Wikileaks......still no proof of corruption.

[*PhilHos*]

(10-21-2016, 12:23 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I don't think you understand my question.

Who benefited from Hillary's action as a public official and what did she receive in return?

So, you think rigging the primaries so that Sanders had no chance to get the nominee is not corrupt? You think colluding with the media to help Hillary get elected is not corrupt?

Speaking of collusion, do you not find it interesting that the emails seem to support the accusation of the Department of Justice colluding with Clinton while they were investigating her?

With that said, Belsnickel is basically right. I do think there's stuff in the emails, personally, but they certainly didn't have the effect that I'm sure Assange was hoping they would. And based on what side you fall on, depends on how much credence you'll give to the emails.