Russia didn't make Hillary lose; Hillary Screwing Bernie Did

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Russia didn't make Hillary lose; Hillary Screwing Bernie Did

Postby 8bitagent » Fri Nov 03, 2017 2:47 am

As many of us in the millions were shouting a year ago now, and all along the 2016 chaotic election year; the DNC was completely controlled by the Clinton campaign and was engineered to screw Bernie and any other Democratic challenger. The evidence that Bernie was being cheated on a national and even state by state level became enormous even before election day. Like him or not, Bernie Sanders had an almost fervent messianic following amongst high school, college and 20-30 somethingers that not even Obama fully captured in 2008. And when it became clear he was the favorite, the DNC did all they could to sabotage him. And sure enough, millions of liberals and progressives decided not to vote on November 8th.
And surprise surprise, "Russia is responsible!" is the answer by the corporate elite Democrat establishment. Yet to this day there's no evidence Russia hacked any state election day tallies.
Instead, the answer as to why Hillary Clinton lost is painfully clear: Her "in the bag" left base gave her the middle finger when it became clear that she and the DNC cheated Bernie.

"Russia is responsible for Clintons loss" is a diversion from Russia hacking emails exposing the DNC was screwing Bernie. The DNC needs to get their act together to win in 2018 and 2020, given DNC just fired their main fundraiser head, Tony Podesta is now being swirled into the Mueller investigation as well as a top DNC firm, and Hollywood is imploding everyday with sex abuse revelations.

Which brings us to today...
Newsweek: Hillary Clinton Robbed Bernie Sanders according to Donna Brazille

http://www.newsweek.com/clinton-robbed- ... ile-699421

Warren says DNC was rigged in favor of Clinton
http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/02/politics/ ... index.html

Head of the DNC admits they rigged it so Clinton would win nomination
http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/02/politics/ ... index.html

But please mainstream media and pundits, keep telling us how "Russia" is the reason Hillary Clinton lost
"Do you know who I am? I am the arm, and I sound like this..."-man from another place, twin peaks fire walk with me
User avatar
8bitagent
 
Posts: 12243
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 6:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Russia didn't make Hillary lose; Hillary Screwing Bernie

Postby Wombaticus Rex » Fri Nov 03, 2017 2:26 pm

It really does look like the DNC thought that they'd worked out a brilliant way to guarantee a win: make it a contest between Hillary Clinton and the self-destruction of the United States.

What they severely underestimated wasn't Donald Trump or Vladimir Putin, but how many of us would be happy to pull that lever for "Self-Destruct."
User avatar
Wombaticus Rex
 
Posts: 10896
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: Vermontistan
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Russia didn't make Hillary lose; Hillary Screwing Bernie

Postby seemslikeadream » Fri Nov 03, 2017 2:46 pm

Donna Brazile Needs to Back Up Her Self-Serving Claims

Mark J. Terrill/AP
By JOSH MARSHALL Published NOVEMBER 3, 2017 12:15 PM

I have always had a great deal of respect for Donna Brazile. And I have tried to keep to a long time principle of not revising my view of a person simply because they do something I disagree with. I was stunned when I first read Brazile’s piece in Politico. But now having read it over a few times, I have a hard time not concluding that she’s done a serious disservice to the historical record and to all Democrats. Why this is the case, I truly don’t know. And there may be more facts to emerge that I’m not yet aware of. But here’s why I think this.

Brazile claims that the Clinton campaign and the DNC entered into a joint fundraising agreement in 2015 which gave her campaign control of the DNC long before she was the nominee – ability to sign off on messaging, hiring etc. If that’s true, that is definitely not kosher. The party is supposed to be formally neutral while a presidential primary is going on.


Whether this is actually true is not really clear to me. The existence of this joint fundraising agreement was public at the time. As NBC’s Mark Murray notes here, Sanders also had such an agreement with the DNC. The key difference is that he didn’t end up raising money through it while Clinton did. There are lots of reasons why this may have been the case, all reasonable, all tied to different campaign strategies, different fundraising bases, etc.

(David Graham has a general look at Brazile’s story and questions it raises. I strongly recommend it.)

But Brazile makes very specific allegations about the Clinton/DNC 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.

There is what at least appears to be a draft of the agreement in the Wikileaks Podesta cache of all places and from what I can tell it doesn’t include any of this. It’s just a barebones document going over funding allocations, legal matters, reporting and so forth. Again, that version is just a draft. The final copy could definitely have included other codicils or side agreements. It’s possible I’m misinterpreting the document. I’d ask campaign types to take a look.

