Are DNC Leaks Proof of Corruption?

Moot · Jul 25, 2016

Surrealistik said:
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'.

Sorry, but you don't get to decide what is irrelevant. The fact is that Bernie didn't fund raise for the party or the DNC and yet he expected to have and enjoy all the benefits of the DNC...including the funds that Hillary helped to raise.

If you're using that link as a source, it's pretty ancient; Dec 2015 vs mine dated April 2016

My link gave more details...such as...Sander's staffers knowingly and deliberately accessed unauthorized files...and then searched for key primary states and saved and exported the files to another computer just prior to Hillary campaigning in those states. Your link corroborates it.

"....The audit confirmed that one campaign gained unauthorized access to the data of another, and the audit further confirmed that the results of those searches were saved within the system and that data was exported...."

NeverTrump · Jul 25, 2016

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 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.

^ This!

The way that story was handled and how little media attention it received led me to believe that the Sanders campaign wasn't as big as the trolls make it seem. A Bernie Sanders staffer "accidentally" finds a security bug in the DNC database, no one cares. Emails released about Democrats and DNC people yelling at each other. OMG Corruption!!!!!

Hint: One thing was an actual crime but with a good defense. The other thing was a bad defense with no crime. DNC should've handled it better, and I hope they just didn't hand Trump the election...

NeverTrump · Jul 25, 2016

Moot said:
My link gave more details...such as...Sander's staffers knowingly and deliberately accessed unauthorized files...and then searched for key primary states and saved and exported the files to another computer just prior to Hillary campaigning in those states. Your link corroborates it.

Also the Bernie staffer hack story is basically over. I don't think anything else came out of it, except that staffer resigning. That's why the story is older with no new updates...

THIS non-story, is just beginning. I can already see Trumplicans wasting a year or more on this. I'm sure the Trumplicans are just itching to make negative advertisements about DNC because of these emails, and are combing it over with highlighters.

Moot · Jul 25, 2016

ModerateGOP said:
Also the Bernie staffer hack story is basically over. I don't think anything else came out of it, except that staffer resigning. That's why the story is older with no new updates...

THIS non-story, is just beginning. I can already see Trumplicans wasting a year or more on this. I'm sure the Trumplicans are just itching to make negative advertisements about DNC because of these emails, and are combing it over with highlighters.

Bernies supporters are filing a class action lawsuit against the DNC....so it could still be used as evidence to build a case against Bernie's intent to sabotage the Democrat party out of spite and/or political hackery....or just to benefit his campaign.

Mycroft · Jul 25, 2016

ObamacareFail said:
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.

The Republican Elite DO hate Cruz...but they hate Trump more. And they did aid him with money and endorsements and helped with finagling delegates for him. Unfortunately, for them, it didn't work.

Josie · Jul 25, 2016

ModerateGOP said:
Really? Because I see the more level headed posters on this forum saying that they don't see corruption while the actual partisans are saying it obviously is!

Do you notice how many Dems aren't voting at all?

Surrealistik · Jul 25, 2016

Moot said:
Sorry, but you don't get to decide what is irrelevant. The fact is that Bernie didn't fund raise for the party or the DNC and yet he expected to have and enjoy all the benefits of the DNC...including the funds that Hillary helped to raise.

The fact is that Bernie gave more into the Democratic Party than he took out of it, period. Further, once again, this in no way authorizes or justifies corruption set against him.

My link gave more details...such as...Sander's staffers knowingly and deliberately accessed unauthorized files...and then searched for key primary states and saved and exported the files to another computer just prior to Hillary campaigning in those states. Your link corroborates it.

And my link, per an independent assessment exonerated his campaign from any real wrongdoing, specifically that the Sanders campaign didn’t steal any data and had no access to the Clinton campaign’s strategy or data.

Only the DNC communications director said anything to the contrary.

ModerateGOP said:
^ This!

The way that story was handled and how little media attention it received led me to believe that the Sanders campaign wasn't as big as the trolls make it seem. A Bernie Sanders staffer "accidentally" finds a security bug in the DNC database, no one cares. Emails released about Democrats and DNC people yelling at each other. OMG Corruption!!!!!

Hint: One thing was an actual crime but with a good defense. The other thing was a bad defense with no crime. DNC should've handled it better, and I hope they just didn't hand Trump the election...

It got so little media attention because the accusations were totally bogus as an independent commission later found out. Further, the DNC was notified of the glitch months in advance and did nothing.

Second, the leaked e-mails effectively prove pro-Hillary collusion at a bare minimum in direct contradiction to party policies on neutrality, and those concerned with Bernie effectively are concerned with strategies to degrade his campaign and appeal.

DiAnna · Jul 26, 2016

ModerateGOP said:
Lots of people say it proves corruption but do the emails really reveal that? I say no. What say you?

