HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Brazile: 'Proof' that Cli...

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 08:40 AM

Brazile: 'Proof' that Clinton rigged nomination process broke my heart

Last edited Thu Nov 2, 2017, 12:35 PM - Edit history (1)

Source: The Hill

ormer Democratic National Committee (DNC) interim chairwoman Donna Brazile said it “broke her heart” when she discovered evidence that she said showed Hillary Clinton’s campaign fixed the Democratic nomination system in her favor.

In an excerpt from her forthcoming book “Hacks: The Inside Story of the Break-ins and Breakdowns that Put Donald Trump in the White House" that was provided to Politico, Brazile explains how she was tasked with investigating the DNC after hacked Wikileaks emails suggested the Clinton campaign fixed the nomination in her favor.

“By September 7, the day I called Bernie, I had found my proof and it broke my heart,” Brazile wrote.

The evidence described was an agreement between the Clinton campaign, the DNC, and Clinton’s joint fundraising committee with the committee, which said the campaign would “control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised,” according to Brazile. The arrangement was made to financially help the party, which was in significant debt following the 2012 re-election campaign of former President Barack Obama.

Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/358390-brazile-proof-that-clinton-rigged-nomination-process-broke-my-heart

165 replies, 16867 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 165 replies Author Time Post
Reply Brazile: 'Proof' that Clinton rigged nomination process broke my heart (Original post)
Jose Garcia Nov 2017 OP
Botany Nov 2017 #1
karynnj Nov 2017 #28
harun Nov 2017 #143
karynnj Nov 2017 #144
ehrnst Nov 2017 #46
scipan Nov 2017 #113
ehrnst Nov 2017 #141
Kahuna7 Nov 2017 #127
obamanut2012 Nov 2017 #2
bitterross Nov 2017 #3
woundedkarma Nov 2017 #9
RhodeIslandOne Nov 2017 #16
Tiggeroshii Nov 2017 #18
RhodeIslandOne Nov 2017 #19
Tiggeroshii Nov 2017 #124
RhodeIslandOne Nov 2017 #126
bitterross Nov 2017 #162
7962 Nov 2017 #25
RandomAccess Nov 2017 #35
ehrnst Nov 2017 #41
RandomAccess Nov 2017 #43
ehrnst Nov 2017 #44
RandomAccess Nov 2017 #47
ehrnst Nov 2017 #48
scipan Nov 2017 #111
ehrnst Nov 2017 #112
ehrnst Nov 2017 #49
RandomAccess Nov 2017 #51
ehrnst Nov 2017 #53
RandomAccess Nov 2017 #66
LanternWaste Nov 2017 #75
RandomAccess Nov 2017 #80
ehrnst Nov 2017 #114
LanternWaste Nov 2017 #74
RandomAccess Nov 2017 #81
ehrnst Nov 2017 #139
wasupaloopa Nov 2017 #67
onit2day Nov 2017 #65
ehrnst Nov 2017 #115
LineLineLineLineLineReply .
Squinch Nov 2017 #118
TalenaGor Nov 2017 #58
LovingA2andMI Nov 2017 #108
bitterross Nov 2017 #161
woundedkarma Nov 2017 #4
bitterross Nov 2017 #6
TexasBushwhacker Nov 2017 #27
Owl Nov 2017 #134
bitterross Nov 2017 #160
OKNancy Nov 2017 #7
woundedkarma Nov 2017 #10
OKNancy Nov 2017 #12
LanternWaste Nov 2017 #20
ehrnst Nov 2017 #42
mopinko Nov 2017 #23
MFM008 Nov 2017 #5
Red Oak Nov 2017 #8
delisen Nov 2017 #29
ehrnst Nov 2017 #50
Honeycombe8 Nov 2017 #64
bettyellen Nov 2017 #129
Red Oak Nov 2017 #60
awesomerwb1 Nov 2017 #34
romana Nov 2017 #11
LittleGirl Nov 2017 #13
left-of-center2012 Nov 2017 #14
TexasBushwhacker Nov 2017 #21
Oneironaut Nov 2017 #22
KPN Nov 2017 #33
ehrnst Nov 2017 #39
janterry Nov 2017 #63
RandomAccess Nov 2017 #68
Blue_Tires Nov 2017 #71
left-of-center2012 Nov 2017 #92
Blue_Tires Nov 2017 #93
Blue_Tires Nov 2017 #76
TexasBushwhacker Nov 2017 #106
Blue_Tires Nov 2017 #121
harun Nov 2017 #98
LiberalLovinLug Nov 2017 #103
LovingA2andMI Nov 2017 #104
Kimchijeon Nov 2017 #157
Raine Nov 2017 #163
Post removed Nov 2017 #15
7962 Nov 2017 #24
LovingA2andMI Nov 2017 #105
7962 Nov 2017 #132
LovingA2andMI Nov 2017 #145
CTyankee Nov 2017 #38
Post removed Nov 2017 #55
CTyankee Nov 2017 #61
7962 Nov 2017 #131
m-lekktor Nov 2017 #54
RhodeIslandOne Nov 2017 #17
TheDebbieDee Nov 2017 #26
delisen Nov 2017 #32
TheDebbieDee Nov 2017 #45
LovingA2andMI Nov 2017 #107
Ligyron Nov 2017 #30
videohead5 Nov 2017 #31
zipplewrath Nov 2017 #82
ehrnst Nov 2017 #36
George II Nov 2017 #37
ehrnst Nov 2017 #57
scipan Nov 2017 #110
MrScorpio Nov 2017 #40
stonecutter357 Nov 2017 #52
ehrnst Nov 2017 #56
7962 Nov 2017 #133
ehrnst Nov 2017 #135
7962 Nov 2017 #136
ehrnst Nov 2017 #138
7962 Nov 2017 #155
ehrnst Nov 2017 #156
hughee99 Nov 2017 #59
Bleacher Creature Nov 2017 #62
RandomAccess Nov 2017 #85
Bleacher Creature Nov 2017 #109
RandomAccess Nov 2017 #120
questionseverything Nov 2017 #123
RandomAccess Nov 2017 #125
questionseverything Nov 2017 #128
Freethinker65 Nov 2017 #69
Kaleva Nov 2017 #70
Blue_Tires Nov 2017 #72
Kaleva Nov 2017 #79
Blue_Tires Nov 2017 #83
Kaleva Nov 2017 #86
Paladin Nov 2017 #87
Kaleva Nov 2017 #90
Paladin Nov 2017 #94
muriel_volestrangler Nov 2017 #73
LisaM Nov 2017 #78
FakeNoose Nov 2017 #89
LisaL Nov 2017 #137
MGKrebs Nov 2017 #77
MGKrebs Nov 2017 #116
MontanaMama Nov 2017 #84
highplainsdem Nov 2017 #88
Blue_Tires Nov 2017 #91
Kaleva Nov 2017 #95
harun Nov 2017 #99
Kaleva Nov 2017 #101
harun Nov 2017 #142
Kaleva Nov 2017 #149
Kaleva Nov 2017 #102
saidsimplesimon Nov 2017 #96
Justice Nov 2017 #97
Kaleva Nov 2017 #100
Squinch Nov 2017 #117
NYC Liberal Nov 2017 #119
OnDoutside Nov 2017 #122
harun Nov 2017 #146
NYC Liberal Nov 2017 #150
harun Nov 2017 #154
NYC Liberal Nov 2017 #164
harun Nov 2017 #165
dflprincess Nov 2017 #130
DeminPennswoods Nov 2017 #140
Raissa Nov 2017 #147
Wwcd Nov 2017 #153
BlueIdaho Nov 2017 #148
50 Shades Of Blue Nov 2017 #151
JCannon Nov 2017 #152
Bradical79 Nov 2017 #158
Bradical79 Nov 2017 #159