Now, that’s the legal formalities. In practice, if the DNC was broke and it’s only significant source of money was money the Clinton campaign was raising for it that would have undoubtedly given the campaign a huge amount of pull in practice. But that’s very different from what Brazile says – a formal deal. At a minimum, we need to see the official agreement and these provisions Brazile is talking about.

In any case, I think even these details are largely beside the point. Read Brazile’s story, which is excerpted from a forthcoming book. She presents herself as having promised to Sanders to get to the bottom of whether the primaries had been “rigged”. With great drama, she describes learning that it, in fact, had been rigged. The agreement was a “cancer” in the party.

Here’s her description of reaching out to Sanders …

I had to keep my promise to Bernie. I was in agony as I dialed him. Keeping this secret was against everything that I stood for, all that I valued as a woman and as a public servant.

“Hello, senator. I’ve completed my review of the DNC and I did find the cancer,” I said. “But I will not kill the patient.”

I discussed the fundraising agreement that each of the candidates had signed. Bernie was familiar with it, but he and his staff ignored it. They had their own way of raising money through small donations. I described how Hillary’s campaign had taken it another step.

I told Bernie I had found Hillary’s Joint Fundraising Agreement. I explained that the cancer was that she had exerted this control of the party long before she became its nominee. Had I known this, I never would have accepted the interim chair position, but here we were with only weeks before the election.

Bernie took this stoically. He did not yell or express outrage. Instead he asked me what I thought Hillary’s chances were. The polls were unanimous in her winning but what, he wanted to know, was my own assessment?

As I wrote above, it’s not clear to me that the description of the joint fundraising agreement is accurate. Even if it is, accurate, “rigged” is a highly, highly loaded word. It slices into the heart of the divisions currently tearing at the Democratic party. But we watched the 2016 primaries unfold in real time. What did the DNC do to rig the primaries? We hear a lot about scheduling primaries on Saturdays. But c’mon. If primary scheduling – which was eventually tossed aside in any case – was enough to defeat Sanders that’s a pretty sad commentary. Clinton was the establishment candidate. It’s no secret that Wasserman-Schultz favored Clinton over Sanders. The party’s establishment and apparatus were more supportive of her. We know that. That’s what it means to be the ‘establishment candidate’. But did she or the DNC do things that made it impossible for Sanders to win or even made it any harder for him to win? I see no evidence of that.

If this were a question of whether Wasserman-Schultz should stay on as DNC chair that would be another matter. She was terrible at it. She’s no longer running it. If this were a matter of Clinton being the nominee again … she’s not. That’s not going to happen. I know many people are deeply devoted to her and her campaign. My feelings are more ambivalent. But I think she was cheated in many ways. What’s most relevant though is that it is in the past. “Rigging” an election isn’t a technical term. It is total and inflammatory. It means an election was compromised, that people were cheated. If that happened, we need to know. But I see no evidence that happened. Indeed, it’s not entirely clear to me that even the description of the funding arrangement is accurate, though it may turn out to be. It is in the nature of insurgent candidacies to claim the ‘establishment’ is against. They’re often right. That’s what an insurgent candidacy is. Cheating and claims of cheating are poisonous. It is to no Democrat’s true advantage to make such claims. But the reason not to make them is that they’re not true. At least there’s no evidence of it that has been provided.

Whether or not Clinton should have won the Democratic primary, she did. It wasn’t rigged. She had lots of advantages from simply being the establishment candidate, from long relationships with Democrats around the country, endorsements, promises and more. But she had all that and more in 2008 and lost to Barack Obama. She won because she got more votes. Indeed, Sanders relied (just as Obama did) disproportionately on caucuses where voting matters less than it does in primaries. The relevant point is that the Democratic party needs unity to combat the dangers and damage of Trumpism. False accusations are always bad but they are particularly bad when their immediate effects are so potentially damaging. That’s the case here.

