Donna Brazile: How the Clinton campaign ran the DNC

[136or142]

https://twitter.com/Politics1com/status/926984003059625990

Politics1.com‏
@Politics1com
Does anyone really care that Donna Brazile's book-hawking clickbait claims are easily and demonstrably false?

Kyle GriffinVerified account @kylegriffin1
FYI the DNC Chair can’t unilaterally replace a presidential nominee—Nominee must agree 1st, then whole cmte decides. http://bit.ly/2iuI2VA
6:26 PM - 4 Nov 2017

[136or142]

The margin in Iowa was so razor thin that any hint of bias by the DNC would have swung the result. Now we know that the DNC was completely in the tank for HRC from the very beginning. No one can deny that if the DNC had played it straight, Bernie would have won Iowa. From there, who knows what would have happened? If Bernie sweeps Iowa, NH, and Nevada, this potentially sends HRC into a death spiral that she never fully recovers from. She would have won SC and the rest of the South, but probably not by the margins that she did.

Long story short, you can't point to the final vote totals and say the DNC didn't affect the race. Bernie winning Iowa completely changes the trajectory of the race.

Actually we don't know any such thing.  The only evidence behind this is Donna Brazile's claims, and it seems that her book is filled with falsehoods and plain nonsense.

[136or142]

The margin in Iowa was so razor thin that any hint of bias by the DNC would have swung the result. Now we know that the DNC was completely in the tank for HRC from the very beginning. No one can deny that if the DNC had played it straight, Bernie would have won Iowa. From there, who knows what would have happened? If Bernie sweeps Iowa, NH, and Nevada, this potentially sends HRC into a death spiral that she never fully recovers from. She would have won SC and the rest of the South, but probably not by the margins that she did.

Long story short, you can't point to the final vote totals and say the DNC didn't affect the race. Bernie winning Iowa completely changes the trajectory of the race.

Actually we don't know any such thing.  The only evidence behind this is Donna Brazile's claims, and it seems that her book is filled with falsehoods and plain nonsense.

Actually, we do. The published DNC-HFA memo is real.

the memo itself was discussing the general election, not the primaries.

This is now more than clear.  Donna Brazile is a liar. 

[136or142]

The margin in Iowa was so razor thin that any hint of bias by the DNC would have swung the result. Now we know that the DNC was completely in the tank for HRC from the very beginning. No one can deny that if the DNC had played it straight, Bernie would have won Iowa. From there, who knows what would have happened? If Bernie sweeps Iowa, NH, and Nevada, this potentially sends HRC into a death spiral that she never fully recovers from. She would have won SC and the rest of the South, but probably not by the margins that she did.

Long story short, you can't point to the final vote totals and say the DNC didn't affect the race. Bernie winning Iowa completely changes the trajectory of the race.

Actually we don't know any such thing.  The only evidence behind this is Donna Brazile's claims, and it seems that her book is filled with falsehoods and plain nonsense.

Actually, we do. The published DNC-HFA memo is real.

the memo itself was discussing the general election, not the primaries.

That claim has been debunked as legalese nonsense, and it is contradicted by the rest of the agreement. September 2015 is specifically cited as a deadline to hire the DNC comms director, in which "one of two candidates previously identified as acceptable to the HFA" would be selected.

The DNC Communications Director worked on the general election not the primary.  In addition, that was the terms sent by the HFA,  there is no mention as to what the final agreement was.

[136or142]

A joint fundraising agreement between the Bernie Sanders campaign and the Democratic National Committee -- obtained Friday by ABC News and signed at the start of the primary campaign for the 2016 presidential election -- does not include any language about coordinating on strategic decisions over hiring or budget, unlike a fundraising memo between the Hillary Clinton team and the DNC. In light of the revelation by Brazile, multiple sources have confirmed to ABC News that DNC chair Tom Perez wrote a note to the members of the party Friday, in which he defended the conduct of previous party leadership and stood by the party’s impartiality. "Our understanding was that the DNC offered all of the presidential campaigns the opportunity to set up a [joint-funding agreement] and work with the DNC to coordinate on how those funds were used to best prepare for the general election. Since then, both of those joint fundraising committees have been shut down," he wrote.

The Clinton campaign Friday afternoon confirmed the existence of a memo between the DNC and their campaign, which specifically outlines an expanded scope and interpretation of their funding agreement. In that memo, Hillary for America (HFA) reportedly agreed to help the DNC raise money and clear its debts, and in exchange, the party consented “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.”

