Re:Technical report on DNC hack [pdf]
by lern_too_spel on Saturday December 31, 2016 @11:44AM
(#13291754)
> Donna Brazille wasn't DNC chair until after the primaries were over, so how would she be an example of the DNC rigging the primaries for Clinton?
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Because she sent the emails to the Hillary Campaign. And then was surprise surprise, appointed to the DNC Chair.
You know instead of the Hillary campaign saying, no no, you shouldn't appoint her, we have evidence that she is corrupt, here's the evidence.
And then after the evidence came to light the DNC was like, oh that's fine.
Re:Technical report on DNC hack [pdf]
by lern_too_spel on Monday January 02, 2017 @02:02AM
(#13299547)
Once again, how is that evidence of the DNC rigging the primaries for Clinton against Sanders? Do you admit that no such evidence exists?
No I don't, to me the emails and the resignations are both evidence and an admission of guilt, to you it might not be.
I hope that Hillary and the DNC are able to get their day in court so the evidence can be heard by a jury of their peers rather than the court of public opinion.
Re:Technical report on DNC hack [pdf]
by lern_too_spel on Tuesday January 03, 2017 @11:41AM
(#13310380)
> To me the emails and the resignations are both evidence and an admission of guilt.
Be specific. Which emails are evidence of guilt? None of the emails I've seen have shown any evidence of the DNC rigging the primaries. Why would the resignations be evidence of guilt if the stated reasons for resignation are just as plausible?
Do you realize how much you sound like a conspiracy theorist?