Warren agrees that 2016 Democratic primary was rigged for Clinton

[Pugster]

Source: The Hill

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said Thursday she believes the 2016 Democratic presidential primary was rigged for Hillary Clinton.

When asked by CNN's Jake Tapper if she believed the Democratic primary was rigged in favor of Clinton, Warren replied with a simple "Yes."

Tapper was asking Warren about former Democratic National Committee (DNC) chairwoman Donna Brazile's new book in which she says she found evidence that Clinton's campaign fixed the Democratic nomination system in her favor.

In an excerpt from her book that was provided to Politico, Brazile explains how she was tasked with investigating the DNC after hacked emails suggested the Clinton campaign fixed the nomination.

Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/358514-warren-says-she-agrees-that-2016-democratic-primary-was-rigged-for-clinton

---

It is throw-Hillary-under-the-bus day.

[Not Ruth]

1. Bus is very heavy

[busterbrown]

45. I Watched the interview..

She stated that the new head of DNC must bring Sander supporters into the fold.. If he doesn't he hasn't done his job!

[joet67]

94. I agree, but Im not hopeful. nt

[DURHAM D]

2. Guess Elizabeth is not planning to run

for President in 2020.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

5. Or maybe she is... Elizabeth is still a loyal Democrat in good standing.

[ananda]

17. Exactly

The truth is the truth.

That Clinton had control of the DNC seemed obvious to me
during the campaign, especially when the DNC refused
to share lists with the Sanders campaign.

Sanders was really done dirty by the DNC; and I think that
explains why he's a bit down on establishment Democratic
stuff sometimes.

[dbackjon]

24. Clinton fundraised for Democrats. Sanders didn't. Not hard to explain

[dogman]

53. Donna Brazile didn't see it that way.

She found the agreement for Hillary to take that money back for her campaign.

[dbackjon]

59. And we should take her word/opinion?

Why exactly?

[dogman]

62. She was head of the DNC.

Seems relevant to me.

[dbackjon]

64. Again, she is trying to sell books

Exploit her 15 minutes of fame.

[dogman]

69. They all are.

That isn't the point. The point is what did money buy the DNC? Highly paid institutional politicians who cannot communicate with the masses, no matter how much money they blew?

[emulatorloo]

77. Bernie and DNC had similar agreement, which Brazile did not report in her book excerpt

Link to tweet

[dogman]

85. So Bernie didn't scam the system?

Outrageous!

[emulatorloo]

87. How do you even come up with a crazy statement like that?

Both agreements were publicized @ the time.

Brazile said Bernie did not have a fundraising agreement with the DNC, but he did and he signed it.

Why did Donna lie? That's the question. I think because she has a book to promote and this spin makes it seem more exciting.

At any rate neither candidate scammed the DNC out of anything. One candidate put money into the DNC to save it from going broke, which benefited Bernie Hillary and O'Malley when he was in.

[dogman]

89. Did you read Donna's article?

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donna-brazile-dnc-clinton-campaign_us_59fb1a5ce4b0b0c7fa3866ea?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009
Just in case you missed it. Hillary used the state exception to raise large contributions. The claim at the time was that she was raising money for local elections which she did, but walked away with about 99.5% of the funds which could circumvent normal donation limits. She rewarded the DNC with buyouts of their debt so DWS was happy. We all know the rest of the story.

[emulatorloo]

92. Yes I read the article. DWS was sidelined because of her spindrift ways, and the DNC got saved

which benefited all candidates.

Donna needs to reinvent herself right now to make sure she continues to get jobs as a political consultant. She sees where the money is and I believe this spin is a great way to position herself for a Bernie 20/20 hire or similar. It is a cutthroat industry I don't blame her at all.

As Donna wrote before, "rigged" "biased" memes were false:

http://time.com/4705515/donna-brazile-russia-emails-clinton/


"When I was asked last July to step in temporarily as D.N.C. Chair, I knew things were amiss. The D.N.C. had been hacked, and thousands of staff emails and documents were plastered on various websites. Staff were harassed, morale suffered, and we lost weeks of planning. Donors were harassed, and fundraising fell off.

