November 2, 2017

"Debbie [Wasserman Schultz] was not a good manager. She hadn’t been very interested in controlling the party—she let Clinton’s headquarters in Brooklyn do as it desired..."

"...so she didn’t have to inform the party officers how bad the situation was. How much control Brooklyn had and for how long was still something I had been trying to uncover for the last few weeks. By September 7, the day I called Bernie, I had found my proof and it broke my heart," writes Donna Brazile, who took over as interim chair from Wasserman Schultz. There's a lot of blaming (blame-shifting?):
Obama left the party $24 million in debt—$15 million in bank debt and more than $8 million owed to vendors after the 2012 campaign and had been paying that off very slowly. Obama’s campaign was not scheduled to pay it off until 2016. Hillary for America (the campaign) and the Hillary Victory Fund (its joint fundraising vehicle with the DNC) had taken care of 80 percent of the remaining debt in 2016, about $10 million, and had placed the party on an allowance.

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....
Brazile presents herself as a very passive, inert member of the committee. Why didn't she exercise responsibility (or quit the committee if the chair is preventing her from taking responsibility)?

Brazile finds out about the debt after the convention, from Gary Gensler, the chief financial officer of Hillary’s campaign:
“Gary, how did they do this without me knowing?” I asked. “I don’t know how Debbie relates to the officers,” Gary said. He described the party as fully under the control of Hillary’s campaign, which seemed to confirm the suspicions of the Bernie camp. The campaign had the DNC on life support, giving it money every month to meet its basic expenses, while the campaign was using the party as a fund-raising clearing house. Under FEC law, an individual can contribute a maximum of $2,700 directly to a presidential campaign. But the limits are much higher for contributions to state parties and a party’s national committee.

Individuals who had maxed out their $2,700 contribution limit to the campaign could write an additional check for $353,400 to the Hillary Victory Fund—that figure represented $10,000 to each of the thirty-two states’ parties who were part of the Victory Fund agreement—$320,000—and $33,400 to the DNC. The money would be deposited in the states first, and transferred to the DNC shortly after that. Money in the battleground states usually stayed in that state, but all the other states funneled that money directly to the DNC, which quickly transferred the money to Brooklyn.

“Wait,” I said. “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?”

Gary said the campaign had to do it or the party would collapse...
Read the whole thing. There's much more.
I wanted to believe Hillary, who made campaign finance reform part of her platform, but I had made this pledge to Bernie and did not want to disappoint him. I kept asking the party lawyers and the DNC staff to show me the agreements that the party had made for sharing the money they raised, but there was a lot of shuffling of feet and looking the other way....
Can we get a special prosecutor?
I had tried to search out any other evidence of internal corruption that would show that the DNC was rigging the system to throw the primary to Hillary.... The funding arrangement with HFA and the victory fund agreement was not illegal, but it sure looked unethical. 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 was not a criminal act, but as I saw it, it compromised the party’s integrity....
I'd like a neutral outsider, a respected prosecutor, to investigate whether this was criminal. I'm not accepting Brazile's self-interested assertion. It was bad, really bad, she keeps saying, but — magically — it was not criminal. My impression of campaign finance law — and I'm not an expert — is that many things that don't even seem wrong have been criminalized. Brazile has it the other way around.
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.
And yet you're only telling us all this a year later. Brazile wants us to see her as a victim:
I urged Bernie to work as hard as he could to bring his supporters into the fold with Hillary.... I knew he agreed with me, but I never in my life had felt so tiny and powerless as I did making that call.

When I hung up the call to Bernie, I started to cry, not out of guilt, but out of anger. We would go forward. We had to.
Disgusting. 

163 comments:

Jay Vogt said...

Blaming = Blame Shifting

Mark said...

Individuals who had maxed out their $2,700 contribution limit to the campaign could write an additional check for $353,400 to the Hillary Victory Fund—that figure represented $10,000 to each of the thirty-two states’ parties who were part of the Victory Fund agreement—$320,000—
“Wait,” I said. “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?”


Wait -- doesn't this describe an illegal money laundering operation to illegally get around individual contribution limits?

Meade said...

Does Donna Brazile even hav
e one clean hand?

Jay Vogt said...

The Democratic National Committee did not repay a $10 million line of credit from Duke Energy (the country’s largest electric power company) who underwrote the 2012 convention. Yet, remarkably there is no possibility of conflict of interest nor even the appearance thereof. Cool.

Christopher said...

It's enough to make you think there are no nice people in Washington, which is sad because I live here.

Anyway Althouse has the right gist. Brazile is a weathervane. She is not heartbroken about anything other than her own future. The piece is informative, showing how furiously major elements of the party want to bury Clinton.

Drago said...

Another front in the Democrat Civil War because many of the dems know that Hillary is positioning herself to run in 2020, despite whatever nonsense she is spouting today, and that if Hillary wants it bad enough she is fully capable of hacking the dem nominating process and rig the whole thing once again.

Hillary knows the lefty foot soldiers will do whatever they are told when the time comes so she just has to control the machinery of the process to win.

Hillary also knows that she can depend on a cadre of "lifelong republican" allies to cross over and support her rhetorically and operationally, as we've already seen in the past.

Given these circumstances, if you were Hillary, why wouldn't you roll the dice?

Rae said...

So what has changed in the Democratic party that Brazille can turn on the Clintons now? Is the Warren/Sanders wing that strong now? Is it the Fusion GPS investigation? Or the Hollywood/Media sex harrassment/rape allegations?

I guess it's a combination of all three, plus having lost two presidential elections.

Meade said...

"Ms. Brazile’s infraction, however, may be more damaging. Her sharing of questions with a candidate would seem to undercut the impartiality of the event and, as a CNN contributor, potentially reflect poorly on the network, which received big ratings, and thus profits, from primary debates and town halls."

Rob said...

At least she didn’t let the crisis interrupt her vacation on Martha’s Vineyard. The woman’s got priorities.

Hari said...

DWS was not a good manager. Of course not. That's why she was given the job. Donna Brazile is not a good manager either. That's why she was given the job.

Sebastian said...

"Disgusting." Umm, yeah. Nice to see the disgust reflex operative. We cynical conservatives have just about lost it. We just assume the worst of Hill and her gang, and are rarely disappointed.

Still, it's all peanuts compared to the $145M from Russia.

Kevin said...

