• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are DNC Leaks Proof of Corruption?

Are DNC Leaks Proof of Corruption?

  • Total voters
    78
Moot said:
Funny you should mention the Russians. Apparently, they want Trump to win and are influencing our elections.
Click to expand...

We don't know if it's from Russia. Are you watching the convention? Wikileaks sources could very well be INSIDE the Democratic Party.
 
Josie said:
We don't know if it's from Russia. Are you watching the convention? Wikileaks sources could very well be INSIDE the Democratic Party.
Click to expand...

I just turned on the TV...and starting to watch it now.


"...two independent research firms have confirmed an assessment by the Democratic National Committee that its network was compromised by Russian government hackers” and said they used malware analysis and domain name techniques to trace the hacks. The Post said a few days later, “‘Guccifer 2.0’ claimed responsibility for the hack in an apparent attempt to deflect blame from the Russian government.” The Russian-aligned hacking groups were called Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear, said The Post. The Post concluded, “Analysts suspect but don’t have hard evidence that Guccifer 2.0 is, in fact, part of one of the Russian groups who hacked the DNC.”
Click to expand...
Guccifer 2.0: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know | Heavy.com​
 
Surrealistik said:
I love how this is even a question; the sheer denial and indomitable apologism of hard core Hillary shills/partisans never fails to astound.

Let me break it down for you:

#1: The DNC has clear and specific rules against bias towards any nominee candidate.

#2: The DNC denied that it was biased towards any candidate.

#3: The leaked e-mails discussed in this thread clearly demonstrate that such a bias existed in the DNC that both actively supported Hillary and opposed Bernie, and that it was systemic despite these rules.

#4: The only logical conclusion based upon these findings is that there was systemic corruption in the DNC in contravention of its own rules in favour of Hillary, and moreover that the DNC was aware of this violation and actively attempted to conceal it.
Click to expand...

Sure there was a bias towards Hillary, but did that bias come before the primaries, during the primaries or essentially at the end when a Clinton victory was mathematically assured?

If before or during the primaries, I'd agree with you. But if after several primary votes had already taken place a it appeared he couldn't win mathematically, then all you really have here is alot of background brainstorming going on that in hindsight makes the DNC leadership look bad. But like I said, I haven't gone through the email cache myself. So, I really don't know what time table to reference against the email backdrop.
 
Moot said:
I just turned on the TV...and starting to watch it now.
Click to expand...

I'll catch you up. Bernie supporters are piiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiissed. That's about it.
 
Josie said:
I'll catch you up. Bernie supporters are piiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiissed. That's about it.
Click to expand...

Is Bernie going to be a nominee?
 
Objective Voice said:
Sure there was a bias towards Hillary, but did that bias come before the primaries, during the primaries or essentially at the end when a Clinton victory was mathematically assured?

If before or during the primaries, I'd agree with you. But if after several primary votes had already taken place a it appeared he couldn't win mathematically, then all you really have here is alot of background brainstorming going on that in hindsight makes the DNC leadership look bad. But like I said, I haven't gone through the email cache myself. So, I really don't know what time table to reference against the email backdrop.
Click to expand...

Just found this email chain will combing through the DNC WikiLeaks emails. This particular chain of emails is from April 2016 and is an example of what I'm talking about above. If you read it thoroughly, it's not as if there was a plan to oust Bernie before or during the Democratic primaries. Rather, it's a series of Q&A and opinions/discussions on how to proceed going forward. Mind you, this is only one email among thousands! But if this is the worse they could find, then it's a reflection on the DNC leadership simply saying things that in hindsight just makes them look like conspirators instead of just brainstorming - hashing out ideas or voicing their frustrations and not a reflection on Hillary or the Democrat Party as a whole.
 
Yeah, by definition I think it's corruption. The people at the top of the DNC were corrupt. They used their power and engaged in pretty dishonest conduct. That is what corruption is.
 
It would all depend on how you define corruption.

Political Parties are free to do business as they see fit.
In a legal sense, becoming the Dem or Rep nominee is no more significant than seeking the endorsement of Burger King.
The DNC is free to plot and act how they see fit. They can pick their guy with an apple bob contest if they want.

The DNC is not guilty of doing anything illegal or unlawful.
But the DNC did try to give the image that it would be fair. So does that make it corruption?

I think the word "Deception" fits better.
 
ModerateGOP said:
Lots of people say it proves corruption but do the emails really reveal that? I say no. What say you?
Click to expand...

Perhaps not the emails about how the Democratic primary was fixed, after all, don't they get to run their party by the rules that they want? It is, after all their party.