Snip

By stealing all the DNC’s emails and then selectively releasing those few, the Russians made it look like I was in the tank for Secretary Clinton. Despite the strong, public support I received from top Sanders campaign aides in the wake of those leaks, the media narrative played out just as the Russians had hoped, leaving Sanders supporters understandably angry and sowing division in our ranks. In reality, not only was I not playing favorites, the more competitive and heated the primary got, the harder D.N.C. staff worked to be scrupulously fair and beyond reproach. In all the months the Russians monitored the D.N.C.’s email, they found just a handful of inappropriate emails, with no sign of anyone taking action to disadvantage the Sanders campaign."

-----------

[dogman]

137. I agree with much of what you wrote.

But how do you justify circumventing the system to rake in large donors cash, or are you writing that the ends, party finances, justified domination of the DNC administration by one candidate?

[emulatorloo]

140. Apparently there were two agreements one in 2015, and one in 2016 after she won nom

Apparently there were two agreements one in 2015, and one in 2016 after she won nomination.
.
Sounds like Brazile confused the two. 2015 one apparently says nothing that she claims. Sounds like an honest mistake. Threads starting to appear about this on DU.

I'm not saying either of those things that you suggested I'm saying. I am all for comprehensive campaign finance reform.

[Rincewind]

124. Yes, Bernie signed an agreement

to fundraise with the DNC. Then, he never did, so , he went back on his word.

[emulatorloo]

127. I don't blame him he did very well on his own w fundraising

However it is somewhat annoying that Brazile melodramatically misrepresented what happened.

I am sympathetic to Brazile, political consulting is a tough game. Clinton's done and no consultant cash forthcoming, she needs to focus on the future and make herself marketable for Bernie 2020 or similar gigs. She's pushed back against the "rigged" narrative before. She's apparently decided that embracing it is a better strategy.

I do not want to see her get into the sad situation where Tad Devine found himself after Kerry lost. He couldn't get hired in the US, so he was more or less forced into going to the Ukraine and work with the venal Paul Manafort to prop up a Putin puppet.

[agingdem]

60. I don't care what Donna has to say...

Hillary Clinton is a Democrat...Bernie Sanders is not... Hillary earned the nomination

[dbackjon]

65. yup

[dogman]

72. Trump was a democrat too.

Until he found a new scam. This "not a Democrat" is meaningless. He was a Democrat for that race. At one time Hillary was an R. It means nothing now because she has run as a Democrat. We need a winner who will carry our plank successfully. I don't think unethical behavior will attract Democratic voters, those people vote for T-Rump.

[LuvLoogie]

104. Bullshit. Hillary was a Republican when she was a teenager. she's been a Democract ....

since she was old enough to vote. Bernie became a "Democrat" for the money and the exposure, taking advantage of the stage the Democratic Primaries afforded him, just like trump did with the GOP. To this day, Bernie says he is not a Democrat.

Sell your bullshit "ethics" somewhere else. Not buying the crusade of Your Revolution.

[dogman]

136. And I was a Democrat when she was a Republican.

She won primary and lost general, nothing else matters. Longevity in the Party is meaningless, policy is what matters.

[pandr32]

128. Trump is a con-man

Whoever he is trying to shmooze is how he identifies. "Russia is our friend" according to his new buddies.

[Zen Democrat]

81. Check your facts on that. Google is your friend.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

44. Yes, but I agree with many here, we need to mend fences, & pronto, in advance of the 2018 mid-terms.

But, how we do that exactly, I have no idea. One thing I DO know for sure, however, is that bustin' Bernie's chops sure as hell is NOT the way forward. He's been amazingly gracious under the circumstances, including the constant barrage of mostly UNfair - though some fair - criticism.

Now, even Elizabeth Warren, a loyal Democrat to the core, has been "thrown under the bus" by some here for the unconscionable sin of defending Bernie.

