"A Shocking Truth": Donna Brazille Accuses Clinton Campaign Of "Rigging" Primary

[annabenedetti]

I should have voted for Hillary, Why? Go.....

I'm pretty but not positively sure that I haven't posted directly to you since our last here:

And I said if you didn't like what I offered, then do your own research.

And I won't bother with your posts anymore. Sounds like a win/win to me.

I have done a lot of research thank you very much. Your research is certainly more biased than mine. But yes, don't respond to anything I ask or say....and we both win..

Honestly, I don't think you're interested in what I have to say, so why get into it? I'd just have to ask you in return why I should have voted for Trump, and your answer wouldn't be any more satisfying to me than my answer would be to you.

 

[steko]

Don't feel alone.
He negged me today too.
He's on a roll.
Go PJ!!!!

View attachment 26009

 

[drbrumley]

I'm pretty but not positively sure that I haven't posted directly to you since our last here:






Honestly, I don't think you're interested in what I have to say, so why get into it? I'd just have to ask you in return why I should have voted for Trump, and your answer wouldn't be any more satisfying to me than my answer would be to you.

I'm not a Trump supporter, so you not voting for him is no skin off my back...but you did vote for Hillary and I was asked by many why not her....so I am asking why should I have.....

 

[Tambora]

 

[annabenedetti]

I'm not a Trump supporter, so you not voting for him is no skin off my back...

For not having voted for him you spend a lot of time running defense.

but you did vote for Hillary and I was asked by many why not her....so I am asking why should I have.....

Yes I did vote for her. It's a little late for you to ask to be convinced (not that that's what you're really after here).

Are you a libertarian, and do you read The Federalist? Consider it a decent source?

 

[Tambora]

RE: OP: Let the DNC burn. Hillary purchased the primaries because cash is king and the DNC was beyond broke. I hope the entire GOP/DNC charade comes crumbling down so we can get to a semblance of democracy, which is better than this two party (one party) scam.

Yeppers.
Or at least shake them up and put some fear in them.
I hope the whitewashing is over and they actually get some cleaning up done.

 

[annabenedetti]

Memo Reveals Details of Hillary Clinton-DNC Deal

WASHINGTON — The Democratic National Committee struck a deal with Hillary Clinton in 2015 that gave her campaign input on some party staffing and spending decisions, but only related to the general election and allowing other candidates to make similar arrangements, according to a memo obtained by NBC News.

The document provides more context to the explosive claims made by former DNC Interim Chair Donna Brazile in a forthcoming book, an excerpt of which was published this week.

The August 26, 2015, memorandum of understanding from Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook to DNC CEO Amy Dacey more fully explains the relationship between Clinton and the DNC long before she won her party's nomination.

In exchange for Hillary for America's (HFA) helping the cash-strapped DNC raise money, the committee agreed "that HFA personnel will be consulted and have joint authority over strategic decisions over the staffing, budget, expenditures, and general election related communications, data, technology, analytics, and research."

Read: The full Clinton-DNC memo here

Specifically, the DNC agreed to hire a communications director from "one of two candidates previously identified as acceptable to HFA." And while the DNC maintained "the authority to make the final decision" on senior staff in the communications, technology, and research departments, it said it would choose "between candidates acceptable to HFA."

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

"Nothing in this agreement shall be construed to violate the DNC's obligation of impartiality and neutrality through the Nominating process. All activities performed under this agreement will be focused exclusively on preparations for the General Election and not the Democratic Primary," the memo states.

"Further we understand you may enter into similar agreements with other candidates," it continues.

The Clinton campaign agreed to make an initial payment of $1.2 million to DNC, which was crippled by debt at the time, and provide a monthly allowance and other funds. The agreement appears intended to give the campaign oversight over how its money was money.
The agreement supplemented a separate Clinton-DNC joint fundraising agreement, which was first reported over a year and a half ago, but gained new attention this week with Brazile’s book.

In an excerpt published this week in Politico, Brazile writes she was stunned to discover the fundraising agreement, which she called a "cancer" on the party that led the DNC to treat Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. unfairly.

Sanders' campaign later signed its own joint fundraising agreement with the DNC, but did not utilize it.



​

So: is this "rigging?"

 

[drbrumley]

and do you read The Federalist? Consider it a decent source?

The Federalist papers? Or is this a book?

 

[annabenedetti]

The Federalist papers? Or is this a book?

I guess that answers the question. It's a website. Conservative/Libertarian in direction.

Here's their take back in 2016:

7 Reasons You Should Vote For Hillary Instead Of Donald
Donald Trump has proven himself irredeemably incompetent for the presidency. You should not vote for him.