Response to Jose Garcia (Original post)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 08:46 AM

1. So Hillary worked the system so she could win the nomination?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Botany (Reply #1)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 10:06 AM

28. She was the overwhelming choice even in 2013/2014 before any of this happened

I realize that polls that early are somewhat about name recognition, but she polled as the likely Democratic nominee as high as 70%. I was never a huge Clinton fan, but I clearly expected her to be the nominee and to become President from almost the moment she stepped down as SoS.

I hate all these inside the failed campaign narratives. If this except is representative, only the author comes and to some degree Sanders comes out ok. Hillary comes off as using a weak DNC to fuel a money machine that allowed her to raise far above the campaign finance limits and have most of it return to where she or surrogates could control it. DWS is totally pathetic in all ways. President Obama is seen as less involved in party building than Brazille wants him to be. Seriously, his main job was to be President and to accomplish what he could in his second term in spite of the Republicans.

What is perhaps most shocking is that the DNC could have been so in debt for the years after 2012 without someone actually in the DNC .. like Brazille .. having any idea. It also seems as though no one, other than Clinton, was involved in the fund raising. If true, that is pretty shocking. In prior years, every Democrat with ANY following or name seemed to both hold fundraisers and to craft letters asking for DSC, DCCC, and DNC contributions. What this does explain are the times when HRC traveled to fundraisers rather than campaign events. It might be that even in the general election, she had to do this because others did not step up to do it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to karynnj (Reply #28)

Fri Nov 3, 2017, 08:44 AM

143. It raises many interesting questions

Hopefully the DNC get's more transparent and smarter about their campaigning spend.

If you are campaigning on what the voters believe in you can spend much less due to social media. Which is exactly what Trump did. Get the basket of deplorables whipped up on their nonsense issues and why bother spending money on ads, they will do all the advertising for you.

Just wish the Dem's would take strong Progressive stands, then we would do their advertising for them. Even if they don't get all the Progressive agenda enacted, at least it get's the narrative moving the right way with the right candidates.

The agenda is a simple three item list:
* How are people going to afford health care
* How are people going to afford higher education
* How are people going to afford housing

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to harun (Reply #143)

Fri Nov 3, 2017, 09:32 AM

144. Interesting points

One observation. Those three items represent the goals of even the most centrist Democrats. There is no Democrat over the last 50 years who has not thought they are important.

I agree that ads are almost archaic as a means of getting a message across.

I would suggest that the three items, essential as they are, should be part of something bigger. Restoring civility and respect for others and ensuring that everyone has those 3 basic needs.

Consider GWB was able to have a major theme of restoring honor and decency that resonated even though he was known to have had drinking problems into his 40s and Gore was an Eagle Scout.

We need to capture the high ground. We need to speak of American values. White supremists do not represent the values of most Americans. Nor does the man who can not empathize with those hurt unless they are "his" people and even then, he comes first. Values are aspirational. We never truly meet them, but we try.

Oddly, one voice that could help might be Jimmy Carter. He, along with people like AL Gore and John Kerry, who are no longer active politicians, are all speaking of values, working for peace and justice, protecting the environment and protecting our democracy.

Carter said after 2000 that the US did not meet the basic standards his election monitoring required. Gore in Assault on Reason detailed broader problems. Kerry, in his last speech in the Senate, spoke of the problem of big money in our democracy.

As you note, it might be that a compelling message in today's world might not need the millions of dollars raised by past campaigns.













Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Botany (Reply #1)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 10:57 AM

46. I read that she cravenly "worked closely" with people "inside the beltway" for decades

 

giving her an "unfair advantage" over candidates who didn't.

And then she took the job of Secretary of State ONLY to get the "experience" that would fool people into thinking that she had "experience in international diplomacy."


NO FAIR!!!! That "system working" Hillary...



Poor deluded Donna...

I had tried to search out any other evidence of internal corruption that would show that the DNC was rigging the system to throw the primary to Hillary, but I could not find any in party affairs or among the staff. I had gone department by department, investigating individual conduct for evidence of skewed decisions, and I was happy to see that I had found none.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #46)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 02:33 PM

113. "Then I found this agreement." You keep leaving that last sentence off.

More:

The agreement—signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook with a copy to Marc Elias—specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings.

I had been wondering why it was that I couldn’t write a press release without passing it by Brooklyn. Well, here was the answer.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scipan (Reply #113)

Fri Nov 3, 2017, 07:44 AM

141. She didn't become party chair until July 2016 - after Clinton became the nominee

 

So, yes, the campaign had taken the reigns because Clinton WAS the candidate, as per the voters.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/16/politics/hillary-clinton-campaign-dnc/index.html

She likely read the UPDATED financial agreement signed in June 2016.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/16/politics/hillary-clinton-campaign-dnc/index.html

“Hillary Clinton, in an effort to entirely turn her focus to the general election, will begin raising money for the general election and Democratic National Convention on Wednesday by filing paperwork on a new joint fundraising agreement with the Democratic Party, according to a spokesman.

According to Wikileaks - this is the agreement she signed in 2015, which has no such control provisions in it:




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #46)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 05:51 PM

127. This nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jose Garcia (Original post)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 08:46 AM

2. Oh, this is helpful n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jose Garcia (Original post)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 08:47 AM

3. Why are we posting this here on DU? There is no need to propagate more trash about Clinton

 

This post does not belong here. There are plenty of sites that post things to be negative about Democrats and about in-fighting. This site does not need to be one of them.

