• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Guccifer 2.0 Leak Reveals How DNC Rigged Primaries for Clinton

This thread is about the emails released by Russian Govt. hacking of the DNC servers. Did you not know that? Deflections about Hillary's private server are irrelevant to this discussion.
Your link (from last year) stated that it was inconclusive as to whether Hilary's private server was hacked at all. You do know that it was U.S. Govt. servers were definitely hacked and there are charges against the perp right now.



Read more: Clinton server faced hacking from China, South Korea and Germany - POLITICO
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

That is a direct threat to national security. Did you not know that?
Please explain how someone under a criminal investigation (let alone who used a private server exposing state secrets to foreign countries) is better for this country than someone who is not.
 
You didn't know who hacked the DNC to get that stuff? There also was no deflecton only sanity. Hilary won the nomination by getting the most votes and pledged delegates not through some DNC conspiracy. And you might as well get into bed with Putin since your man Trump already has. Trump is very popular with the world dictators and tyrants, the free world not so much.




https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russian-government-hackers-penetrated-dnc-stole-opposition-research-on-trump/2016/06/14/cf006cb4-316e-11e6-8ff7-7b6c1998b7a0_story.html

LOL!!

So...you got nothing but disregard of facts and deflection to some non-issue like who hacked whom and, of course, more drivel about Trump, who has nothing to do with the Democrats. None of that detracts from the facts about the rigged primaries.

The only thing you should do...that you haven't done yet...is really look at what's gone on during the Democratic primaries...such as the actions of DWS and outright denial of procedure by various state party elites. Heck, I don't really care enough about what those rank and file Democratic party members have to contend with to get their voices heard, but that doesn't mean I'm going to wear blinders because of my political bias.

I'll leave that to you.
 
That is a direct threat to national security. Did you not know that?
Please explain how someone under a criminal investigation (let alone who used a private server exposing state secrets to foreign countries) is better for this country than someone who is not.

There is no evidence that Hillary herself is under criminal investigation. If I want to read BS like you spout I would be reading the right wing blogs. You have lost it...and me.

The story – a Times exclusive — appeared high on the home page and the mobile app late Thursday and on Friday and then was displayed with a three-column headline on the front page in Friday’s paper. The online headline read “Criminal Inquiry Sought in Hillary Clinton’s Use of Email,” very similar to the one in print.

But aspects of it began to unravel soon after it first went online. The first major change was this: It wasn’t really Mrs. Clinton directly who was the focus of the request for an investigation. It was more general: whether government information was handled improperly in connection with her use of a personal email account.

Much later, The Times backed off the startling characterization of a “criminal inquiry,” instead calling it something far tamer sounding: it was a “security” referral.
http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/07/27/a-clinton-story-fraught-with-inaccuracies-how-it-happened-and-what-next/?smid=tw-share&_r=1
 
LOL!!

So...you got nothing but disregard of facts and deflection to some non-issue like "hackers" and, of course, more drivel about Trump, who has nothing to do with the Democrats.

The only thing you should do...that you haven't done yet...is really look at what's gone on during the Democratic primaries...such as the actions of DWS and outright denial of procedure by various state party elites. Heck, I don't really care enough about what those rank and file Democratic party members have to contend with to get their voices heard, but that doesn't mean I'm going to wear blinders because of my political bias.

I'll leave that to you.

And I will leave it to you to explain how the will of the Democratic primary voters is not being fulfilled. You are indeed wearing blinders when you allow the Russian Govt. to get involved in our political system. I guess you are in bed with Putin just like Trump is.

Donald Trump: Why Putin Loves Him | National Review
 
There is no evidence that Hillary herself is under criminal investigation. If I want to read BS like you spout I would be reading the right wing blogs. You have lost it...and me.

http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/07/27/a-clinton-story-fraught-with-inaccuracies-how-it-happened-and-what-next/?smid=tw-share&_r=1

FBI formally confirms its investigation of Hillary Clinton’s email server
FBI criminal investigation emails: Clinton approved CIA drone assassinations with her cellphone, report says
FBI’s Probe Of Clinton Email Server Is A ‘Criminal Investigation,’ Judge Says
Lynch: No Conflict of Interest in Clinton Email Investigation, Despite Obama’s Endorsement
Lynch: I've never discussed Clinton case with Obama
BREAKING NEWS: Feds Make Move On Hillary Clinton Supporter’s Donors – ARRESTED!

