4 ms·

That sounds like (1), not (2). The DNS head leaked a single question to one of the candidates, and it never even did Hillary any good. It's not just not-a-big-d

by andreyf 10y ago

That sounds like (1), not (2). The DNS head leaked a single question to one of the candidates, and it never even did Hillary any good. It's not just not-a-big-deal, it's literally an issue of zero importance that had zero impact on Hillary beating Berney. Not blaming Russia for Hillary's failures, of course, just pointing out that even intelligent people are super confused by the disinformation that happened this year.

PKop 10y ago
If you're talking about Donna Brazile, she was not the head of the DNC at the time she was giving the Clinton campaign debate questions. She was employed at CNN. If she acted alone, then maybe you can argue it wasn't "the media" but one person. But how was she able to view the questions ahead of time? She was a known Clinton supporter, no? https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/cnn-drops-donna-brazile-as-pundit-over-wikileaks-revelations/2016/10/31/2f1c6abc-9f92-11e6-8d63-3e0a660f1f04_story.html?tid=a_inl https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/cnn-drops-don... "From time to time, I get the questions in advance." "I'll send a few more." - Donna Brazile to John Podesta Wikileaks references: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/38478 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/38478 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/39807 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/39807
- tanderson92 10y ago
  > She was a known Clinton supporter, no? No, that's part of the problem. She was a mover and shaker behind the scenes but had not formally and publicly declared an allegiance (of course, it was obvious from the way she talked on CNN). She was an ostensibly unaffiliated commentator who had a secret allegiance. It's an excellent case study of why news agencies and networks should not have paid political operators (hacks) on their payroll and the fact that it went wrong is entirely predictable.
- andreyf 10y ago
  Still seem like non-issues -- Hillary's and Bernie's answers to "should states abolish the death penalty?" and "how will you help people with lead poisoning from municipal water supplies?" were prepared long before anyone at her campaign got them, and it seem unlikely they went anywhere near the candidates. I'll support Bernie and his policies over Clinton any day of the week, but I have no doubt Hillary would have won the dem primaries without Donna's attempts at illicit support. Compare that to what's likely in Trump's tax returns (and do you think the Russians really don't have a copy?), and you'll see that these are absolutely non-issues. Also, care to defend (3) in any way?

by andreyf 10y ago

PKop 10y ago

If you're talking about Donna Brazile, she was not the head of the DNC at the time she was giving the Clinton campaign debate questions. She was employed at CNN. If she acted alone, then maybe you can argue it wasn't "the media" but one person. But how was she able to view the questions ahead of time? She was a known Clinton supporter, no? https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/cnn-drops-donna-brazile-as-pundit-over-wikileaks-revelations/2016/10/31/2f1c6abc-9f92-11e6-8d63-3e0a660f1f04_story.html?tid=a_inl https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/cnn-drops-don... "From time to time, I get the questions in advance." "I'll send a few more." - Donna Brazile to John Podesta Wikileaks references: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/38478 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/38478 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/39807 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/39807

tanderson92 10y ago
> She was a known Clinton supporter, no? No, that's part of the problem. She was a mover and shaker behind the scenes but had not formally and publicly declared an allegiance (of course, it was obvious from the way she talked on CNN). She was an ostensibly unaffiliated commentator who had a secret allegiance. It's an excellent case study of why news agencies and networks should not have paid political operators (hacks) on their payroll and the fact that it went wrong is entirely predictable.
andreyf 10y ago
Still seem like non-issues -- Hillary's and Bernie's answers to "should states abolish the death penalty?" and "how will you help people with lead poisoning from municipal water supplies?" were prepared long before anyone at her campaign got them, and it seem unlikely they went anywhere near the candidates. I'll support Bernie and his policies over Clinton any day of the week, but I have no doubt Hillary would have won the dem primaries without Donna's attempts at illicit support. Compare that to what's likely in Trump's tax returns (and do you think the Russians really don't have a copy?), and you'll see that these are absolutely non-issues. Also, care to defend (3) in any way?