The Hill, BTW, is a rather right-wing site. The timing of this article on The Hill is not the least bit surprising.

They are just bringing up something that doesn't matter at this point to deflect from the real issue of 45 and all the collusion and illegal dealings there.

STOP LETTING THEM GET AWAY WITH DIVERSION!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bitterross (Reply #3)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 08:54 AM

9. The original is posted on politico.

 

She's a democrat who was interim chairman of the DNC. This isn't fake news from the right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bitterross (Reply #3)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 09:32 AM

16. Do you know who Donna Brazile is?

 

I think I need to establish that before we go further, because it seems like you don’t.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RhodeIslandOne (Reply #16)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 09:35 AM

18. She replaced DWS as DNC chair following her removal.

 

...in case anybody needed that =)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tiggeroshii (Reply #18)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 09:38 AM

19. I was asking the person screaming that this shouldnt....

 

.....be discussed if THEY know. Because it seems like they think the main purveyor of this is some hack from Brietbart or Drudge....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RhodeIslandOne (Reply #19)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 05:40 PM

124. Yeah... I got that a little after I posted but kept it as an FYI for anybody that needed it

 

...I mean, it is what it is. I think there is definitely a consensus, however reluctant among democrats, that the primary was not done fairly. I just hope that this understanding helps create a more fair process in the future.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tiggeroshii (Reply #124)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 05:51 PM

126. It's all good!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RhodeIslandOne (Reply #16)

Fri Nov 3, 2017, 07:29 PM

162. I'm quite certain I do know

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bitterross (Reply #3)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 09:58 AM

25. MSNBC reporting on it not more than an hour ago.

 

the Hill is hardly "rather right wing". They are critical of both parties

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bitterross (Reply #3)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 10:38 AM

35. On the contrary, it matters a great deal.

 

UNLESS, of course, you're all in for corruption - just as long as it means your candidate wins.

This kind of thing must NEVER be allowed to happen again. This makes us no better than Republicons, with not a moral leg to stand on when their corruption works against US.

It's not rightwing diversion, it's not from a "right wing site," it's not inappropriate here UNLESS DUers don't want the truth and don't want to work for a better party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RandomAccess (Reply #35)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 10:42 AM

41. Not seeing where corruption is mentioned.

 

Can you point that out?

She is "heartbroken" about some things, but doesn't seem to advocate an investigation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #41)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 10:51 AM

43. What would you call it?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RandomAccess (Reply #43)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 10:52 AM

44. You need to specify what part of the post you are talking about

 

I'm not seeing corruption. That's a definition that applies to illegal activity.

Sort of like the term Murder not actually applying to abortion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #44)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 10:58 AM

47. It doesn't have to be technically illegal for it to be corrupt

 

Trump is doing all kinds of things that aren't "illegal" but are as corrupt as hell.

Again: what would YOU call it? "Unfortunate"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RandomAccess (Reply #47)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 11:00 AM

48. Um... like this part here?

 

I had tried to search out any other evidence of internal corruption that would show that the DNC was rigging the system to throw the primary to Hillary, but I could not find any in party affairs or among the staff. I had gone department by department, investigating individual conduct for evidence of skewed decisions, and I was happy to see that I had found none.


So you want to tell me what part of it showed she found "corruption?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #48)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 02:25 PM

111. "Then I found this agreement." You keep leaving that last sentence off.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scipan (Reply #111)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 02:32 PM

112. And does that sentence negate what she said before?

 

Do signs of "rigging" show up suddenly in all the places where she found none?

And really - she knew nothing about the agreement until that fateful moment so breathlessly remembered? Where was she in August of 2015?

Nowhere in the piece does Brazile mention that Politico reported the fundraising agreement between the DNC and Hillary when it happened, (in August of 2015) nor does she mention that the Sanders campaign also signed a joint fundraising agreement with the DNC. Bernie could have raised more money through that agreement, which would have helped the DNC financially and also arguably helped down-ballot Democrats, but he chose to raise money through small donations.


http://www.thestranger.com/slog/2017/11/02/25537553/no-hillary-didnt-rig-the-primary-against-bernie-by-signing-that-fundraising-agreement

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RandomAccess (Reply #47)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 11:03 AM

49. Right, and it doesn't actually have to be killing an infant to "murder a baby"

 

if you don't really care what legal terms actually mean, but words do have definitions, and when we use them to elicit emotional responses at the expense of facts, we lose credibility...

As a matter of fact, right now there is an investigation going on to determine the extent of actual corruption in the GOP during the campaign.

To call corruption what even Brazile won't call corrupt on the part of Democrats during the campaign is a false equivalency - and would go over way better on JPR or a Tea Party forum.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #49)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 11:08 AM

51. Well, we will disagree about that

 

Brazile has very good reasons not to call it corrupt. But if it wasn't, why would she be upset at all -- wouldn't rigging the primary just be good politics in that case?

Let me fix this for you:
As a matter of fact, right now there is an investigation going on to determine the extent of actual ILLEGAL corruption in the GOP during the campaign.


Oh -- and for the record, I wasn't trying to "elicit emotional responses" but rather call it what it is in MY book. I think facts matter too -- and one of them (to repeat myself) is that it doesn't have to be illegal for it to be corrupt.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RandomAccess (Reply #51)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 11:11 AM

53. Soap opera writing sells.

 

And I guess you can call abortion "infantacide" too, for all of the "logic" it has in the pro-forced birther "books."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #53)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 11:26 AM

66. And authoritarianism works too -- with some people

 

not me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RandomAccess (Reply #66)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 11:52 AM

75. I complete understand your need to conflate authoritarianism and an opinion different than yours.

 

I complete understand your need to conflate authoritarianism and an opinion different than yours. It allows us to feel more relevant and clever than reality may warrant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LanternWaste (Reply #75)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 12:02 PM

80. I don't mind a different opinion

 

I mind the pressure to adopt HIS opinion as my own -- not through perfectly acceptable persuasion, but verbal taunts (bullying).

I also mind any inability to understand that without explanation, along with what's surely to come, the refusal to understand that once explained.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RandomAccess (Reply #66)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 02:33 PM

114. Me too. Which is why I supported HRC in 2016.

 

Lock step manifesto thinking never did appeal to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RandomAccess (Reply #47)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 11:50 AM

74. Don't let your bias outweigh rational though.

 

Don't let your bias outweigh rational though.