Is the private email server in question under investigation by the FBI not Hillary Clinton's? If it wasn't Hillary Clinton that set up, and used, this private email server, then who was it? Who else could it be? And why was it called 'clintonemail.com'?

If it isn't Hillary under a criminal investigation, then perhaps it is Bill?

-facepalm-

This kind of mental gymnastic is indicative of how desperately Clinton and her supporters are scrambling to maintain their feeble attempt at a grasp on credibility.

This has gone beyond the realm of 'laughable' and 'sad' to 'dangerous' and threatening to the national security of the United States of America.
 
Last edited:
And I will leave it to you to explain how the will of the Democratic primary voters is not being fulfilled. You are indeed wearing blinders when you allow the Russian Govt. to get involved in our political system. I guess you are in bed with Putin just like Trump is.

Donald Trump: Why Putin Loves Him | National Review

shrug...

I don't have to...nor do I want to...explain it. I'll leave it to your own progressive community to do the job.

The following article points out all the reasons given...including yours...at to why the primaries were not rigged, but then points out how it WAS rigged. You can argue with them if you want.

Yet, there are several examples of how the Democratic presidential primary is and has been rigged: hundreds of superdelegates pledged their allegiance to Clinton before votes were cast in Iowa, a limited number of debates were scheduled to ensure voters had the least amount of exposure to Clinton opponents, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Clinton campaign falsely accused the Sanders campaign of “stealing” voter file data, the Hillary Victory Fund has funneled millions of dollars through state parties to the DNC, and Democratic women supporting Sanders have faced forms of retaliation.

Senator Harry Reid called the president of the Culinary Workers Union in Nevada for the sole purpose of ensuring “tens of thousands of casino workers” would not have to work on the day of the caucuses. The union president did Clinton a favor, let workers off with pay, and workers from six major Las Vegas casinos showed up to help make certain Clinton did not lose.

The Democratic National Committee has stacked the deck against the Sanders campaign by only appointing three of the 45 people he recommended for the Democratic National Convention committees. Critically, former Representative Barney Frank—a Clinton surrogate, who has been vitriolic in his criticism of Sanders—will co-chair the important Rules Committee. The lack of inclusion of Sanders representatives on the committee virtually guarantees a repeat of much of the disorder witnessed in Nevada—not because Sanders supporters are disposed to troublemaking, but because the DNC openly intends to stifle their efforts to influence what unfolds at the convention.

There are 22 closed or semi-closed primaries, which allow the Democratic Party to block independents or citizens who do not want to affiliate with the party from voting. It effectively enables the party establishment to protect the status quo. Sanders has won only six closed or semi-closed primaries. In New York, the state set a deadline for affiliating with the Democratic Party around six months before the scheduled primary. Numerous New York residents believed the race would be over by April 19 and did not take proper steps to be eligible to vote.

Closed primaries are funded by taxpayers and not the party, and should be inclusive. Yet, DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz has openly championed their ability to shut people out. “We should not have independents or Republicans playing games,” Schultz previously stated, which implies anyone who is not a Democrat and supports Sanders is trying to sabotage Clinton. It creates the perception that a Democratic candidate with appeal across the political spectrum should not be able to benefit from that broad support during the primary race.

Local Democratic Party headquarters have shared space with the Clinton campaign. For example, in Nevada, the Carson City Democratic Party headquarters rented office space to Clinton. VICE journalist Pete Voelker reported, “It was hard to tell where the Democratic Party’s office ended and the Clinton office began.” Sanders was never offered office space for their Nevada operations.

The DNC’s own rules dictate that national officers or staff “maintain impartiality and evenhandedness during the Democratic Party presidential nominating process.” Henry R. Muñoz III, chief of the DNC’s finance operations, organized a fundraiser for Clinton in San Antonio, Texas, during the summer.

Early in the primary, the DNC helped Clinton limit the number of debates to six debates. According to Democratic presidential candidate Martin O’Malley, the rules were, “There shall only be one debate in Iowa and only one debate in New Hampshire, and anybody that goes off script or participates in other debates, other than those sanctioned by the DNC, will be forbidden from attending other debates. It is a very undemocratic way to run the Democratic Party.”

Establishment Collectively Stunned To See Citizens Reject Rigged Democratic Primary | Common Dreams | Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community


btw, the Russians have nothing to do with the stuff in that article...it's all Democrats.
 
btw, iguanaman, it really isn't hard for someone who doesn't have a dog in the fight to find more evidence of the rigged Democratic primaries.



