Did we get verification the emails were unaltered? To make an analogy the initial email release was smoke, it demands investigation, smoke often means fire after all, but not always.
Had a single email been altered, you can be sure that the DNC would have been shouting it from the rooftops. Being able to label the emails as 'altered' would have made for fantastic water-muddying, which is a classic defensive tactic in such a situation. Any political operative would be expected to do the same. The fact that you are (as I am) unaware of any such claim, in an episode which was at the top of the news cycle for months, would seem to be a pretty clear indicator that the emails were legit.
> Had a single email been altered, you can be sure that the DNC would have been shouting it from the rooftops.
Easy to imagine they would not in some cases. Often people do not comment on on going investigations. Or in international espionage I know it is common to hide what you know and what you do not know to keep your competitors/enemies in the dark to give your self an advantage. So the USA spy organizations may not want the DNC to show its hand.
I can not make the assumption that you are putting forth at least.
The DNC could have simply published one of their original emails for people to compare, without interfering in any investigation or revealing any spy techniques.
> The DNC could have simply published one of their original emails for people to compare, without interfering in any investigation or revealing any spy techniques.
Ok the DNC goes to their hard drive and opens up the email. It does not match what was in the leak. Is the email on the DNC's hard drive altered or not? After all if the email was accessed/leaked could it have been altered as well? With a simple security setup, yes it can.
Operational security is often about not tipping your hand to your adversary about what you know and what you do not know. Showing the original email in your scenario also tips your hand for what you think you know.
There was nothing incriminating in the emails. Some staffers preferred one candidate. This was spun into a fixing conspiracy theory. If you think this wasn't true in 2008 or that some RNC staffers don't prefer one candidate, you might be interested in a bridge I have for sale.
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid admitted: “Bernie really had a movement out there, and it wasn’t right to treat him that way. I knew — everybody knew — that this was not a fair deal. So I’m sorry she had to resign, but it was the right thing to do. She just should’ve done it sooner.”
Which is it? Did she schedule the debates on the weekend so nobody would watch, or did she ask unfair questions that painted Sanders in a bad light for many voters? It can't be both. The reality is that none of her actions caused Clinton to get more than 3 million more votes than Sanders.
Yes it can be both. Schedule the debates on the weekend so "nobody" would watch (thus people who didn't know about him wouldn't learn about him), and ask unfair questions that painted Sanders in a bad light (targeting people who already knew about him and did watch because they wanted to learn more).
She did more too, like convincing much of the media not to talk him. It was quite obvious when so many shows covered the polls, including people polling in single digits, but didn't mention Sanders.
> The reality is that none of her actions caused Clinton to get more than 3 million more votes than Sanders.
There's no way to know how many votes he would have gotten in a fair contest.
> She did more too, like convincing much of the media not to talk him.
Where is the evidence for this?
> Yes it can be both. Schedule the debates on the weekend so "nobody" would watch (thus people who didn't know about him wouldn't learn about him), and ask unfair questions that painted Sanders in a bad light (targeting people who already knew about him and did watch because they wanted to learn more).