Melodramatic and charged words like' corruption', while fun to use and a great way or validate those biases at the expense of truth, are simply inaccurate in this case... regardless of "what would YOU call it."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LanternWaste (Reply #74)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 12:04 PM

81. Funny -

 

I was thinking the same about ehrnst -- and now you. Just a coincidence, of course.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RandomAccess (Reply #81)

Fri Nov 3, 2017, 06:56 AM

139. Well, until Brazile offers evidence that the agreement she read

 

was dated 2015, and not the updated joint financial agreement once HRC became the candidate, then it's not confirmation bias.

Evidence is required of the person making the accusation, not on those who have evidence to the contrary on their side.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/11/2/1712064/-Chasing-links-Brazile-book-excerpt-may-describe-Joint-Financing-Agreement-after-primary-was-won

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RandomAccess (Reply #43)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 11:27 AM

67. Bull shit to sell a book

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #41)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 11:26 AM

65. This is the way it worked that was out of order

 

First of all Brazille was in charge of Gore's campaign and he did not put people in the DNC until after he won the nomination. But because everyone thought Hillary would not be seriously challenged her people took over the DNC a year before she won the nomination and acted as if she had already won the nomination. Not illegal but unethical as power and funds should have been going for both primary candidates or neither but instead it was against Bernie and for Hillary. However all the polls before and after the election showed that had Bernie won the primary he would have beaten Trump by far greater margins than Hillary and we would now have a president Bernie Sanders as even republicans were prepared to vote for him. The point is the DNC has never acted like it did in the primary nor is it supposed to so perhaps we've learned a big lesson and it won't happen again. Please don't take any of this as an attack on Hillary as it was her campaign and members of the DNC who were acting unethically but not illegally.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onit2day (Reply #65)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 02:35 PM

115. If it was "unethical" why did the DNC make public in August 2015?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onit2day (Reply #65)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 03:11 PM

118. .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RandomAccess (Reply #35)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 11:14 AM

58. this

I believe that no matter how much screaming at each other the left and right do - we are not going to force the other side to do whats right/behave ethically - I think that is clear - what the American people NEED to do is clean up their own side of the house - make sure no one that is enjoying your support is taking advantage you, your support, the system etc

I want to always feel like I am legitimately standing on the higher ground and when dirty politics make a hypocrite out of me - I should fight back against that...

for example - I am certain Dems would never work with Russia to win the election - but if they did that is MY time to speak up - these politicians wont listen to the other side but they damn sure listen to their base....

I dont want to be a hypocrite....it makes me sick...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RandomAccess (Reply #35)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 01:34 PM

108. 1+, 1+, 1+, 1+, 1+

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Jose Garcia (Original post)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 08:50 AM

4. earlier.. this was called analysis.

 

Then promptly ripped off the latest breaking news list and sent to whatever blackhole they send it to.

Seems to me they were more about hiding the news than following the rules.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woundedkarma (Reply #4)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 08:52 AM

6. Well, now... and later... it's called BS DIVERSION from what is important.

 

We have to stop repeating the right-wing diversion stories.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bitterross (Reply #6)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 10:04 AM

27. This is NOT a right-wing diversion story

Sanders announced his was running on April 30, 2015. Clinton's agreement with the DNC was signed in August. This stinks to high heaven.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TexasBushwhacker (Reply #27)

Fri Nov 3, 2017, 06:32 AM

134. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TexasBushwhacker (Reply #27)

Fri Nov 3, 2017, 07:26 PM

160. This is the reason I said this!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woundedkarma (Reply #4)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 08:53 AM

7. it was pulled off because they didn't follow posting rules plus the poster was banned

as a troll

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OKNancy (Reply #7)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 08:54 AM

10. that's about...

 

what I expect these days on DU. It's really disturbing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woundedkarma (Reply #10)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 08:56 AM

12. we've had the same LBN posting rules forever

If you don't post the title of the article as written, it gets locked.
In this case it was not only locked but the person who posted got the boot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woundedkarma (Reply #10)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 09:44 AM

20. No doubt, your surprise at threads locked for breaking rules is most sincere.

 

No doubt, your surprise at threads locked for breaking rules is most sincere.

Seems disturbing as well, and like as you, I often expect to find that on DU these days as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woundedkarma (Reply #10)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 10:43 AM

42. Keeping the same rules as always? (nt)

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woundedkarma (Reply #4)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 09:51 AM

23. that black hole is called

anywhere else on du.

look, we just dont take down national news stories just because we dont like them. always been that way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jose Garcia (Original post)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 08:51 AM

5. This must be

Why I voted for her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jose Garcia (Original post)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 08:53 AM

8. This explains why Donna leaked questions during the debate

She was brokenhearted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Red Oak (Reply #8)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 10:07 AM

29. So Brazile rigged a debate, lost her job

which was lucrative, and now is claiming a high ethical standard and projecting low ethical standard on others?

I just don't see bailing out a virtually bankrupt Democratic Party as an evil act.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delisen (Reply #29)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 11:07 AM

50. Rigged a debate?

 

Where did you read that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #50)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 11:24 AM

64. She didn't "rig" a debate, exactly. But you remember...

when it was discovered that she'd passed on one or more of the debate questions to HRC's Communications Director before a debate? She had the questions for some reason that I now forget.

Her career was seriously damaged for doing that. CNN fired her, I think. And it was unnecessary. HRC does well in debates and doesn't need a heads up on the questions. I don't recall that HRC asked for it. Just that Brazille gave her one (or more) question. I remembered it was only one question, but others have said it was more than one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #64)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 06:03 PM

129. Isn't only heard it was about the water in Flint, so of course they knew that was coming.

 

But yeah, this is some really weird stuff from Brazile.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delisen (Reply #29)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 11:14 AM

60. DB's croc tears are about Brazile, not HRC.

This article makes DB continue to appear, in my opinion, as an untrustworthy person who will say anything to help her cause as she sees it at the time. I don't trust anything she says.

I heard her excuses/explanations about leaking questions during the debates that ranged from holy indignation about anyone daring to question her moral values (and religion?) and that she would never do such a thing, to it was the Russians we should be talking about, to everyone does it and she only leaked a couple of questions, to her finally being fired for doing something blatantly wrong for a person in her position that was supposed to be "heartbroken" and unbiased.

DWS was a disaster and the best the DNC could do it replace her with DB? Either the DNC must have had a very small pool of talent to draw from or, at the time this personnel decision was made, whoever made the decision was not much of a manager.

