"There is a lot wrong with what the Democrats did, including a bad strategy and a weak candidate." (Professor David Schultz in an email 11/11/16)
One of the mistakes made by the Democrats was to place their shoptalk onto a hackable server, something we all do, assuming somehow that we are immune because obscure and harmless, or some such combination of uninteresting factors. This was not so in the case of the Russian/Trump invasion of the DNC database, a huge target that revealed . . . secrets and, oddly enough, stratagems for thwarting the GOP's efforts--research into particulars about it!
They didn't want Bernie to win. They were working toward Hillary's victory.
And some of these stratagems involved, hmmm, fixing election results, according to many, though this often-successful tactic showed up not on the hacked-into database but instead in reality. The hacked-into database revealed off-color strategies.
And in case you're wondering whether we EI (election integrity) activists are too imaginative and poor sports to boot, I read that when Hamas won the elections in Palestine Hillary was disappointed and wondered why no efforts had been exerted to thwart this result.
There's proof enough for me. But backtrack a bit. I wrote that Russia and Trump colluded in the successful effort to hack into the DNC database. COLLUDED. Trump proudly acknowledged that.
Now, according to the U.S. Constitution, Article III, section 3: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
Trump has committed treason according to the U.S. Constitution. Now, are we blind or already afraid of Trump even while President Obama still occupies the oval office?
This reality is staring us in the face. Are we blind and deaf? Or scared?
Trump still threatens to throw Hillary into jail once he's in office for committing a crime he isn't bothering former Secretaries of State Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice about.
And Hillary threatened nothing but politics as usual and the status quo.
If we ignore such treason now, we will have no one but ourselves to blame for the other grim realities Trump is spelling out day by day far more clearly than his pre-election drivel ever ascertained.
I feel guilty criticizing Hillary at all as her Wellesley "little sister," an official designation that lives on at my alma mater, having graduated two years behind her class. I feel genuine remorse in expressing such views, but substantial evidence backs them up: the New Hampshire primary in 2008 was the first venue for theorizing such backstage activity, though some believe that the GOP wanted Hillary to win at that time because Obama was simply a stronger candidate. He ended up winning all of the HCPB (hand-counted-paper ballots)-using jurisdictions while she won all of those using electronic machinery, optical scanners. The paper ballots were found to have been handled quite unprofessionally, as a wonderful documentary by Bev Harris proved, so even hand recounts might not have revealed much. The proof was in the outcome.
Similarly, primaries in 2016 yielded wins by Bernie of a majority of caucus-based (i.e., using hand-counted paper ballots) primaries, while Hillary won most of the primaries conducted with electronic systems, optical scanners as well as the even-more-despised DREs. Now in Iowa, a caucus state where results were painfully close in some areas, results were determined--I kid you not--by a coin toss. Hillary won in the closest primary in the history Iowa's Democratic caucuses.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).