The leaks are proof that a half-dozen people (7 to be precise) in the DNC were violating their oath to be neutral during primary campaigns, that DNC computer security sucked donkey balls for over a year, and that Putin really, really, really wants Trump to win.

Absentglare · Jul 26, 2016

I don't really know why people think this is what corruption is.

Can any of you define "corruption" so that it fits here ?

They aren't supporting Hillary because they were making money unless i'm missing something yyyuuuugge. If they just exerted subtle, private influence for their personally favored candidate, they might have violated the neutrality policy.

Violating a single policy isn't exactly Earth-shattering corruption. I'd be surprised if they actually did nothing; hell, in that case, we might still suspect that they did something much more serious like just make up all the results.

joG · Jul 26, 2016

ModerateGOP said:
Lots of people say it proves corruption but do the emails really reveal that? I say no. What say you?

I voted yes, assuming that the persons concerned were sworn to impartiality and that the covenants forbade the persons do, what they did. I am not really sure, however, that that is the case.

NeverTrump · Jul 26, 2016

Absentglare said:
I don't really know why people think this is what corruption is.

Can any of you define "corruption" so that it fits here ?

They aren't supporting Hillary because they were making money unless i'm missing something yyyuuuugge. If they just exerted subtle, private influence for their personally favored candidate, they might have violated the neutrality policy.

Violating a single policy isn't exactly Earth-shattering corruption. I'd be surprised if they actually did nothing; hell, in that case, we might still suspect that they did something much more serious like just make up all the results.

As of right now in this thread, no one has linked to any proof of their claims. It just reinforces their own biases against the establishment.

iguanaman · Jul 26, 2016

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.

It was not so much corruption as it was a demonstration that the DNC is made up of people and people have opinions and loyalties. Hillary had a lot of loyal supporters because she has cultivated them over many years. That's why we chose our nominee by voting, that is the great equalizer. Hillary won that vote fair and square.

Surrealistik · Jul 26, 2016

iguanaman said:
It was not so much corruption as it was a demonstration that the DNC is made up of people and people have opinions and loyalties. Hillary had a lot of loyal supporters because she has cultivated them over many years. That's why we chose our nominee by voting, that is the great equalizer. Hillary won that vote fair and square.

Ridiculous; I'm just going to self-quote in response to this:

Surrealistik said:
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.

As for partisans in the thread earlier asserting that nothing substantive was proven despite top DNC officials, from DWS (who is specifically forbidden to demonstrate bias) to their CFO Brad Marshall, to commmunications director Luis Miranda and national finance director Jordan Kaplan openly throwing in with Hillary, get the **** out of here; the sheer level of Orwellian doublethink and willful ignorance almost defies belief.

Yes, when so many powerful top officials display both a pro-Hillary and anti-Sanders bias, that would be tantamount to institutional subversion vis a vis the DNC's own rules; even the pro-Hillary NYT acknowledges as much; since some of you are demanding links, here's a couple: Leaked Emails Suggest DNC Was Conspiring Against Bernie Sanders | http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/23/us/politics/dnc-emails-sanders-clinton.html | Thousands of Bernie Sanders Supporters Are Suing the DNC in a Massive Class Action Lawsuit | https://guccifer2.wordpress.com/2016/06/21/hillary-clinton/

Why the **** do you think DWS is resigning (only to be subsequently hired on Clinton's campaign team)? Why Tulsi left over internal tensions and the debate schedule?

Phys251 · Jul 26, 2016

Surrealistik said:
A 'bit' exaggerated? Hilarious.

Well well well. Turns out that the theory about Russian intervention has merit.

Maybe next time, you will give more respect to the facts.

CanadaJohn · Jul 26, 2016

Let's just look at the definition of the word "corruption":

"dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those in power"

Cut out the spin and the partisan nitpicking, and you have a prima facie case of corruption - plain and simple.

Surrealistik · Jul 26, 2016

Phys251 said:
Well well well. Turns out that the theory about Russian intervention has merit.

Maybe next time, you will give more respect to the facts.

Abbazorkzog said:
It is much easier to believe the DNC is simply corrupt as opposed to an elaborate conspiracy theory that the Russians are secretly cooperating with Trump to elect him a Russian mole that will hijack the entire government and hand us over to the Kremlin...

:roll:

Whether or not Russians were responsible for the leak (which in no way obviates or invalidates the findings, or renders the DNC innocent), calling this 'a bit exaggerated' is hilariously absurd.

LetsGoBrandon · Jul 26, 2016

Mycroft said:
The Republican Elite DO hate Cruz...but they hate Trump more. And they did aid him with money and endorsements and helped with finagling delegates for him. Unfortunately, for them, it didn't work.

From what I observed, the Republican elite did absolutely nothing to assist Cruz at any point. They talked about mounting a convention challenge if Trump did not win on the first ballot,, however even then, the original plot was to slip in a RINO. And the truth is that the party elite hate Cruz more then Trump. They do not actually hate Trump. They are just monumentally embarrassed that he spoiled their plans. The party vastly underestimated the anti-status quo movement.