Hopefully Tom Perez will show us a DNC that is truly unbiased and that, as a result, brings the Democratic party together.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Red Oak (Reply #8)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 10:24 AM

34. Ouch.

Good point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jose Garcia (Original post)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 08:56 AM

11. How horrible

How absolutely horrible of her to bail the party she's been working to support for decades out of a financial hole, and actually put her money where her mouth is in pursuing the Democratic Party nomination.

I mean, the absolute nerve of the woman! I must go now and clutch my pearls!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jose Garcia (Original post)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 09:01 AM

13. well, well, well

the truth comes out.

and yet we have a mad man in the WH. God Damn It.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jose Garcia (Original post)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 09:10 AM

14. Sometimes the truth hurts

I've always liked Donna Brazile,
and am shocked (not really) by demands to hide this story under the rug.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to left-of-center2012 (Reply #14)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 09:51 AM

22. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to left-of-center2012 (Reply #14)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 10:18 AM

33. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to left-of-center2012 (Reply #14)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 10:40 AM

39. Julian Assange is suddenly in love with her now, too.

 

After her being an "establishment shill" for so long...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to left-of-center2012 (Reply #14)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 11:23 AM

63. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to left-of-center2012 (Reply #14)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 11:30 AM

68. "The truth will set you free --

 

but first it will piss you off." - Gloria Steinem

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to left-of-center2012 (Reply #14)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 11:46 AM

71. It's funny to see how many haters of Brazile became instant lovers

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_Tires (Reply #71)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 12:40 PM

92. I don't know these tweeters - why should I care?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to left-of-center2012 (Reply #92)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 12:41 PM

93. Only you can answer that...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to left-of-center2012 (Reply #14)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 11:52 AM

76. So why didn't she fucking say anything last year?

Why wait until she had a book to hawk?

Just asking....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_Tires (Reply #76)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 01:27 PM

106. Because she didn't uncover the contract between the DNC and Clinton

until after the convention. She let Bernie know on September 7, who took the news "stoically".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TexasBushwhacker (Reply #106)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 04:34 PM

121. And now she's pimping her book five days before elections...

Tell me whose side she's on again?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to left-of-center2012 (Reply #14)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 12:53 PM

98. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to left-of-center2012 (Reply #14)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 01:17 PM

103. +1

All part of the 'perfect storm'.

I can even try and empathize with the Democratic party establishment. Hillary was so far ahead in the polls it seemed inconceivable that anyone else would come close. Add to that this funding black hole (how does that happen?) where it would seem almost prudent to have our future Presidential nominee work together with the DNC to coordinate efforts better.

And if she would have won by a landslide in the primary, and Bernie had never even been a factor, then all of this would be moot.

But she did not win by a landslide, at least not "going away". It was only her early SD pledges, and her early wins in States when Sanders was being ignored by the MSM, and where it was still assumed Hilary would be not only nominated, but become the President, when she pulled ahead with an insurmountable lead. It was almost festive atmosphere in those first States to go out and give Hillary a big boost and send her on her way towards the inevitable. And lets be honest, there was also a fever in the air to soon have the first American female President. Many did not even contemplate that there could be another choice that might be more attractive. But, like Sarah Silverman said, she was a Hillary supporter, but something better came along.

Who knows if Sanders would have won if he had gotten fair treatment from the DNC and DWS all along. And had been respected more by the MSM. In hindsight, he would have had a better shot at beating Trump if you believe the polls. And if that happened then the coat tail effects would have brought more Democrats along with him. We'd probably have the Senate. And of course we'd have Garland instead of Gorsuch.

Of course I'd have taken Hillary over Trump. But it seems like a lot of things came together at the wrong time to hurt Hillary, especially fake scandal stories where the GOP had an extra 8 years to build hatred against her, with help from RW media and greater social media access, and apparently with Russia's help. I sometimes think its too bad she did not win against Obama in that primary. (And Obama winning this one) I'm sure she'd have still gotten a barrage of faux outrage and invented scandals to deal with, but no one anticipated the power and depth and scope of the blanket of misinformation and subsequent rage that had now been boiling against her for decades, and how much more ingrained the profile of her as a corrupt, insider, elitist was nailed down in these last eight years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to left-of-center2012 (Reply #14)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 01:24 PM

104. 1+

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to left-of-center2012 (Reply #14)

Fri Nov 3, 2017, 05:11 PM

157. +9000

Truth hurts, get over it. Suck it up, and move on. 👍

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to left-of-center2012 (Reply #14)

Fri Nov 3, 2017, 07:34 PM

163. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jose Garcia (Original post)


Response to Post removed (Reply #15)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 09:56 AM

24. News isn't news if they don't like it, to some here.

 

Some seem to just want the echo chamber and put on blinders to anything "uncomfortable"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 7962 (Reply #24)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 01:25 PM

105. 1+

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LovingA2andMI (Reply #105)

Fri Nov 3, 2017, 06:28 AM

132. And look what happened.

 

"post removed"
Unbelievable

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 7962 (Reply #132)

Fri Nov 3, 2017, 10:41 AM

145. WOW!!!!

........

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Post removed (Reply #15)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 10:40 AM

38. I was on that jury...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #38)


Response to Post removed (Reply #55)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 11:19 AM

61. I hate these infights...I don't post a lot because you never know how it will all

turn out...but that's just me...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #61)

Fri Nov 3, 2017, 06:24 AM

131. Wow.....you see the results.

 

TWO posts hidden. For nothing. We're going down the rabbit hole it appears

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Post removed (Reply #15)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 11:11 AM

54. No kidding. it's getting fucking ridiculous. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jose Garcia (Original post)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 09:34 AM

17. Like it or not, this is a big story

 

To act like we shouldn’t talk about it is shortsighted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jose Garcia (Original post)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 09:59 AM

26. I've never thought much of Donna Brazile as a Democratic Strategist, talk show panelist

 

and friend of Karl Rove... But she's got a book to sell!

I've always thought she was always overly-polite and conciliatory and a weak debater that makes Dem supporters look spineless. I don't know how or why she was named to replace Debbie Wasserman-Schultz at the DNC. If it is possible, I think even less of her now!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheDebbieDee (Reply #26)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 10:18 AM

32. Brazile turned to Karl Rove after the 2000 election

when Gore "lost." At the time she talked about the fact that she was doing major political work but not being treated as such in terms of opportunities. She was probably right.

Media does play up white males as the experts.

From what I read so far in this book-it seems like a romance novel.