Weaver, who currently sits on a new unity commission charged with suggesting reforms for the party, said he was surprised that the newly-elected leadership at the party was not taking a more proactive stance to dealing with the old wounds. “A real executive would say, 'This was a terrible thing that went on, we are cleaning it up,'" Weaver said. “[Tom] Perez isn’t tied to this why is he defending this? It's ridiculous.”

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/sanders-campaign-document-reveals-fundraising-relationship-dnc/story?id=50926505

Ohh Tom Perez - Already caught lying. Guess he is determined to be DWS II.

I suppose it's possible (or likely) that the DNC only offered to make similar agreements with Democratic Presidential Primary candidates who are actually members of the Democratic Party, which, as you know, would exclude Bernie Sanders.

If Bernie Sanders wants to enjoy all the benefits of being an independent, why should he and his supporters not have to accept that their are drawbacks to that as well?

It certainly seems fair to me that the Democratic Party would only make such offers to fellow Democrats. I recall several times during the primaries when members of the DNC asked Bernie Sanders to officially become a Democrat (which went public), and this may have been one of the reasons why.

I think it's human nature to be all too ready to accept the benefits of something (like fame or fortune, for instance) while complaining about the drawbacks.  However, professionals and politicians running for President should be above this human defect, which is why it's often said to candiates 'quit whining.' Not necessarily in this case, and I certainly haven't seen Bernie Sanders himself whine in such ways, but that his campaign manager, John Weaver has frequently whined about his campaign not getting a say over the DNC, while wanting to not actually be a Democrat, does not speak well of the Sanders' campaign.  

[136or142]

Former @DNC chair @donnabrazile backtracks fast..says no evidence of rigging primaries

https://twitter.com/President1Trump/status/927182678415290369

[136or142]

She's claimed that snipers were trying to shoot her, that she was treated like a slave and that she had the authority to remove Clinton from the ticket. Why is anyone even taking her word seriously?

Only the anti Hillary Clinton hacks and the mainstream media do, if there is a difference between those two.

[136or142]

She's claimed that snipers were trying to shoot her, that she was treated like a slave and that she had the authority to remove Clinton from the ticket. Why is anyone even taking her word seriously?

Sniper attacks? Hillary definitely knows something about that.

No matter how much to continue to dwell on Hillary Clinton, it doesn't change that Trump is doing a terrible job.

So you're just going to completely dodge the part about Hillary lying about snipers aren't you?

If you want to bring that up, we should also bring up Trump telling bald face lies on average six times a day.

[136or142]

She's claimed that snipers were trying to shoot her, that she was treated like a slave and that she had the authority to remove Clinton from the ticket. Why is anyone even taking her word seriously?

Sniper attacks? Hillary definitely knows something about that.

No matter how much to continue to dwell on Hillary Clinton, it doesn't change that Trump is doing a terrible job.

So you're just going to completely dodge the part about Hillary lying about snipers aren't you?

If you want to bring that up, we should also bring up Trump telling bald face lies on average six times a day.

Everything you don't want to hear is a "lie."

No, anything that isn't the truth is a lie.  I disagree that 'all the truth in the world adds up to one big lie.'

[136or142]

The simple fact was, we had established post Watergate an objective standard for truth, they both sides respected.

That is until the Clinton's came to power. They used spin and political capital to muscle their way through touchy legal situations on multiple occasions.  

The reason why people dwell on the Clinton's is because the Clinton's have in many ways defined this political era so much and basically Donald Trump takes everything about them and pushes them to new extreme.

1. Political Con Artists
2. Shady business dealings
3. President as a Celebrity figure
4. Breaking Previous Standards of Presidential Behavior.
5. Reducing objective facts to partisan opinions

Trump would never have been nominated without President George W. Bush and he never would have been elected without President Bill Clinton.

But of course one is want to say "that is in no way on the level of what Trump is doing". Yes, that is the point. Call it the slippery slope. Call it the evolution, or whatever you want. The process continues forward, testing out the next extreme.

The simple fact is, the Clintons were always much more lied about, than they did any lying.

Your lack of historical knowledge seems endless.

I'm not trying to play 'whataboutism' here but there are only three elected Presidents between Nixon and Clinton and 18 years.  Even if you were correct that President Clinton brought back something not seen since Nixon, there was only 26 years between the time Nixon left office and George W Bush was elected.  So, it's not like the political precedents would have been forgotten in that time.

Presidents as celebrities...Ronald Reagan?  I'm not referring even to his movies but that he was known as 'the great communicator.'   You can check out his speeches if you don't think he realized how the power of his acting skills could help him as President. (Or as a candidate: "I paid for that microphone!")