Wait -- doesn't this describe an illegal money laundering operation to illegally get around individual contribution limits?

Democrats just hate all the money in politics.

Drago said...

Rae: "So what has changed in the Democratic party that Brazille can turn on the Clintons now?"

Because its taken this long for the majority of dem insiders to believe that Hillary has every intention of running again.

Obviously.

And that has many of them spooked. If Hillary were to get the nomination her enemies list of democrats would be a mile long and if Hillary were to win the nomination and the general election her ability (given Media/LLR complicity and obama precedent with the intelligence agencies and other executive agencies) would give her practical immunity to deal with all the rest of her enemies in the republican party and finish off any of those dems who supported obama in 2008 and Bernie in 2016.

Things might even get so bad if Hillary were President that LLR Chuck might even make a very concise, generalized, nonspecific, very polite comment about it.....to use against another republican later as well, of course.

But still.

Kevin said...

Mystery Woman: You miserable slug! You think you can talk your way out of this? You betrayed me.

Jake: No, I didn't. Honest... I ran out of gas. I... I had a flat tire. I didn't have enough money for cab fare. My tux didn't come back from the cleaners. An old friend came in from out of town. Someone stole my car. There was an earthquake. A terrible flood. Locusts! IT WASN'T MY FAULT, I SWEAR TO GOD!

[Elwood covers his head in anticipation of more gunfire, Jake removes his sunglasses to make a wordless appeal, and the

Mystery Woman visibly softens]

Mystery Woman: Oh, Jake... Jake, honey...

[Jake embraces the Mystery Woman and they kiss]

Jake: [to Elwood] Let's go.

[He drops the Mystery Woman and walks off]

Elwood: [to the Mystery Woman as he steps past her] Take it easy.

Greg said...

Donna has a new tell all book coming out. She has obviously bailed out and wants to maximize sales however she can.

rehajm said...

Why try to resurrect Donna? If you don’t back the corrupt ones it’s harder to get future watercarriers to do the shit work.

MikeR said...

It's unbelievable. But I'm not sure I can believe Brazile.

Mike said...

She omits her own obscenely deceptive acts, only one of which was made public, the CNN debate questions episode. But does anyone really believe she didn't do other things that have NOT yet come to light. This sounds like preemptive blame-storming so that when the really dirty Donna dirt comes out she can try the clintonian "old news" trick. I hope it fails to rehabilitate this skanky swamp creature.

AlbertAnonymous said...

Disgusting indeed! But not unexpected to anyone paying attention. Hillary should be in jail.

But it’s all Russia Russia Russia!

Bob Ellison said...

But the leftist marketing is that they always want to do the correct thing. They always want to protect the little people.

They don't? They're only in it for themselves?

And wait...if they're atheists (they are), then why do they care about what happens to their progeny and everyone else?

Mike said...

Wait -- doesn't this describe an illegal money laundering operation to illegally get around individual contribution limits?

Silly people, the rules never apply to the Clintons. "No reasonable prosecutor" and all that, right?

Kevin said...

Can we all remember this the next time we're told that "Hillary couldn't have done X because (she didn't have that power)", and "Hillary wasn't involved in X because (other people were running the show)"?

You know, like on the Uranium One deal which was supposedly all handled outside of her reach by a bunch of people who didn't have any allegiance to her?

Can we just knock that shit off now?

jwl said...

I wonder if Brazille had this article vetted before she had it printed. Could be cut off your nose to spite your face behaviour - in effort to go after Hillary, Brazille could be getting herself and DNC into legal trouble as well.

I also thought it was rather coy of Brazille to leave out fact that she was feeding insider knowledge to Clinton campaign, as Meade points out above.

Fabi said...

Brazile is an incurious dummy.

Gahrie said...

We would go forward. We had to.

She persisted.

Jay Vogt said...

Normally not a big fan of double entendre as titles for books, but Donna's is a pretty good one.

SGT Ted said...

Believe Hillary? Oh HAHAHAHAHA!

Who are these dumb fucking people?

Kevin said...

She omits her own obscenely deceptive acts, only one of which was made public, the CNN debate questions episode.

The whole books isn't out yet. If it's any good, there will be more bombshells to land.

And I believe she'll want to distance herself from that little episode as well.

Ray said...

My guess is a narrative setting article before the other shoe drops. What is coming to cause this?

Another WikiLeaks dump is expected?

State Department is to release some Clinton E-Mails that would have disclosed this?

We should know within a week.

I dislike being so cynical, but that is the way the Democrats operate, sigh. Not very moral at all.

Hillary's defending her paying for the Trump Dossier currently. It's not going well...

>Blogger Rae said...
>
> So what has changed in the Democratic party that Brazille can turn on the Clintons >now? Is the Warren/Sanders wing that strong now? Is it the Fusion GPS investigation? Or >the Hollywood/Media sex harrassment/rape allegations?
>
> I guess it's a combination of all three, plus having lost two presidential >elections.

exiledonmainstreet said...

"And yet you're only telling us all this a year later. Brazile wants us to see her as a victim."

Well, that's quite fashionable, isn't it? Be a corrupt and deceptive shit, do anything to win, and if you lose, point fingers, blame others and whine about being a victim. Donna learned at the feet of the masters - the Clintons.

I am enjoying the Dem circular firing squad. But of course, the GOPe is so obsessed with Trump that they will not miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

exhelodrvr1 said...

She's lying. The SS Democrats is sinking, and all the rats are trying to save themselves.

mccullough said...

So Hillary controlled the DNC and state Dem parties' bank accounts despite the fact they weren't in her name. Under the Manafort indictment, these separate groups on paper are called "nominees." Sounds like money laundering and conspiracy to violate campaign finance laws.

Lawcruiter said...

The sound of chickens, roosting.

Mr Wibble said...

Wait -- doesn't this describe an illegal money laundering operation to illegally get around individual contribution limits?

Clinton's server, and the house dem server, were both part of a conspiracy to funnel money, especially illegal foreign cash, to favored Dems, party officials, and third-party supporters (journalists, activists, etc). They didn't want any official records, so they set up their own servers. DWS hired the Awans, because the latter were willing to help cover up shady doings and wouldn't ask questions. The Awans, in turn, decided to use their access to steal information and sell it to Pakistan.

Kathryn51 said...

Althouse asks: Why didn't she exercise responsibility (or quit the committee if the chair is preventing her from taking responsibility)?

