNC selection would put her dirty ass on the scale, particularly with such a blatantly anti-American tactic.  It's furthermore offensive that this firing only occurs after the leak, and I fear that she's going to be simply shifted to another paid cushy position.

[Fenring]

Pete, not to sound cynical, but why should it surprise you that the DNC will do whatever its owners demand of it, including squashing candidates that threaten its owners? They want their people in power, period. In a way it's not fair to blame Schultz personally for this since it's standard practice and won't stop after she's gone. I guess she's taking the fall for what is actually a systemic corruption in which she was a player but not a significant one.

[LoverOfJoy]

In a way it's not fair to blame Schultz personally for this since it's standard practice and won't stop after she's gone. I guess she's taking the fall for what is actually a systemic corruption in which she was a player but not a significant one.

It's not much of a fall. Hillary has already hired her for Hillary's campaign. So she can keep on doing what she was doing but now out in the open.

[Fenring]

In a way it's not fair to blame Schultz personally for this since it's standard practice and won't stop after she's gone. I guess she's taking the fall for what is actually a systemic corruption in which she was a player but not a significant one.

It's not much of a fall. Hillary has already hired her for Hillary's campaign. So she can keep on doing what she was doing but now out in the open.

Exactly, but since she's been cast as a scapegoat people will 'forget' that this little business ever happened. Until the next election, when they forget again.

[AI Wessex]

Exactly, but since she's been cast as a scapegoat people will 'forget' that this little business ever happened. Until the next election, when they forget again.

The most egregious of the 20,000 leaked emails didn't include Schultz.  It's not at all clear that any action was taken on Sanders' religion, and most of the "embarrassing" ones are fairly pedestrian conversations about dealing with donors and blocking and tackling.  Mostly we're seeing how the sausage is made.  Fenring is right that this will blow over and be forgotten, and then it will happen again next time.  It's highly likely that if we saw a trove of RNC emails they would have plenty of juicy gossip and hand-wringing about Trump and other candidates on their side, too.  FWIW, Sanders himself has separated Clinton from this kerfuffle and says it doesn't change his support for her, so let's move on.

[AI Wessex]

Too late to edit that last message, but what may be the real issue with the leaked emails is how they were stolen and the implications concerning Trump's campaign and his relationship with Russia.  Mother Jones has some speculations on possible ties, but they aren't provable:

Today brings one of the weirdest stories of any recent presidential campaign: Hillary Clinton's campaign has essentially accused Donald Trump of being a pawn of the Russians. Not in hints; not from an unaffiliated Super PAC; not in a deniable statement from an arms-length surrogate; and not in vague "doesn't put America first" terms. Friday's release of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee, says Clinton's campaign manager, "was done by the Russians for the purpose of helping Donald Trump." And Trump intervened to change the Republican platform last week in a way that "some experts would regard as pro-Russian."

Believe it or not, though, that's not the weirdest part of this story. The weirdest part is (a) Clinton's campaign might be right, and (b) this is not really getting an awful lot of attention from the media.
...

[Pete at Home]

Exactly, but since she's been cast as a scapegoat people will 'forget' that this little business ever happened. Until the next election, when they forget again.

The most egregious of the 20,000 leaked emails didn't include Schultz.  It's not at all clear that any action was taken on Sanders' religion, and most of the "embarrassing" ones are fairly pedestrian conversations about dealing with donors and blocking and tackling.  Mostly we're seeing how the sausage is made. 

Damn that's cynical.

[DJQuag]

I don't really care if the Russians were behind the hack. I don't care if the RNC does the same or similar things. I think the Trump-Russian connection is ridiculous BS put out there to provide cover and distraction from the leaks. I might change my mind if there are more sources then Mother Jones or Clinton's campaign manager.

If "this is how things happen," is the only explanation that anyone is going to have, all I can say is that how things happen needs to change. It's unacceptable. I have little sympathy for a political organization or its supporters crying about privacy and hacking when what they've really lost is the ability to be incredibly unethical in private.

