That's not "underground" reporting. It's Jordan Chariton of TYT, providing additional content besides the more professional coverage straight from the trail. Unlike CNN, they don't have the personnel to create everything in a studio, so it's either this sort of coverage through Facebook videos or no coverage at all.

And frankly, I prefer this less-than-professional coverage with actual content over CNN's professional coverage without content.

As for the question whether it's ok to expose these emails, Glenn Greenwald covered it yesterday.

Finally, whether or not there's anything worth reporting: Lee Fang on Democracy Now.

@eric3579, I agree with you. Hillary's reputation took a big hit after the DNC Leaks broke during the convention.

@newtboy, here's how I think of the campaign. (Please pardon me for this silly fable. I just kinda got writing and my creative side just sorta took over, and I just kinda had fun with it.)

.. ..

As the primary campaign advanced it was clear that Scissors was the front runner in the Rep's side. Unless something changed drastically, he would be become the nominee.

On the Dem’s side, the race was not yet decided. Rock was behind, but not by much. He was quickly closing in on Paper’s lead. Rock was hoping that his strategy of being consistent over time would prevail and win him votes. In the beginning Paper had taken off an airplane. Laughing at how slow Rock was to gain speed. But now Paper’s once comfortable head start was being called into question. Could Rock’s momentum grow fast enough to overtake her?

Paper had gone through extensive planning (on paper) long before the election. Paper wanted to keep news of Rock from reaching the voters. The idea as was to keep Rock "covered over" to the point that many of voters just didn't know about him. They just saw the old familiar name of "Paper" on the ballot and went with that. They had little or no exposure to Rock.

Rock was on a roll, and it was clear that it was gathering no moss.

Since so many voters relied on “traditional” media for information, it wasn’t too difficult to keep pro-Paper ads on the radio, and television, and in newspapers. It was expensive, but Paper seemed to have an unlimited supply of money to fund the campaign. It was almost like Paper had bought the press...

Though Rock started to break through into the areas that Paper had been dominant, the Strategy worked. Rocks downhill momentum wasn’t able to fully catch Paper’s airplane—head-start.

Paper would win the primary and go on to face Scissors in the general.

But at the Democratic Candidate Coronation Ceremony, something terrible happened!

It turns out that someone was keeping a paper-trail on Paper’s dealings. Paper had written many correspondences, and many of those letters had reached the hands of Wikileaks, which had finally chosen to publish the secrets!

The strategies Paper had used to ensure victory over Rock—the Cover-Up Campaign—were revealed. The fundraising done by The Paper Foundation to keep money flowing around laws were becoming clear.

And each week and new secret seemed to drip onto Paper’s hat…

What happens next? We don’t know. There are so many questions! Could a boat float if made of Panama Papers? How deep will the leaks get? What other secrets will be revealed before the final election? Will Paper win over former Rock supporters now that the reality of the Cover-Up-Campaign had been uncovered? Who will win the final election? Can Paper beat Scissors?

Could Scissors have been secretly helping Paper out behind the scenes out of a fear of facing Rock? Could Paper have been helping Scissors in the early parts of his primary campaign out of a fear of facing Ben Carson?

Tune in again for out next episode of House of Cards I mean Rock-Paper-Scissors to find out!

//

//

Okay, I hope you read that with in the lighthearted voice it was intended. And I’m not hiding my bias. This story was mostly about Paper—who (at first) I thought would be a fine second choice.

(I was rooting for Rock the whole time! I liked they way he rolled!)

Trump was Scissors: Wouldn't hesitate to cut his opponents with his uh.. 'wit.'
Sanders was Rock: Consistent over time. (Not blown around by the wind)
Hillary was like Paper: Thin, like her integrity.

I had not realized that the solid rocket boosters were steerable....at least I hope they are moving the nozzle intentionally and that it's not moving around on it's own.
Incredible camera...at 1/4 speed you can see the pressure waves move through the flame trail.

I'm reminded of the time I was walking along a park trail with my friend when we encountered a large bat "walking" down the trail on its wings. We turned around and ran the hell away based on the theory that a bat behaving strangely was something to run the hell away from.

One possible silver lining, this may make "them" more concerned about the electronic voting machines being hacked, which has been a concern since they were first introduced. There's a real chance that a foreign country might actually control the results, with no way to ever be sure, since there's no paper trail.

Sorry to all for answering a wall of text with another wall of text.

