originally posted by: IAMTAT
I'm trying to absorb it all...it's complex.
Can someone who understand the technical information break this down for us?
Sure. Without getting into the details of all the code line by line, something web developers often do when making websites is called using a
template. Basically a template contains the layout of the webpage, and then fonts are changed with an attached css page and some image links. This
is pretty much standard practice and there's a lot of advantages to doing so which I won't get into.
Billforfirstlady.com and deportracism are both using a very similar layout if not the same layout, just with different style sheets. When I've taught
intro to web design classes I've seen people make websites with more variation from each other, and they're copying the same template out of a book.
In something like Dreamweaver it would take less than 5 minutes to make one of these websites identical to the other.
Taken on it's own this doesn't mean much, it could just be a generic template two website owners used. However both of these sites are registered to
the same person, and they are hosted on the same server (which implies they're both on the same hosting account with a server provider). These things
together very strongly suggest that the same person made both of them. Therefore you're left with two conclusions. Either a Sanders supporter is
trying to make it look like Hillary is framing Sanders or a Hillary supporter is trying to frame Sanders. Basically one is trying to make the other
Next comes the emails, even if you own both websites or businesses it is illegal to share email information between them. It's a law that pretty much
everyone violates because it's unenforceable if you code your website right but it's a law none the less. This was proven because the website was
sending data from deportracism to the other url... someone didn't code properly.
Then you get into the financial aspect of it. Hillarys campaign paid the person who owns these websites a large sum of money to produce them. It's
possible Hillary is innocent here and it's all the web guy who was doing things on his own initative, but if the campaign wasn't heavily involved it
brings into question why they made such a large payment to him.
Last, the website owner, after being paid money by Hillaries campaign, donated that money back to her, and was then reimbursed by a third party.
I'm not sure this qualifies as election fraud, and there's not even any proof that Hillary did something illegal, but the website owner is almost
certainly breaking laws against money laundering.
edit on 10-11-2015 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)
edit on 10-11-2015
by Aazadan because: (no reason given)