“Russia Is Reportedly Set To Release Clinton’s Intercepted Emails” oilprice.com – Republished


(Re-published in honor of Debbi and company)

"Reliable intelligence sources in the West have indicated that warnings had been received that the Russian Government could in the near future release the text of email messages intercepted from U.S. Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s private e-mail server from the time she was U.S. Secretary of State. The release would, the messaging indicated, prove that Secretary Clinton had, in fact, laid open U.S. secrets to foreign interception by putting highly-classified Government reports onto a private server in violation of U.S. law, and that, as suspected, the server had been targeted and hacked by foreign intelligence services.

The reports indicated that the decision as to whether to reveal the intercepts would be made by Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin, and it was possible that the release would, if made, be through a third party, such as Wikileaks. The apparent message from Moscow, through the intelligence community, seemed to indicate frustration with the pace of the official U.S. Department of Justice investigation into the so-called server scandal, which seemed to offer prima facie evidence that U.S. law had been violated by Mrs Clinton’s decision to use a private server through which to conduct official and often highly-secret communications during her time as Secretary of State. U.S. sources indicated that the extensive Deptartment of Justice probe was more focused on the possibility that the private server was used to protect messaging in which Secretary Clinton allegedly discussed quid pro quo transactions with private donors to the Clinton Foundation in exchange for influence on U.S. policy."  oilprice.com


"For good measure, Clinton stated for the umpteenth time, “nothing I sent or received at the time was marked classified.” This dodge has been employed for a year as cover by Team Clinton to explain how so much classified information, including at least two dozen emails classified top secret or higher, among them enormously sensitive special access programs from both CIA and NSA, wound up in Clinton’s “unclassified” private email.

Any inquiring mind will want to know how Hillary Clinton is so certain she cannot be indicted over EmailGate, since the FBI’s investigation remains open. Similarly, it deserves to be asked why Obama felt it appropriate to endorse Clinton to succeed him in the White House while the FBI continues to investigate her, since any Bureau referral in the matter will wind up on the desk of the attorney general, Loretta Lynch—who works for President Obama. The White House insists this is no way taints the case. However, since Obama is a constitutional lawyer by background, he cannot fail to see how this creates a serious conflict of interest.

On top of that, Clinton’s evasions aren’t working. A new survey indicates that 60 percent of voters think she’s lying about her emails, versus 27 percent who believe her."   Observer.com


 Hmmm.  Putin made a statement the other day that he thinks Trump  would be a good president for US/Russia relations.   Hmmm.  pl 

24 July – Just the beginning, pilgrims, just the beginning.  someone out there has a further large stash of Hilly's "extremely careless" e-mail traffic.  It could be the Russians.  Why not?  She seems hell bent on further overseas adventures.  Why would they not try to defeat her?  Why not?  The e-mail pirates could be anyone.  Hilly's unsecured servers and commo circuits could easily be penetrated by just about anyone with a modicum of knowledge.  China, North Korea, "Anonymous,"  anyone.

I suspect that these e-mails will be fed to WikiLeaks in tranches (slices) by the perpetrators.  Compromised SAP codeword material, the money laundry supposedly at work in Clinton World, embarrassing personal material? Who knows!  The sky is the limit.  pl 




This entry was posted in As The Borg Turns, Current Affairs, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

151 Responses to “Russia Is Reportedly Set To Release Clinton’s Intercepted Emails” oilprice.com – Republished

  1. Former 11B says:

    Why not? Acting civilly has gotten Russia nowhere.If Trump represents a more reasonable discourse then game on.

  2. Larry Kart says:

    So our next president will be picked by the Borg or by Putin? 

    Some say the world will end in fire,
    Some say in ice.
    From what I’ve tasted of desire
    I hold with those who favor fire.
    But if it had to perish twice,
    I think I know enough of hate
    To say that for destruction ice
    Is also great
    And would suffice.
    Robert Frost

  3. Jack says:

    If Putin authorizes the release of the Borg Queen’s files showing she mis-handled classified information, would Obummer allow AG Lynch to indict her?
    IMO, that’s not gonna happen. The Borg is going to do everything in its power to insure the coronation of the Borg Queen. There’s too much at stake for a “loose cannon” like Trump to upset the apple cart they have carefully stacked.

  4. bth says:

    Why would Russia do anything directly, much less before the June 28 sanctions vote? July 1 Friday is take out trash day in Washington so likely internal government report’s release date saying there were issues but nothing serious -‘move along nothing to see here’ day. July 18 begins Republican convention so likely if there is a Russian/Assange release it would be just before then. Democratic convention debate is July 25, so if Russia preferred Bernie then leak before Dem convention would be likely and leak just before Rep. convention would be needed to fan flames. Likely counter would be Obama pardon of Petraeus and Clinton both and at his leisure during a slow news day in early August. Again what would Russia gain by this when they have a useful idiot like Assange or some German media outlet to do the dirty work for them?

  5. plantman says:

    Generally speaking, Putin prefers a non-interventionist policy.
    His willingness to release the Clinton tapes suggest that Moscow sees Hillary as a grave threat to their national security.
    Unfortunately, I would agree with that assessment.

  6. C L says:

    The problem with releasing hacked emails is – Can you prove which server it was stolen from –
    the allegedly hacked Clintonmail server
    State Dept verified-hacked servers
    Other unknown Hacks of US govt computers
    The law of unintended consequences is always ready to pounce and bite the hand that unleashes it

  7. Lyttenburgh says:

    What a pile of BS! “We can’t really prove that it was Russian government – let alone Russian hackers, but we are saying it anyway. Trust us, guys! Dum-dum-dum-duuum!”
    And why would Russia feel”frustration with the pace of the official U.S. Department of Justice investigation”. No one gives a crap, seriously. No one truly believes tha any American president would be really capable of either overpowering the Establishment and ruling oligarchy, or even fulfill a fraction of his/her election promises.
    This is all a case of projection and more “Russians are coming!” hysterics from the Free and Independnet Western Media ™

  8. b says:

    1. I very much doubt those unsourced “reports” How would anyone know if Putin would decide over such nonsense?
    Russia has no history of releasing such policy papers. But now claiming that Russia will release them allows to blame Russia should whoever has copies release them,
    2. Russia likely did not hack the DNC server just like North Korea definitely did not hack the Sony servers. For what? Oppo research on Trump? Starting a year before Trump won the race?
    The self advertising bosses of the crowdsource snake-oil shop that investigated the case say themselves that there were multiple hacks of the server. One hacker published a lot of those papers proving that the DNC has worked to inaugurate Clinton all along. That might help Sanders but not Putin.
    #blameputin is a funny hashtag but there are so many hackers out there and so many open servers that it is not justified at all in such a case.

  9. Edward says:

    The American public should know before the Democratic convention and before the November election if Hillary Clinton broke the law. At this point I am wondering if the Obama administration is breaking the law by not prosecuting her. Is the FBI free to ignore a crime? How many crimes are in those emails?

  10. Edward says:

    I have been wondering if the Guccifer release of the DNC data was a warning shot to the Obama administration.

  11. kao_hsien_chih says:

    I have trouble buying this.
    If Russians (and any foreigner) think their bad mouthing of an American politician would actually hurt his or her chances, they’d be stuck in fantasyland. I don’t know if this is Putin’s MO–it seems too childish given what we have seen of him, but then, they, like us, might have an inflated sense of their own credibility and might underestimate nationalistic resistance to obvious foreign propaganda.
    I do wonder, though, if this is a subtle maneuvering by the pro-HRC crowd–it actually does smell like their MO: portray Trump as Putin’s candidate, while astroturfing at the same time whatever bad news that might emerge from possible releases of what was in those emails. It smacks of how the Republican neocons tried to use the Valerie Plame affair to discredit their critics, but I would expect Democratic neocons to be no less sloppy.

  12. Castellio says:

    Maybe you’d like to explain why Assange is an “idiot”.

  13. turcopolier says:

    “think their bad mouthing of an American politician would actually hurt his or her chances, they’d be stuck in fantasyland.” Ah, no, it would not be that. It would be release of HC’s correspondence itself. Nothing more would need to be said. pl

  14. turcopolier says:

    “How would anyone know if Putin would decide over such nonsense? Russia has no history of releasing such policy papers.” The Soviet KGB had a long history of grey and black propaganda operations. Putin was a career KGB 2nd Main Directorate operative. The SVR and FSB would be quite able to carry this out on a plausible un-attributable basis. how would you know? You would know if the Russians told you in order to get Clinton/Obama’s attention. pl

  15. Tab says:

    Putin didn’t write those emails and didn’t mishandle and make them vulnerable to intercept. By making them available it’s still left to electorate to vote for or against Hillary.

  16. Tab says:

    Assange has mentioned this Hillary email document dump. And Assange has a good track record of coming through on his promises.

  17. Fred says:

    You have that all wrong. The Borg do not think the citizens of the USA can be trusted with knowing just what is in Hillary’s emails. Putin thinks they can.

  18. Fred says:

    All those “donors” to the Clinton Foundation must be very happy with the IT security provided by HRC and the people with the backup bathroom server. I can hardly wait to find out who they are and how much they paid. I wonder why Obama doesn’t trust Americans to know that information.

  19. Lyttenburgh says:

    With all due respect – but this is just your speculation. I have kitchen knife – several, in fact – in my flat. Why should I commit a murder just becayse some other people often used this kind of utensil to kill their victims?
    Can you cite any example of modern Russian “black propaganda” op, where:
    a) Data was 100% stolen by Russian government.
    b) Said data would be released with the aim to harm the victim.
    c) The victim in question is a member of foreign elite
    Could Russia do something along the line? Maybe. But Russia can do a lot of stuff – like invading the Baltic limitroph states, assassinating Poroshenko or launching all of its nukes to Canada. All before the breakfast on ordinary Sunday. So what?

  20. I’m wondering who the forensic IT folks were that determined “the Russians” (Russian Intelligence? Some guy in his babushka’s basement?). I’m also wondering why anyone thinks that particular server in question is still online. Based on first hand experience from the ’80s I know that the FBI seizes entire systems – not just their hard drives. However, if only the hard drives were seized then that alone would take that particular server offline.
    It does not seem reasonable to me that the unnamed sources cited by oilprices.com know what they are talking about.

  21. ToivoS says:

    catellio, the operative term is “useful idiot”. This is used to describe some unwitting agent that is acting as a tool for some larger agency (I think it was Lenin who introduced that term). Love him or hate him there is no way that Assange is an unwitting tool.

  22. turcopolier says:

    I am in the business of enlightened speculation. Neither you nor anyone else will tell me what to write. If you don’t like it go elsewhere. pl

  23. turcopolier says:

    Who said it is still online? Once you copy the contents from afar you have the contents and it does not matter if it is still online. pl

  24. Akira says:

    You will know the leak came from Moscow if it includes the smoking gun evidence of a pay-for-play with Gulfie donors to support AQ in Syria.

  25. TonyL says:

    From Cryptogram by Bruce Schneier:
    “EDITED TO ADD (6/16): These leaks might be from this hack, or from another unrelated hack.
    They don’t seem to be related to the Russian government at all.”

  26. Larry Kart says:

    I oppose and fear the Borg, but that doesn’t mean that I think Putin, about whom I have mixed feelings, has the best interests of the citizens of the U.S. in mind. Rather, I think that he has the best interests of the Russian state, and of himself as head of the Russian state, in mind. Is it possible that those interests in this election year coincide with those of the American people? Not impossible. But would we want to cede a fair amount of control of “our” political process to the leader of another country? ( say “our” to take account of the existence of the Borg, But still, a foreign leader more or less nakedly picking our leader?)

  27. turcopolier says:

    Larry Kart
    It is not a question of “ceding” anything. If Russian intelligence in the normal performance of their duties took notice of Hillary’s unsecured e-mail circuit and storage, they would naturally have downloaded the contents as would anyone else. She ceded this portion of our sovereignty to the world. pl

  28. turcopolier says:

    It would have been so easy to penetrate and collect the contents of her e-mail servers, that it might be anyone who did it. pl

  29. Fred says:

    Larry, I didn’t say anything about Putin have the best interest of Americans at heart, just that he trusted us with knowing what Hilary was saying in those emails. That is by no means ceding control to anyone.

  30. kooshy says:

    On that feeling for “Grave threat” please count me in, as well as “survey indicates that” 60 percent of voters.

  31. bth says:

    Not necessarily unwitting. When was the last time Assange published anything negative about Russia? His focus is on the US. And he’s been wasting his life sitting in that embassy.

  32. All,
    When I was observing hackers from around the world, USG unclassified networks were often infested by hackers doing all kinds of nefarious things. In the words of Winston Zeddemore in Ghostbusters, “Since I’ve joined these men, I have seen shit that’ll turn you white!” A lot of this was missed by those who were supposedly watching the systems. I never had a NIPRNet account because I had no faith in that system’s integrity. Any information stored on Hillary’s basement email server, the DNC servers and the State Department NIPRNet servers is quite likely to have been stolen by a number of suspects. These hackers are first class liars who will sell/give their stolen information to damned near anyone. There is little of this story that I would automatically accept as gospel, but there is also nothing in this story I would dismiss out of hand.

  33. SAC Brat says:

    I feel bad for the poor Russian analyst who had this folder on their desk. The unfortunate SOB was probably having a wilderness of mirrors moment doing the due diligence on it. “Too easy to access.” “Must be a trap.” “Clever Anglo-American fake info.” “This can’t be real.” “This is real?”

  34. TonyL says:

    Exactly. And it is quite easy to originate the hack from a server belong to any country. Making it look like it’s from the “usual suspects” (North Korea, China, Russia) are just standard practice nowadays.

  35. SteveG says:

    Larry Kart
    “would we want to cede a fair amount of control
    of “our” political process to the leader of another
    country”. Who received more standing ovations
    before Congress than POTUS Obama?

  36. Jack says:

    As Col. Lang noted below the only person to cede anything was the Borg Queen. In her determination to prevent the American people from knowing about her communications she intentionally made her emails more vulnerable to exploit by sophisticated parties like foreign intelligence agencies. IMO, she doesn’t care as much about the leaking of national secrets to our adversaries relative to the prevention of the American people from knowing about her pay-to-play deals with characters like the Sauds or the Kazakh dictator and of course all the Wall St mavens who have written big checks.
    In any case I’m convinced there will be no indictment no matter how clear cut the evidence of wrong doing. She’s got the no prosecution card issued by Obama.

  37. Larry Kart says:

    if the e-mails Putin releases (if he has them and should he do so) contribute to Clinton’s losing the election, does that not mean that he was seeking to exert some significant control over the U.S. electoral process? Certainly that is what he would have accomplished.
    No, you didn’t say that Putin had the best interests of the American people at heart, but to me the implication of your “can be trusted” in “Putin thinks they can … can be trusted with knowing just what is in Hillary’s emails” is, that the American people should in some respects trust HIM here, as in trust him to be … I dunno, playing on the square here? As the Colonel has pointed out, “Putin was a career KGB 2nd Main Directorate operative.”

  38. Harry says:

    Or useful?

  39. Larry Kart says:

    Seem to misplaced my secret decoder ring, but I don’t understand the connection between the two sentences of your post. Was the second sentence maybe an oblique reference to Netanyahu’s enthusiastic reception by Congress? Or were you suggesting, even more obliquely, that Obama himself is a foreign leader? .

  40. Larry Kart says:

    Maybe I used the wrong word or wasn’t clear enough. I understand what Clinton herself ceded, but what I meant was that if Putin puts this information out there and this significantly alters the outcome of our election, do we want to sit still for/accept this intervention in our political process by the leader of a foreign nation?

  41. crf says:

    It’s doubtful that the Russians would do this. Any details revealed by the Russians would allow the United States to know which messages were intercepted. The United States would then try to figure out how they were intercepted.
    Speculating: particular messages intercepted may reveal a valuable Russian spy. Or they may pinpoint a particular flaw in a computer system which transmitted the message (in the encryption protocols used, for example). Once such a flaw is identified by the US, it would be closed down quickly from further Russian use. Also, more worryingly from the Russian point of view, past Russian communications may have been equally exposed due to similar flaws, and raw encoded Russian messages intercepted in the past by the US would be at risk of being decoded.
    The only reason why these intercepted Clinton messages would be released is if there is no technical risk at all to Russia.

  42. readerOfTeaLeaves says:

    Although ZeroHedge can be sketchy, they often have some intriguing tidbits. Consider, in terms of dark money in campaigns, that Putin is evidently up against considerable Saudi resources supporting Hillary:

  43. Ali says:

    thank you Steve, I was just going to say that.

  44. Peter Reichard says:

    Timing is everything. Trump vs. Clinton is even now not certain. If Russia actually has these emails and does prefer Trump they will be released around September for maximum effect.

  45. turcopolier says:

    You don’t really know anything about the business of signals intelligence do you? I will school you. The business of penetrating a civilian grade commercial server and the radio links (e-mail)that connected her cell phone to it is so elementary and easily done that there would be no risk whatever to Russian SIGINT in revealing their possession of these e-mails. BTW I was a Special Security Officer and detachment commander for three years in the US Army Special Security Group. I was trained and experienced in dealing with the niceties of the protection of SIGINT sources and was in the business of enforcing the rules needed to protect sources and methods that were actually valuable rather than the trivialities of Clinton’s “system.” What was endangered in the Clinton practices were the SAP programs that she and her staff discussed in her home brew unsecured e-mail set up. With regard to how the Russians or any of a number of groups who may have copied her e-mails might choose to release the e-mails, the intelligence instinct will be to release them to an intermediary like WikiLeaks and then just stand back and watch. pl

  46. turcopolier says:

    Larry Kart
    “do we want to sit still for/accept this intervention in our political process by the leader of a foreign nation?” What is it that you suggest we do to re-assert our sovereignty in this matter? pl

  47. Fred says:

    The Russian Federation is not the only government on Earth with Hilary’s emails. Maybe our own should release some? BHO was, after all, never a KGB 2nd Main Directorate Operative, just a flunky of the Chicago political machine. Of course when it comes to trust lets see how American’s feel about their own government:

  48. ex-PFC Chuck says:

    The US has been in the business of attempting to control the processes by which other countries select their leaderships since the last decade of the 19th century. Why should we expect other countries not to do likewise? Especially when a country was a target of the most intense of such efforts on our part for well over half a century?

  49. The Beaver says:

    Hackers from Ukraine and Romania are VVery good at that ( eg IP address coming from Latin America). Now even ISIS is doing it.

  50. Larry Kart says:

    Sure, why should we expect otherwise. But are you saying that now we should welcome and/or sit still for another country’s possible attempt to control the process by which we select our leadership?
    Among the reasons the US had been in the leadership selecting for other countries business off and on for a long time is that we thought it would be to our advantage and because we could or thought we could get away with it. Now we’re the possible pawns in the game, and that’s copasetic?

  51. jld says:

    Nah! Bomb them!

  52. Larry Kart says:

    Good question. I was just suggesting that the seemingly general celebratory response here to this possible intervention in our political process by the leader of a foreign nation struck me as a bit odd, given what I, as a longtime SST participant, understand to be the inclinations of this somewhat various corps of (usually) wise and sober souls.
    For instance, take the case of the Brexit vote. I know that Obama has weighed in on one side there, but suppose he went much further and, in attempt to swing that election, authorized the release of all sorts of intelligence information that supposedly showed that many key supporters of Brexit were engaged in deeply nefarious/illegal activities. Would we expect the citizens and the leaders of the UK to say, “Gee, thanks, U.S. — we needed that,” or would we expect them to be both highly dubious and fairly furious.
    I just don’t see — potential remedies and responses aside to it (and at this point I don’t have any of the former) — why so many of us here seem to be content or better with Putin’s possible maneuver.

  53. Larry Kart says:

    So my first guess as to what Steve had in mind was correct? Not trying to be snarky — I ask only in order to be sure what others here are thinking.

  54. turcopolier says:

    Larry Kart
    I hope you are not suggesting that we vote for HC to thumb our noses at foreign attempts to intervene in our political process. I know you well enough to know that you have not forgotten Bibi’s recent attempt at same. pl

  55. Larry Kart says:

    No, I’m not suggesting to do that (vote for HC) for that reason, though it’s one hell of a dilemma given my view of the alternative — forgive me, but I like Charles Pierce’s tagline for Trump, “The Giant Talking Yam.” What I am suggesting is that this possible foreign attempt etc. is no little thing, and I’m puzzled by how blase many of us here seem to be about it.
    I do see that the need to defeat the Borg Queen could overrule all or most other considerations, but, again, acceptance of this potential “foreign interference” manuever seems to me to run against much that most of us at SST have long regarded as crucial. As R. Frost said, fire or ice.
    BTW, despite all that craven or stupid congressional response, wasn’t “Bibi’s recent attempt at same” more or less a failure? That is, what he opposed came to pass. I’m not discounting all sorts of behind- or semi-behind-the-scenes further attempts at deep doo-doo on his part, but still….

  56. Apparently Julian Assange and Wikileaks is planning a major release in the next 72 hours.

  57. Babak Makkinejad says:

    Obama went to UK and basically threatened them if they dare to vote for exiting the EU.
    If you do not believe me, ask David Habakkuk and how it well it went down in that mythical land called “Middle England”?
    US Presidents have been interfering in the affairs of Iran for better part of 60 years; I mean, now the shoe is on the other foot and you complain?
    This is just business as usual among states – nothing to get too excited about – in my opinion.

