Excuse me then, we were discussing semantics vs legality. My point was that by dishonest the DNC was corrupt as by the dictionary definition of corrupt: "having

Excuse me then, we were discussing semantics vs legality. My point was that by dishonest the DNC was corrupt as by the dictionary definition of corrupt: "having or showing a willingness to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain.". Or the Latin origin of the word: corruptus (along the lines of broken)- Which seems to fit the description of the events and my arguments. You argue that because court rules this as political promises (regularly broken and legal to do) then it was not corruption as the court saw it. This then seems that politics can be legally corrupt (deceitful). You don't have to agree with me but I vote out candidates that lie even if they fit under my political umbrella. In my opinion this machevellian behavior will end up more painful down the line and it is better to lose one election than to have a broken political system long term.