This is a joke question, correct? The Dem executive committee wasn't made up of local party officials - it's made up of interest groups and politicians. Dems do not take these positions because of any principled belief in their party - they take them for power. Their focus is on dividing up the American spoils system - whether getting your brother-in-law's cousin a job at the local water district or calling up Obama and getting several million$$ for an FBI center in Florida.

Kevin said...

Ann, I cannot believe you are wasting time on this. This is your first post on Donna Brazile's book.

I have never heard of Donna Brazile or Hillary Clinton. Who are these people? And why are you covering for Trump and his Trumpsociates? Why are you avoiding the real story - the speculation about what I read somewhere else about what that power player George Papadopoulos might have said or did, which might or might not have implicated a Trump domestic servant with ties to the Russian mafia?

When Trump is impeached for peeing on a bed in Moscow you will be embarrassed that you chose to focus on these other stories!

************

Now that I've added everything we're likely to get from Inga, the thread can move on...

DKWalser said...

I don't believe her. I believe everything she says about Clinton's controlling the DNC before she was nominated. I don't believe her claim that she was ignorant of that fact until after the convention. Brazile was a long-time Clinton supporter and confidant. She was picked to be interim chair because she was on Team Hillary. People were giving money to the DNC knowing it would be used to help elect Hillary. How did all these campaign fund raisers and contributors know about this arrangement and Brazile, who served as an officer of the DNC, not know? It doesn't make any sense.

Of course, if Brazile hadn't been caught lying about giving Hillary debate questions I might be willing to give her the benefit of any doubt that she's lying now. She's proven to be a liar in the past. I think she still is.

Stacy M said...

CYA Donna. We haven't forgotten how you sent Hillary the questions before a debate...and that was during the primaries when Bernie was still in. Now you want to pretend disgust that the system was rigged. It wasn't just the DNC and you were a participant.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

If THESE are the things that Donna Brazille is actually telling us about, imagine what she is NOT talking about!

What slime these people are.

Kevin said...

Because its taken this long for the majority of dem insiders to believe that Hillary has every intention of running again.

Hillary Halloween Costume

WisRich said...

exhelodrvr1 said...
She's lying. The SS Democrats is sinking, and all the rats are trying to save themselves.

11/2/17, 9:39 AM
------------

It is becoming apparent that every Dem thought Hillary was a shoe in for POTUS and as result all the illegal and unethical activities would be buried.

I wasn't a matter of Hillary wanting to be POTUS, she had to be POTUS to cover her tracks.

Da Bear said...

This is my shocked face.

Dems gotta corrupt !

The Drill SGT said...

Donna wasn't the innocent outsider she now pretends to be. She was the f'ing Vice Chairman of the DNC, and had been since 2011. That's before DWS showed up.

The Drill SGT said...

Dust Bunny Queen said...
If THESE are the things that Donna Brazille is actually telling us about, imagine what she is NOT talking about!


Thread winner!!!

Ferananidinande said...

The US has the best politicians that money can buy.

U! S! A!

Qwinn said...

Remember when Lois Lerner came out and admitted to a very sanitized version of what the IRS did to conservative groups, because she knew it had been uncovered and the results of the investigation were about to be released?

Remember how that admission turned into pleading the 5th, while every new revelation proving she admitted to far less than actually happened became "old news" and "not a smidgeon of corruption"?

This, is that.

tcrosse said...

Had Hillary not committed the unpardonable sin of losing the election, Brazile's book would have taken a different tone, I think. It wouldn't do for a Cabinet Secretary to spill the beans.

Xmas said...

The best part about the Brazile snippet. She mentions Marc Elias in connection with the cash funneling deal between the DNC and the Hillary campaign. Elias is the lawyer that used Clinton campaign cash to pay for the Steele Dossier. This puts Elias right in the nexus of managing campaign cash for Hillary and ties Elias to Mook and other top Clinton staff.

TreeJoe said...

Just to be clear.....A major national party, the DNC, had receipts totaling about $180 million and disbursements of ~$130 million - with lots of cash on hand according to federal reporting - and they...

1. Didn't have any financial controls
2. Couldn't immediately show to their Chairperson how money was being routed
3. Funneled money directly to one campaign and handed over control of their finances to a specific campaign

....

Sounds, um, illegal.

YoungHegelian said...

Here's another major question: what the hell happened internally in the Democratic Party that so pissed off an old-time Clinton & Democratic Party loyalist like Donna Brazile that she decided to go public with her complaints?

Brazile, in her day, hasn't just seen a lot of Democratic Party chicanery, she's been involved in committing a sizable fraction of it. Is this book the shot-across-the-bow to some other Dems to let them know she's very unhappy? This is a woman who knows where the Democrats bury the bodies.

Something is going on in the bowels of the Democratic Party & this is just the part that we the public are seeing.

Mr Wibble said...

Something is going on in the bowels of the Democratic Party & this is just the part that we the public are seeing.

The Dems have two factions: the pragmatics and the academics. The former are the Bill Clinton types: they may be liberal, but they're willing to compromise in order to win. They appeal to the blue collar white workers, the people who may be culturally conservative but support Dems because they work a union job or such. The academics are the true believers. They're the ones who think that they are the elite, that their attendance at Ivy League schools sets them apart from the masses. They enjoy the trappings of intellectualism: dinner parties with "interesting people", NPR, Ted Talks, etc. They often sneer at the middle class that they came from.

Bill was a pragmatic. Obama and Hillary were academics. The old Clinton loyalists are now being pushed aside in favor of the hard-left Obama supporters.

Hari said...

Is Brazile laying the foundation for the argument that since Hillary's campaign controlled the DNC's finances, it was Hillary's campaign that made the unilateral decision to hire Fusion, even if the bank records show that the DNC paid? In other words, the DNC was just a pass through for Hillary.

Snark said...

My first thought was to LOL at Donna Brazile hand wringing over ethics. My second was to do that again, but harder.

Big Mike said...

Oh Good Lord. The Democrats passed campaign finance “reform” laws. Now you expect them to abide by those same laws??? You must be dreaming.

Yancey Ward said...

It sounds to me that this is criminal. What Brazile is describing is that Clinton was siphoning off donations to the state parties through the DNC and spending it on her own candidacy, i.e. controlling it, before she was the actual party nominee, which she would not be until August of 2016 after the convention.

