Read the article…thanks for the link. Coking’s terms for DJT echo in the halls of the WH to this day…he was a bully then and an even bigger bully now…to our nation and democracy’s detriment.
Sure, but what does that mean really? When he garnered funding, he could’ve contributed to the Victory Fund and ultimately demanded staffing changes, whatnot. You know he and the DNC established one in 2015 too, right? It’s not like Weaver and Devine didn’t understand Party intricacies. His bailiwick was fighting the “establishment” though and that was the political card he chose to play.
I’m not arguing that Clinton wasn’t a favored candidate by politicos. Her husband was a president and she’d been a Senator and Secretary of State. She won the DC “inside” primary early, was popular with the democratic base, and had the support of a sitting president. But I need to know what “rigged” means because otherwise, Brazil looks to be cashing in to me based on this excerpt.
In the matter of the so called Victory Fund, and the fraud it was.
I have no idea where you’re going with this KC. Do you really think that Bernie could logically take take money that his invigorated $27-at-a-shot supporters gave him and turn it over to the DNC who were actively working in support of his opponent?
The idea that the DNC (who had a contract with the Clinton campaign) would radically alter their staff much less their policies because Sanders gave them some funds just doesn’t pass the smell test.
The Victory Fund is a joint fund. If the DNC wanted a part of it—and maybe they wouldn’t—he can make demands. He made them anyway, right?
First, the Staff Writer (Jake Johnson) should be completely ashamed of himself, and forcefully called out, for putting forth such PR blather, without crucial context – to such a degree that it exposes the entire article as a MSM, Talking Point, Pre-Book Tour, Propaganda piece – instead of straightforward Truth regarding someone who was among the top of the DNC corruption, and wholly involved as an eager participant in the nationwide collusion, as follows:
It was a stunning sign of how politically tone-deaf the Democratic Party has become and it proves that the party has zero interest in operating with integrity. Instead, the fact that Brazile is emailing me shows that the DNC is as cronyist and elitist as the GOP.
To refresh our collective memory, Brazile is a perfect example of the DNC’s insider clique and its complete disrespect for the democratic process. When Wikileaks dumped a bunch of emails from DNC insiders it revealed that Brazile had passed on questions to the Hillary Clinton campaign to give her an edge in debates against Bernie Sanders during the presidential primaries. When the emails were first dumped, Brazile denied she had cheated. But it’s worse than that. She didn’t just deny it, she went on a righteous rant. “I did not receive any questions from CNN,” she said in a Fox News interview last October. “As a Christian woman I understand persecution, but I will not stand here and be persecuted because your information is totally false.” Stop and think about . . . that sort of bald-faced (worldwide television) Lie [for a moment.]”
The DNC replaced Wasserman Schultz with Brazile, even though they were both clearly implicated in the allegations of a rigged DNC primary. In the months when she was interim DNC chair, Brazile went on totally lying about her transgressions until she finally admitted to doing it, but stated that she felt no remorse. In November, shortly after the election she confessed to the passing on of questions to the Clinton camp, but refused to apologize: “My conscience — as an activist, a strategist — is very clear,” she said in an interview with talk-radio host Joe Madison.
So first she lied [In The Name of Jesus Christ], then she justified her decision to show bias towards the Clinton camp. But mostly she blamed the Russians.
After months of lying and justifying, eventually Brazile caved and she issued an [infuriating, boilerplate] apology in March of 2017. If you haven’t read it, I’d urge you to take another look at her apology, because the piece is really more about Russia being at fault than her. And in the end, she still insists that the DNC was fair to Sanders, a story that simply doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.
[For further emphasis], we learned back in June that the DNC is still paying Brazile months after her position was formally turned over (following an insider coup against Keith Ellison) to Tom Perez.
Quote: “Politicians need to have ‘both a public and a private’ negotiating position.” Really? How could the public ever be truly informed in such an environment? Yet, that’s the main point – isn’t it?
Obama and Clinton both are culprits here, actually. Obama’s attempt in 2009-10 to create his own national organization fizzled and the ACA finished it off. Democratic Party rank-and-file members were not happy with Heritage Foundation healthcare.
Clintonistas had the big donor backers and Obama’s supporters for the most part, not Bernie. Their priorities would necessarily come first.
To run a national campaign in 2016 ( and going forward ) requires $1Billion+ startup funding. That’s just the way the campaign system now works. This cult of personality campaign diminishes party building and damages the planks and platforms of the DNC, whether intended to, or not.
You can thank CJ Roberts and the past majority of the SCOTUS for this current mess.
Public financing of national elections continues to be the cure for this disease.
" The money is not in the cure, it is in the disease ".
Victory funds with the party committee are joint with the nominee or presumptive nominee. Secretary Clinton is the only candidate I know of that put substantial monies in a Party Victory fund 9 months before the first primary - she was so convinced that she had the nomination in the bag.
P.S.Looking at opensecrets.org I see that the Bernie Victory Fund raised a total of $1000.
True, but why did Bernie say: WE MUST VOTE FOR HILLARY?
In light of the recent purge of Sanders supporters from their DNC positions, I think it’s pretty obvious the Clinton machine is still in control.
I was afraid of that. I have to wonder if the DNC will change now that the cat is out of the bag.
If history is any indicator, they wont change unless change is forced on them from the bottom up - and they will fight it tooth and nail the whole way. That’s what their corporate masters pay them for.
Here is what CNN says.
“Sanders had the option to raise money for the DNC and state parties but decided not to do it because it would have been politically difficult for the candidate to slam the DNC in public while raising money for them in private.”
In[quote=“RockyMountainView, post:4, topic:46436, full:true”]
Gee…what a surprise! Actually, there is one surprise here – that Donna Brazile was this honest about it.
Surprised is an understatement - my jaw is still on the floor. I’ve barely stomached listening to Brazile in interviews in the past and now I read she is giving Sanders the straight assessment after the primary is over. Why wait till now to come clean - just to sell books? Why didn’t Bernie let us know earlier?
There are clearly too many people working at the DNC. Time to fire a bunch of them. Thanks a lot Obama for likely pulling strings to keep friends on the payroll when things are supposed to ramp down between presidential cycles.
Oh cue the Clinton clan.
CNN is about as credible as Fox news. Opinions aren’t news. Did you know CNN had 500 Trump shills on air this year alone? (Could have been 2016 - still same thing)
It is sad to see what passes for news in America.
It is never difficult to tell the truth about the DNC while realizing the D and the Rs are the only real option in American politics.
Fixed that for you.
That was depressing. The whole McCarthyism being practised by the faux left is scary stuff
Umm, I would hazard a little ole guess that Bernie was threatened quite persuasively to zip it.
TYT has great coverage of the how, why and the effects of this ratfcking.
Money, the DNc being deeply in debt.
And yes this affected dem races in all states 'cause the $$$$$$$$$$$ flowed upwards.
What part of the statement do you believe is false? If nothing else it seems to make sense logically. The issue shouldn’t be CNN. It should be the validity of the statement. True or false?
Sad to tell you - but most of our local governments are dictated by real estate developers. People don’t have a clue.