If Clinton is no longer running for office, it makes sense for political operatives to turn elsewhere. They would consider the Clinton bridge to have burned itself-so writing a book that will be a hit with Republicans and Sanders people is building new bridges or survival.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delisen (Reply #32)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 10:53 AM

45. I haven't read the Brazile book but we all have to be discerning about readily accepting

 

what someone else has said that someone else has said!

We're basically reading this article writer's opinion of what Donna Brazile has said in her book - maybe the opinion is wrong or biased or even made up to cause discord in the Dem party!

And Donna Brazile? She wants to sell her book! If people are having a spirited debate about what's in her book, then she would be stupid to come out and say that this or that is not what she said or meant?

We have to stop letting the right-wing PLAY us against each other and that's what I think this story does...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheDebbieDee (Reply #26)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 01:29 PM

107. Umm....

"I don't know how or why she was named to replace Debbie Wasserman-Schultz at the DNC. If it is possible, I think even less of her now!"


Yet, Donna Brazile is a Democrat...... Bashing only counts when......Fill in the blank_____________.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jose Garcia (Original post)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 10:10 AM

30. WOW...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jose Garcia (Original post)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 10:16 AM

31. Bernie still had a lot of money

He had a lot of money and ran ads.state parties were separated from the DNC.I really think Hillary would have won no matter what.she received 4 million more votes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to videohead5 (Reply #31)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 12:06 PM

82. Really not about Sanders

The truth is, the early work for HRC involved alot of discouraging other potential candidates from entering the race at all. This is NOT unusual. It's a plot device several times on the West Wing where YEARS before a primary, potential candidates try to soak up all the endorsements, staff, consultants, and contributors they can.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jose Garcia (Original post)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 10:39 AM

36. The Hill headlines are always reliably descriptive of the main point of the article

 

especially when the article is about Democrats..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jose Garcia (Original post)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 10:40 AM

37. I'd like to see The Hill's excerpts in the context of the entire book.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #37)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 11:13 AM

57. Especially the one that contradicts the headline....

 

I had tried to search out any other evidence of internal corruption that would show that the DNC was rigging the system to throw the primary to Hillary, but I could not find any in party affairs or among the staff. I had gone department by department, investigating individual conduct for evidence of skewed decisions, and I was happy to see that I had found none.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #57)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 02:22 PM

110. "Then I found this agreement." You keep leaving that last sentence off.

Earlier in the article she describes the Agreement:

The agreement—signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook with a copy to Marc Elias—specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings.

I had been wondering why it was that I couldn’t write a press release without passing it by Brooklyn. Well, here was the answer.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jose Garcia (Original post)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 10:41 AM

40. Im sorry, really?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jose Garcia (Original post)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 11:09 AM

52. GOOD Democratic party members only thanks...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jose Garcia (Original post)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 11:13 AM

56. Interesting - she says that she found no evidence of rigging in the actual exerpt...

 

I had tried to search out any other evidence of internal corruption that would show that the DNC was rigging the system to throw the primary to Hillary, but I could not find any in party affairs or among the staff. I had gone department by department, investigating individual conduct for evidence of skewed decisions, and I was happy to see that I had found none.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #56)

Fri Nov 3, 2017, 06:30 AM

133. And then she says she found it. You stopped reading.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 7962 (Reply #133)

Fri Nov 3, 2017, 06:37 AM

135. I didn't stop reading. I read the whole thing.

 

And nothing in the exerpt stated that she then found documents where she didn't find them before - evidence that she didn't find before.

And I'd like to see that document that she so dramatically calls "cancer," that required her to put on music and light candles to set the scene before calling Bernie.

I mean, let's put this cancer out on the table, and see if her interpretation of it is accurate.

Lots of people said that the Comey letter was evidence enough that Hillary was going to jail, and that turned out to be a complete fallacy.

I mean, Our Revolution is already milking it as an email fundraiser, and it might get Brazile a job there, when media and campaign jobs don't look too promising for her. Confirmation bias will make sure than many people will still believe it, so presenting evidence that doesn't square with her story won't ruin that for her or Our Revolution.

I'll look forward to her putting her money where her mouth is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #135)

Fri Nov 3, 2017, 06:40 AM

136. OK, THAT was excellent. "Put on music & light candles.." Kudos.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 7962 (Reply #136)

Fri Nov 3, 2017, 06:46 AM

138. Give credit to Brazile. Of course if you read the article, you would know that she wrote that.

 

"Before I called Bernie Sanders, I lit a candle in my living room and put on some gospel music. I wanted to center myself for what I knew would be an emotional phone call."

Also, Brazile implies that HRC campaign took over in August of 2015. But the records show this happened after she won the delegates for being the nominee.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/11/2/1712064/-Chasing-links-Brazile-book-excerpt-may-describe-Joint-Financing-Agreement-after-primary-was-won

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ehrnst (Reply #138)

Fri Nov 3, 2017, 04:06 PM

155. Jeeze, thats what I get for reading it on the phone. I swear I read the whole thing!!

 

And instead of being funny, now that SHE is the one that said it, its just sounds sad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 7962 (Reply #155)

Fri Nov 3, 2017, 04:55 PM

156. Indeed.(nt)

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jose Garcia (Original post)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 11:14 AM

59. It seems to bother her that she feels Clinton had an unfair advantage during the primaries.

Why was it she left CNN again?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jose Garcia (Original post)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 11:23 AM

62. I'm sorry, but I don't see the "bombshell." It just looks like a bailout.

And I'm not saying that because I supported her. The article makes clear that she was bailing out the DNC. Also, the agreement was signed in August 2015. At that time, Sanders had only declared a few months earlier, and as people should recall, he was 30-40 points behind in the polling until late 2015/early 2016. In August 2015 it was entirely reasonable to view Clinton as the de facto nominee. Things obviously changed, but not that early.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bleacher Creature (Reply #62)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 12:09 PM

85. Uh, not quite

 

Brazile described an agreement between the Clinton campaign, the DNC and Clinton’s joint fundraising committee that said the campaign would “control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised.” The arrangement was made to financially help the party, which was in significant debt following the 2012 reelection campaign of former President Barack Obama, she added.

“The campaign had the DNC on life support, giving it money every month to meet its basic expenses, while the campaign was using the party as a fund-raising clearing house,” Brazile wrote.

Brazile noted that the agreement was signed in August of 2015, effectively giving Clinton control of the party almost one year before she secured the nomination.

“The funding arrangement ... was not illegal, but it sure looked unethical,” Brazile wrote.

“If the fight had been fair, one campaign would not have control of the party before the voters had decided which one they wanted to lead. This was not a criminal act, but as I saw it, it compromised the party’s integrity.”

