I second this. It's not like we can wait until the MSM "confirms" this one, considering they play a massive role in this DNC conspiracy.

Edit: Mods? It's pretty clear the /r/conspiracy community has spoken...

The MSM really is the most important piece to the puzzle. The whole reason people don't question 9/11 or any other major conspiracy theories is because the media doesn't, and people just assume that if there was anything worth reporting, it would be reported. We obviously know this to be untrue.

So true. But here's what I'm wondering.

How much is red team channels and pundits going to report on this? Because you have to consider two things: if one side's doing it, you know the other side is. And number 2, reporting on it may awaken people to question and inquire if red team is doing it.

They're pigeon holed.

Are you suggesting that the RNC wanted Trump to be nominated?

Yeah like, I don't know if everyone hating Trump is all just a ploy at this point, because the more they hate him, the more I like him. Am I falling into a trap?

The RNC itself colluded to shut him down. That's the guy I want.

Republican pundits typically are more critical of their candidates, but in the end they shit on the democrats so much more that it doesn't matter.

Uhh republican pundits were the ones who said critiszing bush was treacherous and emboldened the terrorists. They tried to make it socially unacceptable to critisize a sitting politician. Criticism is the foundation of a good democracy.

Uhh republican pundits were the ones who said critiszing bush was treacherous and emboldened the terrorists. They tried to make it socially unacceptable to critisize a sitting politician. Criticism is the foundation of a good democracy.

Uhh republican pundits were the ones who said critiszing bush was treacherous and emboldened the terrorists. They tried to make it socially unacceptable to critisize a sitting politician. Criticism is the foundation of a good democracy.

I never said they were consistent.

Not this election. They were sucking Hillary's dick since their owners were all of her donors.

Exactly. Thats basically what confirmed for me that he was the people's choice. The right choice. With all the cheating and downplaying the RNC did to Trump (i mean, look at what happened in Colorado) and he STILL won? He won against all odds, EVERYONE and EVERYTHING was against him, except for one thing, the people. The people were for him and the people are for him, he is the only candidate who is for us, so we are for him.

I may not be able to vote due to imperialism. But if i could, me, and everyone that i talk to, would vote for Trump.

On another note, from the get-go, i knew something was off with Hillary, (too reptilian hahaha) and now im convinced that she is the number one enemy of the united states of america, its morals, its way of life, democracy, the liberty and hope it supplies to everyone born on this earth.

I have never felt so negative towards a candidate, not even local ones.

Why is the score on this comment hidden?

It's something reddit does to new comments to stop people from upvoting or downvoting as a herd mechanism.

That doesn't seem quite fair. If a comment deserves vote either way, then it should get those votes.

It does get the votes, they just don't show up right away.

They're the same people. If, after seeing all this bullshittery, you still believe there are two different parties that have different agendas and different people behind them, I really can't help you.

[removed]

Can't tell if you are serious or not...

He's not click on his username he has -37 comment karma, almost anything he's ever replied to has negative comments.

Kid is just trolling.

he is just correcting the recordl

Username checks out.

MSNBC literally pretended Bernie supporters were unified while there were large walkouts (even entire state delegations), large protests and confrontations with the police happening right outside the convention hall

Can you please link to some of these instances? I wanted so badly to find any proof but I couldn't find ANYTHING

edit: thank you guys so much

You mean proof of MSNBC acting like it's all k, Bernie supporters are chill?

Proof that Bernie supporters actually weren't chill, the media is really pushing the unity narrative.

good amount of walkout footage and interviews https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kcYBWyiKoc

inside and out https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSBp5Pd9B3Y

angry bernie delegate walks out and drops the mic... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tygc41UaoVE

here's a different walkout at VFW convention that week. dnc veteran in NC. respect! https://www.facebook.com/708476045830704/videos/1238945929450377/

Very very stark difference between what CNN was broadcasting and what people were tweeting. Just search the hashtags "demexit", "dncwalkout", or "fuckthednc" on Twitter and you'll see tons of footage of what the CNN broadcasts conveniently left just out of the frame.

At one point someone hung a giant banner over Kaine's head that said "ELECTION FRAUD" and the camera just stayed really tight on his face until they were escorted out.

http://imgur.com/BU3HapR

the one above Biden?

Yeah, Biden. That one. I didn't actually watch, but I was following coverage of the CNN censorship.

That old lady made me cry.

Oh man if you were at the convention you wouldn't be asking for proof.. Shit went down outside.

I assure you I was there and I double assure you that there was no unity at this event.

Tears and the Shit Show That We Deserve

If anyone mocks this woman I'll tell you I am 60, six ft 7 inches #240 and I, too cried for my country just like she and thousands did.

Anyone who doubts the sincerity of the Sander's delegates and our right to be emotionally butthurt (at that moment) can cancer on the fuck out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wq1oRIztCh8

I have to be somewhere in 30 minutes so I best move my ass. Search this sub, a lot of people were posting links to the protests , walkouts, paid seat-fillers, police confrontations and other stuff that was going on at the DNC convention. A lot of the stuff was only able to stay posted without deletion in /r/conspiracy and /r/sandersforpresident ... I am not sure if the Sanders sub has been closed down now that the convention is over, but the links have been posted I know that.

There's youtube videos of sanders delegates talking about how they got locked out of the convention hall.

On top of that seat fillers were hired to fill the empty seats and to keep dissidents from having a place to sit.

And they shut the lights off over several states' delegations (Oregon was the first, IIRC) so people couldn't see the anti-Hillary signs.

Thank you, really I tried to look myself but I was away from the computer during the convention so my sources were limited.

Watching the livestream (C-SPAN or twitch to avoid commentary, commercials, etc) and following Sanders delegates on twitter proved useful to k owing exactly what was going on.

There really wasn't much reporting about the dissent, there was quite a bit though. Sadly, like the Nevada convention, it was something you really had to follow in real time to get the full story on..

I was there...I can confirm it happened..

You're not looking hard enough. Or at all. You can't miss it unless you're trying to miss it.