Why Brazile chose to take this course I really don’t know. I think it is best seen as her read of where the party is going – in the direction of Sanders. I think she’s right in the sense that the party is moving toward Sanders-like policies and in many respects Sanders-like politics. I have no problem with that. But not everyone supports or supported Sanders. The Democratic party has different wings, different factions. It’s overriding interest is to find a mix of policies and politics that can bring those different groups together in a way that can win elections. There’s zero advantage to re-litigating the toxic 2016 primaries. Poisoning the well by purporting to validate that Sanders was cheated does the exact opposite. It’s toxic and much worse than toxic it’s not at all clear it’s even true. If Brazile wants to make these accusations she needs to provide the documents she’s referring to and something concrete about actions the DNC took to rig the primaries against Sanders. The fact that Wasserman-Schultz was a bad chair, the fact that the DNC was poorly run, that not enough money went to state parties – all true. But none of that is what made Brazile’s claims a bombshell. All of that was known. If she can’t back these claims up she owes every Democrat a huge apology. And I have to say that applies to Elizabeth Warren too who jumped on the bandwagon.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/don ... ing-claims


Sanders campaign inks joint fundraising pact with DNC
By GABRIEL DEBENEDETTI 11/05/2015 12:12 PM EST
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign has signed a joint fundraising agreement with the Democratic National Committee, the DNC confirmed to POLITICO.

The move, which comes more than two months after Hillary Clinton's campaign signed such an agreement in August, will allow Sanders' team to raise up to $33,400 for the committee as well as $2,700 for the campaign from individual donors at events.


The candidate rarely headlines fundraising events, and is not close with many big-money Democratic donors, but he has been working to prove his proximity to the party in recent months as he competes with Clinton.

The Vermont senator, who is an Independent but caucuses with Senate Democrats, also recently lent his name to a fundraising letter for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, according to a campaign adviser, in another indication of his slowly growing ties to the party's infrastructure.
https://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/ ... dnc-215559





DAVID A. GRAHAM NOV 2, 2017 POLITICS

Donna Brazile's Curious Account of the 2016 Election

The former DNC chair seems eager to jump on the Bernie Sanders bandwagon, but her claims of ignorance about party favoritism toward Hillary Clinton don’t add up.

For defeated politicians, the period after an election is for score-settling. For defeated political operatives, it’s about positioning for the next race. And if a juicy excerpt from Donna Brazile’s new book Hacks is an indication, the longtime Democratic operative and former interim chair of the Democratic National Party seems to think the future is Bernie Sanders.

Brazile’s piece, in Politico Magazine, is a fascinating document, though maybe not always for the reasons intended. It answers some questions about the 2016 race, including why Hillary Clinton’s campaign didn’t move to depose DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz sooner, but also raises other questions about the management of the DNC, including Brazile’s own moves. And it shows Brazile tossing soil on the Clinton era’s coffin.

The piece recounts Brazile’s apparent discovery of the degree to which the Clinton campaign was controlling the DNC, and had been doing for nearly a year by the time Brazile was named interim chair in July 2016. As Brazile, who had been the vice chair of the DNC until her elevation, tells it, she was shocked to learn from Clinton campaign finance chair Gary Gensler that the DNC was out of cash and needed a $2 million loan. As she tried to unravel what happened, she was surprised to learn that the Clinton team was propping the DNC up, and had been doing so for months, even though Clinton had only formally locked up the nomination in July. One element of that was a Victory Fund, a joint DNC-Clinton committee that was legally allowed to accept larger contributions than a candidate’s campaign.



“Wait,” Brazile recalls saying. “That victory fund was supposed to be for whoever was the nominee, and the state party races. You’re telling me that Hillary has been controlling it since before she got the nomination?”

Brazile later found the written agreement giving Clinton control, which “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.”

Armed with this knowledge, Brazile steeled herself for a phone call with Sanders to square with him. The Vermont senator comes across well in her telling: “Bernie took this stoically. He did not yell or express outrage.” Indeed, Sanders could hardly have been shocked; he’d been accusing the DNC of much the same thing for months. But he did ask Brazile for her analysis of the race, and she boldly told the truth: “I had to be frank with him. I did not trust the polls, I said. I told him I had visited states around the country and I found a lack of enthusiasm for her everywhere. I was concerned about the Obama coalition and about millennials.” (As Nate Silver notes, there appears to be some retrospective revisionism at play in this quote.)


This is interesting as far as it goes, especially for the details of the contract between the Clinton campaign and the DNC. But Brazile’s account raises quite a few questions of its own.

For anyone who watched the 2016 campaign, it’s surreal to see Brazile’s overtures to Sanders and to see her complaining that the DNC had been in the tank for Hillary Clinton. Brazile is not a product of the Clinton machine—she worked for a series of national Democratic campaigns, then rose to prominence as an aide to Al Gore, whose relationship with the Clintons was complicated, during his presidential campaign in 2000. She remained neutral in the 2008 race, too. But by the 2016 race, she was ready to join the Clinton bandwagon. As hacked DNC emails would later show, she even passed Democratic primary-debate questions—obtained through her position as a CNN political analyst—to Clinton. When this was revealed, it earned Brazile the heated enmity of many Sanders backers. Given that she was a vice chair of the DNC, it also fed the already-strong impression that it heavily favored Clinton.

