zlacker

Why assume 'disgruntled' insiders when the established forces are the ones profiting from the hack? Or are you saying that they did it because Sanders would never have gotten through national convention anyways, but they could hurt Hillary by blackening her?

>>m_muel+(OP)
I'm not assuming anything, I'm saying it's a possibility. The Russian hacker story just seems bizarre and made up, just like the Sony North Korea story.

Here's an interview with Julian Assange when asked about the source of the leaks, with direct quotes from Clinton's campaign manager, quoting unnamed experts: https://youtu.be/axuJfX3cO9Q?t=12m50s

"On Sunday morning, the issue erupted, as Mrs. Clinton’s campaign manager, Robby Mook, argued on ABC’s “This Week” that the emails were leaked “by the Russians for the purpose of helping Donald Trump” citing “experts” but offering no other evidence."

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/25/us/politics/donald-trump-r...

I mean anyone can quote anonymous "experts" to craft a narrative. Doesn't make it true.

>>patric+n6
My point is, at some point you have to assume that the easiest way of all this happening is that either DNC or Hillary's staff is rotten from the top. At this point it seems to be a pattern to me.