I personally think the Reagan Administration got the two major issues of the day correct: dealing with inflation and with the Soviet Union/Gorbachev and, so, deserves to be regarded as a successful administration, but prior to Trump, the most corrupt Administration in history was the Reagan Administration: The presidency of Ronald Reagan in the United States was marked by multiple scandals, resulting in the investigation, indictment, or conviction of over 138 administration officials, the largest number for any U.S. president.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_administration_scandals

You might think that Ed Meese was the biggest political con artist ever prior to Trump until you remember Oliver North.

Reducing objective facts to (partisan) opinions.  
So, do you think ketchup is a vegetable?
Were 'welfare queens driving Cadillacs' ever really a drain on the budget?
Do trees really cause pollution?

[136or142]

The simple fact was, we had established post Watergate an objective standard for truth, they both sides respected.

That is until the Clinton's came to power. They used spin and political capital to muscle their way through touchy legal situations on multiple occasions.  

The reason why people dwell on the Clinton's is because the Clinton's have in many ways defined this political era so much and basically Donald Trump takes everything about them and pushes them to new extreme.

1. Political Con Artists
2. Shady business dealings
3. President as a Celebrity figure
4. Breaking Previous Standards of Presidential Behavior.
5. Reducing objective facts to partisan opinions

Trump would never have been nominated without President George W. Bush and he never would have been elected without President Bill Clinton.

But of course one is want to say "that is in no way on the level of what Trump is doing". Yes, that is the point. Call it the slippery slope. Call it the evolution, or whatever you want. The process continues forward, testing out the next extreme.

Eh, no I'm pretty sure Donald Trump is going to be it, as far as the Democrats are concerned... they are not going to nominate someone more extreme than Trump. Or even another Clinton for that matter. Most Democrats are sick of both.

I think the only step down from Trump, and if it happens it seems it would be a Republican, is a Presidential candidate gets elected on the promise of setting up an authoritarian dictatorship and suspending the Constitution.

[136or142]

She's claimed that snipers were trying to shoot her, that she was treated like a slave and that she had the authority to remove Clinton from the ticket. Why is anyone even taking her word seriously?

Sniper attacks? Hillary definitely knows something about that.

No matter how much to continue to dwell on Hillary Clinton, it doesn't change that Trump is doing a terrible job.

I get that you were trying to do a “Hillary talk is distracting from Trump’s failures” thing here, but you literally did the exact opposite.
 
And you can still talk about Hillary while Trump is POTUS. Just because she’s not the POTUS doesn’t mean she’s barred from criticism.

It would help if the criticism against her was based on actual facts though, wouldn't it?

[136or142]

She's claimed that snipers were trying to shoot her, that she was treated like a slave and that she had the authority to remove Clinton from the ticket. Why is anyone even taking her word seriously?

Sniper attacks? Hillary definitely knows something about that.

No matter how much to continue to dwell on Hillary Clinton, it doesn't change that Trump is doing a terrible job.

I get that you were trying to do a “Hillary talk is distracting from Trump’s failures” thing here, but you literally did the exact opposite.
 
And you can still talk about Hillary while Trump is POTUS. Just because she’s not the POTUS doesn’t mean she’s barred from criticism.

It would help if the criticism against her was based on actual facts though, wouldn't it?

All those Wikileaks e-mails were DKIM verified to be genuine, so they're a lot more trustworthy than the Hillary camp, which has decided to call Donna Brazille a Russian operative.

It has never been verified that they weren't altered or edited.  Liar.

[136or142]

The simple fact was, we had established post Watergate an objective standard for truth, they both sides respected.

That is until the Clinton's came to power. They used spin and political capital to muscle their way through touchy legal situations on multiple occasions.  

The reason why people dwell on the Clinton's is because the Clinton's have in many ways defined this political era so much and basically Donald Trump takes everything about them and pushes them to new extreme.

1. Political Con Artists
2. Shady business dealings
3. President as a Celebrity figure
4. Breaking Previous Standards of Presidential Behavior.
5. Reducing objective facts to partisan opinions

Trump would never have been nominated without President George W. Bush and he never would have been elected without President Bill Clinton.

But of course one is want to say "that is in no way on the level of what Trump is doing". Yes, that is the point. Call it the slippery slope. Call it the evolution, or whatever you want. The process continues forward, testing out the next extreme.

The simple fact is, the Clintons were always much more lied about, than they did any lying.

Ironically, you proved my point in the first sentence of your response.

Your lack of historical knowledge seems endless.

No more endless then that of someone who sees an R-NC avatar who says something vaguely similar to what a number of Republican/Conservative "idiots" say and therefore assumes said person must be ignorant. Try again, without trying to insult my intelligence.