However, there's other matters that have come to light from the DNC email dump on WikiLeaks, namely:

Democratic National Committee documents recently released by WikiLeaks include spreadsheets and emails that appear to show party officials planning which donors and prominent fundraisers to provide with appointments to federal boards and commissions.

The documents, which were circulated among top DNC officials in April, could raise legal questions for the party, says Ken Boehm, the chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center, a government watchdog group.

“The disclosed DNC emails sure look like the potential Clinton Administration has intertwined the appointments to federal government boards and commissions with the political and fund raising operations of the Democratic Party,” Boehm told The Daily Caller.

“That is unethical, if not illegal.”
. . .
Screen-Shot-2016-07-24-at-5.36.16-PM-620x526.png

. . .
But one tip-off that the document is detailing a quid pro quo is an entry next to the name of David Shapira, the executive chairman of grocery store chain Giant Eagle, Inc.

“USPS” — a likely reference to the U.S. Postal Service — is entered on the spreadsheet.

President Obama nominated Shapira for a position on the USPS’ board of governors last year but the retail executive did not take the position because congressional Republicans held up his nomination.
Leaked DNC Documents Show Plans To Reward Big Donors With Federal Appointments
Click to expand...

How is this not bribery via the public treasury? The worst possible kind. Clearly a case of quid pro quo, and last time I checked, that's illegal, isn't it?
 
Are they corrupt? Absolutely. They violated their own stated rules regarding candidate bias. That's not criminal corruption but they absolutely say one thing and demonstrably did something else.
 
Anyone that says this isn't corruption is just being dishonest with themselves and everyone else. The DNC, who was supposed to be neutral, got caught sending emails on how to make a candidate look bad on a national level. Bringing up lies about him being an atheist even. Incredible that people somehow excuse this. Not only that, you try to blame Russia for what the DNC wrote and sent themselves.
 
ModerateGOP said:
Lots of people say it proves corruption but do the emails really reveal that? I say no. What say you?
Click to expand...

They aren't proof, but they are evidence of corruption and should be enough to trigger an investigation by a 3rd party with no strings attached to it.


Let's ask Putin to send us a team of investigators. You'd get an aggressive investigation (Putin would love to see American corruption exposed, no matter which side of the aisle it came from) and with a reasonable level of oversight, you could get some pretty good results. :mrgreen:

But seriously, we desperately need an investigative arm of the gov't that is answerable to The People and ONLY the People. No pressure from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., no pressure from Congresscritters, no pressure from SCOTUS.
 
Moot said:
When did asking for a link become a half truth? :roll:
Click to expand...

The half truths about Bernie never fundraising on behalf of the Dems and the access of Hillary's database by a staffer; both of these are moot points with respect to this issue and attempts at deflection from the issue which is DNC corruption.

Objective Voice said:
Sure there was a bias towards Hillary, but did that bias come before the primaries, during the primaries or essentially at the end when a Clinton victory was mathematically assured?

If before or during the primaries, I'd agree with you. But if after several primary votes had already taken place a it appeared he couldn't win mathematically, then all you really have here is alot of background brainstorming going on that in hindsight makes the DNC leadership look bad. But like I said, I haven't gone through the email cache myself. So, I really don't know what time table to reference against the email backdrop.
Click to expand...

It was before and during the primaries, including at times when the nomination wasn't effectively settled, so yes the corruption was relevant and material.

Painter said:
It would all depend on how you define corruption.

Political Parties are free to do business as they see fit.
In a legal sense, becoming the Dem or Rep nominee is no more significant than seeking the endorsement of Burger King.
The DNC is free to plot and act how they see fit. They can pick their guy with an apple bob contest if they want.

The DNC is not guilty of doing anything illegal or unlawful.
But the DNC did try to give the image that it would be fair. So does that make it corruption?

I think the word "Deception" fits better.
Click to expand...

No, I'm pretty sure corruption exactly describes violating your own rules against bias for the sake of a candidate you have an affinity towards while in a position of authority and trust:

"Corruption is a form of dishonest or unethical conduct by a person entrusted with a position of authority, often to acquire personal benefit. Corruption may include many activities including bribery and embezzlement, though it may also involve practices that are legal in many countries."

Dishonest? Yes. Unethical? Of course. Done by people entrusted with positions of authority? Absolutely. Done for personal benefit? In DWS' case that much is certainly clear.
 
Last edited:
PeteEU said:
If this is corruption then how the RNC silenced the anti-Trump movement at the convention is corruption as well.

No this is just normal dirty politics..
Click to expand...

The anti-Trump movement tried to get their way through actions at the rules committee meetings. Votes were taken...those guys lost. All that was according to the Party rules.

No corruption involved in that respect by the RNC.

