3 ms·

What I said was "there was an effort to do so from someone outside of her campaign - but the questions that were provided were not the ones asked, so.... It's f

What I said was "there was an effort to do so from someone outside of her campaign - but the questions that were provided were not the ones asked, so.... It's false to say she received some debate questions in advance." Was there dishonesty from the DNC? Yes! But it's important to say what happened. Someone did a bad job of trying to supply her with a couple of questions. Instead the only thing they managed to provide her was a hint about two of the subjects that would be discussed. So to the point I responded to - Did she "receive some debate questions ahead of time" - nope! She didn't! Just some things that were close. Did that give her an unfair advantage? Maybe! But I doubt it - if Bernie's campaign didn't expect a question about the Flint water issue, then they're idiots. And I don't think they're idiots. The help offered to Hillary was inaccurate and of dubious worth.

whimsicalism 6y ago
If you attempt to commit fraud, but are really shitty at it and bumble the attempt - I don't think that that makes it any more morally benign. The emails [0] show pretty clear strategizing with Clinton campaign staff over preparing answers to the exact questions being proposed at the CNN town hall. That the CNN town hall ultimately chose to go with similar questions worded slightly differently does not in some way absolve the Clinton campaign. [0]: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/5205 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/5205
listenallyall 6y ago
> The help offered to Hillary was inaccurate and of dubious worth. If you buy a gun and then rob a bank with it -- except the bank teller laughs at you because there's water dripping from your "gun" -- it doesn't diminish the fact that your intent was to rob a bank while yielding a deadly weapon. Just because you're ineffective and can't tell a water pistol from a Glock doesn't mean the intent doesn't, or shouldn't, count.

whimsicalism 6y ago

If you attempt to commit fraud, but are really shitty at it and bumble the attempt - I don't think that that makes it any more morally benign. The emails [0] show pretty clear strategizing with Clinton campaign staff over preparing answers to the exact questions being proposed at the CNN town hall. That the CNN town hall ultimately chose to go with similar questions worded slightly differently does not in some way absolve the Clinton campaign. [0]: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/5205 https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/5205

listenallyall 6y ago

> The help offered to Hillary was inaccurate and of dubious worth. If you buy a gun and then rob a bank with it -- except the bank teller laughs at you because there's water dripping from your "gun" -- it doesn't diminish the fact that your intent was to rob a bank while yielding a deadly weapon. Just because you're ineffective and can't tell a water pistol from a Glock doesn't mean the intent doesn't, or shouldn't, count.