In what was does this help him? They're interested in knowing, why would you punish that?

Thank you

The MSNBC I watched actually showed us a lot of those protests and even interviewed Bernie or Bust delegates on the floor of the convention itself.

On May 18, "Morning Joe" co-host Mika Brzezinski said Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz "should step down" because she had favored Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders throughout the primary. One week later, Brzezinski doubled down, saying, "My contention all along has been that [Wasserman Schultz] has been in the tank for Hillary from the get-go, and it's been quite obvious."

The repetition seemed like no big deal at the time, but now hacked DNC emails show that in between Wasserman Schultz and her staff flipped out, pressuring MSNBC to make Brzezinski and partner Joe Scarborough tone down their criticism. Clearly, it didn't work.

Did it work or didn't it?

Why would they confirm it when they are still doing it. 50 people showed up to hillary's rally in Omaha, CNN reporter took a picture that made it look like a huge crowd and called it a "big, boisterous crowd".

who talks about the talking heads?

Not a good example. No apology was given. And no evidence exists of Chuck Todd actually causing Mika Brzezinski to rein in her criticism.

The paid shill bots from correct the record will make sure that this gets properly brigaded

i dont really think anything needs to be further confirmed after the actual email leaks

con•spir•a•cy (kən-spîrˈə-sē)►

n. An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.

exactly what it was, and completely documented

This

We don't know if these were authentic or created by Russian intelligence.

The Russian narrative was created by the Democrats.

No, even Trump said he wanted Putin to expose the emails.

Hasn't that been covered? And since when do we take Trump as a source of reliable Intel?

Trump said that he thought that the Russians had Hillary's emails. (And probably so do several other groups) and that if they have them they should release them because it'd be helpful (a half joke but would be nice if it happened).

The DNC Leak (separate issue) was blamed on the Russians by the Dems. There were even a couple of posts here and one or two on twitter who said that they would deflect away from a whistleblower by blaming the russians. Then on cue, they did. Coincidentally not long before the leaks a Dem staffer was killed in a burglary gone wrong - but nothing was stolen. He was on the phone to his gf who said that he told her everything was fine before ending the call. A few people have suggested that he was connected to the leak. It seems that he would have had the appropriate access, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he did it.

[Citation required]

NY Times for a start.

Is that why everyone is apologizing for it and DWS stepped down? They validated them themselves because they knew they couldn't disprove it.

[removed]

No. It isn't.

From the DNC Bylaws

In the conduct and management of the affairs and procedures of the Democratic National Committee, particularly as they apply to the preparation and conduct of the Presidential nomination process, the Chairperson shall exercise impartiality and evenhandedness as between the Presidential candidates and campaigns. The Chairperson shall be responsible for ensuring that the national officers and staff of the Democratic National Committee maintain impartiality and evenhandedness during the Democratic Party Presidential nominating process.

The DNC's own rules state that they must remain impartial during the nominating process. "Backing the Democrat of their choice" as you put it is exactly against their own rules.

But what do I know about elections or political parties, I just have a degree in Political Science and have worked in political campaigns before. Definitely an ignorant child that has never voted.

Omg stop it you're triggering him!!!

I guess I'm OK with that?

Haha fuckin rekt!

xD

Had somebody tell me there was "no evidence of collusion". I posted links to the emails, they said the emails didn't prove anything. To see shills shilling, read this.

They never replied again after I'd post this, they don't have an answer to it.

Since the Clinton hacks are lying about what's in the link, here's the content from the link:

From: "Seher, Jason" <Jason.Seher@turner.com<mailto:Jason.Seher@turner.com>>

Date: April 28, 2016 at 1:01:18 PM EDT

To: "ManriquezP@dnc.org<mailto:ManriquezP@dnc.org>" <ManriquezP@dnc.org<mailto:ManriquezP@dnc.org>>

Subject: Pablo!

Thanks for facilitating Luis coming on today, and bearing with us through a melee of GOP nonsense and cancellations and all that. Any particular points he'll want to make? We're gonna stay Dem focused...

Thanks!

Jason Jason Seher | CNN Writer/Producer | The Lead with Jake Tapper (202) 772-2640 | (856) 979-8021

On Apr 28, 2016, at 1:11 PM, Manriquez, Pablo <ManriquezP@dnc.org<mailto:ManriquezP@dnc.org>> wrote:

Lmk and I'll call Jason. Might wanna loop Freundlich &/or Dillon here to see if there's any newsworthy oppo Luis can drop

From:ManriquezP@dnc.org

To: MirandaL@dnc.org, PaustenbachM@dnc.org, WalkerE@dnc.org

Date: 2016-04-28 16:46

Subject: Re: Pablo!

Window closing on this. Need to know asap if we want to offer Jake Tapper questions to ask us.

So, what do we have here?

1. A CNN Producer asking a member of the DNC that they're going to interview if there are any points they want to make, and telling him they'll stay "Dem focused", meaning they're going to focus on Sanders v. Clinton. Which shows CNN coordinating ahead of time with the DNC to attack Sanders in an interview.

2. A member of the DNC asking if there is any "newsworthy oppo" that can be brought up in the interview. "Oppo" is slang for "opposition research". Have they dug up any dirt on Sanders that they can bring up in the interview. Which shows that the DNC was working against Bernie Sanders in the primary when they're supposed to be nonbiased.

3. A trio of DNC members are asked if they "want to offer Jake Tapper questions to ask us". Which means they're going to have an interview where the guy being interviewed has already given the interviewer the questions they want the interviewer to ask.

The literal definition of collusion is

secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.

This is secret cooperation to deceive others into thinking that it's a nonbiased interview with a nonbiased CNN and a nonbiased DNC, with the interviewer asking actual questions instead of being no more authentic than a goddamn infomercial.

This is basically what they have been told to do. Don't provide proof that Clinton did nothing wrong, but instead create doubt that causes people who are still formulating their opinions to think that we are crazy.

