if Brock is telling the truth then somebody put this out there to trash the Clintons. Now who would want to do that?

it is not easy to pinpoint who is --at this moment

But I doubt it . . .

.



There is no way a surrogate is going to act on something without pre-clearance.


The beauty about a surrogate is that they can float ideas, to see how they are received, and if they are negative, the campaign can deny knowledge or feign ignorance. You know, the old Plausible Deniability excuse. Except, the campaign would not excoriate the surrogate the way that Brooks was handled.

The old "Cat's out of the bag" effect now applies. Like when a jury hears something and the judge tells them to 'forget it'.



.

he would put out a letter--in upcoming WEEKS

And no one was apparently asking for the letter.

.


Silver lining, would have occurred during the General Election, when the campaign sees fit.

Not pressured during the Primary cycle.


You know, when it's advantageous for the Democrat Party, not one primary candidate.


WEEKS capitalized. That seems to imply it's not good enough.


.

And it would be infinitely dumb so I believe him.

the word weeks so no one gets the idea to expect it in a day or two. Nothing more.

.


I like how some equate a campaign operation with the candidate themselves.


.

comments fairly recently?

Who was "equating?" I was doing the opposite of that. I said I didn't believe the candidate was involved in that mess.

And--since you brought it up-- there were several campaign workers in on that data breach--not all of them were "recommended by the DNC," like that means anything in the small universe of campaign polling.

Would you have preferred he have gotten 'em from the RNC?

And I was staying right on point.

.

But, they'll be another timewasting reply I'll have to deal with challenging this.

.