I guess the reason you can't find any such evidence stems from your biased viewpoint. Oh, well...
 
shrug...

I don't have to...nor do I want to...explain it. I'll leave it to your own progressive community to do the job.

The following article points out all the reasons given...including yours...at to why the primaries were not rigged, but then points out how it WAS rigged. You can argue with them if you want.




btw, the Russians have nothing to do with the stuff in that article...it's all Democrats.

The Russians released it to help Trump and if you don't understand that I can't help you. They have EVERYTHING to do with it's release. I don't see how more debates could have changed the outcome but you are free to keep helping Trump like Putin is. You guys deserve each other. Authoritarians stick together.
 
Last edited:
btw, iguanaman, it really isn't hard for someone who doesn't have a dog in the fight to find more evidence of the rigged Democratic primaries.



I guess the reason you can't find any such evidence stems from your biased viewpoint. Oh, well...


LOL Hillary had nearly 4 million more votes than Sanders. It wasn't even close.
 
btw, iguanaman, it really isn't hard for someone who doesn't have a dog in the fight to find more evidence of the rigged Democratic primaries.



I guess the reason you can't find any such evidence stems from your biased viewpoint. Oh, well...


I will never understand how a group of people can remain so fiercely loyal to a criminal and a threat to national security against all odds and evidence.
Some humans are, indeed, fact-resistant.
 
I will never understand how a group of people can remain so fiercely loyal to a criminal and a threat to national security against all odds and evidence.
Some humans are, indeed, fact-resistant.

If she was using an unclassified but official @state.gov email address, her correspondence would still have been available to the other world superpowers.

The @state.gov unclassified email is no more safe than her server was. In fact, her server's relative obscurity probably made it more safe.

That makes the server bit a red herring. And all you're left with is the fact that there have been systemic weaknesses in the state department's handling of classified information for decades, something that's not unique to Clinton in any meaningful way.
 
DISHING OUT THE DIRT

Why anybody should believe such bilious commentary is beyond belief.

First, who cares what the DNC is saying internally? What counts is what happens at the ballot box. And,
Secondly, someone, anyone was certain to make a comment about how "awful" it is that the Democrats are so sordid a party.

And since we are dishing out the dirt, how about this piece titled: What Donald Trump Learned From Joseph McCarthy’s Right-Hand Man

Excerpt:
For Mr. Cohn, who died of AIDS in 1986, weeks after being disbarred for flagrant ethical violations, Mr. Trump was something of a final project. If Fred Trump got his son’s career started, bringing him into the family business of middle-class rentals in Brooklyn and Queens, Mr. Cohn ushered him across the river and into Manhattan, introducing him to the social and political elite while ferociously defending him against a growing list of enemies.

Decades later, Mr. Cohn’s influence on Mr. Trump is unmistakable. Mr. Trump’s wrecking ball of a presidential bid — the gleeful smearing of his opponents, the embracing of bluster as brand — has been a Roy Cohn number on a grand scale. Mr. Trump’s response to the Orlando massacre, with his ominous warnings of a terrorist attack that could wipe out the country and his conspiratorial suggestions of a Muslim fifth column in the United States, seemed to have been ripped straight out of the Cohn playbook.

“I hear Roy in the things he says quite clearly,” said Peter Fraser, who as Mr. Cohn’s lover for the last two years of his life spent a great deal of time with Mr. Trump. “That bravado, and if you say it aggressively and loudly enough, it’s the truth — that’s the way Roy used to operate to a degree, and Donald was certainly his apprentice.”

For 13 years, the lawyer who had infamously whispered in McCarthy’s ear whispered in Mr. Trump’s. In the process, Mr. Cohn helped deliver some of Mr. Trump’s signature construction deals, sued the National Football League for conspiring against his client and countersued the federal government — for $100 million — for damaging the Trump name. One of Mr. Trump’s executives recalled that he kept an 8-by-10-inch photograph of Mr. Cohn in his office desk, pulling it out to intimidate recalcitrant contractors.

The two men spoke as often as five times a day, toasted each other at birthday parties and spent evenings together at Studio 54.