Removed to not exceed maximum length.

I'm not trying to play 'whataboutism' here but there are only three elected Presidents between Nixon and Clinton and 18 years.  Even if you were correct that President Clinton brought back something not seen since Nixon, there was only 26 years between the time Nixon left office and George W Bush was elected.  So, it's not like the political precedents would have been forgotten in that time.

It is not that it was first established with Nixon, but the political world made clear such was not acceptable when Nixon crossed so many lines in the name of "everybody else did it, why can't I". The danger of the Nixon precedent is right there and I would note that the President who attempted to rehabilitate Nixon was Clinton.

Presidents as celebrities...Ronald Reagan?  I'm not referring even to his movies but that he was known as 'the great communicator.'   You can check out his speeches if you don't think he realized how the power of his acting skills could help him as President. (Or as a candidate: "I paid for that microphone!")

An Actor who became a Governor and spent years becoming familiar with political matters over the course of almost 2 decades before running for President, who upon once becoming President acted in a Presidential manner befitting that of most previous Presidents, is not what I would consider demeaning the office to that of a common celebrity.

The difference is that Clinton was a politician who wanted to be a rock star and he acted like one. From screwing everything that moved, to lying under oath. The only parallel close to that was JFK.

I personally think the Reagan Administration got the two major issues of the day correct: dealing with inflation and with the Soviet Union/Gorbachev and, so, deserves to be regarded as a successful administration, but prior to Trump, the most corrupt Administration in history was the Reagan Administration.

The most corrupt administration prior to Trump? As worded, that is factual incorrect.

1. James Buchanan  - Cabinet members actively conspired against the United States to assist the forming Confederacy.  His administration also conspired with the Supreme Court in the lead up to the Dred Scott decision, violating the separation of powers in a fairly profound way.
2. Andrew Jackson - Ignored a Supreme Court ruling to carry out an ethnic clensing campaign against the Cherokee
3. Richard Nixon - Watergate being just the tip of the iceberg in a range of political dirty tricks that only got more outrageous and more illegal, all in the name of "well LBJ did it too".

I would certainly consider Reagan about equal with Grant in corruption and probably around 10 or so. Both had a lot of underlings engaged in criminal and illegal behavior. Trump seems on pace to be likewise, though obviously if he gets nailed for collusion that would boost him up above Nixon and possibly above Jackson.

Reducing objective facts to (partisan) opinions.  
So, do you think ketchup is a vegetable?
Were 'welfare queens driving Cadillacs' ever really a drain on the budget?
Do trees really cause pollution?

I thought we were talking about lying about activities engaged in/crimes, not 4 Pinocchio campaign utterances and the momentary stupidity of Nancy Reagan. But nice job shifting the goal posts.

Since my first point is, in fact, correct it proves that you are, in fact, ignorant.

I don't care about your background one bit, I judge you on what you write, and what you write is, in fact, ignorant and I also don't care if you feel that insults your intelligence.

1.There is just no way that the idea that the Reagan Administration tried to avoid the Nixon precedent when considering the number of people in it who were investigated, indicted or convicted.  Especially considering the breadth of the administration that these indictments covered.

Since Nixon's biggest crime (at least in terms of anything known at the time) was perjury:
John M. Poindexter, President Ronald Reagan's national security adviser, was sentenced to prison for lying to Congress about key details of the Iran-Contra affair.

Again, I can only assume you are completely ignorant of history if you don't consider the Iran-Contra affair to be a big deal. I agree with you that Andrew Jackson was extremely corrupt in ignoring a Supreme Court ruling, but, since you clearly aren't aware, the genesis of Iran-Contra was that Congress had cut off funding to the Contras and people in the Reagan Administration (if not Reagan himself) sought to find illegal ways to contravene that.

Reagan himself testified on Iran Contra and used the defense of "I don't recall" on multiple occasions.

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/02/23/us/excerpts-from-reagan-s-testimony-on-the-iran-contra-affair.html?pagewanted=all

However, prior to not recalling he stated this blatant falsehood, that even sounds like "I did not have sex with that woman..."

“In spite of the wildly speculative and false stories of arms for hostages and alleged ransom payments, we did not, repeat, did not, trade weapons or anything else for hostages. Nor will we.”
—President Ronald Reagan, November 13, 1986

I think it might be fair to say in this case, Reagan-Clinton same old story.  Although, Reagan officials lied under oath about an Administration matter while Reagan himself got away with saying "I don't remember" while Clinton lied under oath about a personal matter.