It didn't go over well with a lot of readers, obviously, but I know there are never-Trump conservatives out there. The problem is they either didn't vote or they voted third party, neither of which did anything to protect us from Trump. This is still a two-party system, and no matter how some would like it to be different - it isn't. There were only two votes on that 2016 ballot that mattered.* I understand a conscience vote, I've made a conscience non-vote myself that I'd re-do if I could. I chose the person I thought was less likely to damage the country. I don't agree with Hillary on everything, nor do I approve of everything she's said and done. But she was always going to be a better choice than Trump.


*There's a caveat to that though - if disaffected Bernieites had voted for Hillary instead of Jill Stein... who knows.

 

[kmoney]

So: is this "rigging?"

That is interesting and may help Clinton's case. It still seems like a sketchy scenario. Some quick thoughts..

It says they could make similar agreements with others but did they? And if they did, it's likely that Clinton would have the most fundraising power so would it really be equal? None of this gets rid of the other evidence we've seen that Clinton was favored over Bernie.

It says it would only be for the general election but why would they sign an agreement with Clinton for the general election if she wasn't the nominee yet? Let's say Bernie had won. It seems like that would create an awkward situation where Bernie is the nominee but Clinton gets a say in things?

 

[kmoney]

I'm not a Trump supporter, so you not voting for him is no skin off my back...but you did vote for Hillary and I was asked by many why not her....so I am asking why should I have.....

Trump.

 

[annabenedetti]

That is interesting and may help Clinton's case. It still seems like a sketchy scenario. Some quick thoughts..

It says they could make similar agreements with others but did they? And if they did, it's likely that Clinton would have the most fundraising power so would it really be equal? None of this gets rid of the other evidence we've seen that Clinton was favored over Bernie.

As I understand it, Bernie had the opportunity to sign his own agreement, but he chose to go with his own (successful) small-donor fundraising efforts. As for Clinton having more fundraising power, don't you think that makes sense? She'd been a lifelong Democrat, had a lot of connections, a lot of donors - and Bernie was an independent who joined the Democratic party to run for president. There's a lot more than what appears to those of us outside Democratic party politics. Were certain things run poorly? I think there are a lot of Democrats who would say that, even to criticizing Obama for his benign neglect of the DNC. That's party politics, probably paralleled in the RNC. But that's not the same thing as "rigging a primary." But once that phrase is out of the bottle, there's no putting it back in. It's all the Hillary haters are going to remember and there are a lot of Democrats incensed at Brazile and Warren right now.

It says it would only be for the general election but why would they sign an agreement with Clinton for the general election if she wasn't the nominee yet? Let's say Bernie had won. It seems like that would create an awkward situation where Bernie is the nominee but Clinton gets a say in things?

There were two agreements. One was for pre-nomination and one for post-nomination. This is where it seems Brazile may have messed up bigly.

The Claim That Clinton Rigged The Democratic Primary Falls Apart After Full Memo Is Published

It turns out that Hillary Clinton didn’t rig the Democratic primary because the joint fundraising agreement between Clinton and the DNC only applied to the general election.

NBC News published the full Clinton-DNC fundraising agreement memo, and it contains a paragraph that destroys the conspiracy theory that Clinton rigged the primary, “Nothing in this agreement shall be construed to violate the DNC’s obligation of impartiality and neutrality through the Nominating process. All activities performed under this agreement will be focused exclusively on preparations for the General Election and not the Democratic Primary.”

For the conspiracy believers who think that Sanders was robbed, nothing is going to change their minds, not even a black and white memo saying that the fundraising agreement didn’t apply to the Democratic primary, but the truth is that the primary was not rigged, but the problems at the DNC were very real. The DNC needs to be believed as impartial. The perception alone that they favor one candidate over another is a serious problem.

However, this fundraising agreement did not allow Hillary Clinton to take over the DNC during the Democratic primary. The context matters, and while the details of the agreement would have paved the way for Clinton take over the DNC if she would have won the election, which is what presidents do. The DNC may have been tilted toward Clinton, but the fundraising agreement was not the reason why.
​

 

[patrick jane]

Elizabeth Warren says it was rigged. Bernie never had a chance.

 

[drbrumley]

Trump.

I see. if the shoe was on the other foot, you would be saying Clinton..

 

[drbrumley]

I guess that answers the question. It's a website. Conservative/Libertarian in direction.

Here's their take back in 2016:

7 Reasons You Should Vote For Hillary Instead Of Donald
Donald Trump has proven himself irredeemably incompetent for the presidency. You should not vote for him.


It didn't go over well with a lot of readers, obviously, but I know there are never-Trump conservatives out there. The problem is they either didn't vote or they voted third party, neither of which did anything to protect us from Trump. This is still a two-party system, and no matter how some would like it to be different - it isn't. There were only two votes on that 2016 ballot that mattered.* I understand a conscience vote, I've made a conscience non-vote myself that I'd re-do if I could. I chose the person I thought was less likely to damage the country. I don't agree with Hillary on everything, nor do I approve of everything she's said and done. But she was always going to be a better choice than Trump.