You'll notice how every single one of their replies says something to the effect of "the emails say nothing like that!", including when I'd link to the explanation of how the emails say something exactly like that. But when I'd repost the email text entirely and explain exactly what they said and how it constituted collusion, no reply. Every time.

It's gaslighting, plain and simple.

It literally doesn't say that, first of all. Second, they're allowed to do that.

The internet being what it is, I can't tell if you're joking or not. Sarcasm tags would be helpful.

Hes not joking

Then he's an idiot

Well yeah of course they have the right to make terrible arguments

There it is.

Make no mistake, Shillbots know exactly what they're doing.

While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by prefacing your reddit link with np.reddit.com.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Does anyone have a link to the Tapper interview, to see how it played out?

I would like to see it

When you're a journalist, you do ask your sources if there's anything you didn't ask that they would like to say something about. The object is to gain an abundance of information that you then can use to write your reports and fuel investigations. No collusion. Just standard interactions between sources and reporters.

to see if there's any newsworthy oppo Luis can drop

That's not the journalist. That's a DNC staffer asking others within the DNC what oppo research can be disclosed about Sanders in the interview on CNN. That is evidence of the DNC itself not being neutral. But that is not evidence of CNN colluding with the DNC. Journalists asking for questions and saying they're focusing on the democrats for that particular segment is not collusion. It's SOP.

Sell it to somebody dumb enough to buy it.

I don't think you understand how this game is played. It's you trying to sell conspiracy and collusion. I'm saying I'm not buying it. You didn't even know who said what.

1. A CNN Producer asking a member of the DNC that they're going to interview if there are any points they want to make, and telling him they'll stay "Dem focused", meaning they're going to focus on Sanders v. Clinton. Which shows CNN coordinating ahead of time with the DNC to attack Sanders in an interview.

2. A member of the DNC asking if there is any "newsworthy oppo" that can be brought up in the interview. "Oppo" is slang for "opposition research". Have they dug up any dirt on Sanders that they can bring up in the interview. Which shows that the DNC was working against Bernie Sanders in the primary when they're supposed to be nonbiased.

3. A trio of DNC members are asked if they "want to offer Jake Tapper questions to ask us". Which means they're going to have an interview where the guy being interviewed has already given the interviewer the questions they want the interviewer to ask.

The literal definition of collusion is

secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.

This is secret cooperation to deceive others into thinking that it's a nonbiased interview with a nonbiased CNN and a nonbiased DNC, with the interviewer asking actual questions instead of being no more authentic than a goddamn infomercial.

You claim this is "just standard interactions between sources and reporters" and your coworker claims it's "common knowledge". Great. Let's see all the emails made public showing the pre-interview arrangements between the media and the people they're interviewing. If it is standard, if it is a common and accepted practice, then there's nothing to hide. Let's have the interviewers and interviewees release to the public ahead of time, or even concurrent with the interview, the emails with the negotiations over what will and won't be discussed in the interview.

If those aren't open to the public, then they are secret. They're definitely cooperation, you don't dispute that. And if the image presented is that it's just an interviewer asking "the tough questions" to an interviewee, and we can't see what goes on behind the scenes to arrange those questions, then that image presented is deception.

Which makes it the dictionary definition of collusion.

You're really stretching here. And good luck getting someone in authority to subpoena the internal emails of news organizations because some Right-wingers and Bernie die-hards think DNC and MSNBC collusion were what gave Hillary the Democratic nomination.

And good luck getting someone in authority to subpoena the internal emails of news organizations

Who said subpoena? If they aren't a secret, the organizations should have no problem voluntarily releasing those, in the interest of nonbiased transparency. If they have nothing to hide they have nothing to fear.

While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by prefacing your reddit link with np.reddit.com.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

There's no evidence that Hillary was involved.

OP suggested that there was collusion to "undermine the rules of the DNC, undermine the democratic process of our nation, and force upon the American people a presidential nominee". There is no evidence for any of that.

The only thing you have is a television network setting boundaries and guidelines for a political show before it happens, which you should know happens 100% of the times if you know anything about actual politics.

The only thing you have is a television network setting boundaries and guidelines for a political show before it happens

Sure thing champ.

which you should know happens 100% of the times if you know anything about actual politics.

4/10 gaslighting, low effort.

Do you disagree that virtually always, questions in political interviews are agreed on before the interview? This is common knowledge.

Sure thing champ.

10/10 contentless comment.

This is common knowledge.

Prove that it is common knowledge outside of the DC Beltway pundit and paid activist circles you move in.

10/10 a doubting thomas, timelooping folks

None of that is a conspiracy, or anything wrong. The DNC backing the Democrat of their choice, is simply how things are done.

Please refer to the definition of conspiracy above.

The MSM pleads the 5th in order to avoid self incrimination.

They are despicable.

Hi! I'm new here. What does MSM mean?

^{/u/bababooey93}

Mainstream Media

Thank you!

Welcome :-)

You aren't /u/The_Real_MC

Or maybe you are...

^{am I doing this /r/conspiracy thing right}

I've never been so confused.

Nah, but if someone says they're new here I say hi.

^{you're all good}

OH.

I interpreted that as a "you're welcome." Like you were stealing the thanks.

Never mind. Ignore me.

^{but thank you for the welcoming.}

Aha, it's alright.

They play a massive role in most of TPTB's conspiracies. The MSM is Goebbel's wet dream; state-sponsored propaganda mouthpiece.

That kind of means we should also add the m.o. of the MSM itself to the list of confirmed conspiracies, does it not?

Yes. I think it does.

I still don't know what MSM means here!!! Like, I know what it can mean, but I really don't think that applies here.

If we can get a good paragraph summary, I'll add it to the wiki (I'm authorized by mods to add to it). I am not the one to write it up, because I've not been keeping up with this issue as well as others here have--I have a general idea but I'd rather get the synopsis exact and not miss anything, because we can't risk getting any part of that particular summary wrong, if you know what i mean.

It's too important

Thirded.

