This is the same problem that Comey had after writing the letter to Congress on October 28th. Like it or not it would have looked a LOT worse if either of them had waited until after the election.
The RNC was also hacked by the same people as the DNC, yet we're supposed to believe the Democrats emails which ultimately proved to contain nothing of major importance were the ones that needed releasing? Come wasn't writing a press release, he has doing his job and keeping Congress informed and a Republican congressman then chose to misrepresent the content and meaning of Comey's letter for the political gain of his own party.
These two situations are only the same in that they both benefitted the Republican party by misrepresenting the facts in order to make the public think the Democrats were guilty of a major political scandal.
The difference is that Comey didn't know that Congressman would do what he did, where as there is convincing evidence that Assange knew about the RNC hack and emails, possibly even had access to them and said nothing. Comey got used, but Assange knowingly helped Russians spread disinformation.
The following list of links literally took one minute on DDG. However, you should know this already, since these reports about her anti-democratic shenanigans were the only reason that Clinton lost to Trump. [EDIT:] The whole premise of this thread is that there must have been RNC emails that would have harmed Trump's campaign as much as the DNC emails harmed Clinton's. One could simultaneously feel that the DNC emails shouldn't have harmed Clinton's campaign, but one can't simultaneously feel that the emails did and did not harm it.
>'Wondering if there's a good Bernie narrative for a story, which is that Bernie never had his act together, that his campaign was a mess,' Paustenbach wrote. Miranda spurned the idea, although he agreed with Paustenbach's take: 'True, but the Chair has been advised not to engage. So we'll have to leave it alone.' "
Nothing in here supports the claim that the DNC kneecapped Bernie. All it shows is that Democrats heavily favored HRC, who also happened to receive many more votes than Bernie (who I voted for) in the primary.
I'm not going to peruse that list because I know how the Dems kneecapped Bernie: with super delegates. During Clinton's primary run against Obama the super delegates kept their mouths shut until the convention. Which is how it was intended to work when the super delegates were set up in the 70s. In 2016 however, the super delegates for Clinton were very vocal early on, giving Clinton an insurmountable lead right out of the gate. Several states voted for Bernie and he won the "regular" delegates but ended up losing the state because of the super delegates. When the DNC was sued for defrauding the Bernie supporters lawyers for the DNC argued in open court that they didn't have to run a fair primary because they're a private corporation. It's beyond me why anyone would have anything to do with the Democratic party at this point. They are corrupt and they don't care that you know it.
I had actually forgotten about that, but you're totally right that was an additional outrage. The media was even more to blame for that one. If they had reported results comprehensively, the super delegates would have been embarrassed into silence.
The election was on Tuesday November 3rd, and Pfizer announced their results on Monday November 9th. They were only notified of the results the previous day.
> Dr. Jansen said she learned of the results from the outside panel of experts shortly after 1 p.m. on Sunday, and that the timing was not influenced by the election. “We have always said that science is driving how we conduct ourselves — no politics,” she said.
Edit: It would be nice if the people downvoting this could explain why you disagree.
