Now that the DNC's entire leadership has resigned in disgrace, is anyone *still* going to doubt the journalistic value of the email leak?
-
-
Sanders lost by 3.8 million votes. I don't see what the DNC did that stacked the deck that much.
-
No one reputable has claimed that DNC collusion was the sole or even a primary reason why Sanders lost
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
that the DNC was partial to HRC seems clear (and IMHO newsworthy) but its power is vastly overstated.
-
But it went beyond "partiality" -- merging operations is different from individuals having opinions.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Neutrality is subjective.
#sarcasmThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The avowing was wrong, we agree, then. Cuz it was dishonest cuz it was over
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The DNC lied..THAT was the reason for Wikileaks release. Media failed again to inform on facts.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Good 2 know MSM journos like MY are genuinely apathetic¬ just trying 2 protect HRC by underreporting.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Still wouldn't matter since the primaries weren't winner takes all.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
"DNC was still publicly avowing neutrality" We now know that was NOT the case.
-
Since 2015: "Crazy conspiracy theory morons lol!" Now: "Duh, everyone knew. Damn drama queens."
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Anyone who's done research in third world countries knows how fuckedup this is. Huge journalistic value
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.