We need to come together like never before... it's time to practice what we preach about "big tent" politics, or else face the prospect of having to again "fold our tent."

I prefer the former to the latter... but hey, that's just me!

[Blackjackdavey]

138. Soccer Parents

Last edited Fri Nov 3, 2017, 03:05 PM - Edit history (1)

I agree. This whole thing is way too much like the parents bickering over who should get the end of season awards (It just depends on what your last name is, how popular you are, not fair, blah blah blah,) destroying team chemistry before the playoffs start.

It's also quite remarkable how entrenched binary thinking has become. As someone in New York, in deeply entrenched Bernie country, where no one knew anybody who wasn't supporting Bernie, it is astonishing that we are still doing either/or. You could have, and should have been able to shift for either on election day. Anyone who could not do that is solely responsible for their intellectually lazy, self righteous decision if they opted out because of any of this.

It is by this division we are vulnerable and teetering on the brink of a Balkan style disaster. I say that as someone who is in this country after my grandparents and father were chased off their property in the former Yugoslavia, by gunpoint, leaving my Uncle's dead body lying in the dirt.

We take too much for granted.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

139. WAYYY too much!! (So sorry to hear about your family tragedy.)

[Drahthaardogs]

120. I was no diehard, kind of preferred Bernie, but as an independent

Why wouldn't he expect the DNC to support her over him?

He's still an independent. Why should get expect Democrats to treat them like one of their own, when he keeps insisting he's not?

I guess I don't find this surprising and only half disturbing

[bdtrppr6]

130. unless bernie's actively bitching

about it, he should and did expect pushback. he was a wild card to come up and quickly be in HRCs grill. he didn't raise for down ticket folks because he was building his own voter wave, supposedly the magic number of $27 donations.

@ this point, i personally do not believe a word any of them say. all the dirt and bullshit being exposed(hope Mueller gets rid of fucked up Dems as well) currently gives me no hope of final resolution on it. we got SCPOTUS and there we are.

2020 is already a steaming shitpile.

[Drahthaardogs]

131. Bernie is not. The article said he was rather stoic about it.

The DNC was in the tank for the lifelong Democrat...duh, surprise!

I don't get the hand wringing.

[TexasTowelie]

32. That is still open for debate,

particularly in reference to the adjective "loyal". Warren may have ended any chance of being a presidential candidate and a lot of people still remember that Warren voted for Republicans before she was elected as a Democrat. I was always tepid about Warren and the politically expedient comment confirms why I had doubts about her.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

46. Fair comment, but I don't think Warren's past should be held against her.

[TexasTowelie]

80. Why not? I recall that numerous Democrats tried to make an issue of Hillary being a Goldwater girl

back in the 1960s so why should I cut Warren a break and use a double standard?

Warren said that she voted for Republicans into the 1990s. Warren has a Ph.D., yet she didn't have her political awakening until she was about 40 years old? I certainly believe that Warren's past should be discussed and loyal Democrats have every right (and obligation) to question her allegiance to the party along with her voting record. I've voted exclusively for Democrats for a lot longer than Warren has despite my limited education with only a bachelors degree, plus I'm about 15 years younger than her. Therefore, with Warren being a standard-bearer for loyal Democrats I am declaring myself to be an uber-loyal Democrat.

I wouldn't be as concerned if Warren said that the Democratic nominating process favored Clinton, but with her saying the process was rigged it indicates that the primary contests were stolen which they were not. My vote in the primaries was not stolen no matter what Donna Brazile or Elizabeth Warren say and I find it insulting to give credence to their spin.

I'm not in Massachusetts so Warren isn't on my ballot, but I suspect that I will find plenty of other Democrats running for president in 2020 that will receive my support before Warren gets it.

[StevieM]

98. I am disappointed that Warren would offer validation to this absurd narrative. (eom)

[ehrnst]

86. Like HRC's was - who was a college student when she became a Democrat.

I don't care that EW was a Republican until the 90's, but it's the hippocrisy that is applied only to HRC that's so blatant.

