No, the overall argument that she was making was correct, without any question. There was an agreement between the state parties, the DNC and the Clinton campaign. A Clinton surrogate, one of the most important people in her campaign, was put in charge of that and did not disperse much money to the state parties. Not only did they not get a lot of money, but a lot of the money that was given to them was immediately sent back to the DNC. The intent of the damn fund was to get around campaign finance laws, and it is obvious. It is also a bit different than situations in the past in the sense that this agreement was signed in 2015, a few months after she announced that she was running, and not after she won the nomination. It was a situation in which one candidate running in a primary was going to be financially relied upon, a year before the damn primary was over. You claimed that the money was to be dispersed until after the primary, well, deals like this aren’t formed until about that time either. This one was formed a year before the primaries were over, while she was supposed to be competing with other candidates for her party’s nomination in a free and open election, not a corrupt and rigged mess like what happened. This type of stuff is what we see in banana republics, and you are here defending it. I know that you have a long standing relationship with the party, are you too a consultant?
The fund was created as a means of getting Clinton larger donations than her campaign could receive, it was a means of laundering money and the agreement gave her even more power within the Democratic Party. She also had a say on the operations of the DNC that no other candidate had, in fact I would guess that no non-incumbent candidate has had in a long time, if ever, long before she actually secured her party’s nomination.
The point is that this was another instance in which the primaries were not on the up and up, and were not fair. And if you want to argue otherwise, would you be okay if Republicans did this to the Democrats in the general election from here on out? Would that be okay with you? If a Republican candidate did this exact thing to a Democratic candidate, if the entirety of what we know happened in regards to a Republican, would you be fine with it? Rhetorical question, don’t bother answering. If you defend this, don’t bothering trying to convince people to trust your party. Stuff like this is why the Democrats have collapsed and likely won’t recover, and that will lead to an even worse party having far more power than it deserves.