The DNC was working for Clinton. That is unacceptable. They were so far in the bag that they were considering a Republican style attack on Sanders' atheism. That is also unacceptable.

You know what else is business as usual? Partisans glossing over atrocious *censored* when their side is caught doing it, when they'd be calling for heads to roll if it was the other. I won't call that unacceptable,  but it sure is contemptible.

[cherrypoptart]

I predict that Hillary won't admit any of Obama's many massive failures and therefore of course will provide no alteration of course to correct them.

Examples: the national debt, ISIS, genocide of non-Muslims in the Middle-East and parts of Africa, the race war against white police officers specifically and police in general given a wink and a nod by Obama, the porous border, sanctuary cities and crimes by illegals that are hurting and killing Americans, people giving up on trying to find a job, Obamacare (some have been helped as you say Pete but it's such a massive overall failure that isn't working out economically so that even Obama is now admitting that single payer would have been better), Chinese conquest of the Pacific, Russia's conquest of part of Ukraine, rising college costs, private debt by hard working Americans just trying to pay their rent, and on and on and on. Many of these things were supposed to be right up Obama's alley, like making things better for working Americans (and those who want to work) but it looks like he jumped a back fence and ran away from them instead of confronting the problems and doing anything to really solve them, or maybe he did do his best to try to solve them but his best wasn't anywhere good enough and his approach came from the wrong direction so he failed.

I'll also predict that the comedians and the news casters will go much softer on Hillary than they did on Trump but that's so obvious it's hardly even worth saying. It is just more evidence of how the credibility of most in those industries has gone right out the window in favor of brandishing their political bias.   

[DJQuag]

Wait, you think that it was *Obama's* fault that we didn't get single payer?

The man worked with the Congress that he had. He may have had a slim majority, but there were/are plenty of Democrats in the pockets of the medical insurance industry, not to mention the Dems from Blue Dog districts who would have feared losing their jobs if they'd gone in on single payer. And the Republicans would have painted him as Stalin.

Nah, man, the fact that we ended up with a half added monstrosity can't be pinned on Obama. Congress makes the laws.

[AI Wessex]

I don't really care if the Russians were behind the hack. I don't care if the RNC does the same or similar things. I think the Trump-Russian connection is ridiculous BS put out there to provide cover and distraction from the leaks. I might change my mind if there are more sources then Mother Jones or Clinton's campaign manager.

The NY Times and CNN are on-board:

...
Proving the source of a cyberattack is notoriously difficult. But researchers have concluded that the national committee was breached by two Russian intelligence agencies, which were the same attackers behind previous Russian cyberoperations at the White House, the State Department and the Joint Chiefs of Staff last year. And metadata from the released emails suggests that the documents passed through Russian computers. Though a hacker claimed responsibility for giving the emails to WikiLeaks, the same agencies are the prime suspects. Whether the thefts were ordered by Mr. Putin, or just carried out by apparatchiks who thought they might please him, is anyone’s guess.

If "this is how things happen," is the only explanation that anyone is going to have, all I can say is that how things happen needs to change. It's unacceptable. I have little sympathy for a political organization or its supporters crying about privacy and hacking when what they've really lost is the ability to be incredibly unethical in private.

I *expected* this based on earlier complaints from Sanders, even though it doesn't make it right.  Trump complained all along that the system was rigged until he had clinched the delegate count on his side.  He was right about that, too.  If we saw RNC emails they would reveal how the RNC at first dismissed and denigrated him, later struggled to find a way to minimize his impact, and finally turned its guns on the remaining candidates who were still trying to thwart him.  I call it sausage making, because if you read about the history of Party nominations you'll see that this has gone on forever.  Remember that despite the function of the RNC and DNC to get politicians elected to government office they operate more like country clubs than anything else.

The DNC was working for Clinton. That is unacceptable. They were so far in the bag that they were considering a Republican style attack on Sanders' atheism. That is also unacceptable.