Elizabeth was SAVAGED when she endorsed Hillary, by people who the previous day were holding their support for her up as proof that they were totes not sexist, because they would vote for Elizabeth Warren if she ran.

Then she showed herself to be an actual person rather than a handy hypothetical political Canadian girlfriend.

[StevieM]

99. I think she is likely to run. Bernie too. I am so disappointed that she would offer validation

to this preposterous claim.

[DonCoquixote]

118. why?

frankly, I do not care who runs, as long as we have someone that can and will win. The past, is just that. This is nto just because I like Warren, because I being a yellow dog democrat will say that if a yellow dog from the pound will beat trump, I will vote yellow dog, period.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

3. Just WOW!!! Et tu Elizabeth?!

[mpcamb]

112. I think she said it because it's true.

The old guard had a plan and weren't going to have it altered by a rising leftist candidate.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

125. I agree... was meant to be tongue-in-cheek.

[comradebillyboy]

4. I just love the so called progressives

[LisaM]

6. This is ridiculous.

Senator Warren should really have responded by pointing the narrative back to the Russia investigation, or perhaps the under-the-radar shenanigans the Republicans are trying to pull (like appointing super conservative judges) rather than giving credence to Donna Brazile's weak assertions.

I frankly don't understand the response and I'd like to think there's some larger context missing out of this sound bite.

[Cobalt Violet]

10. I'm glad my Senator answered the question as she saw fit.

I wouldn't have liked it if she wormed out of it. I expect her to be honest. Not everything is about Russia. We do have other problems too. We need to address them all.

[LisaM]

16. I like Elizabeth Warren, but I cannot understand how she can think the primary was rigged.

It's a sound bite, and it's just not true. I hope she clarifies this response down the road.

[Cobalt Violet]

20. I'm sure it won't the last time she's asked.

She'll clarify it.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

54. Whether you agree or disagree with Elizabeth, you have to admire her honesty...

She's NEVER one to stick her finger to the wind to see which way the political winds are blowing. No, instead, for better or worse, Elizabeth blazes her own trail, like the strong, powerful woman she is!! I, for one, admire her for that... others, I guess, for whatever reason, are intimidated by that.

[Cobalt Violet]

76. yeah I really hope we can avoid a focus group tested candidate.

Honesty is much more important than slickness.

[LuvLoogie]

110. You can blaze your own trail to a dead end or quicksand, as well. I don't think she is as

intimidating as all that. On the contrary, her answer reveals that she is intimidated by what it takes to build consensus and move policy. Hillary Clinton acts.

[RhodeIslandOne]

21. Brazille, Warren, others are trying to keep Hillary from running again. n/m

[truthisfreedom]

39. Hasnt Hillary already stated that shes not running again?

[RhodeIslandOne]

43. I think she's stated that before this past election as well

What is being said in public may have different rumblings behind the scenes.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

61. Maybe, but i take Hillary at her word on this.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

57. Yes, and we should respect Hillary's decision to yield the political stage to others.

So, you are correct, in pointing that out.

[riversedge]

74. Yes, Hillary clearly said she will not run again.

[LuvLoogie]

109. Elizabeth Warren has a long way to go, and she is not going to get there by alienating

someone who plays at Hillary's level. She is not A-team, not yet. An answer like that just goes to show how green she is.

In my opinion, Al Franken is closer to A-team than she is. He brings the hammer.

[pandr32]

129. Not the first time she has stepped in it--so to speak

Remember when she accused the White House (President Obama) of lying about the TPP? It turns out she was wrong and President Obama knew what he was talking about (he usually does).

[SergeStorms]

132. Franken.......

I'd stand behind him (and do with monthly donations) for President. A Franken/Warren ticket wouldn't bother me at all.

[Blue_Tires]

7. At this point maybe Hillary needs to take one for the team

and admit she was one of the 9-11 plotters or something... Then everyone can denounce her and we'll finally all move on....

