And if they don't have them?

Help me out here. Where are you going with this? It's hard to distinguish between the Russians not having them and not having produced them yet. Say for the sake of argument they haven't. You and I've covered the state of play there before. Ever kissed someone whose nose you had to kind of plan around? At this point, with a Pinocchio nose like that, I'm not sure I could make it in for a kiss of forgiveness and bonhomie now.

I'm not trying to tell anyone how to vote, and I'm actually still on my original point - a U.S. presidential candidate has no business either requesting or tactily approving of any foreign government's theft of State Dept. communications, least of all Russia. The relative accessibility of those communications and any legal question regarding their contents or handling is, to me, a separate issue in at least one key way: We are a sovereign state, regardless of the shape we're in, and I feel very strongly that we must put this Hillary/emails question to rest on our own, by the rules, if we want our democracy and dignity back. Legitimizing a dangerous wanna-be autocrat (I refer to Putin, in this case) by accepting his "help" in return for an apparently expedient solution is a staggeringly irresponsible idea on several levels, and in the end, most likely no solution at all. That's my broader point. Hillary barely enters into it except as the subject of Trump's comments, and I'm not defending her or anyone else in any party. I'm bored, so I'm just gonna go "wall of text" with my personal and, I'm sure, occasionally flawed line of thinking, though there's plenty of other ways to arrive at the same conclusion and I'm sure essays will soon abound to explain them all. Sorry in advance for my self-indulgence. Feel free to skip to the TL;DR.

Involving an adversarial nation and Putin, a notorious arm-twister, blackmailer, extortionist, and backstabber, in this issue just to provide stolen, sensitive (but as far as anyone has yet been able to prove, not illegally-deleted or top secret) information is no way to uphold the rule of U.S. law, let alone conduct foreign policy or domestic politics. Putin could selectively provide emails that either apparently damn or exonerate Hillary, depending on who he'd rather blackmail for the next four years, and nobody in the U.S. (it seems) could prove whether he had manipulated the result. Putin acting as de facto judge and jury in a U.S. criminal case isn't how I want to see this go down, nor is it my idea of reforming a justice system that gives preferential treatment to the wealthy and powerful. Not least of all because uncorroborated evidence, obtained illegally and provided, at the request of a candidate, by Russian spies, probably won't last long in court. Bad guys could walk. Again.

On the Russian side of things, simply asking Putin to produce the emails, jokingly or not, only legitimizes his anti-western worldview and propaganda - a key pillar in upholding his popularity at home as the Russian economy and military continue to wane. Such a PR boost could give him political capital for a turn toward the Baltics and other Eastern European regions he considers "Russian," as he did in Crimea, just as UN economic sanctions, falling gas prices, and his pet oligarchs running amok are beginning to erode his popularity. We have a lot of allies in that part of the world whose help we will need.

In effect, Trump has proposed an ad hoc alliance with Russia against a citizen of the U.S., in exchange for illegally obtained classified U.S. information, thus sanctioning their violation of our laws and undermining our ability to sanction Russia for its transgression. Regardless of how or when they obtained the emails, if they actually did, or do soon, asking Russia for them draws us into needlessly negotiating from a position of weakness with a very wily adversary, a negotiation far above the pay grade of a presiden...

I'm not trying to tell anyone how to vote, and I'm actually still on my original point - a U.S. presidential candidate has no business either requesting or tactily approving of any foreign government's theft of State Dept. communications, least of all Russia. The relative accessibility of those communications and any legal question regarding their contents or handling is, to me, a separate issue in at least one key way: We are a sovereign state, regardless of the shape we're in, and I feel very strongly that we must put this Hillary/emails question to rest on our own, by the rules, if we want our democracy and dignity back. Legitimizing a dangerous wanna-be autocrat (I refer to Putin, in this case) by accepting his "help" in return for an apparently expedient solution is a staggeringly irresponsible idea on several levels, and in the end, most likely no solution at all. That's my broader point. Hillary barely enters into it except as the subject of Trump's comments, and I'm not defending her or anyone else in any party. I'm bored, so I'm just gonna go "wall of text" with my personal and, I'm sure, occasionally flawed line of thinking, though there's plenty of other ways to arrive at the same conclusion and I'm sure essays will soon abound to explain them all. Sorry in advance for my self-indulgence. Feel free to skip to the TL;DR.