I have far more than just circumstantial evidence, but I do have a few truckloads of that as well to make me think this duck is a duck.
You have no proof that those things in the lake are ducks, why do you keep insisting they are? Because 100% of evidence you DO have says "duck" and nothing contrary besides the ranting cat lady that loves them tells you it's really a swan that lays golden eggs?
Same goes for Clinton supporting and displaying unethical, dishonest behavior repeatedly. I don't have verifiable indisputable "proof", but all evidence I have, including multiple videos of her doing it, and constant reports (none from Faux news) of things like her handing DWS a key position in her campaign directly after proof of her actions at the DNC (for Clinton's sole benefit) that were so bad they forced her out of the DNC (or give me another more plausible reason Clinton would hire someone that absolutely ensures she won't get the Sanders voters she needs to win and that's been tossed out in disgrace, so she is a HUGE NEGATIVE for the campaign she's just been hired to lead, so absolutely not "skilled" at the job, and I'll consider it), actions which were incontrovertibly dishonest and unethical if they've been reported at all truthfully, and you have offered zero evidence or even theory that it hasn't been reported truthfully, or evidence that that's not the reason she just hired her, much less proof, you have a theory not supported by reason or evidence that she was hired for being so good at her job...uh.....

I'm not a court of law trying to put her away, I'm an independent voter, appearance is important, and she appears unethical to say the least, without listening to a word from Faux or any right wing media, BTW. She has demonstrated enough clear dishonesty for me to make up my mind about her in one answer in one live debate...."I supported $15 an hour for years....I don't support a $15 an hour minimum wage....I support $15 an hour", and done and/or said nothing to dissuade me from that opinion.....enough said.

BTW, the only actual accusation I made about Clinton was that she rewarded clear undisputed unethical and dishonest behavior with a top position in her campaign...that is absolutely true unless you're saying she didn't really hire DWS and everyone is lying.

Clearly if she thinks hiring DWS to head her campaign is going to get her the Sanders supporters votes she needs to win, she has zero insight about what the public thinks.

Yes, her JOB was to ensure a fair election process first and foremost, she failed. Secondly to protect the Democratic party, and help Democrats win elections, she failed, she made them look like cheaters and backstabbers, hurting them horrendously and probably losing the election. How is she "skilled" again? What part of her job did she get right again?

It doesn't matter if her cheating is really why Sanders lost, it looks like it is, and it went 100% against her duties to be impartial and safeguard the process. If you cheat on a test and get the highest score on the test, you don't get to say 'it wasn't the cheating that made me score that high, I would have been the highest score anyway, so I'm validictorian', you get a zero and are disqualified....that goes for if someone cheats FOR you too, even if you didn't ask them to, just allowed it and lied about it when asked, but that's not the case here, she was totally complicit, she had her lawyers instructing them on how to toss people off the voter rolls etc.....at least according to all EVIDENCE...but I don't have a paper trail in hand to PROVE it...happy? (sweet Jesus...it's come to this)
No other reason why he may have lost matters since she cheated to win. (and BTW, the DNC emails show some underhanded reasons why he lost like that with minorities, not that it matters)

Carl Rove was protected by Bush after he said anyone in his administration involved would be out, right? So yes, still on Bush.

Did I say "you"? Are you ALL of her supporters, or did I say ALL of her supporters? The DNC and SOME OF her supporters rigged the system to shove her down our throats, which shows me that they were not at all confident she would win in a fair primary, contrary to your insistence. You have no proof she might have won anyway.

Yes, being a governor is more governing experience than being a senator (especially while running for president). (to be honest, I thought he had also been a senator, but it seems not) Secretary of State is good experience, but not at governing, good for understanding foreign affairs, something the president has a secretary of state for. First lady wasn't governing, she didn't pass bills, she was more of a connected political activist. Palin didn't even serve a full term, so no, not the same.

Time will tell, it's still possible that Trump might do something horrendous enough to turn off his rabid supporters....but he would have to suck a black mans dick on stage or worse to do that it seems. Unlikely. Her support is smaller today and FAR less excited about her....that's insane, yes, but true.

I can't have blinders on about why Sanders lost because I have a bag that was put over my head because the process was rigged, so we have no idea what it would look like if it were not. Maybe with the DNC's help talking about his work for civil rights he would have gotten 75% of blacks and Latinos, he certainly has been working for them for longer and in more meaningful ways.

We had a GREAT candidate with a statistically MUCH BETTER chance of winning a general election. They screwed him viciously. You want me to reward that?