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/358390-brazile-proof-that-clinton-rigged-nomination-process-broke-my-heart

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RandomAccess (Reply #85)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 02:08 PM

109. All I'm seeing is Brazile's spin on that agreement.

Last edited Thu Nov 2, 2017, 04:18 PM - Edit history (1)

If I'm wrong, I won't hesitate to admit it, but for now all I'm seeing is a summary of the agreement written for the purpose of selling books.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bleacher Creature (Reply #109)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 04:25 PM

120. That's what was reported at the time

 

Believe it or not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RandomAccess (Reply #120)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 05:10 PM

123. all that was reported was a "tight rein on spending"

All 50 state parties were invited to join the agreement as well. Several had already pursued their own joint fundraising agreements with the Clinton campaign while the DNC had held off on signing — largely over disagreements over how the money would be able to be spent. The Clinton campaign, wary of management and structural problems at the DNC, insisted on a tight rein on spending.

///////////////////////////

todays report shows the hc campaign had total control over the dnc a year before she won the nom so the earlier articles did not have contract details

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to questionseverything (Reply #123)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 05:45 PM

125. Let me put it this way

 

*I* knew way back when -- IIRC summer of last year, not sure whether before or after Clinton had clinched the nomination -- that her campaign wasn't doing things the right way relative to campaign funding and that joint ageement where the state parties funneled money to the campaign and they'd give back a small smidgeon of it. How did I know that? I read it online. was it in the mainstream press? Uh, probably not. Was it mere rumor? Uh, definitely not.

Now, I have no idea where your info above comes from. but -- you believe that or whatever you want, and I'll believe what I read way back when and what's being reported by a principal today.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RandomAccess (Reply #125)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 06:00 PM

128. the copy/paste i posted was from this

https://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/dnc-democratic-committee-hillary-clinton-fundraising-agreement-2016-121813

all it reports is hc wanted "tight controls ovr money" not that she got to run every aspect of the dnc including strategy

defenders of hc are using that link as evidence the contract was no secret but the details of the contract certainly were a secret

I "knew" fishy things seemed to be happening too but until today there was no proof

I am no lawyer but it looks like it was a way around the limits on contributions not to mention locals only receiving1% back

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jose Garcia (Original post)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 11:38 AM

69. So Clinton agreed to help the DNC.

I guess my outrage will be based on when the agreement was reached. Hillary was honestly the only candidate running in the beginning. I think everyone pretty much figured she would be the candidate, so no big deal. I am NOT saying she was to be anointed by the DNC, but even Republicans figured she was nearly unstoppable up until the last month to be our nation’s next President. It was a win-win situation for the Hillary campaign and the DNC to have an agreement early on.

What sucks is that she ended up having a viable opponent in Bernie Sanders for the nomination. I supported Bernie in the Primary, and gladly voted for Hillary in the election. It was pretty obvious the DNC and Debbie Wasserman were not unbiased. Once the DNC had Bernie running as a viable alternative to Clinton, the agreement should have been dissolved. It just looks bad all around.

But I, as a Bernie primary supporter, must also concede it appears Bernie had support for his campaign from not only Republicans but also foreigners trying to split the Democratic vote. I am not saying he knew about nor asked for that help, but the playing field during this last election was anything but untainted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jose Garcia (Original post)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 11:41 AM

70. In LBN, one isn't supposed to modify the title of the article which was done here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jose Garcia (Original post)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 11:48 AM

72. I love that the cross-section of people who believe beyond a doubt

that Hillary rigged the primary and the people who no amount of evidence will convince that Moscow tampered with the election almost entirely overlap...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_Tires (Reply #72)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 12:01 PM

79. Donna didn't say that Hillary rigged the primary

Those are the words of the author of the article. The Dues who posted this left out the quotation marks in the title of the article.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Reply #79)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 12:07 PM

83. Sadly the narrative is out there now

and that's what folks will run with, so we have to deal with it...

You can't un-ring a bell, as they say

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_Tires (Reply #83)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 12:10 PM

86. This is just an attempt at distraction. It won't slow down Mueller.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Reply #86)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 12:15 PM

87. I believe that Mueller's actions have EVERYTHING to do with a thread like this. (nt)

Everything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paladin (Reply #87)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 12:38 PM

90. It won't distract the people that really matter like Mueller and his legal team.

The people who get distracted by this didn't conduct the no knock raid on Manaforts home, nor indict Manafort and his business associate or arrest and reach a deal with "coffee boy".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Reply #90)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 12:43 PM

94. Maybe not. But it keeps the Democratic Party in non-stop turmoil.

I see it happening, over and over and over again. Some major damage hits trump, and all of a sudden Hillary's supposedly done something awful. The timing of all this stinks to high heaven.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jose Garcia (Original post)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 11:48 AM

73. A lot about Hillary controlling funding, but nothing about how it affected the nomination

while Brazile giving questions to Hillary's campaign ahead of a debate, which can be seen to have an actual effect on how the primary vote went, goes completely unmentioned, and Brazile acts as if she had never even heard of that - while actually being the culprit.

A self-serving memoir trying to blame other people and excuse herself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #73)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 12:00 PM

78. I don't know that whatever question Brazile fed to the campaign mattered....

the topics were set and Hillary was as well-prepared as anyone I've ever seen at a debate. I have no idea what purpose Brazile hoped to accomplish (and I also don't know that Hillary ever saw the question). That said, it was ridiculous that Brazile would do such a thing because among other things it was completely unnecessary.

I haven't read her book and I don't intend to. I don't like her. I find her remarkably ineffective as a spokesperson for the Democrats and have ever since 2000, when she would come on television post Bush v. Gore and basically say nothing. I never understood her influence, and she didn't seem particularly incisive, either.

Everyone knows that Hillary had two fundraising entities, one for her own campaign, and another that would raise money for her campaign and use it as a mechanism to send money back to the state parties (the Clooney fundraiser was for the second). However, her opponent didn't drop out until two weeks before the convention. She needed to use money I'm sure she would have loved to have allotted to downticket races for her own campaign much longer than she probably anticipated doing.