Involving an adversarial nation and Putin, a notorious arm-twister, blackmailer, extortionist, and backstabber, in this issue just to provide stolen, sensitive (but as far as anyone has yet been able to prove, not illegally-deleted or top secret) information is no way to uphold the rule of U.S. law, let alone conduct foreign policy or domestic politics. Putin could selectively provide emails that either apparently damn or exonerate Hillary, depending on who he'd rather blackmail for the next four years, and nobody in the U.S. (it seems) could prove whether he had manipulated the result. Putin acting as de facto judge and jury in a U.S. criminal case isn't how I want to see this go down, nor is it my idea of reforming a justice system that gives preferential treatment to the wealthy and powerful. Not least of all because uncorroborated evidence, obtained illegally and provided, at the request of a candidate, by Russian spies, probably won't last long in court. Bad guys could walk. Again.

On the Russian side of things, simply asking Putin to produce the emails, jokingly or not, only legitimizes his anti-western worldview and propaganda - a key pillar in upholding his popularity at home as the Russian economy and military continue to wane. Such a PR boost could give him political capital for a turn toward the Baltics and other Eastern European regions he considers "Russian," as he did in Crimea, just as UN economic sanctions, falling gas prices, and his pet oligarchs running amok are beginning to erode his popularity. We have a lot of allies in that part of the world whose help we will need.

In effect, Trump has proposed an ad hoc alliance with Russia against a citizen of the U.S., in exchange for illegally obtained classified U.S. information, thus sanctioning their violation of our laws and undermining our ability to sanction Russia for its transgression. Regardless of how or when they obtained the emails, if they actually did, or do soon, asking Russia for them draws us into needlessly negotiating from a position of weakness with a very wily adversary, a negotiation far above the pay grade of a presidential candidate. We have skilled professionals to handle that stuff. They aren't perfect, but unlike Trump, they have legal access to pertinent classified info at the moment (his top-secret briefing on Russia et al. is set for after the conventions) and in-depth knowledge of the moving parts, the players, and the stakes. I feel certain they would all say that this is not the best or easiest way to "lock her up." Trying to manage being beholden to Putin for four years or more ain't no real estate deal, merger, or profitable bankruptcy filing. Trump's hubris and cynicism have apparently blinded him to the benefits of this idea for Putin and its potentially corrosive effect on Western European security, America's standing in the world, the rule of law at home, our national security and sovereignty, and our ability to act in our and our allies' best interests abroad. Not that he's shown much concern for such things, but plenty of us are still paying attention.

Yes, I know many of the same things I've said about the risks of involving Putin in this issue can be said about the potential or actual effects of Hillary's actions, but for the sake of our sovereignty and dignity I believe we must mitigate their effects, root out the cabals, and punish those responsible ourselves, in due course, without Putin's "help" or a witch hunt on the White House lawn. I want to see Hillary et al. face the music for real, but it must be in a transparent, complete, and constitutional way that leaves no doubt about the verdict's justness or the futility of vigilantism and crooked politics. And it must be done without empowering one of our main rivals in the geopolitical sphere. The consequences of doing otherwise are simply too great to risk just to hurry the decline and fall of the Clintons.

TL;DR: Putin is nobody's pawn. He's not a CEO, lawyer, or bought-and-paid-for politician, he's a stone cold gangster in desperate need of a big victory. Involving him, even (seemingly) peripherally, in a domestic issue that we really have to solve on our own if we want our dignity and democracy back is, IMHO, Trump's worst idea yet by a country mile. Vote for whomever you want to, or don't vote, I don't care, but please don't let cynicism or anger make Trump's 'request' today sound like an easy, legal, pro-American, or ethical answer to anything - and don't forget that he apparently thinks that's exactly what it is.

