Who would be better positioned to stage a trap coalesced with a bug for the Sanders campaign than individuals within a company with a track record for bugs?
It sounds like the data director of the Sanders campaign was the only member who could initially access Clinton data--would this not go both ways?
If such extreme bugs were the norm, why would the DNC continue to use such a vendor? The entire platform the DNC depends upon is hindered each time such a bug happens, so it makes no sense from an organizational perspective.
Conspiracy is a strong word, but it seems a bit naive to look at this as either "is a bug" or "isn't a bug".
It sounds like the data director of the Sanders campaign was the only member who could initially access Clinton data--would this not go both ways?
If such extreme bugs were the norm, why would the DNC continue to use such a vendor? The entire platform the DNC depends upon is hindered each time such a bug happens, so it makes no sense from an organizational perspective.
Conspiracy is a strong word, but it seems a bit naive to look at this as either "is a bug" or "isn't a bug".