Hacker News Reader

Comment by ianhawes | Hacker News Reader

That would hardly qualify as corruption. The DNC is well within its rights to determine how they wish to conduct their debates. A single question that was not posed in the exact same form would not meet the definition of corruption.

Ethically weak? Sure.

View on HN

As an outside observer, I never had the sense that it would be considered fair, or non-corrupt, for one of the candidates to have the questions in advance.

To me, when I first saw this news story, I felt it was one of the most shockingly corrupt things I had ever seen. The fact that you could see this news and find that it "would hardly qualify as corruption"... this gives me hope that philosophers can gleefully debate reality forever without messing things up by accidentally tripping over the truth. No sarcasm implied!

I struggle to think of a situation as public as this that could be more corrupt.

Despite the headline, the article makes it clear that it was multiple questions, on multiple instances.

>Brazile, on two separate instances, tipped off the Clinton campaign ahead of time on questions that might come her way at CNN events

It's pretty wild that you don't consider this corruption.

Why even have primaries? The DNC is well within their rights to return to the smoke-filled room.

They'd probably be better off by doing so. After the 1968 primary, the Democratic Party made a number of changes to how they hold primaries, mainly in order to avoid a split between the conservative and progressive wings of the party. But the 2016 and 2020 primaries were so visibly rigged that they may well have done worse in that respect than simply choosing Clinton and Biden in a smoke-filled room would have done.

Lots of lawyers and CYA means you can do things that are bad but won't break the law and gives an out for people on online forums to defend you with "but it didn't qualify as legal corruption!".

...It's very, very hard to take your comments in good faith. MANY people have taken the time to point out other DNC corruption. Please consider aligning your position a little more with reality.

Seems like it’s just the one point repeated in different articles?

No need to question anyone’s sincerity.

The reality is the emails were hacked and released in order to damage the Clinton campaign by a foreign power that wanted her to lose (or win but severely weakened). This is much more serious than some unseemly infighting within the DNC. Nothing in the Clinton emails was a crime, right?

It would be a frightening world indeed if all unethical behaviour was covered by law, and worrying to think that the defence for unethical behaviour could possibly be to point to the absence of a law for it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com