I'd like to know how far the suggestion of using Sanders' religion went beyond the one email that I know about that raised the suggestion.  If they actually tried to use it, that would be utterly contemptible, but still not outside the bounds of what campaigns have done in the past. I bet the RNC knew about and had "discussions" about the whispered rumors about McCain's illegitimate black daughter back in 2000, for instance.  The difference is they didn't leave emails behind that would prove it.

You know what else is business as usual? Partisans glossing over atrocious *censored* when their side is caught doing it, when they'd be calling for heads to roll if it was the other. I won't call that unacceptable,  but it sure is contemptible.

Perhaps if I hadn't seen it all so many times before (remember 1968 in Chicago), I'd be outraged, too.

[DJQuag]

Maybe I didn't make myself clear; the fact that the RNC has/does it as well, doesn't make it okay. If political machines want to carry on this way, they'd better go back to paper mail, because hacking is going to get more common, not less.

I didn't see anything in that quote or from CNN and the Times about a Trump-Russian quid pro quo situation. The only people suggesting that are Clinton's people and Democratic talking heads, with no evidence at all and strictly as a CYA move.

[AI Wessex]

OK, I thought you would take the next step yourself.  Google "Trump Russia Putin" and read all of the different sources that *do* say that.  What I find interesting when I read the articles is that they emphasize facts to back up their opinions and conclusions.  These are all moderate to left-leaning organizations, but there are NO right-leaning news or analytical outlets saying anything about this.  If the facts are verifiable, does this mean that conservatives think this is ok?  If so, that would be the most scandalous thing about the whole potential mess.  All of a sudden the GOP is Putin's lapdog.  Wow.

[Fenring]

Al, there are no facts here. They're all parroting some rumor that someone leaked, which is what the media is these days; a rumor mill.

[NobleHunter]

Two things:

I find it really hard to be scandalized by the DNC being biased against Sanders. I suppose the fault is that they pretended not to be. Maybe they should have admitted they were trying to squash an interloper trying to wreck a decade of work by the top members of the organization. The whole public-private mess of the primary system makes it uglier but given the superdelegates, that the party reserves the right to overrule the voters should come as no surprise.

The other thing is about the religion question. If that particular gun had been left unfired during the primary, the GOP (or proxies) would certainly fire it during the general election. There's something to be said for having it go off during the primaries and letting it be old news by August. Not that I think that's what was going on but it behooves the party to consider a controlled explosion to stop a bigger bomb from going off later.

[TheDeamon]

I don't really care if the Russians were behind the hack. I don't care if the RNC does the same or similar things. I think the Trump-Russian connection is ridiculous BS put out there to provide cover and distraction from the leaks. I might change my mind if there are more sources then Mother Jones or Clinton's campaign manager.

It actually wouldn't surprise me if any given foreign government (but in particular one that is nominally hostile) undertook activities they thought could subvert an election in such a manner that it might produce a result they find to be desirable. Trump is advocating a more isolationist approach to foreign policy, and a number of other things that could prove to be foreign affairs disasters if they come to pass.

I could certainly see Russia and China both trying their utmost to enable Trump to achieve that goal so they have a chance to fill in the void created by the resulting power vacuum. However, that doesn't require any degree of collaboration with the Trump campaign to achieve. People are capable of operating independently of each other and still creating mutually beneficial outcomes.

[DJQuag]

Al, there are no facts here. They're all parroting some rumor that someone leaked, which is what the media is these days; a rumor mill.

Exactly this. The story being put out there is that Trump and Russia are working together. It's no less ridiculous then bringing up Vince Foster.

[AI Wessex]

Al, there are no facts here. They're all parroting some rumor that someone leaked, which is what the media is these days; a rumor mill.

OK, is this what you were looking for?:

Trump мой BFF . Ха , ха , мы обманули вас глупые американцы еще раз !
 --  Vladimir Putin

Satisfied?

[Fenring]

Maybe you could provide a translation for that?

[rightleft22]

 

[AI Wessex]

Maybe you could provide a translation for that?

Yes, of course:

Trump is my BFF.  Ha, ha, we have fooled you stupid Americans yet again!

I can't attest to the authenticity of the quote, but this would seem to be the kind of proof you wanted.