However, whether the RNC violated their own rules in their attempts to get Bush, then Rubio, then Cruz the needed delegate votes remains an open question. Since they failed and have accepted Trump as the nominee, though, the question is moot.
 
Surrealistik said:
The half truths about Bernie never fundraising on behalf of the Dems and the access of Hillary's database by a staffer; both of these are moot points and attempts at deflection from the issue which is DNC corruption.

It was before and during the primaries, including at times when the nomination wasn't effectively settled, so yes the corruption was relevant and material.
Click to expand...

Are you sure it was the DNC that he fund raised for? If so, I'd like to see your evidence.

Bernie's staffers illegally accessed and deliberately downloaded Hillary's voter data files from the DNC database. Isn't that why the DNC sanctioned Bernie's campaign from access to their database?

If you think illegally accessing and downloading secret files from a political opponent is a moot point, then perhaps you forgot about Watergate and Nixon's resignation.
 
Moot said:
Are you sure it was the DNC that he fund raised for? If so, I'd like to see your evidence.

Bernie's staffers illegally accessed and deliberately downloaded Hillary's voter data files. Isn't that why the DNC sanctioned Bernie's campaign from access to their database?
Click to expand...

Bernie Sanders: Prolific Democratic Party fundraiser - CNNPolitics.com

Whether or not he has raised funds specifically for the DNC, he has raised significant sums of money for the party at large.

Either way, again, irrelevant to the topic of DNC corruption.

If you think illegally accessing and downloading secret files from a political opponent is a moot point, then perhaps you forgot about Watergate and Nixon's resignation.
Click to expand...

Total non-issue and moot as in it is not applicable to DNC corruption that existed well before the incident, nor does it excuse it.

Again, for what must be the literal tenth time or so I've debunked this largely trumped up talking point nonsense: Bernie Sanders Withdraws Lawsuit Against DNC After Being Proven Correct About Data Breach
 
Surrealistik said:
Bernie Sanders: Prolific Democratic Party fundraiser - CNNPolitics.com

Whether or not he has raised funds specifically for the DNC, he has raised significant sums of money for the party at large.
Click to expand...
No. Bernie only raised money for the Democrat Senate committee (DSC) so they would help him get re-elected as Senator for Vermont. He did not fund raise for the party or the DNC whose function it is to help in the national primaries, general election and down ballot state candidates.


Total non-issue and moot as in it is not applicable to DNC corruption that existed well before the incident, nor does it excuse it.

Again, for what must be the literal tenth time or so I've debunked this largely trumped up talking point nonsense: Bernie Sanders Withdraws Lawsuit Against DNC After Being Proven Correct About Data Breach
Click to expand...

It's still debatable and could still come up in a lawsuit...

Answering Your Questions About The Democratic Data Breach : NPR
 
Moot said:
No. Bernie only raised money for the Democrat Senate committee (DSC) so they would help him get re-elected as Senator for Vermont. He did not fund raise for the DNC whose function it is to help in the national primaries, general election and down ballot state candidates.
Click to expand...

Again, it's irrelevant which specific organ of the democratic party Bernie has raised money for; the fact is that he has contributed to the party well beyond the cost of his own seat; the man has 'paid his dues'.

It's still debatable and could still come up in a lawsuit...

Answering Your Questions About The Democratic Data Breach : NPR
Click to expand...

If you're using that link as a source, it's pretty ancient; Dec 2015 vs mine dated April 2016
 
Mycroft said:
The anti-Trump movement tried to get their way through actions at the rules committee meetings. Votes were taken...those guys lost. All that was according to the Party rules.

No corruption involved in that respect by the RNC.

However, whether the RNC violated their own rules in their attempts to get Bush, then Rubio, then Cruz the needed delegate votes remains an open question. Since they failed and have accepted Trump as the nominee, though, the question is moot.
Click to expand...

Both the democrats party primaries and the republican party primaries have been rigged for quite some time...however with the democrats its much more blatant. The super delegate system which led Hillary to a roughly 500 delegate lead before the first damn vote was taken is cheating beyond the imagination. The emails just make it look worse. the democrats had no intention of letting anyone but crooked Hillary have the nomination. The republican primary system is rigged simply by their letting it play out for a while then hand picking their preferred nominee and pointing all the major money and endorsements to that candidate. It was clearly in the plans to give it to Jeb. But you are wrong about the RNC attempting to assist Cruz at any point. The RNC establishment RINOs hate Cruz as much as they hate Trump. In any case, the rigging failed this time. I dislike the nominee, however I do hope the oligarchy is broken up and maybe the next GOP primary will be run fairly and without the party attempting to influence the results. There is no hope for the democrats.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom