Donna Brazile: I found 'proof' the DNC rigged the nomination for Hillary Clinton

[poweRob]

Have you read the book?

Nope.

 

[MTAtech]

NBC Just Exposed Donna Brazile's "Rigged" Claim as a Total Lie
Braziles seems to have forgotten this:

“However, the memo also made clear that the arrangement pertained to only the general election, not the primary season, and it left open the possibility that it would sign similar agreements with other candidates.”

 

[Oborosen]

The Dems really need this.

The GOP are going through this now, and are ahead of the game. Though Trump is the wrong messenger, I believe. And their tacking hard/alt Right, is veering off the more mainstream economic populism overtaking the country.

Now the Dems need to jettison the establishment old guard, and get more populist too. Especially economic populist. Not nationalistic like the Trumpers, though.

But the Dems very much need their own revolution, if they want to break through to the other side. And that break means leaving the Clinton era behind.

That only postulates another question, who is going to be left behind after this house jettison?

The old guard are nearly the complete majority, and anyone else that is outside of that bubble is somehow going to be shown as complicit in this whole thing. If they are not careful, this could possibly mean the destabilization of the entire party as a whole.

I may not be a democrat anymore, but even I don't think that the party deserves that kind of comeuppance.

Who would be left, and if they were left, would they be trustworthy?

I mean as trustworthy as a politician can be, but believable none the less.

 

[FieldTheorist]

What I heard from the Right is that the DNC was out of money, and Hillary's campaign was keeping it afloat; all the while using it for their purposes.

Well, it's worse than that though, really.

1.) Obama basically used the DNC like his 2012 campaign's personal credit card, racking up enormous debt that he gave the DNC no way to pay off. Brazile didn't state it because she couldn't know for sure, but it is heavily implied that Obama told Clinton that he left the DNC this way and as long as she installed DWS into the DNC chair, DWS could (legally) give away the DNC's decision-making and financial control over to Hillary For America (her 2016 campaign). We certainly can infer that from Obama installing DWS, DWS having this contract ready by August of 2015/Hillary already having the donors ready to fulfill the contract, and the fact that Obama obviously supported Hillary in all but official endorsement only. So I would argue that while there will almost certainly never be proof of this, we can be nearly certain that the 2016 election rigging was orchestrated by Obama and Clinton, or at least Obama opened the door and Hillary walked through it.

2.) The DNC told no one that it had crippling debt. So no one knew that it was susceptible to this kind of a tactic, and to this day Clinton/Obama-backed chair Tom Perez is still fighting to keep people from knowing what's going on with the DNC budget as we go forward. Perez has done nothing on the budget transparency since taking control of the DNC, and after the Unity Reform Commission (tasked with trying to fix all of this mess) offered up the idea that the Rules Committee (basically the highest committee sitting underneath the DNC chair) should be able to view the DNC budget, Perez removed all of the pro-Bernie/Ellison members on the Rules Committee.


So I have bad news for Warren (and myself, and every Democrat), but Perez is clearly not interested in having the Bernie wing of the Democratic party join them.

#JusticeDemocrats
#OurRevolution

 

[Bucky]

Donna Brazile: I found 'proof' the DNC rigged the nomination for Hillary Clinton | Fox News

Looks like Democrat voters really got screwed.

The funny thing about this story?

Hillary actually blamed the DNC for her loss!!!!

"I take responsibility for every decision I make -- but that's not why I lost," Clinton said.

Perhaps Clinton's most fresh and savage criticism on Wednesday was directed at the Democratic National Committee. She went as far as to say that when she became her party's presidential nominee, she inherited "nothing" from the committee.

"I'm now the nominee of the Democratic Party. I inherit nothing from the Democratic Party," Clinton said. "It was bankrupt, it was on the verge of insolvency, its data was mediocre to poor, non-existent, wrong. I had to inject money into it -- the DNC -- to keep it going."

Clinton slams New York Times, DNC, Comey for her loss - CNNPolitics

She also blamed Twitter, facebook, and James Comey, the guy liberals wanted to be fired but became a hero to the left when he was actually fired... honestly, you cannot make this stuff up.

 

[Surrealistik]

Hillary is done and it is time to move on not rehash mistakes. The interesting thing about the link was that Sanders/Trump voters were not liberals. I believe most of them voted Sanders to derail Clinton and would have still voted Trump in the end. Old white guys were entranced by Trump's song and dance.

Right, I agree, which is why it's time to primary the absolute **** out of the blatantly incompetent, inept third way Dem leadership that took over in the 80s-90s, corrupted the DNC into a state of shameful debt slavery, and got us into this mess with their Republican light policy and overemphasis on ID politics at the exclusion of anything their donors wouldn't let them get away with.