U.S. presidential candidate has no business either requesting or tactily approving of any foreign government's theft of State Dept. communications, least of all Russia.

Which is a nice point to have, except that it's at the end of a garden path leading away from Clinton's original intentional mishandling of state secrets, tucked behind her having panicked when this was widely disclosed, somewhere over by where she immediately began bald-faced lying about it to the public, the Congress, Justice and the FBI, where you can't quite see it because of how she — not knowing how to shred a commodity PC — turned all the prima facie evidence over to a private coterie of hackers and lawyers themselves lacking the security clearance they'd've required under anything like the rule of law or responsible statesmanship. But if you'd like to focus on boogeymen both foreign and domestic instead of facing that unpleasantness honestly, I feel you.

We are a sovereign state, regardless of the shape we’re in, and I feel very strongly that we must put this Hillary/emails question to rest on our own, by the rules, if we want our democracy and dignity back.

Which we’ve done, because it’s okay if you’re a Republican… Strike that, meant to say a jingoistic, right-wing, authoritarian, my-country-right-or-wrong, never-met-a-war-she-didn’t-like proud, close, personal friend of Henry Kissinger. Maybe Maj. Jason Brezler should've thought about that before he betrayed his country and the iron rule of law we care so much about.

Legitimizing a dangerous wanna-be autocrat (I refer to Putin, in this case) by accepting his "help" in return for an apparently expedient solution is a staggeringly irresponsible idea on several levels, and in the end, most likely no solution at all. That's my broader point.

Let's remember that Trump's call for the emails to be found is rhetorical. Before anyone starts calving, we should probably think back to the wider context, here. Clinton's, as obvious as she is lying, ongoing conviction that the law is for filler people.

Involving an adversarial nation and Putin, a notorious arm-twister, blackmailer, extortionist, and backstabber, in this issue just to provide stolen, sensitive (but as far as anyone has yet been able to prove, not illegally-deleted or top secret) information is no way to uphold the rule of U.S. law, let alone conduct foreign policy or domestic politics.

Which, again, ignores that nothing at all’s come of Trump’s throwaway line, except Clinton campaign hysterics. It ignores, also, Clinton’s blatant lies about whether secrets were involved, or whether emails were deleted illegally, but that’s a stale conversation by this point.

We’ve discussed the Clinton emails whitewash to death, already. So let’s whittle our focus down to what’s new here, which to me seems to be two-minutes’ hate for the president of the Russian Federation. Wow, do I feel differently about this than you. For one thing, doesn’t it strike you as odd that when confronted with indisputable evidence of her political villainy, Clinton’s wag-the-dog instincts are to escalate with the Russians to make it all go away? This is not a tangent, for me. Clinton and her State Department have made, when they weren’t too busy being the lead agency for Keystone XL as well as TPP/TISA and the like, a point of expanding NATO right up to the Russian border. It’s hard for me to imagine that you haven’t by no...

U.S. presidential candidate has no business either requesting or tactily approving of any foreign government's theft of State Dept. communications, least of all Russia.

Which is a nice point to have, except that it's at the end of a garden path leading away from Clinton's original intentional mishandling of state secrets, tucked behind her having panicked when this was widely disclosed, somewhere over by where she immediately began bald-faced lying about it to the public, the Congress, Justice and the FBI, where you can't quite see it because of how she — not knowing how to shred a commodity PC — turned all the prima facie evidence over to a private coterie of hackers and lawyers themselves lacking the security clearance they'd've required under anything like the rule of law or responsible statesmanship. But if you'd like to focus on boogeymen both foreign and domestic instead of facing that unpleasantness honestly, I feel you.

We are a sovereign state, regardless of the shape we’re in, and I feel very strongly that we must put this Hillary/emails question to rest on our own, by the rules, if we want our democracy and dignity back.

