Why did the Clinton campaign hire Debbie Wasserman Schultz after the DNC email leak?

The revelations from WikiLeaks’ DNC email leak just before the start of the Convention were a dream come true for Republicans. The content of these emails showed senior aides in the Democratic National Committee, at a minimum, failed to adhere to their duty to remain neutral during the primaries.

Leaked emails showed how members of the Committee discussed ways to undermine Bernie Sanders’ campaign, even considering using religious faith to accomplish this goal. They also highlighted how Hillary Clinton’s campaign urged the DNC to intervene and condemn Bernie for comments he made criticizing some of the Party’s and the now-nominee’s practices regarding fundraising.

These leaks as serious as they were perfectly timed. People were outraged throughout the Convention, with speakers booed, delegates walking out upon Hillary’s official nomination, and mass protests outside of the auditorium. It has certainly been far from the united image that the Democratic Party hoped to project. Which is why the DNC was quick to push the Committee’s Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz to resign and relinquish her role in the Convention once it was clear that the protests would not dissipate. This seemed like a normal sequence of events following a political scandal, particularly during such an integral point of the nomination process. So it is confusing how Wasserman Schultz managed to immediately attain a position as honorary chair of Hillary;s 50-state program to elect Democrats in the upcoming election. It is true that it is not a highly prestigious job, but it still seems odd to provide this highly controversial figure with any official position given the circumstances.

There has been some speculation that this may have been a quid pro quo between Hillary and Wasserman Schultz, but no evidence has confirmed these accusations thus far. However, these actions do not bode well for Hllary’s judgment as a leader. We can all recognize that, based on these emails, the DNC acted inappropriately during the primary process. They had a role in which they were meant to remain neutral yet still demonstrated bias, even if it did not result in specific actions to sabotage Bernie’s campaign.

It’s no wonder he complained the system was against him when Wasserman Schultz condemned him for not preventing outbreaks of violence at his rallies and unilaterally revoked his access to voter data. We should all be troubled by the hostility that the DNC revealed towards Bernie – it represents disrespect for the democratic process. The party is meant to respect the people’s choice, not intervene by trying to persuade them who the supposed correct choice is. Therefore, with all of these disturbing revelations, why did Hillary decide to stand behind Wasserman Schultz by providing her with any form of a position on her campaign?

Beginning with the Convention this week, it has been each speaker’s responsibility to ensure the unity of the Democratic Party. And the confirmation of the bias against Bernie Sanders’ campaign has been a serious threat to achieving this goal. Hillary needs to gain the support of Bernie’s supporters in order to win the election, and doing so became significantly more difficult following this email leak.

Bernie or Bust is still going strong, and many are claiming that they will never vote for Hillary. With all of these obstacles, why would Hillary make such a show of support for the enemy of the people whose support she needs? If she wants to prove that she is the candidate truly concerned with the welfare of the country rather than her own political ambitions, she needs to prove her integrity throughout this campaign. The act of offering Wasserman Schultz any form of a position on her team essentially tells Bernie’s followers that she cares more about politicians who have supported her than the credibility of this democratic process.

Wasserman Schultz didn’t receive a high-powered position from Hillary’s campaign after she was shown to have betrayed the integrity of her chairmanship. But the symbolism of retaining the respect of the party’s nominee does not inspire support for those who are skeptical of Hillary’s campaign.

When I heard that Debbie Wasserman Schultz received this position, I thought it was strange. But even if it wasn’t a quid pro quo situation, it was definitely a bad judgment call. In order for Hillary to win this election, she needs to show true leadership skills and fix this.

Because actions like these simply make me and so many others wonder: what was she thinking?