By the way, that theory is basically insane: if most of the non-liberals/independents voted Sanders solely to derail Clinton and not because they believe in him and his agenda, those numbers wouldn't make any sense: we would see a markedly higher defection rate of Bernie supporters in favour of Trump and far lower final turn out in support of Clinton; instead we see that fewer crossed party lines than Clinton supporters did in the 2008 primary, and more Bernie supporters ultimately voted Clinton than Clinton supporters voted Obama.

 

[FieldTheorist]

It makes me cringe to think of all the phone calls I made and $$$ I donated to Bernie Sanders were moot because the fix was already in.

I disagree strongly with this position, actually. Bernie, especially at the beginning, was a long shot. The money I gave to Sanders was to start building Leftist institutions in the US, and to use my money as my "free speech" to let the DNC know how I felt. And guess what? Genuine progressive/Left candidates are running in record numbers, receiving record grassroots contributions, a huge number of political organizations have been built, and so forth. It was a longer term investment than a single election, and it was all well-worth it.

(It doesn't stop Clinton from being a piece of **** though.)

This shows the DNC was actually an arm of the Clinton campaign. But, I would like someone to come out and show there was actual Election Fraud going on. How many votes do you think were just thrown in the trash for Bernie? 500,000, 1 million? 2 million?

I mean, as I alluded to, this more or less happened, just we don't have good numbers and we cannot know the extent of it all. 800,000 ballots in California Democratic primary were thrown in the trash due to rules being written regarding Independent voters (it was actually against the rules to explain to Independents what kind of crossover ballot was the correct ballot), NY's election commission illegally purged 200,000 Brooklyn voters, and so forth. That's just one state and another borough. Rhode Island, Arizona, and several other states shut down (possibly illegally, I'm not sure) voting stations on the day of elections. Ohio's results never made sense, but that's very far from proof of ballot-stuffing nor is there any clear indication of ballot-stuffing.

Is it enough to swing the election on its own? No. Can we prove that Clinton was personally involved? No --at least not currently. Was she involved? Well, I can't imagine career politicians did this **** for Clinton without letting her know so she could return the favor, but that's different than proof. Either way, at the end of the day, it's proven that Clinton wiped her ass with the campaign finance laws with a technical legal loophole, and subverted the primary process by rigging the rules, the data/analytics, personnel, and messaging from the DNC to her favor. The DNC messaging issue is another topic worthy of discussion, but it's also explicitly clear that Clinton used the DNC and her personal contacts to make certain that the media never covered the Sanders campaign. We have some clear indications of this through Wikileaks, but we'll never see how thorough her/her surrogates controlled the media. We also know that she explicitly wanted the media to cover the Trump and Cruz campaigns, because they were the "dream scenarios," rather than the Sanders campaign. So even before we get to tallying votes and illegally purging voters, Clinton already basically destroyed the Sanders campaign by throwing corporate/Wall St. cash and journalistic access at any possible problems. Everyone does what they can to win, obviously, but this is just wildly unethical.

 

[FieldTheorist]

The interesting thing about the link was that Sanders/Trump voters were not liberals. I believe most of them voted Sanders to derail Clinton and would have still voted Trump in the end. Old white guys were entranced by Trump's song and dance.

This is just more unsubstantiated, fantastical nonsense.

 

[Oborosen]

Well, it's worse than that though, really.

1.) Obama basically used the DNC like his 2012 campaign's personal credit card, racking up enormous debt that he gave the DNC no way to pay off. Brazile didn't state it because she couldn't know for sure, but it is heavily implied that Obama told Clinton that he left the DNC this way and as long as she installed DWS into the DNC chair, DWS could (legally) give away the DNC's decision-making and financial control over to Hillary For America (her 2016 campaign). We certainly can infer that from Obama installing DWS, DWS having this contract ready by August of 2015/Hillary already having the donors ready to fulfill the contract, and the fact that Obama obviously supported Hillary in all but official endorsement only. So I would argue that while there will almost certainly never be proof of this, we can be nearly certain that the 2016 election rigging was orchestrated by Obama and Clinton, or at least Obama opened the door and Hillary walked through it.

2.) The DNC told no one that it had crippling debt. So no one knew that it was susceptible to this kind of a tactic, and to this day Clinton/Obama-backed chair Tom Perez is still fighting to keep people from knowing what's going on with the DNC budget as we go forward. Perez has done nothing on the budget transparency since taking control of the DNC, and after the Unity Reform Commission (tasked with trying to fix all of this mess) offered up the idea that the Rules Committee (basically the highest committee sitting underneath the DNC chair) should be able to view the DNC budget, Perez removed all of the pro-Bernie/Ellison members on the Rules Committee.


So I have bad news for Warren (and myself, and every Democrat), but Perez is clearly not interested in having the Bernie wing of the Democratic party join them.

#JusticeDemocrats
#OurRevolution

And that is why I dropped from being a Democrat after they threw Bernie in the grinder. Apart from Obama letting Hillary use the DNC as her own little plaything, I don't care how much NBC or the other networks want to reword this. This is still some rather damning evidence for all of the backhanded dealings they took part in with the Clinton's, and against their own people no less.

 

[Surrealistik]

And that is why I dropped from being a Democrat after they threw Bernie in the grinder. Apart from Obama letting Hillary use the DNC as her own little plaything, I don't care how much NBC or the other networks want to reword this. This is still some rather damning evidence for all of the backhanded dealings they took part in with the Clinton's, and against their own people no less.

I left the party briefly myself, but I ultimately figured, after the initial outrage bled out, that there is no way in hell a third party is going to make it in this political climate before it's too late; the DNC may now be a festering ****bucket thanks to our awful electoral finance laws and these insufferably corrupt third-way Democrats, but it's still the best shot we've got at defeating the Republicans and instituting meaningful reforms. I think we can win and oust or reform the establishment, but it'll be a long, painful slog; even so, it will be far easier than making a third party that'll surely split the progressive/left vote and ensure Republican dominance for the foreseeable future.

 

[Hawkeye10]

And that is why I dropped from being a Democrat after they threw Bernie in the grinder. Apart from Obama letting Hillary use the DNC as her own little plaything, I don't care how much NBC or the other networks want to reword this. This is still some rather damning evidence for all of the backhanded dealings they took part in with the Clinton's, and against their own people no less.

Well we have known that about CLINTON CORP for a very long time, that they expect full loyalty from everyone but offer zip in return, but that still long lines of people lined up to be a part of THE FIRM because man CLINTON CORP sure had a lot of money and power to pass out.

TILL TRUMP

 

[Oborosen]

I left the party briefly myself, but I ultimately figured, after the initial outrage bled out, that there is no way in hell a third party is going to make it in this political climate before it's too late; the DNC may now be a festering ****bucket thanks to our awful electoral finance laws and these insufferably corrupt third-way Democrats, but it's still the best shot we've got at defeating the Republicans and instituting meaningful reforms. I think we can win and oust or reform the establishment, but it'll be a long, painful slog; even so, it will be far easier than making a third party that'll surely split the progressive/left vote and ensure Republican dominance for the foreseeable future.

Yeah, 2020 is going to be one hell of a hard one fight if the party even manages to have a slightly meaningful position around that time.

 

[Oborosen]

Well we have known that about CLINTON CORP for a very long time, that they expect full loyalty from everyone but offer zip in return, but that still long lines of people lined up to be a part of THE FIRM because man CLINTON CORP sure had a lot of money and power to pass out.

TILL TRUMP

Yeah, not the Clinton's are about to be center stage again unless something new about Trump comes out to snatch everyone's attention.

We just need to see what they will try to pull this time.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Yeah, not the Clinton's are about to be center stage again unless something new about Trump comes out to snatch everyone's attention.

We just need to see what they will try to pull this time.

The fact that they are still in a position to do anything to anyone tells you all you need to know about the GROSS FAILURE of the Democratic Party.

 

[Chomsky]

Well I'm not saying there's no incentive to lie about these charges but I will say that the balance of forces and considerations, including other things we already know about the DNC and its operations, makes them more likely than not to be true.

Oh, I have no doubt there's a lot of general truth there.

 

[Chomsky]

she has the integrity for it

:lamo

BAM!

 

[Oborosen]

The fact that they are still in a position to do anything to anyone tells you all you need to know about the GROSS FAILURE of the Democratic Party.

We've all seen just how partisan people can be when the chips are down.

 

[Hawkeye10]

We've all seen just how partisan people can be when the chips are down.

And how people will believe in the unworthy because they dont know any better.

 

[Oborosen]

And how people will believe in the unworthy because they dont know any better.

Well yes, that too.

 

[Chomsky]

That only postulates another question, who is going to be left behind after this house jettison?

The old guard are nearly the complete majority, and anyone else that is outside of that bubble is somehow going to be shown as complicit in this whole thing. If they are not careful, this could possibly mean the destabilization of the entire party as a whole.