And Mr. Cohn turned repeatedly to Mr. Trump — one of a small clutch of people who knew he was gay — in his hours of need. When a former companion was dying of AIDS, he asked Mr. Trump to find him a place to stay. When he faced disbarment, he summoned Mr. Trump to testify to his character.

Mr. Trump says the two became so close that Mr. Cohn, who had no immediate family, sometimes refused to bill him, insisting he could not charge a friend.

“Roy was an era,” Mr. Trump said

Between Cohn and McCarthy, no equivalent Great Harm was done to our sense of democracy and "free speech" than by those two. Cohn was from very early on, the Donald's mentor in deceit, manipulation and fabrication ...
______________
 
Last edited:
I think at this stage, everyone knows that the DNC primary was clearly rigged for Clinton.
Everyone except Clinton supporters.

The convenient fastidiousness of denial common to them is unparalleled. There are plenty of Trump supporters who plan to vote for him despite his flaws, but to all the Clinton supporters I've seen, anything remotely bad about her, her candidacy, or her connections, simply doesn't exist, and if anything pops up it's the fault of anyone who points it out because they're "dividing the party". And we thought the republicans were the fascists.
 
Last edited:
If she was using an unclassified but official @state.gov email address, her correspondence would still have been available to the other world superpowers.

That's nice and all, but we're talking about the server. The server was not government-sanctioned, thus - it could not be made available to the necessary failsafes required in the event that it was penetrated, and thus, remained a threat to national security. Hell, she didn't even use a desktop computer, she used a phone.

A ****ing phone.

The @state.gov unclassified email is no more safe than her server was. In fact, her server's relative obscurity probably made it more safe.

Actually, the opposite is true. The "relative" obscurity made it that much harder for the indicative government security failsafes therein to respond to the threat in time (and did not so until the retroactive classification after her leaving office), which leads back to the previous statement I made.

That makes the server bit a red herring. And all you're left with is the fact that there have been systemic weaknesses in the state department's handling of classified information for decades, something that's not unique to Clinton in any meaningful way.

I seriously doubt Hillary did it to 'protect state secrets', you're putting too much faith in a single human being. When have you known people (such as your bosses) that have broken the rules, to do so with good intentions? Disobedience is great and all, when you're protesting a corrupt system. But when you do it on your own, for your own purposes, you're doing it with cruel intentions.

The investigation is justified.
 
Last edited:
The Russians released it to help Trump and if you don't understand that I can't help you. They have EVERYTHING to do with it's release. I don't see how more debates could have changed the outcome but you are free to keep helping Trump like Putin is. You guys deserve each other. Authoritarians stick together.

It doesn't matter what the Russians did. The rank and file Democrats already know what their Elites have done. Whether the Russians revealed anything or not makes no difference...only what the rank and file will...or will not...do.

But hey...you go ahead. Be like Obama. Be like Hillary. Be like all the other Democratic Elites. Blame someone else.
 
LOL Hillary had nearly 4 million more votes than Sanders. It wasn't even close.

Do you see that reasoning as justification for election fraud?
 
DISHING OUT THE DIRT

Why anybody should believe such bilious commentary is beyond belief.

First, who cares what the DNC is saying internally? What counts is what happens at the ballot box. And,
Secondly, someone, anyone was certain to make a comment about how "awful" it is that the Democrats are so sordid a party.

And since we are dishing out the dirt, how about this piece titled: What Donald Trump Learned From Joseph McCarthy’s Right-Hand Man

Excerpt:

Between Cohn and McCarthy, no equivalent Great Harm was done to our sense of democracy and "free speech" than by those two. Cohn was from very early on, the Donald's mentor in deceit, manipulation and fabrication ...
______________

So...

For you, it's the old "Bush did it, too...but more" (updated to apply to Trump, of course) excuse, eh? That's even worse that blaming someone else. It's saying "we can do bad things because the other side did bad things, too".

Simply pathetic.
 
That's nice and all, but we're talking about the server. The server was not government-sanctioned, thus - it could not be made available to the necessary failsafes required in the event that it was penetrated, and thus, remained a threat to national security. Hell, she didn't even use a desktop computer, she used a phone.

A ****ing phone.



Actually, the opposite is true. The "relative" obscurity made it that much harder for the indicative government security failsafes therein to respond to the threat in time (and did not so until the retroactive classification after her leaving office), which leads back to the previous statement I made.



I seriously doubt Hillary did it to 'protect state secrets', you're putting too much faith in a single human being. When have you known people (such as your bosses) that have broken the rules, to do so with good intentions? Disobedience is great and all, when you're protesting a corrupt system. But when you do it on your own, for your own purposes, you're doing it with cruel intentions.

The investigation is justified.

What failsafes are necessary for unclassified email correspondence ?

Failsafe ? What applies is the records act, not a security risk.

Let me explain :

(Use of server) is tied to quasi-violating the (records act). IOW: the security criticisms are not related.

(Poor handling of classified information) isn't tethered to Hillary in any meaningful way.

Unclassified networks should NOT house classified information that could pose a risk to national security, period.

And i don't think Clinton used a private server for protection. I think she used it for convenience. She probably didn't think anyone would make such a big deal about it since she's far from the only one to do so.
 
Do you see that reasoning as justification for election fraud?

Not only is that just an accusation but it is superfluous even if it were true because it would not have changed the outcome.
 
It doesn't matter what the Russians did. The rank and file Democrats already know what their Elites have done. Whether the Russians revealed anything or not makes no difference...only what the rank and file will...or will not...do.

But hey...you go ahead. Be like Obama. Be like Hillary. Be like all the other Democratic Elites. Blame someone else.

LOL Your obsession with "elites: is noted. Yet your candidate is part of the most elite and powerful group of all.... Billionaires. Isn't that ironic?
It is no surprise to me that that you don't think it matters if Putin screws with our election process because he is helping Trump. He wouldn't do that if he didn't expect or was promised something in return. What do you think Trump promised him in return for his help? Are you an admirer of Putin like Trump is?
 
Last edited:
The DNC supported the preeminent democratic presidential nominee ?!?!?!?

f637aa9c5cac23b43e36168fff77016c.jpg


Seriously what is your point ? What is wrong with the DNC supporting a candidate...?

And yes, even with superdelegates the way it influences democratic primaries, they could not have prevented Trump from being the nominee. Do the math.

If they had known how popular Trump would be they'd have done more to stop him well ahead of time. The assumption was always that he'd fade. But it was Jeb Bush who faded. They didn't expect that.

You assume I think it's a bad thing that the Democratic primary wasn't democratic. On the contrary, I congratulate them on stiff arming the nutter. Would that the Republicans had more perspicacity. On the other hand, the Republican elites deserve this.
 
Not only is that just an accusation but it is superfluous even if it were true because it would not have changed the outcome.

Actually, it wasn't "just an accusation". It was an eye-witness report.

And, again, are you really justifying election fraud because, "it would not have changed the outcome"? If so, then "the ends justify the means...and even if they don't it doesn't matter anyway" must be your motto.
 
Last edited:
LOL Your obsession with "elites: is noted. Yet your candidate is part of the most elite and powerful group of all.... Billionaires. Isn't that ironic?
It is no surprise to me that that you don't think it matters if Putin screws with our election process because he is helping Trump. He wouldn't do that if he didn't expect or was promised something in return. What do you think Trump promised him in return for his help? Are you an admirer of Putin like Trump is?

LOL!! Nice try to turn this around and against me...instead of addressing the valid concerns of your own Party. (I'm assuming you are a Democrat)

1. I don't have any "obsession" with Elites of any Party...but the Party members do, and it seems they have solid justification for their concern.

2. I don't have a "candidate", though I will vote for Trump as the lesser of two evils.

3. Now this one is your best idiocy ever: Thinking that Trump has the support of the rich. Time to get a clue, dude. It's the Party Elites who have the backing of the billionaires. Not Trump.

4. And, of course, a post from you wouldn't be complete if you didn't keep harping on your drivel about Putin.
 
For you, it's the old "Bush did it, too...but more" (updated to apply to Trump, of course) excuse, eh? That's even worse that blaming someone else. It's saying "we can do bad things because the other side did bad things, too".
Simply pathetic.

Yeah, right. Bush was an angel. Just like Trump is.

If ignorance were bliss, we should be one very Happy People.

However, it's not working out that way ...
_________________________
 
Yeah, right. Bush was an angel. Just like Trump is.

LOL!!

It doesn't matter if Bush is an angel or not. Dude...I'm not the one saying Hillary is okay just because somebody else wasn't. I, along with many others...but not you, it appears...consider Hillary on her own (de)merits.

If ignorance were bliss, we should be one very Happy People.

However, it's not working out that way ...
_________________________
 
Back
Top Bottom