Do I believe anything Brazile is writing here? Hard to say. She had been caught herself giving Clinton a heads up on the questions in her debates with Sanders, so I tend not to believe she didn't know about the things she claims to have not known as a board member of the DNC. If I had to wager a guess, there are two things she is trying to accomplish with this book- (1) drive a stake through the heart of Hillary Clinton now that Clinton has lost the election, and (2), if she is being truthful with the financial details, she is trying to immunize herself from criminal prosecution. Her book, by itself, is enough cause to open a criminal investigation into the Clinton Campaign and the DNC itself. It may well have already started if Brazile felt it necessary to publicize this.

Drago said...

YoungHegelian: "Here's another major question: what the hell happened internally in the Democratic Party that so pissed off an old-time Clinton & Democratic Party loyalist like Donna Brazile that she decided to go public with her complaints?"

Lots of early 2020 activity on the Dem side in their Civil War is forcing people to declare their allegiances sooner than expected.

Jersey Fled said...

Poor Hillary.

Doing all those underhanded and illegal things in the full belief that she would win and could cover them all up.

Then running a campaign that guaranteed she would lose.

AReasonableMan said...

Althouse said ...
Disgusting


Was anyone working under the illusion that the DNC wasn't in the tank for Hillary at the time?
This seemed pretty obvious even to the casual observer.

Crazy Jane said...

Xmas said:

"(Marc) Elias is the lawyer that used Clinton campaign cash to pay for the Steele Dossier."

Plus Elias is the defense attorney for the indefensible Robert Menendez, soon to the ex-senator from New Jersey.

Great guy, that Elias.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

It is becoming apparent that every Dem thought Hillary was a shoe in for POTUS and as result all the illegal and unethical activities would be buried.

Exactly. Had Hillary won the election we would not be having any of these 'revelations' about Uranium 1, Comey, Russia Russia Russia and all the the other dirty rats being uncovered. (note: there are still many dirty rats ensconced in power and it will take a lot of work to get them out. This is NOT over)

They thought that they were going to WIN and that the secrets, the corruption, the graft would all be hidden neatly away. They thought that they would then be able to continue business as usual....raping the country for their own sleazy benefit and keep their powerful grip on the voter's throats. Continue abusing power via government agencies (IRS FBI CIA NSA etc etc).

Instead Trump and the Deplorables upset their comfy little apple cart and all the rotten apples are just rolling around for everyone to see.

They thought they would never lose. Ha!

Qwinn said...

ARM never disappoints.

In the tank is one thing. Preemptivey spending the money reserved for the general election while still in the primary is in no way "old news", but you keep on being you.

Big Mike said...

Nice to see the disgust reflex operative. We cynical conservatives have just about lost it. We just assume the worst of Hill and her gang, and are rarely disappointed.

@Sebastian, you must be even more cynical than I am. Even today the Democrats often go way beneath what I would have assumed to be the floor on how venial humans can get and still be technically human.

Yancey Ward said...

Kevin wrote:

"Ann, I cannot believe you are wasting time on this. This is your first post on Donna Brazile's book.

I have never heard of Donna Brazile or Hillary Clinton. Who are these people?"


Take note, ladies and gentlemen- the above is how you write good snark.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

What about her IT guy? - he was arrested trying to flee the country. I notice the Media (D) are very quiet on that front.

Christopher said...

The other interesting thing going can be added to Greatest Hits of the One-Party State. Jonah Goldberg apparently praised Brazile on a Fox News hit, tweeting when queried that "honorable people make mistakes." Erick Erickson (nee Red State, now Resurgent) calls the Politico piece "a great read from my friend, whose new book is going to be amazing." These are bright guys, but one wonders 1. How can smart people be so stupid 2. How stupid do they think we are?

exhelodrvr1 said...

And now the shoo-in is on the other foot.

Mr. D said...

“One must have a heart of stone to read the death of little Nell without laughing.”

― Oscar Wilde

Michael in ArchDen said...

Individuals...could write an additional check for $353,400 to the Hillary Victory Fund

Party of the common man!

John Galt said...

It strikes me as entirely appropriate that Brazile's book is being published by the 'Hatchett Group.'

Big Mike said...

I assume Debbie Wasserman Schultz has been expecting something like this. Throughout history Jews have made a convenient scapegoat for anything and just about everything.

buwaya said...

The previous administration is certainly implicated, even in this rather minor bit of chicanery.
Brazile is and ever was just a PR flack and tool, as was DWS.
And Hilary was certainly not, herself, organizing the finances of the DNC. I doubt she knew anything about it. She too was just an actor on stage, not a producer.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

lalalalala... Moderate democrats will not pay attention to ANY of that. They still adore her, and weep for her, their corrupt high priestess.

Drago said...

ARM: "Was anyone working under the illusion that the DNC wasn't in the tank for Hillary at the time?"

On these very boards Inga claimed that never happened.

Claimed it was all conspiracy mongering and trying to change the subject.

You know, just another day in lefty land.

We see this tactic alot: "that never happened" turning into "of course that happened! Everyone knew it!"

A couple of the most obvious examples include the dems/left asserting Obama did not lie about obamacare over and over again, followed by the media/lefty gang saying "of course he lied and everyone knew it, that's just how Washington works.

Followed by Hillary and dossier: Its just another nutsy conservative conspiracy theory that Hillary funded the dossier, which became OF COURSE she funded the dossier, it's just oppo research! It would have been campaign malpractice to NOT do it.

The examples are endless.

buwaya said...

Well, it is "old news" if one expects nothing but chicanery. Of course they did this. This amounts to misdemeanor littering compared to what they and the Fedgov have been doing, and are doing.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Hillary Clinton cannot operate without it all being a corrupt lie.

Bob Boyd said...

They don't call her Crooked Hillary for nothing.

wildswan said...

Maybe there is a Mueller effect. If he sets a precedent for chasing down minor financial violations of political campaigns he doesn't agree with ... well ... The Republicans aren't led by kissy-kissy pols nay more.

But this book has been in the works for awhile, so maybe not. Maybe it's just Revenge of the Bernie Bros. I seem to remember a Sanders supporter commenting among our huddle of Unknowns? Hey, Unknown, what's Donna doing?

exiledonmainstreet said...

Kevin said...
Ann, I cannot believe you are wasting time on this. This is your first post on Donna Brazile's book.