No idea what Donna Brazile's endgame is here, but I do not think that the primary was rigged for Hillary. The fact that she spent many years culling relationships and building allies in the party, who then preferred her as a candidate, does not constitute "rigging".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LisaM (Reply #78)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 12:28 PM

89. +1 I agree, and well said

Thank you!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LisaM (Reply #78)

Fri Nov 3, 2017, 06:43 AM

137. Well, exactly. Those were some very obvious questions that Hillary clearly didn't need.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jose Garcia (Original post)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 11:56 AM

77. Every Party ever would prefer to have one strong candidate rather than a difficult primary

that burns up a lot of money and can cause a lot of divisiveness. As Brazile says in the story, if there is an incumbent, they are already running the party anyway. HRC wasn't exactly an incumbent but she could raise a lot of money and was running against an insurgent candidate who wasn't actually even a Dem (I voted for Bernie in the primary, fwiw). Of course the DNC was skewed against him. It would not have been surprising if Bernie had decided to turn down any assistance they wanted to give him. That doesn't seem like a scandal to me.

Worse are her harsh words about Obama. What was the point of all that anyway? Parties often go into debt during a campaign.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MGKrebs (Reply #77)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 02:48 PM

116. Hmm, I guess I called that one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jose Garcia (Original post)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 12:09 PM

84. This is exhausting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jose Garcia (Original post)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 12:20 PM

88. RW media and the deplorables are loving this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Jose Garcia (Original post)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 12:47 PM

95. Despite edit, OP still isn't following LBN rules about posting headlines

Everything between "proof" and "broke my heart" are the words of the author and not Donna`s.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Reply #95)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 12:54 PM

99. They used the right title, not breaking rules.

Title of article is "Brazile: ‘Proof’ that Clinton rigged nomination process ‘broke my heart’"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to harun (Reply #99)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 12:59 PM

101. Note the difference between your title and the title of the OP

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Reply #101)

Fri Nov 3, 2017, 08:36 AM

142. The quote marks difference? Rest is same, isn't it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to harun (Reply #142)

Fri Nov 3, 2017, 10:57 AM

149. Quotation marks are important.

The way the title is now, it looks like Donna said that the primary was rigged and she actually didn't say that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to harun (Reply #99)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 01:03 PM

102. What you wrote is correct.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jose Garcia (Original post)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 12:47 PM

96. Jose, Thank you,

for the courage to post. I dream that as Democrats we can disagree without being disagreeable to one another, regardless of party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jose Garcia (Original post)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 12:49 PM

97. There are a remarkable number of people commenting on this OP who have less than 500 posts


Remarkable.

All criticizing Clinton, the DNC, the Democrats and using words like corruption

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Justice (Reply #97)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 12:56 PM

100. And look at how the OP changed the title of the article

The rules of LBN are supposed to be strict, for a reason, but they are simple to follow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Justice (Reply #97)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 03:08 PM

117. Things that make you go, "Hmmmmm......"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jose Garcia (Original post)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 03:45 PM

119. Heres the reform the Democratic Party needs: never, ever allow a non-Democrat

to run in our primaries again.

Add and enforce a requirement that candidates for our nomination have been a party member for at least 8 years.

And get rid of undemocratic caucuses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC Liberal (Reply #119)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 05:00 PM

122. That's the thing I'll never understand, how that is allowed.

You can verbally crap all over a party and still run under their banner.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC Liberal (Reply #119)

Fri Nov 3, 2017, 10:47 AM

146. Horrible idea that would make corruption worse, not better.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to harun (Reply #146)

Fri Nov 3, 2017, 12:58 PM

150. Oh really? So all Democrats are corrupt?

Interesting opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC Liberal (Reply #150)

Fri Nov 3, 2017, 03:01 PM

154. Roll through these charts and form your own opinion on if there is a corruption problem

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to harun (Reply #154)

Fri Nov 3, 2017, 09:23 PM

164. That's completely and totally irrelevant to what I was talking about.

I said only Democrats should be allowed to seek the nomination of the Democratic Party. A very simple proposition.

Now you're posting random links about the problems of money in politics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC Liberal (Reply #164)

Mon Nov 6, 2017, 09:55 AM

165. You claimed I was saying all Democrats are corrupt, which I didn't.

A link about money in politics couldn't possibly be more relevant to a discussion about corruption and when you say you don't want independents to be allowed to run for the Democratic nomination you are guaranteeing a corrupt party system with no independent ideas. It would be about party back room deals, not about doing the work of the people.

Party Leadership knows this all to well, which is why they haven't put a rule like that in place and never will.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jose Garcia (Original post)

Thu Nov 2, 2017, 06:07 PM

130. If I had a suspicious mind

I'd think this was another effort to drive the left out of the party. Why drag this up now when we should be working on coming together?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jose Garcia (Original post)

Fri Nov 3, 2017, 06:59 AM

140. Donna Brazile was Al Gore's campaign mgr

I recall her royally screwing that up. I haven't taken her seriously since then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jose Garcia (Original post)

Fri Nov 3, 2017, 10:49 AM

147. Twitter - DB just said primary system was NOT rigged.

She further notes that states control the primary ballots.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Raissa (Reply #147)

Fri Nov 3, 2017, 01:15 PM

153. Really? Then get back on the TV and straighten this shit out DONNA.

 

Enjoy your money.
Trump loves all you did for him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jose Garcia (Original post)

Fri Nov 3, 2017, 10:55 AM

148. Donna Brazile has a book to sell

We have an election in 2018 that needs our full and undivided attention.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jose Garcia (Original post)

Fri Nov 3, 2017, 01:07 PM

151. With Trump destroying the country I have no outrage to spare for this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jose Garcia (Original post)

Fri Nov 3, 2017, 01:14 PM

152. Brazile is lying

 

I recently posted proof that Brazile is lying about the agreement supposedly signed between the DNC and the Clinton campaign. The FINAL version of the agreement was in the Wikileaks cache stolen from the DNC, and it is perfectly innocent.

For more information (including links) look for my most recent post here on DU or -- dare I mention it? -- seek out the post on my own blog.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JCannon (Reply #152)

Fri Nov 3, 2017, 05:37 PM

158. Memo surfaced

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/memo-reveals-details-hillary-clinton-dnc-deal-n817411

You were right! Looks like it was a funding agreement in regards to the general election that took other candidates into account too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jose Garcia (Original post)

Fri Nov 3, 2017, 05:39 PM

159. Brazile's claim shown to be untrue

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/memo-reveals-details-hillary-clinton-dnc-deal-n817411

WASHINGTON — The Democratic National Committee struck a deal with Hillary Clinton in 2015 that gave her campaign input on some party hiring and spending decisions, but related only to preparations for the general election, according to a memo obtained by NBC News. It also left the door open for other candidates to make similar arrangements.

The document provides more context to the explosive claims made by former DNC Interim Chair Donna Brazile in a forthcoming book, an excerpt of which was published this week.


OP should be updated to reflect the new information, imo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread