I'm confused

[rogerashton]

I confess I don't know much about Kroll. But, supposing that Bernie has agreed to a Kroll audit there seem to be two possibilities here.

1) A) Kroll is so biased that Bernie would only agree to Kroll if Bernie had something to hide. B) But if that is so, then for DNC to propose Kroll as the auditor would indeed be evidence of the kind of pro-Clinton bias that "conspiracy theorists" allege.

2) A) Kroll is no more biased than other possible auditors -- remember the joke about the accountant who is asked "how much is two and two" and responds "how much do you want it to be?" -- so that Bernie has no reason to veto Kroll, supposing he could. B) Then attributing some conspiracy to the DNC on this particular matter would be irrational.

Now, ignorant as I am, I'm guessing 2) is the case. But those who like to attack Bernie seem to want to put 1) A) with 2) B). Horns of the dilemma, folks -- you can't have them both without putting on your own tinfoil hats.

[JonLeibowitz]

1. What about -- Bernie has not yet agreed to a Kroll audit?

There is another DU thread debating this point.

[rogerashton]

3. So you are saying that 1) is correct, and Bernie has something to hide?

[JonLeibowitz]

5. I am saying that this entire post is speculation.

I reject your supposition: "But, supposing that Bernie has agreed to a Kroll audit there seem to be two possibilities here."

There is simply no evidence to support that.

[99th_Monkey]

2. 5 other firms have already been named as more "independent" choices for auditor

And therefore more appropriate for this particular audit, as they are not already in bed
with the DNC & HRC, and have a less "spooky" reputation as a corporate "fixer" to "Prove"
whatever the highest bidder wants to palm-off as 'true'.

Paulie (7,655 posts)
9. I can think of 5 (more appropriate and as qualified auditors) right off the top of my head

Mandiant (now owned by FireEye) is the gold standard
Neohapsis (now owned by Cisco)
NTT Security
IBM
SecureWorks

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=944133

[rogerashton]

4. So you also are saying that 1) is correct, and Bernie has something to hide?

[99th_Monkey]

6. I didn't agree to your binary (in this case false) choice between 1) and 2)

in the first place.

I only answered a question you raised as to who else might do the audit that
would be much more capable of a truly INDEPENDENT audit.

Bernie has nothing to hide. If anything it's Hills & DNC who does.

The mere fact that Kroll was the DNC's "preferred" auditor along with their
rep. as a corporate "fixer" for hire, to "prove" whatever the client WANTS to
pass off as true, strongly suggests it's Hillary who's hiding something.

[rogerashton]

7. See, here's the thing:

I was trying to point out a problem in the logic of the anti-Bernie side. I wrote"

But those who like to attack Bernie seem to want to put 1) A) with 2) B). Horns of the dilemma, folks -- you can't have them both without putting on your own tinfoil hats.

So who counterattacks? Well, I assumed that the attacks were from anti-Bernie folks, but no -- apparently -- Bernie supporters.

Why so defensive?