Which we’ve done, because it’s okay if you’re a Republican… Strike that, meant to say a jingoistic, right-wing, authoritarian, my-country-right-or-wrong, never-met-a-war-she-didn’t-like proud, close, personal friend of Henry Kissinger. Maybe Maj. Jason Brezler should've thought about that before he betrayed his country and the iron rule of law we care so much about.

Legitimizing a dangerous wanna-be autocrat (I refer to Putin, in this case) by accepting his "help" in return for an apparently expedient solution is a staggeringly irresponsible idea on several levels, and in the end, most likely no solution at all. That's my broader point.

Let's remember that Trump's call for the emails to be found is rhetorical. Before anyone starts calving, we should probably think back to the wider context, here. Clinton's, as obvious as she is lying, ongoing conviction that the law is for filler people.

Involving an adversarial nation and Putin, a notorious arm-twister, blackmailer, extortionist, and backstabber, in this issue just to provide stolen, sensitive (but as far as anyone has yet been able to prove, not illegally-deleted or top secret) information is no way to uphold the rule of U.S. law, let alone conduct foreign policy or domestic politics.

Which, again, ignores that nothing at all’s come of Trump’s throwaway line, except Clinton campaign hysterics. It ignores, also, Clinton’s blatant lies about whether secrets were involved, or whether emails were deleted illegally, but that’s a stale conversation by this point.

We’ve discussed the Clinton emails whitewash to death, already. So let’s whittle our focus down to what’s new here, which to me seems to be two-minutes’ hate for the president of the Russian Federation. Wow, do I feel differently about this than you. For one thing, doesn’t it strike you as odd that when confronted with indisputable evidence of her political villainy, Clinton’s wag-the-dog instincts are to escalate with the Russians to make it all go away? This is not a tangent, for me. Clinton and her State Department have made, when they weren’t too busy being the lead agency for Keystone XL as well as TPP/TISA and the like, a point of expanding NATO right up to the Russian border. It’s hard for me to imagine that you haven’t by now come across any of the background on the role Clinton's State played in the overthrow of the elected Ukrainian government, but with all the hot, syrupy invective you can spout so easily about the Russian president, it does seem likely. Suffice it to say that in Ukraine, as with Syria, and Libya, and so on, any foreign policy on which Sec. Clinton and Sen. McCain whole-heartedly agree is an historic disaster and irredeemable mistake.

In effect, Trump has proposed an ad hoc alliance with Russia against a citizen of the U.S., in exchange for illegally obtained classified U.S. information, thus sanctioning their violation of our laws and undermining our ability to sanction Russia for its transgression.

No, he rang Clinton's bell, and it's still well rung.

Yes, I know many of the same things I've said about the risks of involving Putin in this issue can be said about the potential or actual effects of Hillary's actions,

Right. Because that's the point underneath all of this, but let's get back to the smoke and mirrors melodrama.

I want to see Hillary et al. face the music for real, but it must be in a transparent, complete, and constitutional way that leaves no doubt about the verdict's justness or the futility of vigilantism and crooked politics.

That ship already sailed. There'll be no accountability. Well, for Clinton. Warn your buddies of imminent danger overseas, or blow the whistle on cradle-to-grave warrantless mass surveillance or rampant war crimes and you'll rot forever, but we've gone from the Watergate Era, to the Clinton Era. Where it used to be that if the president did it, it was legal; now, if the next president does it, it's legal. That trend's not our friend.

And it must be done without empowering one of our main rivals in the geopolitical sphere.

Rivals? Remember the Cold War? No, not the cool one from Rambos parts two and three. No, I mean the one where any grave miscalculation at any time meant the destruction of the planet along with humankind. Yeah, that Cold War. It’s over, and good riddance. Russia’s not a rival. They’re a former enemy. Former, I should say, unless you’re Sec. Clinton, for whom escalation with the Russians is a reflex move. As seen here. Let me remind you: War with Russia is unthinkable. Not a go-to move in a future president.