2."(Reagan) acted in a Presidential manner befitting that of most previous Presidents."  I'm not sure what that even means.  It sounds to me  like you're saying 'even though the Reagan Administration was nearly as corrupt as the Nixon Administration, because he acting in a dignified manner, and his style mattered more than his substance, he shouldn't be judged as not being far from Nixon. So, you don't like that Clinton wore short pants that showed his pasty white legs while jogging?  I guess maybe President Obama was responsible for the election of Trump because he once wore a white suit.

In regards to Reagan's style, though:
https://www.vogue.com/article/the-reagan-show-sierra-pettengill-pacho-velez-interview
“I shudder to think presidents after him will be judged based on how they perform on television,” the newscaster Peter Jennings opines toward the end of the film.  (Said at the end of Reagan's second term)

“We definitely could not have had Trump if we hadn’t had Reagan,” Pettengill acknowledged when I sat down with both filmmakers earlier this week.

Of course, there are no definitive measures of judging 'the most corrupt administration' but you seem to think that your opinion on this matter should count as fact, whereas at least I used an objective measure: 138 members of an administration investigated, indicted or convicted is by far the most for any administration.  (Of course, it was two terms, there were more officials than in many earlier administrations, investigated does not mean a crime occurred... so even objective measures can be qualified.)

3.I'm sorry, but I did not shift any goal posts. You were the one who claimed Clinton was the first President since Nixon to 'reduce objective facts to partisan opinions.'  You made no reference to lying about crimes as part of that, and if that's what your list of 'new extremes' referred to, then why did it include "President as a celebrity figure"?

Of course, I completely agree that the Reagan Administration (and Reagan himself) stating blatant falsehoods as if they were objective facts has provided a precedent for Trump, at least in terms of making the public willing to accept the extreme nature that Trump routinely does that, although certainly the W Bush Administration far surpassed the Reagan Administration in terms of not caring whether an argument was based on the truth or based on a lie.

[136or142]

She's claimed that snipers were trying to shoot her, that she was treated like a slave and that she had the authority to remove Clinton from the ticket. Why is anyone even taking her word seriously?

Sniper attacks? Hillary definitely knows something about that.

No matter how much to continue to dwell on Hillary Clinton, it doesn't change that Trump is doing a terrible job.

I get that you were trying to do a “Hillary talk is distracting from Trump’s failures” thing here, but you literally did the exact opposite.
 
And you can still talk about Hillary while Trump is POTUS. Just because she’s not the POTUS doesn’t mean she’s barred from criticism.

It would help if the criticism against her was based on actual facts though, wouldn't it?

All those Wikileaks e-mails were DKIM verified to be genuine, so they're a lot more trustworthy than the Hillary camp, which has decided to call Donna Brazille a Russian operative.

It has never been verified that they weren't altered or edited.  Liar.

They are verified by the public Google DKIM key. The only way to forge that would be to crack the Google DKIM key, which would be rather unlikely.

Seems to be a matter of some debate in reading the comments: http://blog.erratasec.com/2016/10/yes-we-can-validate-wikileaks-emails.html

In addition, the reaction to the wikileaks emails was another case of the stories on the emails being greatly sensationalized.  Not all that far from the Pizzagate nonsense.  Those emails seem to have been genuine, but that didn't stop partisans (in this case, lunatic partisans) from turning them into a great deal more than was actually there.

So, indeed, even if all the wikileaks hacked emails are genuine, the partisan reporting (and much of the mainstream media reaction) was based on telling half truths about the emails.

For instance, does anybody believe that a single cabinet secretary, governor or President doesn't frequently emphasize one thing in private and another in public over a whole bunch of things. Or as Hillary Clinton apparently herself put it in one of the leaked emails 'a public position and a private position.'

In the sporting world this sort of thing is frequently mocked as when the manager of a losing team publicly states "I have full confidence in the coach, he isn't going anywhere" with a reply of "So, will the coach be gone in one week or two?"

[136or142]

She's claimed that snipers were trying to shoot her, that she was treated like a slave and that she had the authority to remove Clinton from the ticket. Why is anyone even taking her word seriously?

Sniper attacks? Hillary definitely knows something about that.

No matter how much to continue to dwell on Hillary Clinton, it doesn't change that Trump is doing a terrible job.

I get that you were trying to do a “Hillary talk is distracting from Trump’s failures” thing here, but you literally did the exact opposite.
 
And you can still talk about Hillary while Trump is POTUS. Just because she’s not the POTUS doesn’t mean she’s barred from criticism.

It would help if the criticism against her was based on actual facts though, wouldn't it?

Good thing there is.  And if you dig deep enough, you'll definitely find more.

There is too much bull**** to dig though though to find anything that is actually valid.