Home | About | Donate

'Deeply Disturbing': Bombshell Piece Exposes 'Unethical' Clinton-DNC Fundraising Deal

So, basically the Clintons rescued the DNC via their Victory Fund—Bernie had one too but chose not to use it—because of mismanagement by DWS and lack of support by Obama and that equals rigged. Frankly, I remember when Hillary was raked over the coals for criticizing the DNC data infrastructure before she came on. DNC “insiders” jumped down her throat for that, but it sure sounds like she wasn’t wrong about the issue based on reading this.

So, my question is what exactly was rigged? Is the problem that the Clinton team financed a deeply mismanaged organization? What would Donna have done differently if, say, DWS was fired in 2015 and she found the organization had no money? Would things have been rigged if Bernie had utilized his Victory Fund to help the DNC too? And, if things were so rigged, why was it party controlled caucuses that Bernie did so well in?

Personally, I think it sucks that DWS mismanaged things, but I put the onus on Obama ultimately. Congress people asked Obama to dump her in 2014, but he refused. That decision was fateful, but I see zero evidence that it changed any votes during the primary. In fact, I think Bernie’s fight with DWS helped him more than hurt him. Ultimately, he is more influential now than she is and ever was—a good thing.


Well the whole USA is an oligarchy too - so why are you still living here?

Rather than continuous resignation and complaining, why don’t you get together with some other leftists in your community and show up at you local county Democratic committee and take it over - then with other committee change the rules (starting with direct membership election of party leaders as is done in most of the world’s democracies) - and is work upward from there until the crooks are all kicked out.

How do you think the probable next-PM Corbyn came to be the Labour party leader? It was the work of many thousands of ordinary British citizens fed up with Clinton’s ideological doppelganger the Blairite wing.

Why do USAns treat political parties (and anymore unions too) like they are some kind of government social service agency - then sit on their ass complain about the quality of the service after they have allowed them to fall into the hands of crooked swindlers? Nowhere else in the world to people view political parties this way. Like it or not political parties are not government agencies and they “owe” the citizenry nothing - not even transparency. They are private clubs for the purpose of promoting an ideological program and agenda through their elected members in government. In most democratic countries - ordinary citizens pay annual dues to their party and go to local committee meetings. Political parties can be made up of and funded by engaged citizens or they can be left to be taken over by opportunistic scumbags like the Clintons. It’s up to us to join then and choose which direction they go.


This third-generation clam digger, born and raised in Asbury Park, agrees 100% re Trump’s style of doing business. Google “Vera Coking” to learn more about a real American hero.

1 Like

Amen. I joined my local progressive Democrats organization for just this reason. Our district is represented by a tea party stooge. He’s not going away if I just bitch about the party like I used too, then vote third party and don’t contribute. He’s a sure vote for the Ryan Budget and the tax cut scam. We are going to work for the most progressive candidate we can, then work for whoever wins. No more take-the-toys-and-go-home foot stomping loser arguments.


Clinton would a) never have gotten near the votes she received were it not for Sanders (how easily Clinton fans ignore this) and b) Clinton, as one of the most despised candidates ever, owes her 3 million plus vote success to Sanders and the crew that supported him. he convinced them to vote for this cretin. She also owes Sanders proper gratitude for pumping all that cash back into the DNC. That money came from his supporters. Sanders is why the Democrats had enough cash to screw over the guy who provided that cash. Rigged - absolutely.


The objection isn’t that they stepped in and rescued the DNC financially. The problem is that in doing so they required the DNC to be a wholly owned subsidiary of the Clinton campaign. Thus, the rules for the nominating process were in essence “rigged” in the sense that they were constructed to favor a particular candidate.

Of course, Bernie knew the DNC was dominated by Clinton people from the start and he masterfully turned that to his advantage as the anti-establishment candidate.

Like most people, I prefer a fair and transparent process - so this is just the type of thing that turns people off to engaging in politics. Whether it mattered much to who got the nomination isn’t at all the point (the power of the DNC is over-rated in that regard). It mattered because it further resonates with the public as a demonstration of a corrupt system and that chips away at the type of democratic engagement that is needed from the public to begin to solve our fundamental problems.


I read the Washington Post piece about Vera Coking’s battle with Trump and loved it! Thanks for calling attention to the battle. In her interview with the Daily News, Coking called Trump “a maggot, a cockroach and a crumb.”

Then after she won in court, it was so satisfying to read this:

From across a parking lot, she saw Trump’s casino fizzle. Last year, Trump Plaza closed its doors, another in a long line of casualties in the precipitous decay of a once-sizzling casino strip. https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/the-time-donald-trumps-empire-took-on-a-stubborn-widow--and-lost/2015/09/09/f9cb287e-5660-11e5-b8c9-944725fcd3b9_story.html?utm_term=.ed3830458fb4


It wasn’'t little Debbie who limited the number of debates, it was Hillary.


Well, there’s a freakin surprise…The Dem Party is still under the domination of the Clinton Camp heirarchy and its acolytes/clones. the DNC and the “leadership” in House and Senate, Pelosi and Schumer, et al (like Clinton wanker clone Sean Maloney) are/were complicit in the coronation of the Red Queen and the sabotage of Bernie Sanders leading directly to the current trump regime fucking nightmare! The SAME power is in control of the party mechanisms either directly or thru its lap-dogs, and will not cede control or reform or shift the failed MO as the Dem base, progressives, and independent voters demand…little has changed except further entrencement of the corruption, corporate/banker/wall street/insurance/big pharma servitude and utter stupidity - continued betrayal of America! MoFo’s!


I don’t see why this can’t be used as ammo for the DNC class action lawsuit.


And now we have the Orange Goblin as our leader. We have Hillary and the DNC to thank for the mess we are in


A majority of three million Americans did not vote for the Orange Goblin. The people got what we did NOT deserve!

1 Like

It has become plainly obvious that we are enduring Trump administration right now not only because of the ignorance and stupidity of about a fourth of the electorate, but also because the Clintons and their DLC made it possible. They falsely believed that all you had to do to win elections was to be just as sleazy as the GOP. The fallacy of course was that, when govern the choice between a charismatic sleazball and a frumpy brooding sleazball, the dim public will choose the charismatic one every time. Or better yet, to paraphrase Harry Truman, when given the choice between a real republican and a fake one, the voters will choose the real one every time.


She and the Democrats owe Sanders an apology.


In fairness he was pretty worried about how horrid Trump would be.


The problem is that political parties are private organizations that are not obligated to be transparent to anyone except the active members of the party. If you think US political parties are opaque, you should see how the Canadian or British ones operate.


Does this mean we can have a do over?

Why not ban political parties?

Direct Democracy



Agreed - no law dictates transparency within our political parties beyond adhering to campaign finance laws (which of course are ultra weak). However, over the years they have routinely been shamed into at least pretending to be more transparent. Remember that we didn’t originally even have primaries - just complete selection by a few white men in smoke-filled rooms. Then we got a few primaries - but bosses still controlled those and most states didn’t have any regular system. Then the McGovern Committee forced a consideration of policies leading to a much more transparent system that he was able to take advantage of to win the nomination. The bosses didn’t like that and shunned his candidacy - but the process was greatly improved and trying to go back too far towards a completely corrupt system began to be met with more public resistance.


You should take care not to condemn those who both favor and labor to advance your positions.

1 Like

Yes, because our masters are all knowing and benevolent

1 Like