DNC Staffers Should Be Punished

[Google]

Russia gained access to the DNC's server by an employee opening a malicious email with the subject line promoting an online hookup service. If this was an employee at a tech company, they would be held civilly liable and thoroughly investigated for potential criminal wrong doing.

Clinton's negligence allowed untold thousands of State Department emails, with untold classified information, into the hands of, according to the FBI, "hostile foreign actors". Even though there are numerous examples of others doing the same and being prosecuted and sentenced to prison--Clinton got off.

Russia was able to access the DNC's server because of the sheer negligence of their own employees. If those employees worked for a private company they would be held civilly liable. Democrats are now saying that the Russian's hacking of the DNC cost Clinton the election.

There is more concrete evidence that the United States, under Obama's direct orders, interfered in the Israeli election--at the cost of American tax payers--than any evidence that Russia hacked the DNC. Even less evidence that anything the Russians did directly cost Clinton the election.

So I ask: What Wikileaks revelation was so consequential that it directly cost Clinton the election? AND Why shouldn't the employees responsible for compromising the DNC's server be treated as they would in the private sector?

 

[Denechek]

Russia gained access to the DNC's server by an employee opening a malicious email with the subject line promoting an online hookup service. If this was an employee at a tech company, they would be held civilly liable and thoroughly investigated for potential criminal wrong doing.

Clinton's negligence allowed untold thousands of State Department emails, with untold classified information, into the hands of, according to the FBI, "hostile foreign actors". Even though there are numerous examples of others doing the same and being prosecuted and sentenced to prison--Clinton got off.

Russia was able to access the DNC's server because of the sheer negligence of their own employees. If those employees worked for a private company they would be held civilly liable. Democrats are now saying that the Russian's hacking of the DNC cost Clinton the election.

There is more concrete evidence that the United States, under Obama's direct orders, interfered in the Israeli election--at the cost of American tax payers--than any evidence that Russia hacked the DNC. Even less evidence that anything the Russians did directly cost Clinton the election.

So I ask: What Wikileaks revelation was so consequential that it directly cost Clinton the election? AND Why shouldn't the employees responsible for compromising the DNC's server be treated as they would in the private sector?

Whether you believe that Podesta was "phished" by the ol' anchovy sex pot scam, or the whole thing was not due to a hack but a leak from within, either scenario makes the DNC and their cohorts look like idiots. Prosecutable idiots.

 

[BluesLegend]

If the Dem's would stop surfing porn they wouldn't get hacked like that.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Russia gained access to the DNC's server by an employee opening a malicious email with the subject line promoting an online hookup service. If this was an employee at a tech company, they would be held civilly liable and thoroughly investigated for potential criminal wrong doing.

Clinton's negligence allowed untold thousands of State Department emails, with untold classified information, into the hands of, according to the FBI, "hostile foreign actors". Even though there are numerous examples of others doing the same and being prosecuted and sentenced to prison--Clinton got off.

Russia was able to access the DNC's server because of the sheer negligence of their own employees. If those employees worked for a private company they would be held civilly liable. Democrats are now saying that the Russian's hacking of the DNC cost Clinton the election.

There is more concrete evidence that the United States, under Obama's direct orders, interfered in the Israeli election--at the cost of American tax payers--than any evidence that Russia hacked the DNC. Even less evidence that anything the Russians did directly cost Clinton the election.

So I ask: What Wikileaks revelation was so consequential that it directly cost Clinton the election? AND Why shouldn't the employees responsible for compromising the DNC's server be treated as they would in the private sector?

The employee was Podesta.