The fact that the Democratic Party apparatus would lean toward Clinton—a former senator and first lady, the wife of a former Democratic president, and part of a family whose patronage had largely shaped the current party—over Sanders, who didn’t even serve as a Democrat in the Senate, was not a shock. Even so, Sanders’s campaign had been blowing the whistle on the Victory Fund for months. Brazile cites a May 2016 Politico story, but in April, Sanders’s campaign wrote an open letter to the DNC complaining about the fundraising arrangement and suggesting it might violate campaign-finance laws. That letter, in turn, cited a Washington Post piece. Brazile writes of her discovery of the contract, and then her phone call to Sanders in September, as though she had been unaware of the Sanders letter, which was widely publicized at the time.


Brazile also complains that Wasserman Schultz had kept details of the deal with the Clinton campaign from her:

“What?” I screamed. “I am an officer of the party and they’ve been telling us everything is fine and they were raising money with no problems.” …

If I didn’t know about this, I assumed that none of the other officers knew about it, either. That was just Debbie’s way. In my experience she didn’t come to the officers of the DNC for advice and counsel. She seemed to make decisions on her own and let us know at the last minute what she had decided, as she had done when she told us about the hacking only minutes before The Washington Post broke the news.
While it’s hard to argue with Brazile’s position that “Debbie was not a good manager,” or to disagree that Wasserman Schultz should have kept officers better in the loop, this hardly exculpates Brazile. As a DNC officer, she should have been asking more questions of both the chair and other top officials, and she apparently didn’t.

Brazile’s piece does help to explain one mystery of the 2016 cycle: Why didn’t Clinton move to depose Wasserman Schultz sooner? Democrats had been complaining about her stewardship of the committee nearly since she was installed, and even President Obama, who had engineered the appointment, had turned cool on her. In September 2014, Politico reported, “Many expect a nascent Clinton campaign will engineer her ouster. Hurt feelings go back to spring 2008, when while serving as a co-chair of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, Wasserman Schultz secretly reached out to the Obama campaign to pledge her support once the primary was over, sources say.”



As it turns out, the Clinton team probably didn’t feel the need to depose Wasserman Schultz formally (at least until the July leak of hacked DNC emails) because in practice they had already done so. As the Washington Free Beacon reported in October, one of the hacked emails released by WikiLeaks had outlined a Clinton campaign plan to keep Wasserman Schultz in place until after the convention. Brazile’s story fills in some of the details on how the Clinton team muscled the chair out.

“The funding arrangement with HFA and the victory fund agreement was not illegal, but it sure looked unethical,” Brazile writes. “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 is a reasonable conclusion, but it will not come as news to Sanders fans, nor to most watchers of the Democratic primary. The only surprise here is that it came as a surprise to Donna Brazile.

The fact that an operator like Brazile is willing to burn bridges with the Clintons, though, is important. Although one might have assumed Hillary Clinton’s time as a Democratic mover and shaker was passed, her frequent appearances to promote her book suggest she remains interested in staying in the arena, and earlier this week Jeet Heer argued that she should be the Democrat’s standard-bearer against Trump. (Never mind that we’ve seen how that turned out once before.) But Brazile’s bound toward the Bernie bandwagon is another indication of how Sanders is, at least for the moment, the de facto leader of the Democratic Party.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... on/544778/


Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump 9h9 hours ago

The real story on Collusion is in Donna B's new book. Crooked Hillary bought the DNC & then stole the Democratic Primary from Crazy Bernie!


Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump 10h10 hours ago
Everybody is asking why the Justice Department (and FBI) isn't looking into all of the dishonesty going on with Crooked Hillary & the Dems..


Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump 20h20 hours ago
Donna Brazile just stated the DNC RIGGED the system to illegally steal the Primary from Bernie Sanders. Bought and paid for by Crooked H....


Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump 9h9 hours ago
Pocahontas just stated that the Democrats, lead by the legendary Crooked Hillary Clinton, rigged the Primaries! Lets go FBI & Justice Dept.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeSiSa8xvZE



THIS IS NOT LEGAL

some people are bad/Clinton and then some people are really really dangerous/trump ...that's the choice

"The president’s repeated calls for the Justice Department and FBI to investigate Hillary Clinton are deeply disturbing. They show his contempt for the rule of law and undermine faith in our justice system," said Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which oversees the Justice Department.

