|
|
|
|
|
by ta_donk_gt
3509 days ago
|
|
What about the one discussing getting the New York primary moved up if Clinton were to get a big challenger so that she could get an early victory and kill that momentum? What about the ones discussing moving the Illinois primary back so that moderate republicans could not get early victories (and further the narrative that the right is extremist)? And what about the ones where Donna Brazile fed debate questions? And what about the ones showing clear collusion across the board with the media to appease Clinton and push the preferred narrative against her competition? Were any of those indicative of corruption? |
|
Using DKIM to "prove" they are real only works if you assume the attacker doesn't have access to the private key. If someone hacked the mail server, then they probably have the private key.
I'm saying it didn't happen, but I'm saying that everyone needs to be a little more critical in their analysis of the "evidence" presented.