Mycroft · Jul 26, 2016

ObamacareFail said:
From what I observed, the Republican elite did absolutely nothing to assist Cruz at any point. They talked about mounting a convention challenge if Trump did not win on the first ballot,, however even then, the original plot was to slip in a RINO. And the truth is that the party elite hate Cruz more then Trump. They do not actually hate Trump. They are just monumentally embarrassed that he spoiled their plans. The party vastly underestimated the anti-status quo movement.

https://theconservativetreehouse.co...with-voters-ted-cruz-relies-on-gope-insiders/

ALiberalModerate · Jul 26, 2016

Look the DNC is not stupid, they knew that if Bernie was their nominee, he would get painted as a communist in the general election by the Republicans and lose 40 or more states. And don't give me this **** about him polling better than Trump, the GOP had not started on the guy. There was a time in 1988 when Dukakis lead Bush by 20 points in polling, and we know how that turned out.

That said, Hillary won nearly 4 million more votes than Bernie did nationwide. Delegates aside, she still won 55.2% of the primary vote to Bernie's 43.1% of the primary vote. She defeated him by a good margin. At this point, the Bernie or Bust crowd are just a bunch of whiny babies. Luckily there are not many of them anymore.

As a comparison, Obama won more delegates than Hillary did in 2008, but Hillary actually got more votes. Yet we didn't hear the Hillary supporters bitching about the system being rigged.

sangha · Jul 26, 2016

ModerateGOP said:
Lots of people say it proves corruption but do the emails really reveal that? I say no. What say you?

It depends on what you mean by corruption

If you mean that outright sale of govt services or policies in exchange for money, then no. I doubt there's going to be any evidence of that

But if you mean proof that the party expends a great deal of energy catering to the whims of people with lots of money, then "hell yeah!"

LetsGoBrandon · Jul 27, 2016

Mycroft said:
https://theconservativetreehouse.co...with-voters-ted-cruz-relies-on-gope-insiders/

That's more of a blog then a source...however it does make a valid point. Cruz attempted to work within the system as all modern politicians before him. Trump's approach is unconventional, however so far it seems to be working for him. If he goes on to win, perhaps it will show that a presidential candidate does not necessarily have to raise a billion dollars to get elected.

Socrates1 · Jul 27, 2016

ModerateGOP said:
Lots of people say it proves corruption but do the emails really reveal that? I say no. What say you?

Anytime a Citizen of the USA votes and it counts for nothing that 's corruption .

haymarket · Jul 27, 2016

Socrates1 said:
Anytime a Citizen of the USA votes and it counts for nothing that 's corruption .

The electoral college makes sure that almost half the votes cast count for nothing.

LetsGoBrandon · Jul 27, 2016

SouthernDemocrat said:
Look the DNC is not stupid, they knew that if Bernie was their nominee, he would get painted as a communist in the general election by the Republicans and lose 40 or more states. And don't give me this **** about him polling better than Trump, the GOP had not started on the guy. There was a time in 1988 when Dukakis lead Bush by 20 points in polling, and we know how that turned out.

In my opinion, the DNC is stupid. Otherwise they would have avoided putting all their assets into coronating Hillary from the very beginning. And the fear of a Bernie Sanders victory is not a valid excuse for rigging the primaries.

That said, Hillary won nearly 4 million more votes than Bernie did nationwide. Delegates aside, she still won 55.2% of the primary vote to Bernie's 43.1% of the primary vote. She defeated him by a good margin.

Having more votes then Bernie at the end or any point before the end is not a valid excuse either. When one candidate starts with roughly a 500 delegate head start before the first primary vote is cast, it's fairly easy to have the most votes at the end. A 500 delegate head start gives one a considerable amount of momentum. Then on top of that, the DNC further rigged the system to make sure.

At this point, the Bernie or Bust crowd are just a bunch of whiny babies. Luckily there are not many of them anymore.

I would not assume that there are not many of them left. Just because Bernie caved in and endorsed Hillary does not mean his supporters will follow. Many will vote for Hillary, however many will also vote third party or not at all. I agree that Bernie would never win the general election, however it's quite a stretch to suggest that the party is unified considering the loud boos that are still reverberating at the DNC convention.

As a comparison, Obama won more delegates than Hillary did in 2008, but Hillary actually got more votes. Yet we didn't hear the Hillary supporters bitching about the system being rigged.[/

Does not really matter who gets the most votes. It's who gets the most delegates. And the super delegate system of rigging DNC primaries is going to blow up in your faces.

LetsGoBrandon · Jul 27, 2016

haymarket said:
The electoral college makes sure that almost half the votes cast count for nothing.

I disagree, however we have already had this argument many times before. The electoral college makes every states votes count, rather then letting California, New York, and Texas speak for everyone.

Are DNC Leaks Proof of Corruption?