“It’s hard to figure out exactly where it all started”
Let me help you then. The DNC did it to themselves. Not only did they have their finger on the scales against Sanders, they were unapologetic about it when it was revealed by the leaks (that’s right, leaks - not hacks).
What damage control could have been done to salvage the relationship with the disenfranchised Bernie supporters was discarded out of hand by making DWS an “honorary chair” of the Clinton campaign on the very day of her resignation, when what really should have happened is that the DNC should have acknowledged it was wrong and pledge to prevent it happening again.
Instead, they gave the DNC chair position to Donna Brazile, who was already exposed via the same leaks to have a strong partisan bias against Sanders, and in fact leaked debate questions to Clinton. leading to her ouster from CNN.
Even today, a lawsuit continues against the DNC for screwing with the primariy and their actual presented defence argument is that they are not bound to honour their own rules of fairness, claiming they are merely political promises and not expected to uphold them. How “Democratic” of this party! And this is all entirely on the record, with facts and proof, without any need for invocations about Seth Rich or any other speculation.
As for Russian interference with the election, we have to date still to see evidence of this that even comes close to matching the amount of evidence that the DNC was interfering with the primaries. Fine, you can say that the evidence of DNC meddling is circumstantial and not in any way conclusive, but then by the same standard, you have even less of a claim that Russia did anything at all. Any technical person (of which I am one) after hearing John McAfee’s analysis of the so-called evidence provided, anyone can plainly see that it’s been entirely manufactured.
What raised my suspicion on the outset was the timing of the Russian interference allegations, and the spin that immediately followed. After the condemning leaks came out, an interview with Trump that was more or less neutral was flouted around as a “Russian propaganda” piece, with no link or source to the interview, nor an excerpt or screenshot. I did some digging and finally found the interview in question and it was a video interview conducted by none other than Larry King.
Why no link? Why no video? Because it would be obvious that it was all spin and anti-Russia propaganda. Allegations of Russian interference via Larry King can only happen under cover of obfuscation. Or do you really think that King’s just another sleeper Bolshevik in your anti-Russia hysteria?
When the spinmasters start labeling Larry King a propagandist for the Russian Government, you know there’s fake news going around, and there’s been plenty more since. Lots of finger pointing and allegations, but the fact is, the DNC fucked it up all by themselves. Between the bullshit in the primaries and John Podesta’s brilliant “Pied Piper candidate” scheme, you might want to consider owning your own bullshit and thank Mrs. Clinton and the DNC for President Trump instead of blaming anyone.
And what about Clinton’s no-fly-zone strategy for Syria? Is brinkmanship with Russia for World War III really such a small deal that we have to dismiss it out of hand as inconsequential in the electorate’s eyes? Could it be that Clinton had it in for Russia before all of this, and is just using the election meddling allegations as a platform to further that sentiment?
If you had any insight into any of this even equalling Podesta’s team you would know that the analysis showed Bernie supporters were too smart for typical propaganda (as documents have shown), so really you’re just blowing your own horn, and worse, underscoring just how much of a liability Clinton really would be in 2020 under the DNC.