![](/static/66c60d9f/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/d82718c7-5579-4676-8e2e-97b4188f10d3.png)
Quoting a phrase from an internal email out of context makes you seem disingenuous.
Source. Disingenuous is trying to claim the DNC chair was not biased
The emails that were stolen show people being mean,
Showing bias in positions of responsibility is not “being mean”
but it also shows that they were consistently not rigging anything.
Debate questions in advance.
6 heads in a row.
Obtuse financing rules.
Etc.
Or that the only time they talked about financial schemes was after the Sanders campaign alleged misconduct?
She did. Eight years ago.
Yes. Because there was clear evidence of bias. Straight after, Debbie was rewarded with an honorary chair of the Clinton campaign’s 50-state program.
Turns out that preference without misconduct doesn’t have much impact.
How are you sure there was no misconduct?
How are you sure there was no impact?
When their inexperience with the party tools led to them not taking advantage of them, they cried misconduct for the other campaigns knowing about them.
Or, because Hillary controled the party’s finances, procedures were made deliberately obtuse to her advantage.
Actions speak louder than words. Let’s review what happened.
Guilty
Guilty
Guilty. Note that it’s very easy to claim others didn’t follow the rules when you are the ones writing them (possibly retroactively).