4 ms·
No, I believe they did not specifically help him. I have not seen evidence they went out of their way to hurt him. The most "damning" thing you could point to w
by etchalon 10y ago
No, I believe they did not specifically help him. I have not seen evidence they went out of their way to hurt him. The most "damning" thing you could point to would be the debate schedule, which was scheduled before anyone knew Sanders would be a nominee.
- ZenoArrow 10y ago>"I have not seen evidence they went out of their way to hurt him." Here's one example to start... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/wikileaks-emails-democratic-officials-plotted-to-expose-bernie-sanders-as-an-atheist-a7151476.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/wikileaks-emails-de...
- etchalon 10y agoThe link below showed something which was talked about, but never executed. It can be chalked up to proof that the DNC preferred Clinton (they absolutely did) but not that they actively did something to harm them. As I noted above, you can argue the emails "hinted at" the potential they did, but you cannot prove they actually did.
- ZenoArrow 10y agoHere's another... https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/8351 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/8351 >"Yes, Super PAC paying young voters to push back online on Sanders supporters"
- etchalon 10y agoI'm not sure what the context of that is, and I hadn't seen that before. I'll do some reading. Still, a Super PAC is not the DNC. I'm sure pro-Hillary Super PACs were doing (or at least considered doing) quite a few worst things than that.