I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

Am I the only one amused by the fact that Hillary's campaign is blaming Russians for the hacking of the DNC, but the idea of them hacking her email servers is unpossible!?

If the GOP ran anyone else - literally anyone - they'd kill her. Why this year, Donald? Why?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

So #DNCleaks happened just in time to make the DNC convention exciting! When faced with evidence that Wasserman Schultz did exactly as Bernie folks always suspected, she doesn't apologize and just doubles down for support for Hillary. Now Bernie folks are planning on opposing Tim Kaine's nomination and disrupting the convention. I may just watch some of it yet. But since I probably won't, I am counting on y'all to post updates for the Democrat challenged like me.

I am also curious to see what Assange is sitting on regarding Hillary that will supposedly ensure Hillary's arrest. Any thoughts? My guess is something regarding the selling of influence through the Clinton Foundation. Probably not enough for an indictment, but bad.

Don't be surprised if Clinton agrees not to pursue Assange in exchange for him holding back what he's got (assuming he got it from sources other than the Russians, who'd then leak it on their own). If Assange truly has damming evidence, I could see Bill cutting a deal, with British cooperation, to have Assange freed, the cover for which would be, "Brexit changed extradition rules, so England had to free Assange." Recall, the US did not seek to take Assange into custody. It was using Sweden to do so. Clinton doesn't even have to drop an indictment. All she has to say after he's freed is, "There are more important matters than Julian Assange. That's a matter for the Swedes and Brits."

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

When faced with evidence that Wasserman Schultz did exactly as Bernie folks always suspected....

I have heard stories about how Schultz and the DNC "conspired" against Bernie, but I have yet to hear anything about they actually did that might have made a difference.

DWS is a dope, and doesn't seem to have done anything for the party.

Bernie was in politics for decades and was never a member of the Democratic Party, so it's a little odd that anyone should be surprised that the party wasn't a fan of him.

I am also curious to see what Assange is sitting on regarding Hillary that will supposedly ensure Hillary's arrest. Any thoughts?

That's a pipe dream. Why would Assange sit on anything, other than Ecuadorian embassy couches?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

What I can't figure out is why Wasserman isn't already gone but being allowed to gavel in and out. I'd just get her out of the picture altogether.

I read somewhere yesterday that DWS has been a screw-up for years, and that people asked Obama to get rid of her, but that he didn't want to deal with it and left the mess for Hillary. So on some level, all this is on him.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

Am I the only one amused by the fact that Hillary's campaign is blaming Russians for the hacking of the DNC, but the idea of them hacking her email servers is unpossible!?

Who thinks it's unpossible? It's just as possible as the hacking of State Dept. servers.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

What I can't figure out is why Wasserman isn't already gone but being allowed to gavel in and out. I'd just get her out of the picture altogether.

Agreed. The party can throw her under the bus for now. Hillary can hook her up later, post-election. Having her face anywhere in Philly a picture might be taken is tempting trouble unnecessarily.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Agreed. The party can throw her under the bus for now. Hillary can hook her up later, post-election. Having her face anywhere in Philly a picture might be taken is tempting trouble unnecessarily.

She's a member of Congress. It's not like she really needs another job.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Who thinks it's unpossible? It's just as possible as the hacking of State Dept. servers.

HRC's surrogates have dismissed out of hand every suggestion her private server was hacked.

In fairness, they have plausible deniability. If it has been hacked, Putin is holding the goods for an October Surprise (or blackmail).

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

She's a member of Congress. It's not like she really needs another job.

She has higher aspirations. Now she's damaged goods. The Clintons can get her back some of the power she lost. I mean -- they kinda owe her... just a 'lil bit.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

I have heard stories about how Schultz and the DNC "conspired" against Bernie, but I have yet to hear anything about they actually did that might have made a difference.

She still beat him by 3mil votes. But: (1) That's not the point; and, (2) How many votes did he lose as a result of the DNC screwing him?

Bernie was in politics for decades and was never a member of the Democratic Party, so it's a little odd that anyone should be surprised that the party wasn't a fan of him.

It could have openly rejected him, as the RNC did Trump. Instead, it worked behind the scenes to fuck him while on the surface assuring his supporters it was neutral. Nobody likes that sort of thing. Nor should they.

That's a pipe dream. Why would Assange sit on anything, other than Ecuadorian embassy couches?

Assange's release method has always been to drip out information to ensure the story stays on the front pages.

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by SEC_Chick

The DNC at least tries to put on a face of impartiality. I don't think the RNC needs a leak, it's right there in the open. Like how the NRSC won't give any $ for the CO senate candidate, just because he beat their GOPe guys at the state convention. He's even enthusiastically onboard the Trump train, but Cruz endorsed him, so he's on their hit list.

Heck, since his speech last Friday, all Trump has done is badmouth other Rs, and even says he's raising $ to primary challenge Cruz and Kasich, because, clearly, that's what his priority is.

Trump has multiple high-level people in his campaign with ties to Putin and other Russian oligarchs. It is highly concerning to me that a foreign nation may be influencing our campaign, but I guess it is only bad when Democrats don't specifically request it?

See http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/10/...984-elections/

Hadn't heard about that one (maybe a plot line for future episodes of "The Americans"?), but yes, that was a bad thing for Senator Kennedy to do.

It's Not Good whether the attempted or solicited influence is coming from our rivals (the USSR or the post-Soviet Russians) or friends like the Israelis (hi Bibi!) or South Vietnam (Theiu for Nixon in 1968 via Anna Chennault).

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

HRC's surrogates have dismissed out of hand every suggestion her private server was hacked.

Of course they have. They're advocates.

Is it not pretty clear that she was trying to avoid using that account for sensitive work stuff? And is it not obvious that the usual government servers are vulnerable?

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

She has higher aspirations. Now she's damaged goods. The Clintons can get her back some of the power she lost. I mean -- they kinda owe her... just a 'lil bit.

She was damaged goods before, but no one wanted to deal with the situation. I wouldn't be surprised to see her get an executive appointment, but I'd be surprised to see her get a good one.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

She still beat him by 3mil votes. But: (1) That's not the point; and, (2) How many votes did he lose as a result of the DNC screwing him?

Zero? What did they do that made a difference? We've already established that DWS is ineffectual.

It could have openly rejected him, as the RNC did Trump. Instead, it worked behind the scenes to fuck him while on the surface assuring his supporters it was neutral. Nobody likes that sort of thing. Nor should they.

Agreed. But what, if anything, did they accomplish?

Assange's release method has always been to drip out information to ensure the story stays on the front pages.

Um, what? Assange's method has been to dump stuff, and then it drips out as other people work their way through it.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Um, what? Assange's method has been to dump stuff, and then it drips out as other people work their way through it.

Allright -- call it a "multiple dumps" method. Wikileaks serializes the disclosures. You get one and the promise of another. As the first recedes from public interest, the second appears.

Then Glenn Greenwald and the Guardian start analyzing the stuff in detail.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Allright -- call it a "multiple dumps" method. Wikileaks serializes the disclosures. You get one and the promise of another. As the first recedes from public interest, the second appears.

Then Glenn Greenwald and the Guardian start analyzing the stuff in detail.

I'm just really fed up with everyone monkeying with the election.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Agreed. The party can throw her under the bus for now. Hillary can hook her up later, post-election. Having her face anywhere in Philly a picture might be taken is tempting trouble unnecessarily.

I'm not seeing her landing anywhere that requires actual oversight and administration; she can be a deputy reporting to the person who does stuff somewhere, or she can be an honorary face of something or other, but I don't see someone saying, hey, deb, why don't you actually run X.

Note the people misbehaving weren't her, but people who report to her. I think this is a problem with the fact that the DNC plays two roles before there is a nominee: (1) putting together the rudiments of a field game and campaign to turn over to the winner and (2) overseeing the process, and these two haven't been adequately separated.