I may not be a democrat anymore, but even I don't think that the party deserves that kind of comeuppance.

Who would be left, and if they were left, would they be trustworthy?

I mean as trustworthy as a politician can be, but believable none the less.

I think they would go through a similar process to what the GOP are going through.

And it might be necessary.

The country has a huge rise in economic populism and antiestablishmentarianism.

(There! I finally did it! I waited a lifetime to be able to use that word - the longest in the dictionary!)

The Dems do have a big problem, in where is the next generation? Who are the young turks? I have a theory that in the last two decades the Dems let the Clinton's reign on top, while they fought and rode the culture wars, embracing minorities, at the House and local levels. So now, they have a lot of niche`candidates like Cory Booker, but seem to be lacking in mainstream moderate candidates that can pull from across the wide American demographics.

The thing I don't know, is if the Bernie-Warren wing is indeed the future, or are they the Dem counterpart to the GOP freedom Caucus? I'm actually thinking the Bernie Babies may indeed be the future of the Dems, but the Dems don't have a farm team there either.

So I honestly don't know where the future leadership is. There's a few. Kamala Harris might seem to represent the young turk liberal wing. I really like what I see there. Then there's Joe Kennedy III, who I think would represent the more mainstream Dem establishment. If he don't represent them (establishment), I think they would unite behind him if he appeared viable. And he's got the name.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Well yes, that too.

Apparently Hillary's "I GOT ROBBED, AGAIN" tour is drawing well.

 

[Oborosen]

I think they would go through a similar process to what the GOP are going through.

And it might be necessary.

The country has a huge rise in economic populism and antiestablishmentarianism.

(There! I finally did it! I waited a lifetime to be able to use that word - the longest in the dictionary!)

The Dems do have a big problem, in where is the next generation? Who are the young turks? I have a theory that in the last two decades the Dems let the Clinton's reign on top, while they fought and rode the culture wars, embracing minorities, at the House and local levels. So now, they have a lot of niche`candidates like Cory Booker, but seem to be lacking in mainstream moderate candidates that can pull from across the wide American demographics.

The thing I don't know, is if the Bernie-Warren wing is indeed the future, or are they the Dem counterpart to the GOP freedom Caucus? I'm actually thinking the Bernie Babies may indeed be the future of the Dems, but the Dems don't have a farm team there either.

So I honestly don't know where the future leadership is. There's a few. Kamala Harris might seem to represent the young turk liberal wing. I really like what I see there. Then there's Joe Kennedy III, who I think would represent the more mainstream Dem establishment. If he don't represent them (establishment), I think they would unite behind him if he appeared viable. And he's got the name.

Yes you have more than a viable point there. The Dems have always been able to piggyback their rides on little more then a name, and even then they can pull some sort of weight to get the ball rolling for said new name in the first place.

I am not happy with the idea of either Kamala, or the Bernie/Warren ride. Bernie was good, and all but too much socialism tends to devolve into your people requiring breadlines for their lower class. Kamala is worrying because she IS a source of the Young Turk liberal side of things, and if that corner of the liberal spectrum is any indication. I expect them to be far more toxic then even the worst of what our current generation has to offer.

Cory may be too niche for the Dems taste. Lets face it, when they have a chance of running with new things, they usually fully embrace it with gusto. Or they completely reject the idea of it entirely, but remain at arms length like some kind of ****-tease ex-girlfriend.

Damn it, the more I talk about this. The less hope I have for the democratic party surviving this self imposed purge.

 

[iguanaman]

I left the party briefly myself, but I ultimately figured, after the initial outrage bled out, that there is no way in hell a third party is going to make it in this political climate before it's too late; the DNC may now be a festering ****bucket thanks to our awful electoral finance laws and these insufferably corrupt third-way Democrats, but it's still the best shot we've got at defeating the Republicans and instituting meaningful reforms. I think we can win and oust or reform the establishment, but it'll be a long, painful slog; even so, it will be far easier than making a third party that'll surely split the progressive/left vote and ensure Republican dominance for the foreseeable future.

You say all that but as soon as you don't get who you want you will piss and moan that the whole thing is corrupt/rigged. That is certainly not the way to build a winning coalition and it will be problem for Sanders supporters seeking positions within the party. Political Parties want team players not ticking time bombs and whiny babies.

 

[Surrealistik]

You say all that but as soon as you don't get who you want you will piss and moan that the whole thing is corrupt/rigged. That is certainly not the way to build a winning coalition and it will be problem for Sanders supporters seeking positions within the party. Political Parties want team players not ticking time bombs and whiny babies.

I say it's corrupt and rigged because it _is_ corrupt and rigged: e-mails have shown it, the DNC's financial status has shown it, the conduct of the DNC has shown it, as well as Brazile, Warren and others; the entire party is corrupt inside and out as a consequence of donor money and the third-way democrats that are keen to do just about anything for it, nevermind their own dubious right of centre, 90s Republican beliefs/policies which completely ****s on the creed of the party's real heroes like FDR. The outcome of the primary is essentially irrelevant to the unfortunate reality of the DNC's character and situation.

Moreover, the complete and utter purge and shutout of the Bernie/FDR wing from party leadership had exactly nothing to do with the perceptions of Bernie's supporters; the reason we weren't given power is because the establishment Dems want to circle the wagons and retain a stranglehold over the party at all costs, no matter the level of disenfranchisement involved, regardless of the fact that more than half the party has been left without representation as a result, nevermind how they have no mandate or justification or that they presided over one of the biggest electoral losses in Dem history (as they hilariously tell progressives to 'earn' these positions. How? By losing in epic and historic ways?).

What I want in my party are winners and people of integrity; y'know things that describe very few establishment Democrats. Maybe they should leave the party they stole away in the 90s and give it back to those of us who are actually loyal to the memory, legacy and tradition of Roosevelt, and what he stood for in representing the interests of the people over corporations and the rich. By the way, I don't want ticking time bombs and whiny babies either; that's why I'm all for primarying these neoliberal ****s who are a disaster that has happened and will continue to happen; who, like you, will cry incessantly about the Russians and Bernie a year after and counting, while largely minimizing their central roles in their own failings if they acknowledge them at all. At least when we complain, it's about serious, relevant and contemporary ongoing issues with the party.

I think they would go through a similar process to what the GOP are going through.

And it might be necessary.

The country has a huge rise in economic populism and antiestablishmentarianism.

(There! I finally did it! I waited a lifetime to be able to use that word - the longest in the dictionary!)

The Dems do have a big problem, in where is the next generation? Who are the young turks? I have a theory that in the last two decades the Dems let the Clinton's reign on top, while they fought and rode the culture wars, embracing minorities, at the House and local levels. So now, they have a lot of niche`candidates like Cory Booker, but seem to be lacking in mainstream moderate candidates that can pull from across the wide American demographics.

The thing I don't know, is if the Bernie-Warren wing is indeed the future, or are they the Dem counterpart to the GOP freedom Caucus? I'm actually thinking the Bernie Babies may indeed be the future of the Dems, but the Dems don't have a farm team there either.

So I honestly don't know where the future leadership is. There's a few. Kamala Harris might seem to represent the young turk liberal wing. I really like what I see there. Then there's Joe Kennedy III, who I think would represent the more mainstream Dem establishment. If he don't represent them (establishment), I think they would unite behind him if he appeared viable. And he's got the name.

Kamala Harris is not progressive; she talks like a progressive and presents as one, but is really a mixed bag at best and an establishment darling:

https://jacobinmag.com/2017/08/kamala-harris-trump-obama-california-attorney-general

Why leftists don't trust Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, and Deval Patrick

Also the 'mainstream moderate' is basically the likes of Clinton and John Kasich; if their recent electoral performance and polling has taught us anything, it's that the future ain't them.

I know it may be hard to believe, but Bernie's policies do have majoritarian support among the general electorate; the fallacy of argument to moderation is real, especially given how far the American right has drifted.

 

[Winston]

I think they would go through a similar process to what the GOP are going through.

And it might be necessary.

The country has a huge rise in economic populism and antiestablishmentarianism.

(There! I finally did it! I waited a lifetime to be able to use that word - the longest in the dictionary!)

The Dems do have a big problem, in where is the next generation? Who are the young turks? I have a theory that in the last two decades the Dems let the Clinton's reign on top, while they fought and rode the culture wars, embracing minorities, at the House and local levels. So now, they have a lot of niche`candidates like Cory Booker, but seem to be lacking in mainstream moderate candidates that can pull from across the wide American demographics.

The thing I don't know, is if the Bernie-Warren wing is indeed the future, or are they the Dem counterpart to the GOP freedom Caucus? I'm actually thinking the Bernie Babies may indeed be the future of the Dems, but the Dems don't have a farm team there either.

So I honestly don't know where the future leadership is. There's a few. Kamala Harris might seem to represent the young turk liberal wing. I really like what I see there. Then there's Joe Kennedy III, who I think would represent the more mainstream Dem establishment. If he don't represent them (establishment), I think they would unite behind him if he appeared viable. And he's got the name.

You might be interested in Home - Justice Democrats