I have never heard of Donna Brazile or Hillary Clinton. Who are these people? And why are you covering for Trump and his Trumpsociates? Why are you avoiding the real story - the speculation about what I read somewhere else about what that power player George Papadopoulos might have said or did, which might or might not have implicated a Trump domestic servant with ties to the Russian mafia?"

Excellent, Kevin, but you forgot Inga's demands that we feel ashamed of ourselves for voting for Trump, who makes Hillary look like Pollyanna.

buwaya said...

The state of corruption of the party and all its branches is obvious. Even Sanders himself certainly was brought in to play a role, a convenient foil. He was as surprised by his unforseeable near-success as the Clintons. The official Sanders campaign was low energy and seemed scripted to avoid damage to Clinton. It was his followers that made it a phenomenon.

wildswan said...

What is Donna doing aside from "Ambition, Distraction, Uglification, and Derision” as Althouse and Meade point out? Who's her candidate?

tcrosse said...

Who's her candidate?

Make her an offer.

SDaly said...

We will shortly be deluged with stories of DNC officials / candidates going to corruption-addiction rehab.

Leslie Graves said...

To me, this isn't about whether the DNC was in the tank for Hillary for a long time prior to her securing the nomination. (They were.) The more interesting questions are those raised by Althouse:

(1) Did the arrangement with the HRC violate FEC rules?
(2) If so, were the violations criminal?

We shall see over the next days and weeks how vigorously Republicans pursue those questions. Some complaint will be filed by the FEC. It'll be possible to see whether it is a pro forma complaint or more serious. The DOJ will be requested to start up some actions, and we'll also be able to tell whether that request is pro forma or serious.

What I also wonder about is whether Ms. Brazile realized she was opening up these possibilities with this disclosure. I have a feeling she did not realize that she was.

Amadeus 48 said...

Hee-hee-hee!

Sorry. That wasn't very professional of me.

holdfast said...

I am pretty sure that a competent prosecutor could make a case or two for fraud out of this mess.

Also, the gaming of the FEC limits seems pretty skeezy, but it may be an "everyone does it, and the FEC knows all about it" situation.

Etienne said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Gahrie said...

Was anyone working under the illusion that the DNC wasn't in the tank for Hillary at the time?

Bernie probably was.

This seemed pretty obvious even to the casual observer.

But DWS, the DNC and Hillary all lied about it anyway.

Dixie_Sugarbaker said...

Why is Brazille disclosing this now, if not to get ahead of the story. By any chance has she had a meeting with Mueller?

TestTube said...

"Book Deal by a political hack" = Legal way to transfer funds to the "Author"

Donna's priorities are two and only two:

1) Stay out of jail
2) Acquire $$$

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Absolutely everyone new that the DNC was in the tank for Hillary. You would have had to have been living in a cave in the woods to not know that. Hillary was the anointed candidate and Donna Brazille's protestations that she is shocked, shocked I say, to find out that there is gambling going on at Rick's is less than convincing.

The real question is what is going on that the current DNC leadership is throwing DWS and Hillary so completely and utterly under the bus? Even Obama gets some mild criticism in that article. Interesting times.

DanTheMan said...

Donna's comments can be summarized as: While I was helping to rig the election for Hillary, I was shocked to find out that the nomination was rigged for Hillary.

Inkling said...

We should all keep in mind a critical fact. Everything that was happening in the Democratic party was driven by an assumption that the polls were right, that Hillary would win. Criminal activities would be covered up. There'd be enough political spoils to make all the aggrieved happy. Perhaps even a few bones could be tossed to Bernie and his supporters.

When Hillary lost, all that fell apart. Now it is every man for himself, with a woman—Hillary—leading the way by blaming everyone but herself for her loss.

tcrosse said...

How much of this would have come out if Hillary had gracefully accepted defeat and quietly retired to Chappaqua, to devote herself to getting drunk and cursing at the heavens ?

Ron Winkleheimer said...

The Awans, in turn, decided to use their access to steal information and sell it to Pakistan.

The really galling part is that our Evil Overlords aren't even competent. I mean, who couldn't foresee that giving crooks access to damaging information on yourself wouldn't have bad consequences?

JeffinSLC said...

I think we know why they wouldn't fire DWS. Remember when Obama's people tried to do it, and she threatened to file a sex discrimination suit? I think they were afraid to get rid of her because she threatened to make a huge stink. Better to outsource *actual* management of the DNC to Hillary's people and sideline DWS with an "allowance". That's my thinking anyway.

dean63 said...

Oh honey!, and to think you gave her all those debate questions !! Now your just the bag holder like when the mafia becomes your business partner in a bar, launders money, steals the inventory, takes out loans and leaves you to clean up. Oh well, there's always a gig waiting at CNN.

dean63 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
PB said...

The Clintons are grifters.

theribbonguy said...

Now that the DNC/Clinton malfeasance is being thrown out into the daylight by one of their own, the question is what the congress critters and deep state bureaucrats are going to do about it.
A year ago my money would have been on absolutely nothing, but now that the putrid odor of corruption is so intense that I'm allowing myself a wee bit of hope that it's gone too far to ignore.

Still not tired of winning.

John Tuffnell said...

It all goes through Elias. This is from his law firm bio:

"Marc is currently general counsel to Hillary for America, the presidential campaign of Hillary Rodham Clinton. He served in the same role for John Kerry’s 2004 presidential campaign. Marc’s clients include the Democratic National Committee, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Democratic Governors Associations and U.S. senators, governors, representatives and their campaigns."

"Following the 2014 elections, Marc was appointed by DNC Chair Wasserman Schultz as a member of the Victory Task Force to review key components of the role of the Democratic Party–and related organizations—in recent elections and identify places where the party can strengthen and improve operations in future elections."

In the swamp, there are no conflicts of interest.

Known Unknown said...

"Even Obama gets some mild criticism in that article. Interesting times."

Under Obama's watch, the Democrat Party has gotten their clocks cleaned on many, many levels.

brylun said...

Don't expect the FEC to do anything. There are 6 commissioners, 3 Republicans and 3 Democrats. Anything controversial has always (since their inception in 1974) been a 3 to 3 tie.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

Lap dogs in the media keep their mouths shut...

Leslie Graves said...

@Inkling. Good point.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

I always assumed that Hillary would never be indicted no matter how much evidence there was because it wouldn't be politically feasible because her supporters would never believe she was crooked. In addition, she knows where a lot of bodies are buried (metaphorically at least) and could expose a lot of corruption on her way down.