“We can’t allow ourselves to become numb to the president of the United States calling on independent law enforcement organizations to investigate his political opponents," she added. "That’s characteristic of authoritarian regimes, not democracies, and it needs to stop.”

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/3586 ... disturbing


Image
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Russia didn't make Hillary lose; Hillary Screwing Bernie

Postby Morty » Fri Nov 03, 2017 9:04 pm

Man, Josh Marshall is a slimy fucker. The superdelegates arrangement turns a Clinton loss into a Clinton win. BUT, NO, THAT'S NOT RIGGING.

Exit polling indicates with near certainty that tampering occurred in Clinton's favour in the primaries on numerous occasions. BUT, NO, THAT'S NOT RIGGING.

DWS resigns because the DNC heirarchy is caught plotting to hurt the campaign of one of the Dem presidential candidates. BUT, NO, THAT'S NOT RIGGING.

DNC defends itself in court by arguing that it's not beholden to its members to run a free, fair and democratic primary process. BUT, NO, THAT'S NOT RIGGING.

And now the DNC chair says the process was rigged, but it's still "not clear" to Josh Marshall. '"Rigged" is a highly, highly loaded word' Marshall cautions us.
User avatar
Morty
 
Posts: 422
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2014 10:53 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Russia didn't make Hillary lose; Hillary Screwing Bernie

Postby Grizzly » Fri Nov 03, 2017 9:22 pm

“And so it goes...” ― Kurt Vonnegut Jr.
“The more we do to you, the less you seem to believe we are doing it.”

― Joseph mengele
User avatar
Grizzly
 
Posts: 4722
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 4:15 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Russia didn't make Hillary lose; Hillary Screwing Bernie

Postby stickdog99 » Sat Nov 04, 2017 12:06 am

Morty » 04 Nov 2017 01:04 wrote:Man, Josh Marshall is a slimy fucker. The superdelegates arrangement turns a Clinton loss into a Clinton win. BUT, NO, THAT'S NOT RIGGING.

Exit polling indicates with near certainty that tampering occurred in Clinton's favour in the primaries on numerous occasions. BUT, NO, THAT'S NOT RIGGING.

DWS resigns because the DNC heirarchy is caught plotting to hurt the campaign of one of the Dem presidential candidates. BUT, NO, THAT'S NOT RIGGING.

DNC defends itself in court by arguing that it's not beholden to its members to run a free, fair and democratic primary process. BUT, NO, THAT'S NOT RIGGING.

And now the DNC chair says the process was rigged, but it's still "not clear" to Josh Marshall. '"Rigged" is a highly, highly loaded word' Marshall cautions us.


Of course, DB is self-serving. And, of course, Josh Marshall's mouth is surgically attached to Hillary Clinton's rectum.
stickdog99
 
Posts: 6304
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Russia didn't make Hillary lose; Hillary Screwing Bernie

Postby 8bitagent » Fri Nov 17, 2017 6:44 am

I love how Donna Brazille goes full court press on cable news that Hillary top to bottom inside and out rigged the 2016 primaries and ruled the DNC with an iron fist, DEDICATES her book to "patriot" Seth Rich and devotes a whole chapter to saying how scared she was for her life after Seth Rich's murder, pretty much implying the suspicious circumstances........but now is back peddling against all these claims. WTF?

Yes, its plain as day Russian state hackers were hacking into DNC files(proving the DNC and Hillary colluded to cheat Bernie) and pumped out all sorts of pro Trump/anti Hillary salacious articles on social media. There is no denying this.

But how did "Russia" make such a high amount of Latino, Black, Asian and White Liberal leaning voters stay home; as well as the constituency that elected Obama in kind both in 2008 and 2012 ALSO stay home on 2016 election day(or, outright vote Trump. Or Jill Stein)?????

Dailykos, Dailybeast, Young Turks, NPR, Atlantic, Huffpo, Mother Jones, CNN, MSNBC and the rest of the head in the sand 'liberal' rags do such a disservice to lie. They lie like Fox News lied in the buildup to Iraq.
"Do you know who I am? I am the arm, and I sound like this..."-man from another place, twin peaks fire walk with me
User avatar
8bitagent
 
Posts: 12243
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 6:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)


Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 33 guests