[Fenring]

Trump is my BFF.  Ha, ha, we have fooled you stupid Americans yet again!

I can't attest to the authenticity of the quote, but this would seem to be the kind of proof you wanted.

This is not how Putin speaks, therefore I conclude it's BS. This seriously qualifies as "proof" to you of what the rumor mill is churning out?

[AI Wessex]

Uh...

[Fenring]

Uh...

If you're going to give a silly answer...

[Pete at Home]

Uh...

If you're going to give a silly answer...

But here it's a silly answer that Al seems to *know* is a silly answer. 

[NobleHunter]

I think there are four main permutations to the Trump/Russia thing.

1. There is no Trump/Russia thing. What passes for Trump's foreign policy stance is no better or worse than anyone else's. No one's meddling behind the curtains or doing anything inappropriate.

Probability: Pretty *censored*ing low. Trump has come perilously close to saying his administration would give Putin a free hand in Eastern Europe.

2. The Trump/Russia thing is active collaboration. Trump is actively working with Putin to get himself elected. Trump gets access to nefarious activities squad of considerable experience; Putin gets a pliant US President. Win/win?

Probability: A hair more than pretty *censored*ing low. A bit higher than option 1 since there's no evidence contradicting it but there's no evidence supporting either. While it's something Putin would do, I can't see Trump being stupid or energetic enough to do it.

3. The Trump/Russia is Putin playing games with Trump as a useful idiot. Putin is trying to get Trump elected because of what passes for Trump's foreign policy stance. If Trump blows up NATO, Putin has a much freer hand in the Baltics or even in pushing for more of Ukraine.

Probability: Middling. Accusing them of screwing around with elections need considerable supporting evidence. There doesn't seem to be any. So plausible but not confirmed.

4. The Trump/Russia thing is coincidental convergence of interests and not active co-operation. What passes for Trump's foreign policy stance would be good for Russia but Putin isn't actively promoting it.

Probability: High. It's the default possibility in the absence of contradicting evidence. What Trump has said he'd do is good for Russia and Putin just standing back and nodding with approval doesn't require any specific evidence.

[AI Wessex]

4. The Trump/Russia thing is coincidental convergence of interests and not active co-operation. What passes for Trump's foreign policy stance would be good for Russia but Putin isn't actively promoting it.

Probability: High. It's the default possibility in the absence of contradicting evidence. What Trump has said he'd do is good for Russia and Putin just standing back and nodding with approval doesn't require any specific evidence.

Back-scratching at it's finest.  Don't overlook that they've been servicing each other for decades already.  I agree with your scoring.

[NobleHunter]

Don't overlook that they've been servicing each other for decades already.

And there's an image I didn't need. I think Trump has a fondness for the mythologizing of Russia/Moscow as a center of Imperial Power. There isn't really the same thing in the US since DC is too stodgy and bureaucratic and everywhere else pretends economics has nothing to with imperialism.

[AI Wessex]

He likes strongmen, who in the realm of politics and governance are all despots and dictators.  He hasn't said anything nice about any elected western foreign leader that I can think of, but has recently given praise and props to Hussein, Putin and Kim Jong-un.  Cherry, do you think any of them would let you keep your guns?

[Pete at Home]

I think there are four main permutations to the Trump/Russia thing.

1. There is no Trump/Russia thing. What passes for Trump's foreign policy stance is no better or worse than anyone else's. No one's meddling behind the curtains or doing anything inappropriate.

Clinton supported a fascist anti-Russian coup d'etat in the Ukraine, leading to the Crimea conflict, and her husband committed aggression against Russia's historical ally Serbia in Kosovo.  Of course Putin is going to do what he can to see that she isn't elected.  He has every cause to.  Putin's a bad guy, but where Hillary is concerned, Russia is more sinned against than sinning.

China's probably greasing Hillary, as they did with Bill.  the PRC gave millions to Bill, and Bill gave them the gyroscopes they needed to hit America with ICBMs.  That kind of friendship doesn't go away.

