This is complete nonsense. Sanders' campaign slowed down and came to a halt throughout June and July 2016. E-mails related to backstabbing Sanders were sent as much as a year before that. Sanders was clearly used as a means to haul in the far left vote and transfer it over to Hillary.

jedberg, I've looked quite closely at a lot of evidence surrounding the Clintons. Picking one aspect of one scandal and discrediting it is not going to change my mind. We'd have to have monstrous discussion of events going back to the 80s. Even if we did, it's far from certainty that it would change my mind. In any case, I don't think Hacker News is an appropriate venue for such a conversation.

I wanted to limit the scope of my comment to contradicting guelo's specific assertion that "A lot of Trump voters did it just to spite liberals". It's important to me that you (the public) understand why your liberal candidate lost. And it's not to spite liberals; it's because the DNC chose to prop up a very seriously compromised candidate. My hope is that next time they can offer a better alternative, rather than blaming their loss on a how terrible American voters are.

The DNC screwed this up, and I have not heard one word from the Democratic party establishment admitting it. Alternatively, if they refuse to accept responsibility, I'd also be happy with the death of the Democratic party, and maybe something less corrupt could be born in its place.

Why then were some of them about targeting Bernie Sanders re: his Jewishness, for example?

I downvoted you for a very good reason.

Because he had already lost and they were trying to get him out of the race because at that point he was just dragging the party down. Using his Jewishness was wrong, but not corrupt.

What about the one discussing getting the New York primary moved up if Clinton were to get a big challenger so that she could get an early victory and kill that momentum? What about the ones discussing moving the Illinois primary back so that moderate republicans could not get early victories (and further the narrative that the right is extremist)? And what about the ones where Donna Brazile fed debate questions? And what about the ones showing clear collusion across the board with the media to appease Clinton and push the preferred narrative against her competition?

Were any of those indicative of corruption?

As someone who works in IT, I know how easy it is to forge emails. So far all those emails have been denied by their senders.

Using DKIM to "prove" they are real only works if you assume the attacker doesn't have access to the private key. If someone hacked the mail server, then they probably have the private key.

I'm saying it didn't happen, but I'm saying that everyone needs to be a little more critical in their analysis of the "evidence" presented.

You're right that the emails could have been forged. I take this as a serious possibility.

You say that "all those emails have been denied by their senders". I'm not sure what you're referring to. Would you mind linking it? I've been following the news rather closely, and I've never heard any sender of a leaked email say something to the effect of "I did not send this". The only thing they say is that they won't comment on veracity.

Also, the Wikileaks organization has never leaked forged documents before and have never lied. The Clintons and their cronies are caught in lies repeatedly. While it's not proof, you have to take things like credibility into account when evaluating who's lying this time.

However, for me, my mind was already made up before any emails were leaked based on the Clintons' previous scandals. If it were proven that the email leaks were entirely fabricated, I would definitely update my opinion of Wikileaks, but my opinion of the Clintons would remain unchanged.