[groundloop]

29. The Clinton name certainly draws much attention

Repubs have invoked the Clinton name time and time again whenever they felt the need to stir up emotions among right wingers.

I don't pretend to understand how the primary was supposedly rigged, or whether or not Hillary did what is claimed. I'll admit that if Elizabeth Warren says it was I'm more inclined to believe it. In any case, while not dismissing what may have happened with our primary and the fact that we need to have a scrupulously clean process, this is small potatoes compared to Russian interference and collusion with 45*. In my opinion we need to calmly fix our primary process and expend our frustration and rage on 45*.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

66. Elizabeth has a LOT of credibility with me!! When she speaks, people DO tend to listen.

[underthematrix]

8. Donna is the one who's contract was terminated with CNN for giving HRC the questions

to a townhall debate sponsored by CNN.

In the spring of 2016, there was a news report the RNC had a mole in the DNC. I'm guessing it was Donna Brazile.

[LisaM]

18. No, they said that Donna Brazile leaked one question to the campaign

not HRC directly and, frankly, I can't believe that it mattered. What question could she have "leaked" that Hillary would have not been prepared to answer?

Sorry, edited to say "leaked", not "leaded"!

[underthematrix]

22. In the article I read, Donna BRazile did this three times and lied about it over and over again on

cable news outlets. In the hacked emails, it's seems as though it was a one way street. Donna was sharing something NO ONE on the Clinton team has asked her to share. It seems to me the purpose was to tarnish HRC. Hillary is a policy wonk. So I agree. She didn't need that kind of help.

[LisaM]

33. I think you nailed it.

There would be absolutely no reason for Hillary to need a question leaked.

[CentralMass]

106. She has admitted doing this.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/donna-brazile-hillary-clinton-leak-regret-236184

[Honeycombe8]

9. This isn't helpful, even if true. It doesn't matter what Warren thinks about that.

She has no direct knowledge.

[Pugster]

11. If we don't beat Trump in 2020...

I wonder what the alternate excuse will be, without Wasserman and Hillary to use as Boogeywomen.

[Cobalt Violet]

23. Trump won't make it until 2020.

He is the caged animal he's been acting like.

[Pugster]

27. Republicans won't impeach him

They are Republicans.

[Cobalt Violet]

40. I think they will.

This Russian thing is going to do it.

[The Genealogist]

115. I don't believe they will

They ONLY thing that will make them take ANY kind of action is if their gravy train is upset. THAT IS IT. Period. They are all every bit as immoral and disgusting as King Dotard the Orange. The only difference is he says exactly what he wants to say, and says just what he thinks and feels. They are just too cowardly to blurt it out like he does.

[Drahthaardogs]

122. Oh they will

Once they take a beating in the midterms and see the damage he had wrought, they will oust him to stop the bleeding.

On edit. They will do it for their party, not the country

[frazzled]

15. Cow? Really?

[frazzled]

13. In what specific ways were the primaries rigged?

Rigged is just a vague (and frankly demagogic) term unless you can show specific acts that were committed such as vote rigging or voter suppression. No one has suggested that, that I know of.

I haven't been able to see where the rigging occurred since people starting slinging that meme around back in the early days of 2016. Were both candidates given equal access to the DNC's voter files? Check. Did both candidates receive equal time in DNC-sponsored debates? Check. Did the DNC send out any literature saying "vote for Clinton?" No. Did Hillary spend more of her raised cash than Bernie? No. (It was $195.7 million for her, $219.9 million for him as of June 20, 2016. Though outside groups did do spending on her behalf, but that's normal and legal now.)

Please explain the rigging in detail. (Though I'm going out now, so I won't read it till tomorrow.)

[dbackjon]

25. That is one of my issues

Rigging implies criminality.

Rigging would mean the votes were altered.


neither occured.


Rigging is what the GOP did in elections.

[thesquanderer]

75. Rigging doesn't have to be criminal.

It can just be "thumb on the scale."

