Even if we believe that this is a Russian conspiracy, why is it more important than the actual corruption? Leaking DNC emails was probably illegal, but that does not make the content any less damning.
I just said that the Russian intelligence services will use the trust they've established (by disseminating truthful information) in order to spread lies when it comes closer to the election - do you not see harm in that?
Edit: Also, can you point to the 'actual corruption' that occurred? Not the dirty tricks (which I agree happened), but the 'actual corruption' that you are alleging occurred. So far I've heard plenty of people allege corruption, but I've yet to actually see this corruption. With the contents of the DNC emails it shouldn't be difficult.
I don't know what you call 'actual corruption' but discriminating against another candidate, not providing level playing ground and actively harming another candidate's campaign, DNC chair stepping down because of corruption and immediately getting hired in Clinton campaign all look pretty shady to me. Illegal, maybe not but definitely corrupt.
Correction, Russia is in hostilities with the United States, and is attempting to weaken it's international standing and weaken it's treaties (primarily NATO). It's currently headed by a dictator fond of murdering journalists and dissidents, jailing and inciting violence against sexual minorities, nationalizing multi-billion dollar corporations for his personal profit, and literally (as in the actual definitive use) rigging elections - in addition to invading his neighbors. There is no honest defense of Putin as a leader, and there is no honest defense of why he should have a say in who America elects as it's next president. I'd suggest that his involvement in the US electoral process is poisonous, and if any US citizens are found to have conspired in this effort with him, that should be considered treason.
And again, you seem to be intentionally mis-parsing my words. As I've now said twice, Russian intelligence intentionally leaks truthful information so that it may later spread deceitful propaganda. I've never argued that American voters aren't entitled to know truthful disclosures about it's electoral process. But again, as I've said twice, Putin has a track record of using this credibility to later spread lies. With the understanding that Putin intentionally spreads lies, it becomes abundantly clear as to why America should treat everything he leaks with a healthy dose of skepticism.
With regards to the 'everyone else is doing it' what-aboutism, I'll pass. I personally find it a tiring and intellectually lazy argument, and in any case it's irrelevant.
>I don't know what you call 'actual corruption' but discriminating against another candidate, not providing level playing ground and actively harming another candidate's campaign, DNC chair stepping down because of corruption and immediately getting hired in Clinton campaign all look pretty shady to me. Illegal, maybe not but definitely corrupt.
To be clear, 'actual corruption' is orchestrating the submission of fraudulent ballots (ballot-box stuffing), fraudulently disqualifying the ballots of eligible voters, or otherwise attempting to alter the outcomes of American votes.
I'm not sure if you're familiar with American politics, but otherwise these 'dirty tricks' are actually par the course - since forever, really. A candidate who is unable to overcome them probably isn't qualified to become president by dint of their amateurism. For some perspective, the DNC tried all these tricks - and worse - on Obama as he wrested the nomination away from Hillary. If you believe that Sanders could walk into the Democratic Party after 30 years as independent and seize the nomination then you don't understand party politics.
Lastly, the question of DWS's resignation. To be clear, no allegations against DWS regarded 'actual corruption.' With that said, Putin timed his leaks beautifully to sabotage the Democratic Conventions. If you'll remember, these disclosures left the convention beginning in an upheaval and largely against HRC. Since there is no person able to force the resignation of the DNC chairperson, HRC faced a convention in open revolt against her and the chairperson. Offering DWS a spot in her campaign allowed her to resign and still save face, and allowed HRC to bring in a chairperson who could help bring the convention to heel. DWS draws no salary from the campaign nor has any responsibilities - we call this an honorary position. What you're calling 'actual corruption' I call deft political maneuvering.
Lastly, Bernie Sanders lost by over 3,000,000 votes. To suggest that the nomination should go to him is in defiance of the idea of a democracy, unless you are alleging that Hillary Clinton manufactured or stole 3 million votes.