But, if she doesn't control the party any longer and the people who do control it are her enemies, then suddenly they have no interest in protecting her. In addition, they may acquiesce to her destruction. If her followers start feeling that she played them for fools they will turn on her. They will be yelling "lock her up" louder than anyone at a Trump rally.

Very. Interesting. Times.

Bruce Hayden said...

Individuals who had maxed out their $2,700 contribution limit to the campaign could write an additional check for $353,400 to the Hillary Victory Fund—that figure represented $10,000 to each of the thirty-two states’ parties who were part of the Victory Fund agreement—$320,000—
“Wait,” I said. “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?”

“Wait -- doesn't this describe an illegal money laundering operation to illegally get around individual contribution limits?”

Apparently, it was pretty blatant in some cases, with the state parties getting odd sized checks, and cutting identical sized checks back to Crooked Hillary’s campaign. And, yes, it is money laundering - violation federal election campaign limits is a crime, so accomplishing it by flushing the money through the state Dem parties is a crime in itself. If the creative prosecutors on Mueller’s staff were inclined to investigate this instead, no doubt they could find several federal statutes violated by this scheme.

The Dems have long had a fund raising problem. They have depended for decades on big donors. Much more than their Republican opponents. That is because that party is a party of the poor multitudes led by an often rich elite. The middle, the middle class, and esp the upper middle class, were primarily Republican, which is why they could, so much more easily generate large amounts of campaign cash through small donations. To be competitive, the Dems inevitably need to utilize subterfuge, whether it be Bill Clinton’s campaign taking Chinese money, Obama’s turning off ceidit card verification in order to accept foreign contributions, or Crooked Hillary’s, where money was shuffled through the state parties in order to allow their big donors to give as much as they wanted, and not be limited by those pesky campaign contribution limitations. I suspect that the problem is getting worse, with the dying of private sector labor unions, who used to provide both a lot of money, plus a lot of manpower to staff phone banks, go door to door, etc. And, next election it may be even worse, with AG Sessions shutting down the Obama era scheme where large companies were settling DoJ lawsuits by giving money to leftist political opponents rganizing groups. At least some of that money likely went into supporting Dem politicians in the last election.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

Our Evil Overlords really need to peruse the material at this link.


http://www.worldconquer.org/evil_overlord.html

Rockport Conservative said...

Brazile's CYA book. She is either saying she just isn't smart enough or that she goes along with what she knows to be wrong. All for CYA.

Scott McGlasson said...

It was bad, really bad, she keeps saying, but — magically — it was not criminal.

And that's worse, really worse. The Clintons have always two-stepped around this very boundary.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

She siphoned off all this cash, lost to DJT for God's sake, the Democrat party is losing seats left and right all over the country except for a few coastal enclaves,it would appear that the Clintons and Obama have been disasters for the revolution.

Scott McGlasson said...

Was anyone working under the illusion that the DNC wasn't in the tank for Hillary at the time?
This seemed pretty obvious even to the casual observer.


Odd...I've never seen Bernie supporters labeled as casual observers.

Bruce Hayden said...

“I always assumed that Hillary would never be indicted no matter how much evidence there was because it wouldn't be politically feasible because her supporters would never believe she was crooked. In addition, she knows where a lot of bodies are buried (metaphorically at least) and could expose a lot of corruption on her way down.

But, if she doesn't control the party any longer and the people who do control it are her enemies, then suddenly they have no interest in protecting her. In addition, they may acquiesce to her destruction. If her followers start feeling that she played them for fools they will turn on her. They will be yelling "lock her up" louder than anyone at a Trump rally.”

That is an idea. Crooked Hillary doesn't appear to want to go away. Since she is convinced that she was robbed (again), she may indeed be considering runnng again in 2020. That would likely be disastrous for the Dems. Trump would likely beat her even more badly a second time around. How do you prevent that? Maybe by putting her somewhere where she can’t campaign - such as federal prison. I have little doubt that this thought has crossed the minds of some Democrats.

But, they would have to get Trump, Sessions, and the Republicans on board, and going after a failed Presidential candidate would carry a significant risk of setting that as precedent - if losing candidates get prosecuted, then who could afford losing? And how far would the type of people who do run for the Presidenncyu go to avoid losing? Maybe a bit like what happened to judicial filibusters in the after Dingy Harry Reid needed to get some controversial judges through the Senate.

Kevin said...

Excellent, Kevin, but you forgot Inga's demands that we feel ashamed of ourselves for voting for Trump, who makes Hillary look like Pollyanna.

Now exiled you know that comes later in the thread, after her posts have failed to gain any traction.

We must get the post count above 200 to ensure proper exasperation.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

But, they would have to get Trump, Sessions, and the Republicans on board, and going after a failed Presidential candidate would carry a significant risk of setting that as precedent - if losing candidates get prosecuted, then who could afford losing?

Yeah, I've thought about that also. It would just be too damaging to the republic. But on the other hand, letting someone get away with blatant criminality because of their position is not exactly conducive to good government and the rule of law either. The Clintons have substantially harmed the United States no matter what happens next.

Qwinn said...

You know how a losing candidate avoids being prosecuted?

Don't commit crimes.

If a vindictive winner prosecutes a loser on a false charge, that is a problem regardless of what precedents have been set, and should be handled when it happens.

NOT prosecuting rampant criminal activity in order to forestall the above hypothetical scenario is a cure worse than the disease.

Earnest Prole said...

I'd like a neutral outsider, a respected prosecutor, to investigate whether this was criminal.

Apparently you're thinking of some other country than America, where prosecutors are always political operatives.

tcrosse said...

If a vindictive winner prosecutes a loser on a false charge, that is a problem regardless of what precedents have been set, and should be handled when it happens.
If a vindictive loser prosecutes a winner on a false charge, that is a problem regardless of what precedents have been set, and should be handled when it happens.

Earnest Prole said...

Prosecutors litigating elections -- what could possibly go wrong?

BarrySanders20 said...

The oddest part of the article is when she location-drops Martha's Vineyard. Why did she think that was important to share for her story? Cred among a certain sect of readers?

Joint Financing Agreement was Elias' work-around knowing that one client was benefiting to the detriment of the other. Like a joint representation agreement where both parties waive conflicts. Except of course the DNC was supposed to serve interests broader than those of Her Wobbliness. How clever to have come up with a contract. It's why he's the go-to election law guru.