[sheshe2]

90. So you are saying Hillary cheated?

Rigging doesn't have to be criminal.

It can just be "thumb on the scale."

[thesquanderer]

105. Donna Brazile's point is that it was not an even playing field.

I don't know that I would call it cheating, I think that might imply something more of a malicious intent than what happened here. The point is, (a) the deck was stacked in favor of Hillary ("rigged" as DB put it), but (b) that in no way means it was at all criminal.

[sheshe2]

108. Yet if you put your thumb on the scale to change the weight and balance...

that would be cheating.

[thesquanderer]

113. Do you like uneven playing field better?

I already explained my thoughts, in case my choice of metaphor was less than perfect.

[joshcryer]

30. Mikulski Commission and the Fairness Commission

Basically, affirmative action to give southern states equal standing, specifically due to Gary Hart and Jesse Jackson having way more votes than Walter Mondale, but not having remotely proportional delegates. In 1984 Gary Hart would've been the nominee and Jesse Jackson the Vice President under the more fair system.

Of course, that's how it was "rigged" in Clinton's favor, as we saw many posts on social media decrying the "red states" having a say at all...

[LeonardShelby]

41. This sounds like..

...those "Russia didn't make Hillary not campaign in Wisconsin" arguments that Republicans make.
Something as complicated as a presidential campaign, or a presidential primary, is a multi-factorial model. You just listed some of them factors, but not all of them.

[thesquanderer]

79. The rigging in question was discussed here...

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10141903296

[David__77]

100. I doubt they were any more rigged than the general election.

...

[Cobalt Violet]

14. She didn't sugar coat it. She didn't run it by a focus group.

I love that! We need that.

[dbackjon]

26. We need Democrats implying false criminality on other Democrats?

[Cobalt Violet]

47. nobody said anything about criminality.

We survived Hillary's book falsely and partly blaming bernie and we will survive this book too.

[dbackjon]

48. Rigging means Fraud. Implies Criminality.

[Cobalt Violet]

51. Or it can mean unethical but not criminal like the book says.

[dbackjon]

58. No

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

70. Even DB, to her credit, admitted there was no criminality involved.

[pnwmom]

19. Elizabeth says that the party should support all Democrats. Bernie isn't a Democrat anymore

and he wasn't one before he announced his run for President.

[NurseJackie]

28. I'm reminded of this quote from a recent Daily Beast post

https://www.thedailybeast.com/bernie-sanders-sits-out-a-tight-race-in-virginia-after-his-candidate-falls-short

To get the big picture, I called Bill Galston, a political scientist with the Brookings Institution, who reminded me that Bernie Sanders is not a Democrat, that he became one solely for the purpose of running for president, and he isn’t one anymore. “He’s loyal to a movement, and he’s loyal to a set of ideas. He’s not loyal to a party, and he’s unconcerned by the progress Democrats care about that he might impede. Incremental change is not the business he’s in,” says Galston.

... it's very astute and right on target, in my estimation. Perfectly stated.

It definitely applies here as it helps to clarify where we've been, what we've seen, and where we are now. In a word, it's REALISTIC. In another word, it's TRUTHFUL.

[humbled_opinion]

38. "He's loyal to a set of ideas"

Every one of which all Democrats should be loyal. You didn't see the right half step no they went full bore.

[NurseJackie]

49. Winning elections and defeating Republicans is more important than vanity-votes and lost causes.

I choose to be realistic and support Democrats who are wise enough and mature enough and experienced enough to know and understand how politics work. Standing still, refusing to compromise, "losing-on-principle" and an all-or-nothing attitude isn't very progressive.

[pnwmom]

52. I strongly disagree.

I don't think gun control or civil rights should be undermined by the idea of states' rights.

He has used states rights to argue against some gun control laws and, before he changed his position, to argue for civil unions instead of full marriage equality.