"I wouldn't use the word 'rigged,' because we knew what the rules were. But what is really dumb is that you have closed primaries, like in New York State, where 3 million people who were Democrats or Republicans could not participate. Where you have a situation where over 400 superdelegates came on board Clinton's campaign before anybody else was in the race, eight months before the first vote was cast. That's not rigged. I think it's just a dumb process, which has certainly disadvantaged our campaign." - It seems Bernie himself would align much more closely with my interpretation of reality than yours.
With regards to Sanders, as best I can tell, you seem to be upset that your candidate wasn't exempted from both the political process and the democratic process. I'm unsympathetic to people who cry after they lose a game and want the rules changed for themselves, which is essentially what you're arguing for now. Sanders joined public service at the same time the Clintons did, if he wanted to gain power on a national stage there was nothing stopping him. The tricks utilized against him are nothing compared to the sustained attacks the Clintons have weathered for 25+ years, much less what Barack overcame in a single election. Everyone else seems to get along just fine, but for some reason we're all supposed to stop and rewrite human nature when Sanders supporters learn how the world actually works.
If you think all these games are unfair, they are - and so what? They're nothing compared to the politics played on the international stage by Putin, Xi Jingping et al. There's no imaginary referee that you can go run to whenever someone is mean to you internationally, just as there isn't one in an election locally. I expect my president to find ways to adapt, just as I would when a hostile nation tries to sabotage their political process. FWIW, Sanders himself understands this fully, hasn't complained or cried about it, and is using his opportunity to the fullest to effect positive change in the world.
The final fact you seem keen to ignore is that Clinton won her nomination by over 3,000,000 votes. For some reason the clear will of the electorate isn't a good enough reason for you to accept her nomination, and instead you insist that this process be ignored so your preferred candidate is instead nominated.
As for the email 'scandal', I'll again pass. I'm equally unsympathetic to people who try and change topics to avoid admitting they're wrong.
Lastly, if you've read my last few replies they are all saying that these are fair tactics, and candidates who can't respond to them probably don't deserve our votes. I'm sorry you took this as meaning I'm pro-Clinton and against everyone else, but I'm usually for people basing their votes and opinions on facts.
There's no lack of other questionable appointments but this one in particular seems to leave no room for debate.
Otherwise political patronage is the same as it has always been, and in this case was marred by the fact they probably didn't have any relevant positions to reward him, and cast about for any seat available. If you look through the diplomatic appointments of the last ~10 presidents, you'll find that many are unqualified for their appointments.
It's the same process that brought Mike 'heck of a job' Brown to the head of FEMA, where he concerned himself with his dinner plans as thousands of Americans drowned in New Orleans.
And truthfully, I'll bet every presidential appointment ever has been made first and foremost on the basis of that president's relation to the individual, unless you can find me an appointment made on the behalf of an individual said president hated personally.
Broken? Absolutely. Corrupt? No.
Rajiv Fernando was not qualified to be on this particular natsec expert board that comes with a Top Secret clearance.
Political patronage isn't necessarily wrong when you're handing out the typical ambassadorships which people tend to actually be qualified for.
However, it certainly becomes "actual corruption" when you start putting those people in impactful roles that they're utterly unqualified for.
I didn't just pull out a random example out of my ass.
I don't disagree with you.
>Political patronage isn't necessarily wrong when you're handing out the typical ambassadorships which people tend to actually be qualified for. However, it certainly becomes "actual corruption" when you start putting those people in impactful roles that they're utterly unqualified for.
But again, you're not really arguing against HRC as much as you are the status quo. Again, Bush appointed a supremely unqualified man to head the agency responsible for protecting America during emergency- I didn't pull a random example out of my ass either.
You're suggesting that Hilary's patronage is unique because the beneficiary could potentially have serious responsibility- Im saying Bush's beneficiary let New Orleans drown, then grossly botched his responsibilities while Americans killed each other for food. I'd suggest the oversight of American emergency preparedness is a life-or-death matter, as the blood of ~1,200 American citizens is on Mike 'heck of a job' Brown's hands.
All that is to say that consequential political appointments can be had through patronage. Unless you can somehow show that this appointment was directly requested by Rajiv, again my response is that he probably didn't want this particular position, but it's the one that was left after HRC exhausted the choice positions.
Again, I don't think the action was responsible but I can't see how it was out of line with the dysfunctional status quo.
To many people that is the same as voting Trump.
Just to be clear though, I think HRCs opponents would in all likelihood behave in similar manner.
>All that is to say that consequential political appointments can be had through patronage. Unless you can somehow show that this appointment was directly requested by Rajiv, again my response is that he probably didn't want this particular position, but it's the one that was left after HRC exhausted the choice positions.
I don't think what Rajiv wanted is really relevant here, he supported Hillary and was rewarded for it in a very inappropriate manner, that's corruption.
I wouldn't have any complaints if the post Rajiv was handed was one he was qualified for, but that obviously isn't the case here. Nothing wrong with handing out consequential positions to qualified people.
>Again, I don't think the action was responsible but I can't see how it was out of line with the dysfunctional status quo.
It's not, just as the cop trying to extort me for a bribe in Thailand isn't. Doesn't make it any less corrupt though.
For better or worse (probably worse), or current definition of corruption necessitates a quid pro quo.
Using your Thai cop analogy, its possible that said cop could attempt to extort a powerful Thai politician who could have them prosecuted. However, that doesn't make their prosecution any less corrupt, nor does it address the incentives that make extortion so commonplace to begin with. Will the police force be any less corrupt after they are gone? It is simply swapping out one corrupt individual with another, and life goes on. I'm saying if I have a problem with the practice, I'm going to try and change the process - not simply charge the last person holding the hot potato.
I am not that poster. However, it seems that many are arguing if the source is legitimate, but tacitly accept it is StateSponsered. Yes, we are actively in a coldwar, however, that does not mean it is Russia.
I am extremely suspect of the sources agenda. I agree with you this has the markings of a manufactured agenda on it. It could certainly be Russian operatives; or some subset of information was handed off from a highlevel RU source, but that is not proveable nor are there a reasonable amount of credible evidence.
The media has spent time discussing "Russian" involvement in near synchronicity-- moreso than the content of the emails.
There has only been limited time to remarks questioning a second Snowden like insider, which on the program I heard (NPR) there was casual speculation they were a Russian plant.
There are many outfits capable of this one might imagine. The "this was so easy"-esqu bit strikes me as utter bullshit. This whole leak seems extremely awkward, and its motivation is unclear.
The lack of real evidence & the unlnowns about the underlying agenda are scary. Clearly, someone who is powerful is behind this, if they are able to evade detenction by the NSA as well as gain entry to one of Americas most powerful correspondence.
If you study Vladimir Putin, you'll find this is pretty par the course. He practices what he calls 'asymmetric warfare', an interesting aside in itself - but in short, he's the most skilled propagandist alive today. He's known to have interfered with European elections and funded far-right and far-left groups of almost every shade; anything to destabilize his enemies. His interference with domestic US elections is for the same reasons: to weaken US international standing and NATO, and place someone in office who would be more compliant to his demands than HRC.
Simply for rhetoric, I will propose a scenario that I do find possible. Guccifer2 was a fairly talented hacker who found and copied the DNC files and disseminated them. However, immediately the weight of NSA & US Intel closed in hard. Captured him, and are executing the scenario you just proposed but from the American angle.
Blame the Russians/anyone else, leak mostly trivial data, and a few larger but not extremely problematic things to feed the narrative, and then gain credibility. From there, you can use the alias as a hunny pot to attract others, destroy the credibility of guccifer2 hopefully calling into question the next persons legitimate attempts at such a feat, or continue shaping the narrative.
This disclosure seems extremely weird. The pay for play directory and the bro-ish shout out to assange are ridiculous. I can't see the payforplay directory being legit (he said that the photo was from dnc dir) and the whole thing just seems absurd. I haven't been following it enough, but hopefully he has been signing messages, and if not cryptographic proof, something nearly as irrefutable.