*There's a caveat to that though - if disaffected Bernieites had voted for Hillary instead of Jill Stein... who knows.

Sorry, never heard of em...

Edit: correction, I have read some of their stuff....it popped up on my facebook. they are not libertarian by any stretch of the imagination

 

[kmoney]

I see. if the shoe was on the other foot, you would be saying Clinton..

What shoe?

 

[kmoney]

As I understand it, Bernie had the opportunity to sign his own agreement, but he chose to go with his own (successful) small-donor fundraising efforts. As for Clinton having more fundraising power, don't you think that makes sense? She'd been a lifelong Democrat, had a lot of connections, a lot of donors - and Bernie was an independent who joined the Democratic party to run for president. There's a lot more than what appears to those of us outside Democratic party politics.

Sure it makes sense Clinton could raise more funds. That's not the point though. The point is that it's hard to believe they'd be impartial if one person is bringing in way more money.

Were certain things run poorly? I think there are a lot of Democrats who would say that, even to criticizing Obama for his benign neglect of the DNC. That's party politics, probably paralleled in the RNC. But that's not the same thing as "rigging a primary." But once that phrase is out of the bottle, there's no putting it back in. It's all the Hillary haters are going to remember and there are a lot of Democrats incensed at Brazile and Warren right now.

I'd agree that 'rigging' is too strong and am not really focusing on that specifically. I'm just looking at the ways there may not have been a level playing field.

There were two agreements. One was for pre-nomination and one for post-nomination. This is where it seems Brazile may have messed up bigly.

The Claim That Clinton Rigged The Democratic Primary Falls Apart After Full Memo Is Published

It turns out that Hillary Clinton didn’t rig the Democratic primary because the joint fundraising agreement between Clinton and the DNC only applied to the general election.

NBC News published the full Clinton-DNC fundraising agreement memo, and it contains a paragraph that destroys the conspiracy theory that Clinton rigged the primary, “Nothing in this agreement shall be construed to violate the DNC’s obligation of impartiality and neutrality through the Nominating process. All activities performed under this agreement will be focused exclusively on preparations for the General Election and not the Democratic Primary.”

For the conspiracy believers who think that Sanders was robbed, nothing is going to change their minds, not even a black and white memo saying that the fundraising agreement didn’t apply to the Democratic primary, but the truth is that the primary was not rigged, but the problems at the DNC were very real. The DNC needs to be believed as impartial. The perception alone that they favor one candidate over another is a serious problem.

However, this fundraising agreement did not allow Hillary Clinton to take over the DNC during the Democratic primary. The context matters, and while the details of the agreement would have paved the way for Clinton take over the DNC if she would have won the election, which is what presidents do. The DNC may have been tilted toward Clinton, but the fundraising agreement was not the reason why.
​

Despite that the NBC article still said that Clinton would have influence during the primary. And of course the memo states they will still be impartial during the primary. What else would you expect? :idunno:

And I'm still curious how this would have worked had Bernie actually won the primary.

 

[annabenedetti]

Sure it makes sense Clinton could raise more funds. That's not the point though. The point is that it's hard to believe they'd be impartial if one person is bringing in way more money.

I'd agree that 'rigging' is too strong and am not really focusing on that specifically. I'm just looking at the ways there may not have been a level playing field.

Despite that the NBC article still said that Clinton would have influence during the primary. And of course the memo states they will still be impartial during the primary. What else would you expect? :idunno:

And I'm still curious how this would have worked had Bernie actually won the primary.

If Bernie had won the primary, the money would have gone to him.

Internally in the party, I'm sure she had way more clout than he did. But she'd earned that clout, although there are always going to be those who think she didn't earn it.

 

[annabenedetti]

Sorry, never heard of em...

Edit: correction, I have read some of their stuff....it popped up on my facebook. they are not libertarian by any stretch of the imagination

According the the wiki entry for them, they're influential with conservatives and libertarians. But that's not the main point, is it?

And yet it's the only thing you chose to answer.

You haven't said anything about the main premise of your OP being false.

You didn't say whether you read the article I linked - written by a conservative, for conservatives - that voters were better off voting for Clinton instead of Trump.

It's difficult not to see you as a tacit supporter of Trump, even if you didn't vote for him. Which would mean, in effect, you basically chose him as the lesser evil, but can say you didn't vote for him so you could keep your hands clean.

 

[kmoney]

If Bernie had won the primary, the money would have gone to him.

I was more concerned about the decision making.

Internally in the party, I'm sure she had way more clout than he did. But she'd earned that clout, although there are always going to be those who think she didn't earn it.

The issue is how the clout is used.