[billh58]

42. K & R! n/t

[billh58]

37. And therein lies the

fallacy of this entire throw-Hillary-under-the-bus fiasco. A Democrat won the Democratic Party primary -- end of story.

[AncientGeezer]

56. Actually it wasn't the "end of story"

2Nov'17 and we have a freakish window licker as president

[billh58]

73. It was the end

of the Democratic Primary story. The 2016 election story is still unfolding, and is currently in the hands of a special prosecutor who will determine the extent of Russian meddling in the process.

[humbled_opinion]

31. Hard not to admit the

obvious after it was investigated and found to be true, of course we can't dwell in the past.

[emulatorloo]

82. What are you talking about? Donna Brazile debunked the false "rigged" and "biased DNC" narrative

herself just a few months ago.

Are you talking about those CT lawyers who had their case thrown out of court?

There was no "investigation" that found "rigging" true.

What Donna wrote:

http://time.com/4705515/donna-brazile-russia-emails-clinton/


"When I was asked last July to step in temporarily as D.N.C. Chair, I knew things were amiss. The D.N.C. had been hacked, and thousands of staff emails and documents were plastered on various websites. Staff were harassed, morale suffered, and we lost weeks of planning. Donors were harassed, and fundraising fell off.

Snip

By stealing all the DNC’s emails and then selectively releasing those few, the Russians made it look like I was in the tank for Secretary Clinton. Despite the strong, public support I received from top Sanders campaign aides in the wake of those leaks, the media narrative played out just as the Russians had hoped, leaving Sanders supporters understandably angry and sowing division in our ranks. In reality, not only was I not playing favorites, the more competitive and heated the primary got, the harder D.N.C. staff worked to be scrupulously fair and beyond reproach. In all the months the Russians monitored the D.N.C.’s email, they found just a handful of inappropriate emails, with no sign of anyone taking action to disadvantage the Sanders campaign."

-----------

BTW apparently Warren didn't even say that, per people who saw the interview:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10141903988#post35

[left-of-center2012]

34. Sometimes the truth hurts

Let the truth come out,
so we may all move forward.

[Cobalt Violet]

50. yes. better now than Nov 2 2018 or 2020.

[George II]

35. But that's simply not what Warren said. In fact, in that entire 1:25 video, she never even said...

....the word "Yes" a single time until the very last second of the video. So when (not asking you, but The Hill) did she reply with a simple "Yes"? Did they miss the previous minute and twenty four seconds?

[emulatorloo]

84. Thank you George. The Hill notoriously likes to stir the pot.

[melman]

96. What?

@1:24

Tapper: do you agree with the notion that it was rigged?

Warren: Yes

[George II]

111. That's not the question that the Hill article said Jake Tapper asked her.

[melman]

119. Yes

it actually is.

[dhol82]

36. Couldnt she have just said that it was time to move forward

and not stay in old and stale arguments?

[HopeAgain]

55. Whatever, if Warren runs, I'm voting for her.

I like what she says about running the Country, I don't care about comments that involve past candidates.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

63. I'm with YOU, though, obviously, it also depends on who else is running.

No doubt, however, Elizabeth would clean the Orange Nazi's clock!!

[LenaBaby61]

116. "Elizabeth would clean the Orange Nazi's clock!!

IF there weren't gerrymandering and voter-suppression IE: voter-purging, voter-crosschecking, voter-Id'ing, and who knows what the ruskies/ruskie bots etc. will be doing this next time around with/to our votes, I'd agree with you. But there's too much still wrong with our voting system for me to be remotely happy about 2018 or 2020. Also, that ruling coming down from the Supreme Court right ahead of 2018 concerning Wisconsin (And we know Goursich is a right-winged ass) Put it this way, if that lower-court ruling striking down gerrymandering is overturned, Wisconsin is "officially" gone from the Democratic column for a long time although it almost is gone now thanks to GOP/Walker/voter-suppression. The GOP is trying to lead voter-suppression efforts all across this country in head of 2018/2020, even in blue states.


