Hellobee Boards

@tlcbaby: My husband and I were just talking about how this political season is totally reminiscent of House of Cards...and how disturbing that is...

I read that DWS new position is symbolic only, is not paid, etc. Apparently it is an honorary title. Pres Obama also had similar positions for celebrities and dignitaries that he wanted to honor for their support.

@agold: I think its very sad since Bernie was saying so for months. No one believes anything anyone says anymore unless they have a smoking gun, especially if you are the little guy. These days we need video or email evidence before certain people will be believed.

@oliviaoblivia: I just said to DH this morning that it was no surprise that these were connected to Russia because Putin wants Trump to win and do something stupid like pull out of NATO.

So the DNC comes out apologizes for the emails... aren't we still waiting for Melania Trump or any republican to apologize for stealing Michelle Obama's speech? Never mind, a *speech writer took the fall for it. Even though Melania said on TV she wrote it.

*not even sure this speech writer exists*

At least the DNC owns up to their mistakes instead of deflecting like the Republicans!

My FB feed this morning was every other person was sharing Michelle Obamas speech.

@bluestriped bee: I'm not sure trying to manipulate an election and stealing a paragraph of a speech are on par with each other. So I don't think there's any comparison to be made here. And when something is proven in writing via emails, the DNC had no choice but to own it and apologize, so I don't think that action is worthy of praise. Melania said she wrote the speech herself "with as little help as possible" so the Republicans had a teeny tiny out and they took it. I assure you if the DNC had an out they'd take it too (if they were smart anyway). That's politics.

I'm still going to support Hilary, but I'm really pissed about her hiring that woman. Solely because it looks bad and there's so much at stake with this election that she shouldn't be giving anyone an excuse to vote for Trump. This was an amateur move and pretty dumb.

Saw this http://m.dailykos.com/story/2016/07/25/1551930/-Debbie-Wasserman-Schultz-did-not-get-promoted-and-she-s-not-running-Hillary-s-campaign?detail=facebook

"Being an honorary chair of a campaign—a position that involves no responsibilities, no employees, no budget, and no duties—is not a promotion from being chair of the DNC.

Being an honorary chair does not mean that Debbie Wasserman Schultz is “in charge of” Hillary Clinton’s campaign. It doesn’t mean anything. That is, unless you think President Obama’s 2012 campaign was run by actress Eva Longoria; or former Republican Senator Lincoln Chafee; or high school guidance counselor Loretta Harper—all of whom were among 24 people who served as honorary co-chairs of Obama’s 2012 campaign."

I still think Hillary should have waited to give her honorary status. Though, with the election coming up, there's not much time. Maybe she could have waited a week or two... Not the day after emails are leaked.

@bluestriped bee: that makes even less sense then. It benefits neither of them and looks bad. On the kos thread it's saying its a nice thing to do for a friend but how does a no responsibility position help her at all. I guess maybe it shows support but I think words would have done that better. An honorary position made Shultz look even worse to a lot of people. I really just can't understand the logic.

@oliviaoblivia: Seriously! Putin wants Trump to be president. That is terrifying on multiple levels.

This whole thing is certainly concerning, but do we honestly not think the RNC did the same thing? And aren't we all disappointed that they weren't successful? So is the sin in the act, or in getting caught? I think parties have the right to pick their candidate and to form their own rules to do so. It sounds like the DNC had rules about impartiality that were broken and that is concerning. But I am mostly concerned this will hurt Clinton and risk a Trump presidency.

@lawbee11: Every new thing I read about Trump just makes the pit in my stomach grow bigger and my fear for my future, and my children's future, more real. People are going to vote for this person. People think Trump would be a better (or "not worse") President than Hillary. People think he won't set our nation back generations. I'm terrified of what November will bring.

I don't feel like Trump was admitting he had any part in it. Just egging it on because he knows more scandal on the dem's side is good for him.

@agold: i read that the founder of wikileaks Julian Assange is a Russia supporter. He was the one who told Snowden to go to Russia because they'd protect him. The original hackers who got the emails were Russian as well. Russia has good reason to back Trump as well--Trump has said that he won't necessarily provide military backup to NATO countries if they get invaded (for example, by Russia).

How has Trump not broken any laws yet with his outrageous comments? I'm just speechless by the latest comments asking a foreign government to hack Clinton's emails.

@agold: https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

"I should add here that we found no evidence that any of the additional work-related e-mails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them. Our assessment is that, like many e-mail users, Secretary Clinton periodically deleted e-mails or e-mails were purged from the system when devices were changed."

ETA: More about the intentionally deleted e-mails:

"It could also be that some of the additional work-related e-mails we recovered were among those deleted as “personal” by Secretary Clinton’s lawyers when they reviewed and sorted her e-mails for production in 2014.

The lawyers doing the sorting for Secretary Clinton in 2014 did not individually read the content of all of her e-mails, as we did for those available to us; instead, they relied on header information and used search terms to try to find all work-related e-mails among the reportedly more than 60,000 total e-mails remaining on Secretary Clinton’s personal system in 2014. It is highly likely their search terms missed some work-related e-mails, and that we later found them, for example, in the mailboxes of other officials or in the slack space of a server.

It is also likely that there are other work-related e-mails that they did not produce to State and that we did not find elsewhere, and that are now gone because they deleted all e-mails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.

We have conducted interviews and done technical examination to attempt to understand how that sorting was done by her attorneys. Although we do not have complete visibility because we are not able to fully reconstruct the electronic record of that sorting, we believe our investigation has been sufficient to give us reasonable confidence there was no intentional misconduct in connection with that sorting effort."

@agold: Sorry - I added more to my original post because I realized my quote didn't totally address your question.

@agold: The last line in my quote is probably the one you're really looking for:

"...we believe our investigation has been sufficient to give us reasonable confidence there was no intentional misconduct in connection with that sorting effort."

@agold: Also, Trump didn't just say he wants to see the emails, he explicitly asked Russia to hack into her email to find them.

“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” Mr. Trump said, staring directly into the cameras.

And also here: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/758335147183788032

He's essentially encouraging espionage against the United States by a foreign power.