Bruce Hayden said...

“You know how a losing candidate avoids being prosecuted?

Don't commit crimes.

If a vindictive winner prosecutes a loser on a false charge, that is a problem regardless of what precedents have been set, and should be handled when it happens.”

The problem there though is that a creative prosecutor (such as some hired by Mueller) can, in essence, indict a ham sandwich. Or, as Glenn Reynolds has called, we typically commit three felonies a day. Several of the charges in the Manafort indictment are, essentially, creative interpretations of federal law.

David said...

"I never in my life had felt so tiny and powerless as I did making that call."

Boo Hoo.

She's not tiny. She is physically imposing in body and voice.

Apparently that voice forgot how to ask questions while she was on the DNC in a position of power. I think she is flat out lying. She is too experienced, too well connected and too smart not to have realized what was going on. But it's just as bad if she did not know. Her job was oversight, which requires questions and curiosity.

"Do your Job!"

Gk1 said...

Why would anyone believe this proven liar? She lied her ass off about not passing CNN debate questions to Hillary which was later revealed as the lie it was. Why would anyone bother reading more self-serving lies?

Kathryn51 said...

I'm not sure how we get to "criminal" if both Clinton and Sanders campaigns signed these "joint" agreements. Remember how Clinton cried about the "debt" hanging over the DNC's head after the convention (cry me a river, Hilldebeast). Like Althouse, I am not an expert in campaign finance law but I do know that huge amounts go into so-called party-building funds at the individual state level that supposedly pay for phone banks, get out the vote drives, voter registration, yard signs, etc. Republicans do this as well - I imagine there was some sort of Jeb Bush joint agreement at least.

However, it sounds as if (1) the money never made it back into states (weren't there some articles about how the Wisconsin and Michigan campaigns wondering "what happened to all that money we raised"? and (2) the DNC/state parties had no control or input into how the millions were spent. That's where the ethics come in and it would have been a big fat "oh well" if Hillary won. But she didn't win and all of those lovely plum jobs and money for pet projects vanished. Blood-in-the-water time.

Dems are so f***ked up.

bgates said...

"Money that was supposed to be used for purposes we all agreed on was diverted by the people in charge to be used the way those in power wanted", said the advocate for single-payer health care.

Gospace said...

That the article openly discusses money laundering should be the key takeaway.

Money laundering is a crime. She was neck deep in it. As was, apparently, all the donors who wrote all those individual checks to all those state committees. There's a whole s---load of people who she just said BROKE THE LAW! So, when does the first indictment show up?

Meade said...

from What Happened, Page 340 of 465 Kindle edition:

The document dump seemed designed to cause us maximum damage at a critical moment. It worked. DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz reigned two days later, and the opening of the convention was marred by loud boos and catcalls from Sanders supporters. I was sick about the whole thing. After so many long, hard months of campaigning, I wanted the convention to be perfect. It was my best chance until the debates to present my vision for the country directly to the voters. I remembered what a boost Bill received from his convention in Madison Square Garden in 1992, and I hoped to gain similar momentum. Instead, we were now dealing with a divided party and distracted press corps. Democratic leaders, especially Congresswoman Marcia Fudge of Ohio, Reverend Leah Daughtry, and Donna Brazile, helped bring order to the chaos. And Michelle Obama's masterful, moving speech brought the hall together and quieted the dissenters. Then Bernie spoke, endorsed me again, and helped cement the détente.

Meade said...

"cement the détente"

An oxymoron.

MaxedOutMama said...

This would never have appeared in public had the Democratic party not taken a look at Hillary's "Biggest Loser" tour, and decided that it needed to throw her overboard to survive. These people are all insiders. Their income, their prestige in their circle, and, in many cases, their internal sense of self-esteem are bound up in being part of the party apparatus. This is not coming out of the blue, or out of some sense of integrity. It's coming out of a collective internal upheaval.

I agree, it's disgusting, but didn't we all see this happening from the outside quite clearly during the pre-primary/primary stage? We all KNEW this.

I would like to point out again that the theory that money=victory in presidential politics was entirely destroyed in 2016. This is the essential issue that the Dems have to confront. It's not about satisfying the donors - it's about satisfying the voters, or, to put it another way, if you are in touch with, and responding to, the voters' concerns, you don't need that much money to get your message out.

Thus the real scandal for the Dems remains the !Super Delegates, which are a way for the insiders to stack the deck against an outsider with better voter "pull". Don't try to convince me that Brazile never noticed that feature! I cry BS on any claim that she stood against the fixing of the process. It was not an issue until it failed and then Hillary wouldn't go away.

And therefore, I say that Brazile is the ultimate insider who has been recruited by other insiders to kill the aging queen in the middle of the hive. We do not know who is slated to get the royal jelly next, but it's a safe bet that the same crew are planning to control who gets it.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

if you are in touch with, and responding to, the voters' concerns, you don't need that much money to get your message out.

The Republican party is less reliant on big donors than the Democrat party, but it too was putting the needs of the big donors ahead of the voters. Trump was in a position to leverage this to his advantage.

1) Figure out what the voters want
2) Promise it to them
3) When elected, actually deliver what you promised

An idea so crazy it just might work!

MaxedOutMama said...

Ron - which is why Trump is reviled as a populist, both here and across the pond. It's so disruptive. It is hard to see why voters would respond enthusiastically to appeals based on the fundamental belief that voters are the problem with democracy, however.

Jim at said...

Obama left the party $24 million in debt...

Not to mention more than a thousand state and federal elected positions turned blue to red.

Heck of a legacy, sir.

Qwinn said...

Bruce, re: 3 felonies a day:

Right now the losing (and criminal) side has engineered a 3-felonies-a-day investigation against the winner. Mueller. How does avoiding creating a precedent that it is ok to investigate *real* crimes help matters in any way?

The loser can obviously pull enough strings to have her own crimes whitewashed while accusing the winner of her own crimes. That's already pretty much the worst precedent I can imagine. How could establishing that she cannot be allowed to get away with it make things WORSE? Cause I sure do see how letting her get away with it makes it worse.

Ron Winkleheimer said...

It is hard to see why voters would respond enthusiastically to appeals based on the fundamental belief that voters are the problem with democracy, however.

