Yeah, you're right! The Buttigieg campaign should have withheld that 100K until Shadow successfully rigged the Iowa caucus.

What is the endgame here in this conspiracy?

That Buttigieg pays $100,000 for software he doesn't need to cover up a bribe used to "rig" the preliminary results of the caucus? If that's the case, wouldn't it backfire horribly once the paper ballots get manually tabulated? Especially since that would probably happen around the time of the next (NH?) primary. A story like that ("Buttigieg didn't actually win in Iowa!") would totally derail any momentum (since the actual # of delegates in Iowa is fairly insignificant, about 1% of the total, my understanding is that the main value of the Iowa caucuses is to construct media narratives)

What $100,000 is that?

>In the pre-Trump era politicians had to at least pretend they weren't corrupt.

I guess you should let Hillary know she should not have been in control of a foundation that was receiving millions of dollars in donations from foreign leaders while she was the head of the department in charge of US foreign policy.

Most people didn't know about that. I didn't know about that until this moment. I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying there was enough of a lack of tolerance in our society for that sort of thing for discretion to even be necessary at all.

The whole country knows about Trump's most recent cronyism, and both his voters and his congress have made clear that they intend to do exactly nothing about it.