[removed]

They have a charter/policy to remain unbiased. It's now proven that they failed to do so.

Can you provide a link to this? Political parties are private corporations and aren't required to do anything. They could decide to appoint a candidate and skip a primary if they wanted. While the Clinton emails are unsavory they are business as usual for both major parties and the sooner people realize this isn't just a Clinton/DNC problem but a problem with the entire system the sooner we can try to fix it.

In the conduct and management of the affairs and procedures of the Democratic National Committee, particularly as they apply to the preparation and conduct of the Presidential nomination process, the Chairperson shall exercise impartiality and evenhandedness as between the Presidential candidates and campaigns. The Chairperson shall be responsible for ensuring that the national officers and staff of the Democratic National Committee maintain impartiality and evenhandedness during the Democratic Party Presidential nominating process.

http://www.demrulz.org/wp-content/files/DNC_Charter__Bylaws_9.17.15.pdf

From Frank Leone, VA DNC rep.

Page 10 if you're looking.

Fairly? It must just be coincidence that she out performed all the exit polls in precincts using voting machines. The coin tosses always went her way.

I don't need to go into every little dirty trick they pulled, because there are far too many to list.

Jesus Christ, will you just fuck off. Your bullshit paid-for, canned response is unoriginal, poorly thought out and irrelevant.

From what I've seen from the DNC email leak, the DNC pushing for Hillary and derailing Bernie is fact and should be put on the locc.

That being said, I have not yet seen any emails where they confirmed collusion between the DNC and Hillary (your second sentence). I consider that a second conspiracy (at the very least an addendum), and that one is not yet definitively proven.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

You're spot on here. Clear evidence of DWS and the DNC's CFO conspiring, Hillary has no hard evidence. A lot of circumstantial evidence that is very suspicious, but no hard evidence.

instantly giving shamed DWS a position within her campaign. Evidence that hillary sees no wrong with the collusion, and rewards it.

I can't believe Clinton hired her that day. It's a slap in the face.

It is all the proof anyone should need.

For real? No proof? How about she didn't even spend a day unemployed before joining up with the people she had secretly been helping

Shhh...you are making too much sense for the bots and shills to comprehend. They are only at AI Shill Bot OS 1.40.

Did the dude edit his original comment?

Well she was working for her in 2008, then they realized they needed someone on the DNC to lock up the 2016 nom, so she took over for Tim Kaine at the DNC, and what's Tim Kaine up to these days?

Also the fact that Tim Kaine was the last head of the DNC and recommended DWS as his replacement when he stepped down... and now he is the VP candidate.

And DWS being the co-chair of Hillary's 2008 campaign...

Just like every ct she's ever been involved in. 8-)

Everything I touch becomes corrupt! It's not my fault!

If they were pro Hillary, does it matter if she was in on it?

Yes actually

There was one where DNC, DPVA, and HFA were scheduling fundraisers (this one was in Charlottesville) to not step on one another's toes.

And there are multiple instances of DNC saying they need to check their talking points with HFA.

I'm on mobile though, so no links.

it kinda feels like a group negation... every one didn't work to 'derail' Bernie - but they definitely were bias toward Hillary (one way or another)

If we need a third, I will third this nomination. If you just look at the at the available evidence of voter suppression and wholesale disenfranchisement in the California primary alone, not to mention what occured in Arizona and Iowa. If you take that together with the Stanford study on the statistical probability unlikelihood of so much of the exit polling differing so often from the 'official' voting results, most notably in the electronic voting states, and that's before we even talk about what Wikileaks has shown. I think the conspiracy to coronate Hillary Clinton is clear.

If you take that together with the Stanford study

It was by a Stanford undergrad student and the paper was never endorsed by the college because the research method doesn't stand to academic scrutiny.

So it's a lie and just invalid information?

Here is something a little more comprehensive:

http://www.election-justice-usa.org/Democracy_Lost_Update1_EJUSA.pdf

This just came out, so there are not any talking points or people applying spin to it yet. Maybe just reading it before someone tells you what to think about the information presented could be illuminating for you.

I wouldn't say it's wrong of them to point out the fact that the Stanford study wouldn't hold water. The entire point of the conspiracy community is to question what you're told. Not just question what you're told from one source.

I'd much rather know that the study didn't hold water and look for other sources that may provide more scientific proof.

Exit polling is very flawed data to compare to voting totals given a large percentage of votes are cast by mail

Do you have a link to the Stanford report?

Stanford Report

Here is something just put together that is pretty informative;

Democracy Lost: Report on fatally flawed 2016 Democratic Primaries

Both links are PDF's

Thank you.

To be fair, our problems (Arizona) were unintentional. They were mostly Republican officials trying to suppress poor and minority voters. There was some funny business but the long lines that were a huge part of the problem were Michelle Reagan and this other woman's fault.

Do you really believe the problems were unintentional? That sounds a lot like spin. Why were there so many people demanding a re-vote? That to me sounds like a real problem. To explain voter disenfranchisement and election fraud away as something that was just some unintentional accident makes it sound like you succumbed to a media narrative you liked the most.

Living in Arizona doesn't make you immune to media manipulation and whitewashing of the events within your state.

That isn't what happened, you're just an ignorant fool.

Republican officials trying to suppress poor and minority voters.

what laughable, utter NONSENSE.

Look asshole, I live here. We have a Republican controlled state House and Senate. We also had two officials by the name of Michelle Reagan and Helen Purcell. One is Maricopa County Recorder and the other is Secretary of Arizona. Our voting locations in Phoenix were decreased from the 400 in 2008 to 200 in 2012. They were further deceased to 80 for this primary.

There were a lot of problems with registrations getting switched for our primary but the huge lines were a death knell. We had 32,000 people vote in Maricopa county as opposed to the 112,000 from 2008. Bernie was winning about 67% of the in-person vote. You cannot tell me that wasn't impactful.

I'd say it's much more than just a republican issue. Both parties are clearly corruptible. That's why we get reports of the koch bros and bush family supporting hillary. The powers that be are rallying behind hillary, dems and repubs alike.