Watch Ari Berman Explain How Voter Suppression Handed Wisconsin to Trump.

He also breaks down Thomas Farr’s history of defending voter ID laws.
MOTHER JONES
OCT. 23, 2017 7:42 AM

On Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted along party lines to advance President Donald Trump’s pick for a lifetime seat on the Eastern District of North Carolina, Thomas Farr. The Republican lawyer has a history of defending voter suppression laws, including a 2013 law in North Carolina that the NAACP called a “monster” for restricting the right to vote.

Mother Jones senior reporter Ari Berman on Sunday sat down with MSNBC’s Joy Reid to discuss Farr’s controversial nomination, as well as Berman’s recent cover story examining how similar voter suppression measures effectively handed the crucial state of Wisconsin to Trump in the 2016 election.

“If we don’t learn this lesson, if we don’t learn the lesson that voter suppression works and you have to fight to protect the right to vote, history is going to repeat itself in 2018 and 2020,” he told Reid.

http://www.motherjones.com/media/2017/10/watch-ari-berman-explain-how-voter-suppression-handed-wisconsin-to-trump/

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

123. I agree we need to combat voter suppression BIGLY, as that squatter in the White House would say...

but, even THAT won't save him next time around. His goose is cooked once Mueller exposes all the corruption associated with this administration. CAN.NOT.WAIT!!

[BrainMann1]

67. To bad, it did not work. She lost. bigly

Throw Hillary-under-the freaken-bus continues.

[ileus]

68. Haven't we known this???

for months? maybe a year???

[maxrandb]

71. Who gives a Fuck??

Maybe we should go back and impeach Hillary from the Dem ticket.

I know... let's excommunicate her... and Obama too. He supported Hillary after all.

Meanwhile, the Retrumplicans are laughing their asses off as they make it rain for millionaires and billionaires.

We better get our shit together, or make exit from the country plans.

Mods! Can we please have a Rehash the Fucking Primary Forum so shit like this crap post doesn't show up unless I look for it?

Some of us are trying to save our country.

[mpcamb]

102. Good one.

You're right.
100%.

[Madam45for2923]

78. Good to know. I disagree with Warren.

[melman]

88. Trojan horse?

[Lil Missy]

91. She was the only Democrat, so it's a moot point. She would easily win against anyone else running.

[BluegrassDem]

93. Warren is just pissed she didn't run in 2016 when it was her best shot

Now she has no prayer of getting the nod in 2020, so she's just sounding bitter now.

[David__77]

97. I agree with her, essentially.

I would not say “rigged” - I’d say “structured.”

I find the secret protocols to be very inappropriate- IF they existed.

[SunSeeker]

101. I expect Elizabeth will be "clarifying" this shortly. nt

[NoMoreRepugs]

103. Why can't we get past all this bullshit

and concentrate on getting rid of the Orange Turd? Sometimes DU is just too frustrating to read.

[BainsBane]

107. It was rigged by the 20th Amendment and the Voting Rights Act

I’m sorry Warren has so little regard for the votes and rights of the majority.

[RobinA]

114. Let's Just Argue

about this history while Rome burns.

[Kablooie]

117. We knew about this at the time. Old news. Get over it.

[highplainsdem]

121. NOT helpful...except for Trump and the GOP, even the alt-right.

They're loving it.

[wasupaloopa]

126. Well this is one of those things where we take sides and will never agree yet we may get some of

mega post threads.

[Paladin]

134. Et tu, Senator Warren?

Never, ever underestimate the Democratic Party's penchant for self-destruction.

[yurbud]

135. It's not "throw Hillary under the bus day," it's "let's get our priorities straight day"

The Democratic Party should not exist to serve a handful of people and their donors but reflect the will of the people who vote for them.

If those in control of the Democratic Party don't figure that out some time soon, there won't be a Democratic Party for much longer.

[ripcord]

141. Interesting thread

Not often you get to watch cannibalism.

[Blue_Tires]

142. I'll just leave this here:

Link to tweet