  58. jld says:

    The Japanese are sold to Trump, do you see this as an “intervention in our political process” 😀

  59. different clue says:

    Larry Kart,
    Putin would not be “picking” our President. He would be supplying us with some information which we need and deserve to be able to make our own better-informed choice about picking our President. This is information which our own Secret Governators have tried to withhold from us in order to degrade and attrit our ability to make our choice. Putin would merely be fixing what our own Secret Governators have broken by privatising the server to begin with, and then by hiding all the emails.
    Of COURSE Putin would be doing it for his own Russia First reasons. It would merely be a happy coincidence that such a total all-emails open dump would also be in our interest as informed voters. And it would be. So I hope Putin releases all the emails (except for some genuinely secret secrets which should stay secret . . . if it is not too late for that anyway.)

  60. different clue says:

    You are correct. Hillary Clinton’s confidence in not being indicted is well placed. The same people who wanted Obama to be President so as to further their own enrichment and empowerment are the same people who want . . . HILLary! . . . to be President, to further farther their ongoing enrichment and empowerment even more
    farther further. If an indictment were indeed to loom to the extent that . . . HILLary! . . . were to be seen by the Secret Governators as an unelectable liability, then they would instruct their Obama to force a Nixon-style total pardon for everything upon an embittered Hillary in return for her immediate “voluntary” retirement to private life. She could spend more time with her family.

  61. b says:

    That would be the DNC stuff. The hacker Guccifer 2.0 had announced that s/he had given that dump to Wikileaks for publishing.

  62. different clue says:

    He’s been wasting his life sitting in that embassy in order to avoid wasting his life sitting in Guantanamo or in the “Padilla Suite” in South Carolina.

  63. Larry Kart says:

    “Obama went to UK and basically threatened them if they dare to vote for exiting the EU.”
    Yes. indeed. And how much better would that have gone down if, as I said, Obama also would have released intelligence information to the effect that U.K. advocates of Brexit had engaged in deeply nefarious/illegal acts? I think you’re making my point for me.
    Further, as I’ve said before on this thread, is the fact that the shoe now may be on our foot mean that we should say, “Fits just fine — I’ll take four pairs.”
    Did Iranians not complain? Of course they did, or some of them did. But by and large they didn’t have the political and military resources/leverage to make their complaints stick. Is that the shoe that now fits us vis-a-vis Russia?
    If so, and yet again, I’m bemused that this development or what you will seems to be so calmly received at SST. We get darned indignant about about a great many things, and this falls into the category of “so what”? Or is this just a matter of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”?

  64. different clue says:

    Are you confusing Ms. Clinton’s personal basement server with the DNC server which Russia allegedly hacked into to read up on the DNC’s oppo research against Trump? Because they are two different servers and two different hacks.
    Who knows who really hacked the DNC server to get the Trump Oppo file. But I can think of a reason that the Russia Gov would LIKE to have the Trump Oppo file. And that reason is this: the Russia Gov would like to give the entire contents of the Trump Oppo file to Team Trump as a “heads up” for the Team Trump people so that their chances of defeating Clinton would be raised. If, that is, the RussiaGov even has the Trump Oppo file to begin with.
    And that is a totally separate thing from the Clinton emails.

  65. turcopolier says:

    Larry Kart
    You think Russia is our enemy? Is this some kind of global hegemonic yearning expressing itself? Why do you think that? IMO people like Farid Zakariya are our real enemies. Did you see his hostile barrage of questions directed at Putin in St. Petersburg today? The scowl on his face was remarkable. pl

  66. different clue says:

    If the FBI finds enough evidence of possible crime in those emails and the FBI recommends to Lynch that Clinton is indictable for certain particular things; the FBI will have fulfilled its legal responsibilities thereby. If Obama and Obama’s Lynch decide not to indict no matter how clearly indictable the indictables, that would not be FBI ignoring-a-crime at work.

  67. Larry Kart says:

    No, I don’t think that Russia is our enemy — certainly not in respect to Syria or Ukraine. I just don’t see why one should think, in the particular case that’s in front of of us right now, Russia is necessarily our friend, whatever “friend” might mean in either global political terms or in terms of what’s for the best of the U.S. in terms of its own electoral politics. Like you, I am (or hope I am) devoid of global hegemonic yearnings.
    No, I didn’t see Farid Z. and Putin today. I avoid watching that punk Farid whenever possible, though my wife is addicted to the Sunday morning shows. I can assure you — as a former member of the media myself (at a major American newspaper) and a continuing would-be close observer of what goes on in the corridors of such places — that guys like Farid and their bosses are our enemies to a degree beyond what most of us could even imagine. They are such not only because of specific policies they push but even more so because they are themselves very afraid of not being able to retain control of things, economically and politically, and thus think what they think and push what they push primarily out of fear, whether or not they admit it (they never will) or even know it.
    Imagine, from your military experience, what it would be like to be under the command of deeply fearful men. Perhaps you’ve been there. That’s Farid and his bosses and their bosses. Conspiracies, perhaps, can be found, but the conspiracies of fearful men are particularly dangerous. Putin, I would guess, is not particularly fearful, which may be a plus in all this. It suggests that he can at the least can keep his eye on the ball, whatever the ball in his game might be.

  68. Stonevendor says:

    To W. R. Cumming,
    This business about Assange is one of he more fascinating aspects of this speculation. If Assange really had copies of messages from Clinton’s computer would he release them? Maybe. Or maybe he is tired of being imprisoned without benefit of trial — albeit with better food and neighbors. I imagine that Assange would be sorely tempted to make some sort of deal with the current administration to miss the fact that he was able to escape to Ecuador, or some other friendly spot, and in return he doesn’t drop any bombs before/during the Democratic convention. Or after the convention either.

  69. aleksandar says:

    It is said that HRC server was first hacked by a Romanian guy.
    And then russian services hacked the hacker.

  70. turcopolier says:

    Trivialities. Quite a few individuals and groups copied the contents of her server. it was easy. pl

  71. turcopolier says:

    Larry Kart
    I agree with Palmerston that countries do not have friends. They only have interests. pl

  72. Larry Kart says:

    Right. And Putin probably has a good grasp of what his country’s interests are. But both our media leaders, or “leaders,” and our national leaders (probably) are at once so fearful, conflicted/confused, and lacking in competence that they would have trouble even identifying their and/or our interests, let alone advancing them with much hope of success.
    One semi-genuine excuse that our media and national leaders have vis-a-vis Putin, though — it’s probably a heck of a lot easier to grasp and further your interests if you’re an oligarch. Again, I know the media world much better than I do the world of government, but no would-be media baron, or his underlings, is anything other than fearful and confused these days.

  73. Kevin Egan says:

    I have no idea where the truth in these email matters lies, but I would beware of crediting stories about HRC from the New York Observer, since its publisher is Donald Trump’s son-in-law!
    Love her or hate her–and she’s obviously very unpopular with most commenters here–I think that in fairness people ought to admit that there is an industry of writers who make a good living endlessly flogging and recycling anti-Clinton material: there’s no statute of limitations for anything negative anyone has ever said about her, feeding the endless appetite of that percentage of the population that thinks she’s Satan.
    This month, the Daily Caller published new revelations about the death of Vince Foster! (That was 23 years ago, in case you’ve lost count.)
    FWIW, I wish she was capable of absorbing the wisdom of Chalmers Johnson and Andrew Bacevich (and Col. Lang!) about the limits of U.S. power, but people her age don’t change that fundamentally. On the other hand, I admire her 40 years of advocacy for women and children, despite occasional bad compromises her husband made. Let him who is without sin….

  74. Babak Makkinejad says:

    Well don’t go indignant on us.
    This is business as usual among states; in my opinion and I stand by that.
    I agree that Iranians ought to quit complaining and do something; which is what the Ayatollah Khamenei did earlier this year in addressing a second letter to the Western Youth.

  75. turcopolier says:

    Kevin Egan
    Her work on behalf of women and children? Don’t you care at all if she arrogantly ignored US law? pl

  76. Fred says:

    That was 23 years ago, in case you’ve lost count. Well don’t stop, the people after this guy didn’t:

  77. Lyttenburgh says:

    2Larry Kart.
    Your bemoaning and gnashing of teeth while talking about the still uncomfirmed possibility of Putin both ordering a hack of Madame Secretary’s account and any potential release of jucy data contained thereine is rich, given that the US of all countries often influence the elections in other countries – and who notoriously provided all kinds of support for our Russian liberast fifth columninsts.

  78. rjj says:

    “….but people her age don’t change that fundamentally.”
    actually, honeydear, people her age are assaulted by repeated realizations of how wrong they have been about so many things when they were your age.

  79. annamaria says:

    True. The puppeteers care not about the law. They want Clinton, period.
    Here is a genesis of Magnitsky Act: http://www.unz.com/ishamir/the-good-fortune-of-mr-browder/ “The Untouchable Mr. Browder?”
    The above paper leads directly to the through-and-through corrupted Senator Cardin: http://www.councilforthenationalinterest.org/new/?p=3742#.V2fRqzc5FCo
    “Israel’s Agent of Influence: Senator Ben Cardin shows how it’s done”

  80. annamaria says:

    “He would be supplying us with some information which we need and deserve to be able to make our own better-informed choice about picking our President.”

  81. All,
    As Palmerston’s remarks about friends and interests have surfaced in this discussion, I looked up the actual quote. Apparently what he said was:
    “I say that it is a narrow policy to suppose that this country or that is to be marked out as the eternal ally or the perpetual enemy of England. We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow …”
    (See https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Henry_Temple,_3rd_Viscount_Palmerston .)
    That it is inherently unlikely that the interests of different states, because they are congruent or adversarial at a given time, will necessarily remain so, is patently the case.
    It is also patently the case that ideological compatibility between states is no guarantee of lasting common interest, and acute ideological incompatibility can coexist with strong common interests in critically important areas.
    That said, it is also possible to push analysis of politics in terms of ‘interests’ too far. Looking up Hans Morgenthau on ‘Wikipedia’. I was taken aback to find the following passage in its summary of his ‘six principles of political realism’:
    ‘The main signpost of political realism is the concept of interest defined in terms of power, which infuses rational order into the subject matter of politics, and thus makes the theoretical understanding of politics possible. Political realism avoids concerns with the motives and ideology of statesmen.’
    (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Morgenthau .)
    The notion that one ‘infuses rational order’ into the study of politics by making a priori assumptions about the reasons political leaderships act as they do, which enable to bypass knotty problems about their ‘motives and ideology’, is simply silly.
    It is not clear to me whether the Wikipedia entry misrepresents Morgenthau, or whether he was simply another over-educated dolt.

  82. Larry Kart says:

    About what Morgenthau meant in that passage, is he not simply (or not so simply) ruling out (or trying to rule out) questions of the motives and ideology of political leaders and focusing instead on what they do or do not do (i.e. on questions/issues of power)? Thus, he is not quite (perhaps) “making a priori assumptions about the reasons political leaderships act as they do,” other than the assumption that such reasons can be detached from what those leaders actually do or do not do — this because what those leaders do or do not do remains done or not done, regardless of their motives and ideology. OTOH, English was at best Morgenthau’s second language, and that may account for some or all of the static in the quoted passage.
    Further, I would guess that Morgenthau was tired of the abundant ex-post facto attempts to explain what, say, Bismarck was up to in terms of his personal supposed character traits and ideological penchants and even more tired of speculations about what current leaders might or might not do because of their supposed personal character traits and ideological penchants.

  83. Babak Makkinejad says:

    I think that the English Government, as opposed to the English people, was not motivated by any metaphysical sense of Justice – proper order of things – unless one includes things such as “No Hegemonic Power in Europe” or “Improving the Prosperity of Englishmen” in considerations of Justice.
    I think the people in the English Government, the Foreign Office, or the Colonial Office had been very clear in their own minds why they were abroad and what they were going to do there, to wit: “Make Stable & Steady Money”.
    I think the English people, however, have had a sense of Justice which, at times, had asserted itself and had forced the hand of the English Government; opposition to Suti in India, the opposition to genocidal policies of the Belgian Government in Congo and the lastly the rebellion against military intervention in Syria in 2013.
    I also think that experience of the English Government is not shared by very many other countries’ government, including that of the United States. The English Government, in my opinion, has been supremely realistic over as many centuries – no government in the world can match its record of success, in my opinion.

  84. Babak Makkinejad.
    I think you oversimplify a complex situation.
    It comes back to a central problem I have with Morgenthau – if his Wikipedia entry is not misleading.
    The relations between professed ideologies, and the motives that underpin them, are much of the time complex.
    So it is common for people to claim that the ideologies of their opponents are simply rationalisations of their will-to-power. Often, there is substance in the accusation.
    However, it is also the case that, to a greater or lesser extent, people can be ‘called out’ on their ideological professions – they may need to act in ways that validate these.
    It is partly as a result these processes that one gets very curious cultural interactions.
    An interesting example is the 1977 film ‘The Chess Players’ by the Bengali director Satyajit Ray. It deals with the forced abdication, in 1856, of the (Muslim) King of Oudh, Wajid Ali Shah. This was, of course, immediately before what we in Britain used to call the ‘Mutiny’.
    In a stroke of genius, Ray cast Richard Attenborough, a great actor but rather stupid, as the British Resident, General Outram. The role of his aide-de-camp, Captain Weston, who is very British but in love with Urdu poetry, was portrayed, quite brilliantly, by Tom Alter, the son of American Christian missionaries.
    In the film, accusations and counter-accusations hover in the air, unresolved. So on the one hand, Outram is the agent of an exploitative empire – but on the other, his view of Wajid Ali Shah as a ‘bad king’ clearly comes out of a sense of ‘Justice’, which Ray is not simply disputing.
    At the end of the film – if I remember right – the two chess-addicted nobles, played by Sanjeev Kumar and Saeed Jaffrey, are still playing, while behind them the (largely sepoy) army, with its elephant train and guns, moves into Oudh. Again, the judgements are ambiguous and unresolved.
    Actually, if one reads Kipling with attention, one can see that this is habitually the case in his writings.
    But such a reading also brings out the fact that the claims to ‘Justice’ made on behalf of the British in India by Kipling are as bringers of some kind of order – controllers of the chaos into which, it is imagined, human life all too easily falls back.
    (Indeed, it may not be too extreme to suggest that for Kipling, the British in India are a ‘kshatriya’ caste – a point the late Edward Said completely missed.)
    It is precisely this part of the old sense of ‘Justice’ with which contemporary British élites have lost touch. Accordingly, they are largely incapable of realising that the alternative to repressive forms of rule is, very commonly, chaos.
    And equally, they re incapable of grasping that, in general, chaos is not in our interests.

  85. different clue says:

    Kevin Egan,
    You put your finger by accident on a very interesting problem. This all reminds me of the Nixon-Frost interviews. I remember Nixon saying something like: ” I handed my enemies a sword and they used it with relish.” I could imagine the Clintons saying the exact reciprocal: ” Our enemies handed us a shield and we use it with relish.”
    The shield their enemies handed them is all the years of cardboard replica foam-rubber scandals manufactured by groups like the Arkansas Project and all the propaganda catapulted by R. Emmett Tyrell in The American Spectator and so forth. The ultimately-going-nowhere nature of these cardboard replica scandals enables the Clintons to say that the Email Thingie and the Clinton Foundation Deal are just more cardboard replica scandals from the usual suspects.
    “People want to know if their Clintons are a crook. Well . . . we’re NOT a crook! We’ve . . . WORKED for everything we’ve got.”

  86. steveg says:

    Larry Kart
    Apoligize for late response. Rummaging around through
    attic ceder chest and assortment card board boxes but
    did locate my Captain Marvel decoder ring. As luck would
    have it, my 47 yr. old can of USMC Brasso was nearby.
    It has been polished to new. Replaced battery with the
    latest lithium version guaranteed for ten years. One year
    for each word in my question if time frame needed.
    Could this be Putin’s blowback, if attributed, to HRC
    Hilter comment and more importantly the neocon
    BHO HRC Victoria Nuland coup of Ukraine. Sanctions
    anyone. I have woken up and smelled the Likud. You??

  87. Babak Makkinejad says:

    Of course I am simplifying, perhaps grossly, a very complex situation; else we would not be able to discuss anything in less than 2000 words.
    But, if I understand you correctly, it is that the idea of Order that the Imperial Policy was pursuing – to facilitate the making of money in India – was not that far from a core understanding of an Englishman’s sense of Justice and Fair Play.
    Thank you for your clarification.
    I have actually seen this film that you have mentioned; it keenly portrays natives who could be my own ancestors – testaments to sloth, poor governance, ignorance, dereliction of duty (to themselves, their subjects, their inferiors, as well as the unborn.) Complete failures if you ask me or any Iranian; just like the despised Qajars.
    The English State went rationally about making money off all these decaying or stagnating civilizations; one cannot blame them for doing so – in my opinion.
    The duty of the local potentate was to safeguard the Realm and to increase its security and not to indulge in dancing girls and (Urdu) poetry. They all deserved to be dispossessed of their power and be ruled by whomever could muster more force – in this case the English.
    I think the movie presented too attractive an image of the “king” in this case than was typically the case. Nevertheless how could any Englishman argue against the king’s removal when he would know that the English Order would be superior to anything that those people had ever experienced before (or, as it turned out, would experience later).

  88. different clue says:

    Peter Reichard,
    If the RussiaGov would prefer a Pres Trump then they might indeed release those emails around Sept. for maximum effect. But they would be taking a risk on Clinton getting elected anyway . . . and having to deal with an even more hate-filled vengeful Clinton after that.
    Whereas if the RussiaGov would primarily fear a Pres Clinton, they might want to release the emails way sooner in order to get Clinton taken off the field; so that a Pres Not-Trump would at least also be a Pres Not-Clinton. It all depends on what they want or fear more.
    I think I can understand what Larry Kart has been saying. In normal times, any “outside input” might be offensive and viewed as manipulative.
    But I think some of us are reaching a level of despair where we find ourselves thinking: ” Please Mr. Putin! Save us with a timely release of our rightfully-own rightfully-public information! We can’t do it ourselves in the teeth of Obama-Clintonite cross-collusion.” It is disturbing to find ourselves in a situation where we begin to feel such an “outside intervention” is something like a rescue mission.

  89. kao_hsien_chih says:

    Even if the source material is HRC’s own correspondences, if they wind up being released via Moscow, they are infused with Moscow’s designs, or at least it would give an appearance of such–even if it isn’t, HRC’s agents will insist that it is and many will believe them. I don’t think most people are able to evaluate most things that they see or hear on their own merits–that takes expertise that vast majority of us simply don’t have. Most of the public pass judgment, even if wrongly, based on the messenger, and Putin as a messenger is not terribly trusted by much of the public, I’d imagine.

  90. kao_hsien_chih says:

    I can’t pass judgment about Morgenthau, as my knowledge of him and his work is rather limited (although, to tell the truth, I thought his work was a bit too, eh, mechanical and at times dangerously simpleminded), but the pathology of the kind you have spotted is very common among people whose experience of “politics” is too academic.
    As you know, my “specialty” of sorts is game theory–something that gets a lot of people riled up around here :P. Yet, most irreconcilable disputes I get into are with others who claim to be specializing in game theory also. The problem is that the usual mathematical premises that go into game theoretic formulations exist not because they are true–indeed, many classic works in game theory and its applications are quite insistent on their being ridiculous in practice–but because they allow us to use math and force us to think logically and systematically rather than our convenient beliefs in place of rigor. They were thought to be useful more as training wheels, something that should be taken off once we learn to think things through logically enough. Unfortunately, these assumptions, under misleading label of “rationality,” themselves became the convenient beliefs, for too many at least, that we believe either are true or ought to be true and, if not, need to be made true by force. Overeducated dolts, as you put it, are too commonplace, it seems.

  91. turcopolier says:

    That’s why I would imagine that the correspondence would be released through a third party without attribution. pl

  92. Kevin Egan says:

    With respect, Col. Lang, that might be a false dichotomy: I can care about the first and condemn the second with no problem and no contradiction that I can see.
    However, before I do the latter, condemn her law-breaking, I’m waiting to see if it turns out that that’s what she did; I’d like to wait to judge, though, until all the investigations are done, especially since it seems to be the case that the rules changed after she started using private email in the way her predecessors had, and that the initial decision was more self-protective legalistic rule-stretching because she’s understandably paranoid about the industry of people who are out to get her than it is actual lawbreaking.
    Doesn’t make it right, and it was certainly stupid, but it doesn’t make it criminal either. Unless there’s more than we’ve seen so far, which there may be.
    If it turns out to be the case she broke the law, I’d like to see her judged and punished in the same measure as others in government who did similar things. For example, I think the CIA interrogators who erased official video records of interrogation under torture committed a far more heinous crime, and nothing whatsoever has ever happened to them that I’m aware of; I’ve never even heard that their careers were damaged, though I hope that’s wrong.
    Hillary isn’t the only woman who labors under a double standard–they all do. But the double standard for her is the most extreme I’ve ever seen. I know most here will disagree–fair enough!

  93. turcopolier says:

    kevin egan
    “the rules changed after she started using private email in the way her predecessors had” This has nothing to do with rules and everything to do with law breaking. You know perfectly well that she will not be prosecuted for these law violations because Obama will not allow her to be prosecuted. pl

  94. The Beaver says:

    The DNC hacker is back with info on Clinton Foundation:

  95. rjj says:

    huge thanks for the above. it led to this “is Google f***king with us??”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFxFRqNmXKg (was wondering why Sanders was almost never at the top of Google News no matter how many times he won).
    and that link led to google trends, a really useful utility I thought had been “disappeared.”

  96. The Beaver says:

    @ rjj
    If you want to know more about the travails of Google and why, check Alec Ross and Arab Spring and help they got from Google. One fellow who helped Foggy Bottom during the yrs of Hilary Clinton is working for Google these days.
    Due to time constraints, (need to deliver something before 17:00 Brussels time tomorrow), I can’t do the research now but, if you can’t let me know and I will oblige next week (this WE will be spent on UEFA 2016 knock out round fixtures)

  97. Christopher Fay says:

    Israel exerts considerable control over our election process through the lever of political contributions. And I don’t think Israel has the United States’ best interests in mind but wants to position us to do their dirty work, Iraq, Syria.

  98. Christopher Fay says:

    One big drawback is that L K is defending our most criminal possible presidents where the world would be a better place without her.

  99. Keith Harbaugh says:

    A question for information:
    If a commanding officer had made statements regarding a court-martial under his control
    analogous to those that President Obama has made regarding his views on the innocence of Mrs. Clinton,
    what would have been the reaction of the military justice system?
    Would they constitute “command influence”?

    Can someone address how close they come to that concept?
    Thank you.

  100. Jack says:

    What’s your opinion on the optics of Debbie becoming Hillary’s honorary Campaign chief?

  101. Christopher Fay says:

    If we’re talking about the hacked DNC emails, then that is post-Hillary’s trying to evade American scrutiny of her influence peddling. It’s an example of democrat incompetence at this point.

  102. Clwydshire says:

    So we might have defended the integrity of our political process by enforcing our laws and regulations about security against a Borgista and her sycophants who believe the American people cannot be trusted. While she held a public office, Hillary tried to privatize her work process, and in her ignorance willfully vomited her secrets and ours all over the known universe. What a wonderful President she will make.

  103. Akira says:

    This is just the beginning.
    A whole lot more than emails are going to get released.
    The whole Russian dossier on Clinton is going to be dumped.

  104. Christopher Fay says:

    Are you just a troll presenting slightly sophisticated arguments in defense of Hillary? If you’re worried about foreign influence on our elections, if I google will I come across you chicken-littling about Netanyahoo or Royales?

  105. Anonymous says:

    Maybe that unscheduled meeting between an exasperated Nuland and Surkov in January had less to do with the end of the world than with the spreading of words.

  106. turcopolier says:

    Keith Harbaugh
    We addressed that previously here ad the consensus was that indeed what he had done would be thought “command influence” in the US military. pl

  107. Tyler says:

    Me right now:
    This is absolutely amazing. October Surprise level strategy here.

  108. Tyler says:

    I gotta say, the media’s silence in the face of this isn’t doing them any good trying to disprove their collusion.
    I thought Chuck Todd crawling on his belly to the DNC in light of a story they thought was damaging was particularly damning.

  109. Herb says:

    I find it pathetic that there is more outrage at Clinton for how she mishandled her emails (or in the current case, how the DNC handled their emails), than the blatant, calculated, open interference in a US presidential election by the President of Russia.
    This event is so incredibly far beyond the bounds of any previous action, that it requires a direct response by Obama. If we accept, condone, excuse, or otherwise downplay this interference in our political process, we might as well hand the keys over.
    There is a time for partisan politics, and a time for coming together as Americans against a foreign enemy actively undermining our democracy.
    That time is now, folks.

  110. turcopolier says:

    How about a nuclear strike on three Russian cities just to “show’em?” Seriously, you do know that we do the same thing don’t you? how about the dastardly behavior of the DNC toward Sanders? Do you care at all about that? They, including several Jews there, wanted to use his religion or lack of it to indluence people they despise. Go away. pl

  111. irf520 says:

    1. What evidence is there that Russia is reponsible for any of this, other than what Hillary and her cronies have said?
    After being told umpteen times that Russia has invaded Ukraine, I take these kind of accusations with a very large pinch of salt.
    2. Why is it OK for the US to interfere in other countries but not the other way round?

  112. Tyler says:

    How much does it pay being part of Hillary’s Hasbara? Asking for a friend.

  113. Daniel Nicolas says:

    What more is there to learn: she broke the law. She had SAP info on an unsecured server. She gave access to that server to those without clearance for that info. There is no amount of weasel word interpretation that can get around this.

  114. steve says:

    The release of the emails pales in comparison to the US sponsored Ukrainian coup. If anyone wants symbolism, just remember Nuland and the US ambassador handing out cookies to the Maidan demonstrators.
    Beyond that, Russia is not the first cause here. Hillary’s use of a private, unsecured server is. The Russian government is only exposing what she did.
    As far as the complaint that Russia is interfering in our election–how is it that the voters being more informed as to what candidate Hillary did is somehow a negative? Moreover, voters are also free to reject the information based on their belief that Russia is overstepping some boundary.

  115. Ghostship says:

    I suspect this is all part of an effort to smear (or is that schmear) Trump as a “Soviet agent” and to cover up the Clintons’ dealings with legal entities with links to the Kremlin.
    Some liberal blogs are currently posting on Trump’s business dealings with Russians as though he was selling favours to the Kremlin when actually it appears that he’s really only business which is hardly surprising since he self-identifies as a businessman. And then the posts or comments on the post go on in hushed tones to suggest that the Clinton campaign should regard itself as being a target of “Soviet” intelligence. As to whether or not the Russians hacked the DNC or HRC servers, I doubt we’ll ever really find out because if the Russians did overtly release the e-mails, the smears against Trump would be validated and damage his chances of election and, to be honest, I can’t see that Putin is really bothered enough to give away information about important intelligence-gathering abilities for something so insignificant as who the next President of the USA is. Please note that some of my remarks are speculative.

  116. Babak Makkinejad says:

    “come together as Americans against a foreign enemy actively undermining our democracy.”?
    You mean Israel?

  117. Mark Logan says:

    Were I in Putin’s shoes I would be reluctant to release them. It is more likely than not that Clinton will be the next President, and if there is anything juicy in there I would retain them and for a possible Pulp Fiction “What does Bashar al Assad look like?” scenario. I would be opening Trump up for a mindless media “ally of Putin” attack too.
    Risk is high, rewards…iffy.

  118. Jack says:

    Let’s face it the media is in the bag. Look at the brouhaha about Melania’s speech when Michelle had cribbed the lines from a South African. Here’s the DNC actively colluding to rig the primary and screw Sanders that they tried to keep quiet. There couldn’t be a bigger scandal on the corruption of our electoral system. Sanders and his supporters should be burning the house. But they’re pussies.
    I’m amazed that Trump has made it this far. My twitter feed which us mostly finance – hedge fund guys, is burning with vitriol against Trump. They’re FREAKING out! What does it say when Wall St – Bloomberg, Paulson and the neocons like Kagan and Kristol are all endorsing the Borg Queen?

  119. Jack says:

    Get a grip. You think some Russian investors in Trump’s businesses means Putin is going to be the puppeteer. Have you considered the Russian money that has been laundered through the Clinton Foundation?
    What is this Russian boogeyman?

  120. David says:

    I don’t think they are paid much as the leaked emails said that this work was done by interns. For those interns who wanted to live a bit more dangerously, there was also the option to work with various thugs to break up Trump rallies. http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/24/leaked-emails-show-dnc-officials-planned-anti-trump-protests/

  121. Imagine says:

    “Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gets 29 standing ovations from Congress”

  122. elaine says:

    Speaking of “Urdu”, (a language Congressman Will Hurd (TX R) has proficiency
    in & that he used working as a clandestine CIA officer in Pakistan & India)
    I’m reminded of his pure outrage with the cavalier manner Sec. Clinton used
    her email for personal convenience.
    None the less I seriously doubt any further news of this scandal will
    affect her ardent supporters one bit. IMO continued focus on this matter
    only weakens the prestige of the U.S. internationally. The sooner it gets out of the news the happier I’ll be.