[Fenring]

China's probably greasing Hillary, as they did with Bill.  the PRC gave millions to Bill, and Bill gave them the gyroscopes they needed to hit America with ICBMs.  That kind of friendship doesn't go away.

Let's not forget those friendly Saudis, who have just been implicated in 9/11. They massively sponsored Hillary's campaign in one of the greater non-scandals that hasn't been reported.

[JoshCrow]

Let's not forget those friendly Saudis, who have just been implicated in 9/11. They massively sponsored Hillary's campaign in one of the greater non-scandals that hasn't been reported.

This is an attribution fallacy - unless you are referring to specific individuals that both contributed to 9/11 and Hillary's campaign, in which case I am all ears.

[Pete at Home]

Let's not forget those friendly Saudis, who have just been implicated in 9/11. They massively sponsored Hillary's campaign in one of the greater non-scandals that hasn't been reported.

This is an attribution fallacy - unless you are referring to specific individuals that both contributed to 9/11 and Hillary's campaign, in which case I am all ears.

Not hard to show if you consider that letting Osama Bin Laden go during the Clinton Administration, contributed to 9/11.

[Fenring]

Let's not forget those friendly Saudis, who have just been implicated in 9/11. They massively sponsored Hillary's campaign in one of the greater non-scandals that hasn't been reported.

This is an attribution fallacy - unless you are referring to specific individuals that both contributed to 9/11 and Hillary's campaign, in which case I am all ears.

I don't exactly have access to the list of specific names of who contributed to the Clinton Foundation. But since the Saudi government (i.e. those with ties to some of the hijackers) is the same thing as the Saudi family, your question is basically a request for me to name all the members of the family and to state which of them may have helped the hijackers, and which the Clintons, and to see if any names are on both lists. Sadly that list cannot be made and so we're left with connecting what I see as obvious dots in terms of 9/11. If you connect them differently then I guess we'd just disagree on that.

[cherrypoptart]

"I predict that Hillary won't admit any of Obama's many massive failures and therefore of course will provide no alteration of course to correct them.

Examples: the national debt, ISIS..."

I'm not sure if it's true or not since I didn't listen to the whole convention but Drudge is reporting that ISIS wasn't mentioned at all. I'm going to score that prediction then as a win.

[cherrypoptart]

Why are the Democrats pointing to the Russians?

The Russian may have leaked the information but the Russians didn't make the Democrats violate all of their own rules and standards and force a bought and paid for establishment candidate onto their fellow Democrats against their will.

The story isn't how the information was obtained though that is a desperate and transparent attempt at distraction. The story is that this happened at all and the developing story is that many Democrats, especially those in power, are more concerned about how the truth got out than they are about doing anything about it happening in the first place and holding those responsible to account. So far it only looks like the intention by the insiders such as Hillary is to hold them responsible by rewarding them with positions and favors.

[AI Wessex]

The story isn't how the information was obtained though that is a desperate and transparent attempt at distraction. The story is that this happened at all and the developing story is that many Democrats, especially those in power, are more concerned about how the truth got out than they are about doing anything about it happening in the first place and holding those responsible to account. So far it only looks like the intention by the insiders such as Hillary is to hold them responsible by rewarding them with positions and favors.

It's heartening to see that you care about the truth, even if it's only to further vilify Democrats.  Do you care about the truth when it comes to Trump?  Even a little?

[NobleHunter]

Yeah, 'cause there's nothing to worry about if the Russians are meddling in US politics. It's just a distraction from the DNC's weaksauce emails about possible ways to kneecap Sanders. No reason at all to be worried about it. The Democrats are the real problem.

[Mynnion]

I found it interesting that every major news source I looked at headlined the story of the emails being linked by the FBI to Russia except Foxnews.  I may be buried somewhere on the site but while I saw a few references about the emails themselves I couldn't find a reference to the Russian link.  I personally DO find it disturbing when Russia tries to manipulate our elections.  I also believe the emails are problematic and that Sander's supporters have a right to be angry.  The same way Trump supporters would have had a right to be angry if the GOP did not give him the nomination.

