Yeah, they have numerous exposed war crimes, cover ups and mass surveillance schemes. Which inherently meant that they took their info wherever they could get it from. But that's not enough to make up for harming the candidate you were backing in an election 7 years ago. They could've made sure to not embarass our side, that's the redline where they got too political!
The Panama Papers are a good nomination, the "creepy" part being how quickly it all blew over. The story was squashed by the rich and powerful, especially in China where it was wiped off the Chinese internet. Business continued as usual with top politicians and their families worldwide evading the laws of their own nations.
(a lot happened with the Panama and Paradise Papers, most of it was benign, some of it had consequences for people whether laws were or weren't broken for those people)
Yes their backroom dealings were/are unethical, and its exposure surely help them to lose the election, but was any of it actually illegal? To put it another way, evidence brought forward in a court of law supposedly has limits placed on how the evidence can be obtained. If someone obtains (in this case effectively commits a B&E to get it) damming information about a party, which while good that it is exposed, it doesn't instantly absolve the thief from prosecution.
Is a conspiracy by top officials at the DNC to harm a party candidate during the primary a minor deal? To me this is corruption at close to the highest level. Yes, it's a private org, but one that is critical to the functioning of our democracy.
Is a candidate making promises to wall street that directly contradict her campaign promises a minor deal? Well, we can cynically assume all pols are dishonest, or the press can help us simply hold all pols accountable for their promises. I'd like to see fewer promises made and more promises kept. It was frankly a bit shady that HRC refused to release the transcripts, and I think there is a newsworthy story detailing the interest groups she was courting and why they are so influential in American politics.
I don't know why you think the $54T is any less of a scandal. Just because the scope of the situation necessitated a different resolution doesn't mean the whole situation wasn't one of the biggest scandals of my lifetime.
That too, and it was a general embarrassment for the U.S. government because he was the largest donor for many politicians who remained in office. They couldn't afford to not prosecute him, because it'd make them look (even more) corrupt.
It doesn't seem like that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things, more an indictment based on shady personal business dealings rather than some serious political conspiracy.
I asked because I googled, and the only thing I could see is a wikipedia reference to the expenses scandal. I've just searched again and cant find anything, so have you got any references?
reply