But ANYONE could have shown up to vote, or not....asshole. You live in a dreamworld. Spend some of your fake outrage on Killary stealing the election from the old CuckCommanderCommie.

Holy shit you're like a parody of yourself.

How high are you right now?

If you just look at the at the available evidence of voter suppression

There was no suppression moron. Hillary just got more votes.

Wikileaks if a front for the Russians.

Proof?

being this bad at trolling

mormons are a front for gnostics, but like without the drugs and super lame

I don't care for trump or clinton. But how is this a conspiracy? Honest question. The DNC has always had favorites and pushed for them to be the nominees. Seems more like nobody was surprised by the leak and just said, well yeah... duh.

They have a charter/policy/contract that requires them to be unbiased. Check out the Florida DNC class action lawsuit, which spells it out pretty well.

[deleted]

If it was only lying, then why did DWS step down? You can spin a lie. You can't spin your CFO making up shit about Bernie to influence the public.

By your logic there would be no conspiracies ever. 9/11 was just a bunch of lies, but not a conspiracy?

[deleted]

Who is everyone? because Hillary suporters that I know were pretty adamant that there wasnt any wrongdoing throughout the entire primaries.

You neglect the requirement that a second party also take illegal action in coordination.

I see your point, but if we get that technical, we'd probably have to get into different types of conspiracy and start citing law to make these determinations.

How about conspiracy between the DNC proper and DNC state offices? Or between DNC and Politico?

I don't have any real views but would you please all stop discussing this topic and address my concerns? Honestly we should just ignore this because it's not important and continuing to discuss it is bad.

It's an older method sir, but it checks out

Never said we should ignore it. Just saying it's not a conspiracy. There's a difference. I think it should be talked about in politics and other places. But if anyone thinks this is a conspiracy, you need to pay better attention.

Plenty of people still in denial about the clear collusion. Additionally, Debbie herself said multiple times that the DNC did not favor any candidate over the other.

Having her say there isn't a favorite then finding out there was one, isn't really a conspiracy though.. idk just seems like normal politics to me, so I thought I'd ask why it was so upvoted here.

Because everyone ITT is an idiot child that has never voted before, and doesn't know how elections work.

That's irrelevant. The DNC is totally allowed to back a candidate of their choice, just like the RNC did. This is not a story. They did nothing wrong.

They did nothing illegal.

Totally agree that we need to add this to the list. It's important for people to know what happened. Even if it's just us, it is import that someone reacts to the truth.

Is there a difference between the DNC agenda to push Hillary and collusion to outright rig the primaries for Hillary? It seemed pretty obvious the DNC would go with Hillary 4 years ago, Bernie is an independent who declared himself democrat for the election. I guess my question is, does what the DNC did actually equate with rigging the primaries? Because political parties are a part of the democratic process, they're just another interest group and if you read the federalist papers, it's pretty clear they are inevitable and a side effect of the type of government we have. So as an independent institution, they have an agenda and Bernie was not part of it. Maybe I'm confusing something but if someone could clear this up for me, that'd be great.

It seems that fraud may be the one reasonable allegation, if the Party claimed to be neutral, leading Sanders supporters to donate to a campaign that was only allowed to continue for show. As for the rest, people seem confused by the plain fact that the DNC would've been well within its rights to ignore the primaries and decide the whole thing backstage before starting the show last Monday. They're a private organization, not a government body. They don't have any obligation to internal neutrality or democracy.

Yeah it absolutely seems like sanders supporters and sanders himself knew it was an uphill battle but definitely thought he could get the nomination, I can definitely see that conclusion you say in the beginning. The part where it gets tricky is that they do receive federal funding, I'm fairly sure Jefferson vehemently opposed this for good reason where now the government and our tax dollars are dragged into this whole debacle

exactly. the sanders media blackout was realized last summer, and it set the tone for the primary. First debates solidified the assumed biased. Voter purging, disenfranchising, provisional balloting, exit poll suppressing, and dnc state convention hackjobs showed election fraud. And the wikileaks proved it (minus incriminating communications with voter machine companies). All that's left if a video of hillary eating a baby or some smoking gun like that. haha

Yeah the public funding has to either end or be distributed much more broadly.

Agreed. This is a multifaceted conspiracy, or multiple conspiracies which all seek to get Killary elected.

, if the Party claimed to be neutral,

That is irrelevant. We all knew they are not. Its only idiot children that think the parties are unbiased.

Every time I see something stupid and ignorant in this thread, it's you. At least you're the best at something :)

The fact that you knew they were lying doesn't mean they weren't lying. The shift from "no we're not" to "no shit Sherlock" is as old as politics.

I've moved on and chosen from between the remaining two candidates. This is an old story that could be told about both Parties going back for generations. But we don't have to pretend everyone is as smart and cynical as you and me. Plenty of folks thought Bernie might really have a chance, in part because the Party left that distinct impression.

the remaining two candidates.

I think you mean four.

Maybe "candidates" is the wrong word, and I should have said "people with a chance of being President".

Right, so... three.

Don't forget that Kaine was the previous DNC leader and likely stepped down for promises of a VP nod. He's probably involved.

likely

probably

We're talking confirmed here.

We're talking about practice.

Yep, 2011 was the year the Democratic party died and the Clinton Party rose from its ashes.

Next to be added will be the 2016 presidential election in November.

Exactly, because all the leaks to me smell more of a conspiracy to get Donald Trump in there

Well there's no actual evidence of that, so maybe don't think foolishly

The dnc's job is to get a Democrat in the White House, that's the prime directive, is there anything illegal about them having a preference? If Bernie was younger maybe, but he's too old and I'm not even sure he could live through a four term anyways. And for the record I was hoping Bernie would take the nomination but now only an idiot would want trump instead of Hillary, no offence, he has neither the experience or the patience to do this job.

Hillary Clinton as president though... Literally the poster child of corrupt politicians at this point.

You'd have to be an idiot to want Hillary more than trump as well. Both options suck. You're voting for the candidate that actively stole the nomination from the candidate you know would have been better though. Trump does seem like an asshole through and through but I prefer that to this darth sidious/emperor palpatine act that Hillary Clinton is all about.

You shouldn't support Bernie either at this point because he is also quite obviously a sellout

You are unintelligent, think more highly of yourself than you should or just have a terrible memory. Clinton isn't the poster child for corrupt politics, that's every president before her too. Don't think she's worse than any other corrupt politician; she's not. She's the same. Bernie Sanders was the one true exception to corrupt politics, but besides him, everyone at hillary's level is pretty much equal in corruption.

Nothing you said contributed if anything. I think you might have even called me unintelligent and then agreed with my point.

I can't speak to all politicians, but I can speak to Hillary Clinton: she's a bag of shit and I get to decide for myself who she is worse or better than.

Go read or something or just go to bed, but do not message me again

but I can speak to Hillary Clinton: she's a bag of shit and I get to decide for myself who she is worse or better than.

You can decide for yourself, but it really says something about you. She's objectively far better a choice for president than Trump.

Objectively or subjectively they are both shit

And for the record I was hoping Bernie

I don't believe you.

Thanks anti anon shill. I too agree. Trump is evil. Better the systems of power we know. We've always been at war with Eastasia.

Wow

We've always been at war with Eastasia...

war with Eastasia

Right, with the 1984 ref, but how is voting for Hillary vs Trump have anything to do with it? While people are busy trying to get a third party 5%, Trump may walk into the white house. When people say Democrats are the SAME and JUST AS EVIL as the reich wing, it makes me puke

You stupid shit.

Go vote for orange troll loser

I'll vote.

For the reality tv star. Smart.

Thanks.

Maybe the kardashians will run for office too, check it out

Let's see, one is famous for creating hundreds of successful businesses and being a multi-billionaire.

The other got famous for that ass.

Highly comparable.

pretty hard to be successful in business when you get handed millions of dollars to start with, zero relevant experience in political office. Just admit it, you just like the shit he's slinging, and you have no other choice.

He turned $1M into billions, he worked for his father. It was merely handed to him.

According to statistics, 70% of people that win the lottery(That get more than Trump got) go bankrupt. Trump was already successful before he inherited his father's money - which was split among all of Fred's children.

It's hard to be successful in business, you're right! But Trump is successful, 98.3% so.

Trump hasn't had any experience in a political office - that's correct, but Hillary has for 35 years, and that's how we know she's a terrible candidate.

I had plenty of choices excluding Trump; 20 other choices. 16 Republicans in total, and 5 Democrats. I've been a vivid Trump supporter since the beginning of his campaign. I'm highly enthusiastic in voting for Trump. You've made it clear you're voting for Hillary because she's the best pick in your opinion.

I believe she is. I think if trump gets in he will be easily baited by 'world events' and will not have temperament to deal with it. That freaks me out.

Have you seen the Republican debates?

Nah. Trump is a distraction.

Is this a literal list of confirmed conspiracies? If so could somebody link

Here's the link to the List of Confirmed Conspiracies. This link also should show up in the sidebar on the right of the page, just above the rules.

https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/locc

Can I see some of that proof that the HRC Campaign and the DNC were in communication with eachother? As far as I can tell the WikiLeaks emails prove only that DWS and the DNC had a bias against Sanders and said mean things about him.

Well the head of the DNC at the time was also her former campaign manager. I don't know how much more obvious it can get.

And Hillary's current VP pick was the DNC chair who stepped down and recommended DWS for the position... pretty obvious this was planned from the start.

And immediately after she was forced to resign she was brought back on board Hillary's campaign with Hillary proclaiming 'she's always had my back'.

You mean DWS running $hillary's 2008 campaign, Kaine heading the DNC before her then being picked for VP, DWS then being forced to resign because of the scandal, then $hillary blatantly obviously and immediately rewarding her directly into her fold all constitute unrelated coincidence?

Its fishy, I agree - but its not proof, sorry.

Is it really so surprising that the head of HRC's nearly successful '08 bid for the Democratic nomination would be promoted to Chair of the DNC? DWS is the best fundraiser the Democrats have.

I'm no Hillary supporter but lets be rational here - show me where HRC or her campaign communicated with DWS or the DNC during the primary and encouraged them to rig the primary and shit on Sanders.

You clearly do not understand how psychopaths operate.

Given that the possibility that fraud was NOT committed is roughly the equivalent chance of a giant meteor exterminating life on planet earth today, why does it even matter if there was collusion between Hillary and DWS?

Let's assume there wasn't. If the candidate was a giant mute inanimate toad, then that candidate would still not be legitimate as the process itself was fraudulent.

Everyone who wishes to remain asleep continues to trot out the same bullshit excuses while ignoring the fact that who the actual candidate is is irrelevant to their blatant ignorance of how WHICHEVER candidate was placed at the head of the corrupt snake.

You clearly do not understand how psychopaths operate.

I love armchair psychologists and the confidence with which they spew bullshit

the DNC was colluding with the media HRC Campaign was not directly. But they didnt have to, the former DNC chair stepped down in 2011 to give the job to Former Clinton Campaign Co Chair DWS, that former DNC chair was VP nominee Tim Kaine. If you cant smell the shit you need your nose checked. That is when the Clinton Party rose from the Ashes of the Democratic Party.

The question at hand is whether this is a proven conspiracy or not.

I do, of course, smell the shit. I don't, however, see any actual proof.

Yes, sad but true. How deep does this rat hole go?

I haven't found the end yet....

It's still being dug.

Several people in /r/DNCleaks are trying to figure out the narrative in all of this.

https://www.reddit.com/r/DNCleaks/comments/4vpufn/continued_dnc_members_held_millions_in_green/

While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by prefacing your reddit link with np.reddit.com.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

CFR, Bilderberg, Army Intelligence, Zionism.

LOL.

I notice the "she won fair and squares" have disappeared from these threads. What a shit show this has been

She did win fair.

wtf ever you're high

You have some really convincing evidence there

Check out the details in the class action lawsuit here: http://jampac.us/DNCLawsuit/

And btw if you donated to Sanders or the DNC you should join this lawsuit.

What details? That lawsuit has no evidence accompanying it's claims, unless you can point some out for me that I didn't see

It quotes their charter and the emails which demonstrate that the charter was broken. Specifically DWS's requirements were not upheld.

This lawsuit along with DWS actually stepping down are pretty convincing to me.

Isn't the dnc leak literally what a conspiracy confirmation looks like? I 2nd the motion! Here here!

It's not even a conspiracy, it's all right there, no doubts. It's really sad it's considered a conspiracy actually. People won't wake up, ignorance is bliss. Fuckin a.

Edit: typo

How's that kool-aid taste ?

What is sad is that this is as far as it gets for punishment for Hillary. People should be outraged and willing to revolt over that kind of treason. Not only is she not being jailed, but this is fuel for Trump supporters, Vote none, vote for yourself. Act as people, not as fake voters. Nothing will change unless people take over.

A few more people from the DNC have stepped down today as well.

While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by prefacing your reddit link with np.reddit.com.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Can someone ELI5 as to what is going on with Hillary?

Can't wait for the next batch of leaks.

I propose you start a separate subreddit for Clinton-related conspiracies.

There are several. /r/The_Donald , /r/HillaryForPrison , /r/politics , and /r/DNCleaks to name a few. I'd be happy if they banned all american politics, at least for the duration of this campaign.

Can someone summarize all the evidence with links so that I can send it to my family to get them off the Hilary train?

I have the most success bringing up problems that affect them, and bring up ways it affects them.

For example: someone who hates the current media monopolies, bias, net neutrality or is sick of not having internet/cable provider options - tell them about how the monopoly problem came about bc of Bill Clinton's Telecommunications Act of 1996. Clinton tried to sell it as a 'job creating' and 'competition creating' act. In reality it just fucked us over and moved media comp ownership from about 70 companies to just 6 monopolies. A repeal of the New Deal Communications Act of 1934.

Clinton's destroyed a lot of New Deal reforms, regulations, and relief programs that came after the Great Depression. I'm a fiscal conservative - but know that these programs were vitally important to our countries economic growth and stability. Clinton undid a ton of them. Most catastrophic was repealing the Glass-Steagall Act - that deregulated Wall Street and led to the 2008 recession and bank monopolies.

TL;DR - use the Socratic method to lead HRC supporters to the truth that matters to them. Don't fight them or insult them, just speak about the points that matter to them. And why HRC will shit on those things that matter to them.

Alright. I'll try to formulate something for them. What if the majority of their opinion is that they just are scared of Trump?

Thank you! It's important to open the dialogue. For older generations who are entrenched in partisan thinking and trust tv, it may be a harder battle. Always monitor your expectations on your audience.

In my opinion, I wouldn't argue pro trump - for ppl entrenched in est. media and haven't woken up, I'd take this on slowly.

The most clear argument is playing the original Russia quote in full, and perhaps that whole rally - then play how top officials responded after spinning the story out of control saying trump is working with Putin to rig the election. It's a great example of how fascist our media is.

I recently had success just telling my close friend who fears trump to just watch CNN as it is - the Clinton Narrative Network. It's on nonstop in his office, and I told him to just look behind the curtain when he watched next time. Know that CNN is a huge Clinton donor, and a result of the TelComAct of 1996. He volunteered a few days later, "Omg, you're totally right, it's all negative trump news all day, everything about Clinton is skewed to her advantage, but it's mostly anti Trump hysteria"

I was really pleased to hear that he took the time to look critically. The same way psychologists let ppl come to the realization/opinion on their own, the more impactful.

Just put every election in it then.

the democratic process has been dead for a while. studies show that public opinion doesnt shape policy. there's nothing democratic about 2 parties either. the short sighted pawns will focus on the dnc too much

Also add Politicos involvement with DMC

Hate to say it, but i think Bernie was in on it the whole time. The DNC knows Hillary's a center-left hawk and needed a dove to catalyze the liberal base, then hand them over to Hillary for a decisive win in november.

Bernie was always too "radical", meaning of course that the general population from both sides of the aisle loved him for his common-good policy plans, but he'd be horrible for the Big Interests.... that decide elections.

The nomination was probably part of the package she was offered for dropping out in 2008, along with the SoS job.

eh, I doubt it because he basically got the short end of the stick no matter how you look at it. If he was given the VP position, then maybe, but he gets nothing out of this really.

No suicide via dismemberment is nice...

He gets an unprecedented amount of influence (for being a losing candidate) in the party platform and the planks which Hillary has to campaign on.

yea but knowing Hillary, shes very unlikely to push Sanders' progressive agendas. IMO she just said she would for party unity. Sanders does get some support, but his voter base is split between those who now resent him for giving into the establishment, and those voting for hillary. Plus, he's also going back to the independant party

Maybe some of that Clinton Cash?

I'm in.

Maybe not exactly related, but is this list of confirmed conspiracies a real thing? I'd love to see what's on it.

Thank you!

She sure isn't the first. Just got sloppy and caught.

Now is a good time to hold politicians accountable for their misdeeds. It is true that this type of bs has been going on for years, but it's more difficult to hide stuff from the public than it use to be. We need to take advantage of this time in history right now to make a change for the better; most people were unsure anything was happening, there wasn't any proof. Well, right now it's in everyone's faces. We should be taking advantage of this.

Do Americans really want to live in a democracy instead of an oligarchy? I'm beginning to think no. In this case, there should be a separate party (not the Democratic party) for all of the lazy asses who want people to make all the decisions for them.

Mods let's add this to the list. I'm all in

Agreed.

Yes, I believe it's been determined at this point.

But Sanders didn't win the black vote. In fact he won a lot more with the white vote.

Remember it was also the media, not just the DNC...

The email leak confirms it.

Seconded. Lol.

Can someone give me a low-down and tl;dr on what exactly happened?

Then you'll have no trouble showing us instances in which the collusion you allege actually had an effect on acquiring a second party's compliance in putting an illegal scheme into practice. I'll wait right here.

The DNC leaks do show the DNC staffers broke the organization's charter, which requires neutrality in the primaries. I think Sanders or his voters probably have legit civil lawsuits for fraud. But collusion and conspiracy requires evidence of two independent parties arranging to defraud. The most egregious of the leaks just don't show that.

Like Hillary and DWS?

Sincerely, Bernie Sanders supporter.

Ok, so I want to educate myself but get overwhelmed with the plethora of google results that come up when I start researching the Hillary topic. could somebody please link either a video that nicely sums up what's going on, or link to the various articles or documents I could read to better equip my mind for conversations with people in the future?

Agreed! Good point

With his comments over the last few days, I would argue Trumps entire campaign has been a key cog in this Hillary president plot. He is actively throwing the election at this point. With Mr and Mrs Khan, "wind power kills birds" and now today "why cant we just use nukes?" I have no doubt that he is a paid plant meant to derail the GOP and get Hillary into office easily.

I agree

Yes. But whether you vote for the "sickle" party or the "hammer" party they are both part of the same people who will benefit.

Here!Here!

lol, u kids

Agreed.

Collusion. Collusion out the yin yang

Don't tell us "there is enough hard evidence".

Show us. Post it here.

[removed]

This isn't a "rightwing circlejerk" -- anybody that has been paying attention for the past 20 years know that this involves both parties. The current DNC mess is just the latest incarnation of a special relationship between politics and the media that has existed for a long time.

We have /r/conservative for that

You get banned from there even if you're conservative, though. Chabanais spends all day just looking for people he disagrees with or dislikes to ban. Guy has to be flat out mentally ill to be so committed to what he does.

Do you know what the definition of conspiracy is?

Sure, but he's firmly in the tank for 'his candidate', and refuses to consider she might be a thoroughly evil narcissist surrounded by sycophantic enablers.

so when lefties openly do shady shit, and are called out for it, it's a 'vast right-wing conspiracy', eh? Damn.

Yea I guess you haven't looked at the LOCC which has many many confirmed conspiracies involving right-leaning people. Confirmation bias at its best.

keep dreaming

nothing will be done by anyone.

seconded

Oh knock it off this is getting pathetic.

what is?

Youtube got a game lawyer. Can we get one?

I mean, it kind of makes sense. Why would someone who joined the Democratic Party just to run for president be favored as much as a long-time democrat that's spent her whole life trying to help people?

[deleted]

This comment has been overwritten by this open source script to protect this user&apos;s privacy. The purpose of this script is to help protect users from doxing, stalking, and harassment. It also helps prevent mods from profiling and censoring.

If you would like to protect yourself, add the Chrome extension TamperMonkey, or the Firefox extension GreaseMonkey and click Install This Script on the script page. Then to delete your comments, simply click on your username on Reddit, go to the comments tab, scroll down as far as possible (hint: use RES), and hit the new OVERWRITE button at the top.

But he wasn't in the DNC until he ran for president

Unbelievable- that's the first time anybody's explained it like that. It does kind of make sense. Still don't like it. Need 3 parties. sTAT

Agreed!

I 3000th this motion

Yes.

Just read a submission on lafarge. Wow. Definitely confirmed, just needs way more detail, and to be organized in a timeline.

I guess no one else bothered reading it. ;-) awesome.

[deleted]

except the emails date back to the beginning of the campaigns

also while they are a "private" organization, they do have to follow election laws, so no, they can't do "whatever they want".

So this Hillary4Prez talking point that her paid shills keep posting in Reddit and other comments sections is just like Hillary herself...full of shit.

The DNC is obligated to remain neutral.

By their own charter they are to be neutral. They owe the members of their party that.

In the conduct and management of the affairs and procedures of the Democratic National Committee, particularly as they apply to the preparation and conduct of the Presidential nomination process, the Chairperson shall exercise impartiality and evenhandedness as between the Presidential candidates and campaigns. The Chairperson shall be responsible for ensuring that the national officers and staff of the Democratic National Committee maintain impartiality and evenhandedness during the Democratic Party Presidential nominating process.

Please refer to the definition of conspiracy above.

It is all the proof anyone should need.

If it was only lying, then why did DWS step down? You can spin a lie. You can't spin your CFO making up shit about Bernie to influence the public.

By your logic there would be no conspiracies ever. 9/11 was just a bunch of lies, but not a conspiracy?

Yeah, Biden. That one. I didn't actually watch, but I was following coverage of the CNN censorship.

Well she was working for her in 2008, then they realized they needed someone on the DNC to lock up the 2016 nom, so she took over for Tim Kaine at the DNC, and what's Tim Kaine up to these days?

Exactly. Thats basically what confirmed for me that he was the people's choice. The right choice. With all the cheating and downplaying the RNC did to Trump (i mean, look at what happened in Colorado) and he STILL won? He won against all odds, EVERYONE and EVERYTHING was against him, except for one thing, the people. The people were for him and the people are for him, he is the only candidate who is for us, so we are for him.

I may not be able to vote due to imperialism. But if i could, me, and everyone that i talk to, would vote for Trump.

On another note, from the get-go, i knew something was off with Hillary, (too reptilian hahaha) and now im convinced that she is the number one enemy of the united states of america, its morals, its way of life, democracy, the liberty and hope it supplies to everyone born on this earth.

I have never felt so negative towards a candidate, not even local ones.

Republican pundits typically are more critical of their candidates, but in the end they shit on the democrats so much more that it doesn't matter.

The only thing you have is a television network setting boundaries and guidelines for a political show before it happens

Sure thing champ.

which you should know happens 100% of the times if you know anything about actual politics.

4/10 gaslighting, low effort.