[Pete at Home]

Yeah, 'cause there's nothing to worry about if the Russians are meddling in US politics. It's just a distraction from the DNC's weaksauce emails about possible ways to kneecap Sanders. No reason at all to be worried about it. The Democrats are the real problem.

Let's say that it was the Russians rather than more obvious choice, Julian Assange that exposed the DNC.  Yes, the Clintons have a history of atrocities (aggression against Serbia and an ultranationalist coup d'etat deposing a democratically elected pro-russian friend of Putin) against the Russian People and since the Clinton State Department singled Putin out for personal sanctions (unprecedented), it would make sense for Putin to strike back directly at Hillary.

That doesn't mean that we should not have a serious discussion about Hillary's widespread systematic election fraud against Sanders.  And that's how the DNC news handlers are using the Russians.  For no other reason than to stop the digging on a fraud that FAR surpasses Watergate.  Watergate was just an *attempt* to dig evidence to affect an election.  Here, the election has already been thrown, a popular candidate disqualified.

Absolutely, Obama's FBI should be looking into the Russian breach.  And absolutely, let's discuss those findings.  But using fear of "Duh Russians" is a transparent Nixonian move to play on nationalist emotion to pull the wool over our eyes.  If the Russians are involved, it doesn't change the fact that Clinton is cheating before our very eyes by rewarding the woman that threw the election to her.

[Pete at Home]

I found it interesting that every major news source I looked at headlined the story of the emails being linked by the FBI to Russia except Foxnews. 

Well, aside from the fact that many of those news sources are Hillary's whores to begin with and helping her out with the distractathon, they also are responding to an immediate exposure of their own falsity and complicity.  Talking about the evil Ruskies is a way to distract from the leaked DNC emails giving orders to the press as to what questions are to be asked in interviews.

[Mynnion]

Pete-I read a very wide variety of News sources and I while Huff Post might be considered an ardent supporter of Clinton the BBC, NPR, and Politico while Left leaning are certainly not.  I believe the WSJ also carried it but I can't remember for sure.

While it is obvious from the leaked emails that the DNC actively favored Clinton there is no indication that she was directly involved or that Bernie would have won if the DNC had not favored Clinton.  The GOP was pretty blatant about working against Trump.  Trump won.  I wish Bernie had but I'm not sure I see any real difference beyond the winners.  I find both sides guilty of trying to manipulate the system.

[Pete at Home]

Pete-I read a very wide variety of News sources and I while Huff Post might be considered an ardent supporter of Clinton the BBC, NPR, and Politico while Left leaning are certainly not.  I believe the WSJ also carried it but I can't remember for sure.

While it is obvious from the leaked emails that the DNC actively favored Clinton there is no indication that she was directly involved or that Bernie would have won if the DNC had not favored Clinton. 

Am still visiting parents and I heard the Russians allegation mentioned quite a bit on Fox News last night.

The emails don't make such an indication, but the exit polls show dramatic evidence of fraud.  Particularly in California. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/06/22/californias-lengthy-vote-count-stokes-theories-that-sanders-actually-won-the-primary/
 https://electionfraud2016.wordpress.com/

California called for a ... ahem ... DNC investigation.  see the problem?  That's why Sanders folks are yelling Lock Her Up or outright pledging a protest vote to Trump (like our LR, who's always been a level headed liberal voice here).  I think it would be a shame to waste Hillary's intrigue and diplomacy skills, and think she should be appointed Ambassador to Libya.

[Fenring]

While it is obvious from the leaked emails that the DNC actively favored Clinton there is no indication that she was directly involved or that Bernie would have won if the DNC had not favored Clinton.

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.

The GOP was pretty blatant about working against Trump.  Trump won.  I wish Bernie had but I'm not sure I see any real difference beyond the winners.  I find both sides guilty of trying to manipulate the system.

Apples and oranges here. The GOP's opposition to Trump may even have helped him win, whereas in Bernie's case it's quite clear they crippled his chances. It's easy to call it a wash when one side fails in the tactic, but the result is not a wash.