Clinton does NOT always operate within the system. That's a major complaint about her, and the big issue here, she's rewarding operating totally outside of and contrary to the system.
Her biggest problem is her unfavorability rating....which may be tied with Trump in the percentage of people that dislike/distrust her, but is exponentially above Trump in the level that those people dislike her...and she's running against the party of hate and handing them more ammunition to get their voters out daily.

I don't think I compared Clinton and Trump...I refuse to agree that I have only 2 choices. Yes of the two, she's preferable. She's still absolutely not my choice. What others do is their concern. Penn voting for Clinton does not sway my vote, nor do the republicans voting for her any more than the democrats voting for Trump convince me he's a good choice.

I live in Ca. Clinton gets our electoral votes no matter how I vote. If I lived in a swing state that was close and mattered, I might reconsider voting out of fear, but I would have to completely ignore my own morals and ethics to even go that far, and would never be able to forgive myself.
Fear is the mind killer. Never do anything important based on your fear is my advice.

Pretty tenuous to call this an experiment... What hypothesis were they testing, that people watch and share exciting content? That video editing technology is fairly advanced by now but certainly not flawless?

They seem to start off with some media criticism - 'how much of the news should you believe -' but then lose that trail since A) all of their videos were questioned and called out by many as fake, and B) everybody already knows that the 'news' section of the show is over when the anchors are just reacting to fun videos they found online.

I'm fine with this video being an example of well scripted VFX to maximize virality for virtality's sake, but it's pretty goofy to call it an experiment. The best part was the cameo by TV's Frank.

How far behind do the playable game graphics tend to trail behind the demos?

Feels like it's about 2 years.

That's one of the reasons I enjoy demos, because I know that one day soon I'll get to play games with that level of graphics.

What is it that the cyclists are doing when they're clearly hauling-ass, but still leaving smoke trails?

HA!!! As I saw it, that's Hilux FAIL!
The point of ramps like this in my experience is to see how much your suspension can flex. The Hilux didn't do so well, that wheel is pretty high up in the air. My '73 Jeep CJ-5, which is built for 4 wheeling hard core trails like The Rubicon, and has done that one twice, might not lift a tire on that ramp.

Actually, I've ignored the superdelegates in my math because I've basically assumed that they will go with whoever has the popular vote at the convention, but since you brought them up....

There's one scenario no-one has considered yet; probably because it's extremely unlikely, but just for fun, let's say Bernie continues as projected and arrives at the convention trailing Hillary by about 200 delegates. Meanwhile, Trump has been attacking the ever-loving hell out of Hillary and her poll numbers in the general election are starting to look REALLY bad, as in Trump might/could/probably will/almost certainly will win.

So far, this is all pretty much what's going to happen.

But in this strange alternate dimension, the DNC pulls its head out of its collective arse and realises "holy shit, we could lose the white house! Hang on, Bernie polls much better against Trump!". Unable to convince Hillary to drop out, the superdelegates swing en masse to Bernie handing him the nomination AGAINST the popular vote.

How do you feel about this? On one hand, yay, #FeelTheBern, #FuckYouTrump and on to the white house and potentially the most significant change in US politics in decades (or not, who knows how much one president can actually do).

On the other hand.... there's no way around the fact that the DNC will have subverted the will of the people. If the situation was reversed, and the superdelegates gave the nomination to Hillary where Bernie (hypothetically) had more pledged delegates, well, there would be riots.

Interested to hear your thoughts on this scenario (unlikely as it is).

BTW, the fact that your vote is essentially meaningless (luckily for you, it happens to be meaningless in your favour) in your state is yet another symptom of just how very fucked the electoral college is.

These things always drive me crazy watching the cables trail behind them and get tangled under their feet. You're spending all that cash on a VR setup, you can't hang a hook or a pulley from your ceiling?

My mother makes fairy houses.

End confession.

She travels a lot to national parks and when she stops on a trail, she makes a hidden fairy house. Silly, of course. But what I've always found interesting about what she does is the idea of hidden, impermanent art that will probably never be seen. But if one person ever discovers one of her creations...the transcendent moment. That's beautiful to me. If she took a picture it would diminish what she does.

I'd appreciate this snow art more if there were no video. If it were unclaimed. Well, I'd appreciate the IDEA of this art, because I'd likely never actually know about it. And that's a kind of beauty.

Sometimes slow and steady turtles just die on the trail.

Whether he tossed his helmet or it came off in his crash, either way he was certainly lucky it stopped on the trail.