  123. different clue says:

    Is Russia our enemy? Has Russia been our enemy for some time? What enemy-type things has Russia done against specifically us in the U S A ?

  124. different clue says:

    Maybe we Sanders supporters are pussies, as you say. Or maybe we are just slow thinkers . . . slow to “really believe it”, slow to “think it through”. Maybe we will spend the next few months like cows under a shady tree . . . . vomiting this up and chewing on it and swallowing it back down . . . and vomiting it up and chewing on it and swallowing it back down . . . and . . . and . . .
    Maybe this will lose Hillary several million more of us at the polls than what she already never had and never would have. Maybe we will be slowly and carefully considering which Establishment Decromats are part of this or in tune with it . . . and how to slowly and patiently delete and erase them from the party. And from any facet of public life.
    Maybe the Clintonite Hillarrhoids will feel the truth of the saying: ” Revenge is a dish best served over and over and over again.”

  125. Balint Somkuti says:

    Even though you know my opinion, this step is the classical example of the ‘foreign interference into one’s internal affairs’. An action which is sure to spark angry protests from Russia, China etc.
    Welcome to the brave new world where globalization enables weaker parties to power almost equal to bigger countries.

  126. jonst says:

    what do mean, “double standard”?

  127. LondonBob says:

    More than a little projecting going on. We are a long, long way from where declaring fealty to Russia is a prerequisite for holding elective office in America.
    Still the concept of Trump as some ”Max Zorin’ like character does amuse me.

  128. Cee says:

    Bomb them for sure. Which is exactly why HRC should never be elected. She is surrounding herself with all of the PNAC crowd that lied to people before.

  129. Cee says:

    i think some of us are reaching a level of despair where we find ourselves thinking: ” Please Mr. Putin! Save us
    And the world, yes. I have never gotten the cackling of HRC out of head over the death of Gaddafi. She has to be stopped.

  130. Cee says:

    her 40 years of advocacy for women and children
    She’s a self serving fraud. She attacked a young rape victim and laughed about getting her client off, Peter and Marian Wright-Edlemen parted ways with her and Bill years ago because that lack of advocacy for poor women and children.

  131. Cee says:

    I had to find the article about that rape case. Her laughing again. Doing your job is one thing, being gleeful about death and misery is another matter. Something is seriously wrong with her

  132. Christopher Fay says:

    Children’s Defense Fund. Right the Clintons, Bill and Hillary, wanted to prove to the republicans that they could be tough on the poor. I was looking for that to reply to Kevin

  133. Christopher Fay says:

    Kevin Egan giving it a rest and Herb steps in?

  134. LeaNder says:

    “using private email in the way her predecessors had”
    I understand her predecessors used private emails for private matters, not for matters of State. But would appreciate correction.
    “For example”, what precisely are you alluding to here?
    Who would you like to see punished. The ones that possibly ordered both torture and the later erasure or the respective interrogators, you mention? Correct me if I am completely misguided, but I am assuming the interrogators did not write the law? But acted somewhat based on it?

  135. JMH says:

    Because she is the Borg Queen Bro! What blog are you reading?

  136. Donald says:

    I hadn’t thought of it quite that way, but yeah, they were trying to stir up antisemitism among the white Christians they obviously regard with contempt.
    I’m a lefty, but I am getting increasingly disgusted by ” liberals” these days. People should be livid about this, but one thing I have noticed in politics is that people can turn their moral outrage on or off like a switch.

  137. begob says:

    The End Of The World
    Quite unexpectedly, as Vasserot
    The armless ambidextrian was lighting
    A match between his great and second toe,
    And Ralph the lion was engaged in biting
    The neck of Madame Sossman while the drum
    Pointed, and Teeny was about to cough
    In waltz-time swinging Jocko by the thumb
    Quite unexpectedly the top blew off:
    And there, there overhead, there, there hung over
    Those thousands of white faces, those dazed eyes,
    There in the starless dark, the poise, the hover,
    There with vast wings across the cancelled skies,
    There in the sudden blackness the black pall
    Of nothing, nothing, nothing — nothing at all.
    Archibald MacLeish

  138. Sam Peralta says:

    “I seriously doubt any further news of this scandal will affect her ardent supporters one bit.”
    You are correct. Nothing will impinge the voting intention of the Democrat partisan. However, if more shoes drop and the media cover them, it is very likely that the outrage can fire up Trump supporters even more, insuring they actually show up. It could also depress the turnout of Sanders supporters and the youth who would tend to vote for Hillary.

  139. Down_In_Front says:

    I appreciated her work on behalf of women and children in Libya. And Iraq. Not to mention Syria.

  140. Tyler says:

    Been saying that for a while, but damn it’s nice being right.
    The neocons are siding en masse with Borg Queen cause you finally get a candidate who’s going to disrupt the usual “invade the world, invite the world, in hoc to the world” globalist nonsense.

  141. Tyler says:

    Strong first post with the right amount of sarcasm. I like it.
    Hope to see more from you.

  142. turcopolier says:

    Mark Logan
    IMO HC’s attitudes and likely policy toward Russia are immutable. IMO Putin, Lavrov and the Russian establishment know that. Therefore, there really is every reason for them to try to prevent her election. pl

  143. Ghostship says:

    Lavrov has spoken and perhaps we should all pay attention to what he said and the way he said it.
    Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has blasted a reporter over her question on allegations that Russia was behind the DNC email leaks. Lavrov had a concise reply, stating: “I don’t want to use four-letter words.”
    BTW, I am not saying that the Russians don’t have the capability and haven’t used it against the DNC, but I doubt the DNC claims that it’s a plot by Putin to advance Trump’s position.

  144. different clue says:

    I have heard various media people and Hillary supporters advance that theory, though. Of course the DNC would have better sense than to say that in public. The Hillary group would try to sneak that thought into the public brainspace through surrogates.
    I have already seen some Klinton Koolaid Kultists advancing that theory in blog threads here and there.

  145. Mark Logan says:

    You are probably right about that immutability. I’m speculating that Putin will retain his ammo, assuming he has any. In Trump’s hands it may be wasted.
    I like to suspect The Witch’s opinions have been modified by experience over the last eight years though, they were raw rookies when they went in and things did not go well. Then again, my search for evidence to support this suspicion has not gone well either. I usually whistle “American Pie” when passing graveyards, btw..

  146. Mark Logan says:

    As I feared.
    Not only is the media going to indulge in outrage, but how does one assist such a man? His mouth reminds of the proverbial chimp with a machine-gun.

  147. Tyler says:

    Maybe you should listen to what he said versus what the NYT wants you to think. To wit, that Russia should RELEASE the emails (that Hillary insists are yoga appointments), not HACK into Clinton’s server….That is being held by the FBI.
    This is 3D chess on Trump’s part. Only low info voters like yourself are going to get sucked into the chicancery of the media. lmbo

  148. Tyler says:

    So according to Hillary and the DNC I am to believe at the same time Donaldovitch Trumpinsky is a KGB sleeper AND going to start WW3 with Putin because of a small hands comment?
    Being a progressive must be one hell of a headache trying to deal with all the cognitive dissonance.

  149. Mark Logan says:

    Chill. I previously predicted a “mindless media attack” in an earlier part of the conversation.

Comments are closed.