Yep, they lecture us on what bad people we are and how they are our moral and intellectual superiors, and then are astounded when we fail to vote for them.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Meade said...

from What Happened, Page 340 of 465 Kindle edition:

The document dump seemed designed to cause us maximum damage at a critical moment. It worked. DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz reigned two days later...


without a [sic] I don't know if that is in the original, or introduced by Meade

CStanley said...

Two words for Ms. Brazile: Fiduciary responsibility.

Meade said...

Ha. I introduced it. Good eye, IgnoBliss!

There. See how easy that was?

Original Mike said...

Blogger Qwinn said..."Right now the losing (and criminal) side has engineered a 3-felonies-a-day investigation against the winner. Mueller. How does avoiding creating a precedent that it is ok to investigate *real* crimes help matters in any way?

The loser can obviously pull enough strings to have her own crimes whitewashed while accusing the winner of her own crimes. That's already pretty much the worst precedent I can imagine. How could establishing that she cannot be allowed to get away with it make things WORSE? Cause I sure do see how letting her get away with it makes it worse."


Yeah, I started out as "let's not investigate/prosecute Hillary, because it would set a dangerous precedent" guy, but I think you're right, Qwinn. That precedent has already been set in motion by the losers. Horse, barn door. It's very concerning.

It's worth noting that if the shoe were on the other foot, Trump could not have started this chain of events. It requires having the media on your side.

Rabel said...

"Plus Elias is the defense attorney for the indefensible Robert Menendez"

Incorrect. It's Abby Lowell and associates.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Best comment I've seen on this:

"If you've been observing the Clintons since 1992, this has the feel of Sammy Bull Gravano ratting out John Gotti."

Unknown said...

This strikes me as fraud. Donations made to the party prior to Hilary's nomination would be directed towards the party's interests. Redirecting those donations to Hilary to win the party nomination strikes me as no longer being directed to the interests of the party, but to the interests of an individual. So that would be fraud. It is only after the nomination that those funds could be directed towards her as the party's candidate.

Jeff Hall said...

Individuals who had maxed out their $2,700 contribution limit to the campaign could write an additional check for $353,400 to the Hillary Victory Fund—that figure represented $10,000 to each of the thirty-two states’ parties who were part of the Victory Fund agreement—$320,000—and $33,400 to the DNC. The money would be deposited in the states first, and transferred to the DNC shortly after that.

So let me get this straight -- Dinesh D’Souza got sent to prison for making a donation with his bride-to-be a few weeks earlier than the law allows -- but about a year after his trial, the DNC set up thirty-two shell companies around the country so that rich donors could donate 32 times the legal limit? Am I missing something?

Original Mike said...

"Redirecting those donations to Hilary to win the party nomination strikes me as no longer being directed to the interests of the party,..."

Hillary begs to differ.

Bruce Hayden said...

“Right now the losing (and criminal) side has engineered a 3-felonies-a-day investigation against the winner. Mueller. How does avoiding creating a precedent that it is ok to investigate *real* crimes help matters in any way?

The loser can obviously pull enough strings to have her own crimes whitewashed while accusing the winner of her own crimes. That's already pretty much the worst precedent I can imagine. How could establishing that she cannot be allowed to get away with it make things WORSE? Cause I sure do see how letting her get away with it makes it worse.”

Does anyone believe that Crooked Hillary would have let her DoJ investigate her, if she had won? Or allowed an independent prosecutor be named to investigate her?My view is that this is inevitably a “heads I win, tails you lose” when it comes to comparing ethics with the Dem elite. And esp the Clintons. Republicans get investigated, and Democrats don’t, regardless of who wins.

Kevin said...

The loser can obviously pull enough strings to have her own crimes whitewashed while accusing the winner of her own crimes.

And then when the winner in impeached, she can demand to be put in power as "the people's representative" based on coming in second.

tcrosse said...

Donna Brazile has to realize what you must do if you strike at the Queen.

Scott McGlasson said...

And then when the winner in impeached, she can demand to be put in power as "the people's representative" based on coming in second.

Or based on a second coming, as she probably considers herself.

Sacto_Dave said...

A person with integrity would have gone public immediately after informing Sanders. She’s CYA for some reason. Maybe Mueller is snoffing around thru campaign finance reports.

Marty said...

There's a precedent for a losing candidate being hounded as a criminal.
Aaron Burr was convicted of manslaughter in NJ for the killing of Hamilton.
The country has survived that one quite nicely, thank you.

Fabi said...

I'm not sure this is throwing Hillary under the bus but it's heaving a few brushback pitches.

Tank said...

I'm just a girl, and a black one at that.

Therefore, no consequences.

TBlakely said...

Et tu, Brutus?

tim in vermont said...

I am shocked that ARM thinks this is old news and we should be talking about something else.

tim in vermont said...

Democrats think that shell companies mean it's all legal! That's why it was ok for Hillary to pay campaign funds to a Russian spy, shell companies!

Unknown said...

>> Obama left the party $24 million in debt...
> Not to mention more than a thousand state and federal elected positions turned blue to red.

Finally some criticism of the quota hire.

Sure, Obama and Pelosi/Reid destroyed their own party,

but

they left our country in great shape with high growth, reduced entitlements,increased foreign respect and greater respect for government institutions and the 4th estate.

Which is a reason to hand over far more power to them NOW!

tim in vermont said...

Which Unknown is it? The parody or the earnest one? LOL

tim in vermont said...

It makes you realize how silly the idea that the DNC emails were leaked by a frustrated Democrat really is. Ov course it was a Russian hack using technical means that even our best minds can't understand.

n.n said...

After rigging it for Obama, it was Clinton's turn.

The DNC is a hotbed of diversity and dynasty.

Crazy Jane said...

Rabel said: Incorrect. It's Abby Lowell and associates.

Fair point, but it's actually Abbe Lowell. Marc Elias has shown up in the latter part of the trial and appeared in local news photos of the defense team. No idea why he's there.

FIDO said...

I would be happy for a vindictive winning prosecutor to investigate the loser on REAL charges, thank you very much.

But not until the Justice Department has been flushed out, starting with the FBI, who can't seem to find a DA who will prosecute a Clinton.

FIDO said...

'The...wheels come off the bus going round and round
round and round,
round and round.

The wheels come off the bus going round and round...all across the town..."

Unknown said...

> I am shocked that ARM thinks this is old news

From over in conservative treehouse, commenter points out Politico said all this before:

Clinton fundraising leaves little for state parties
2 May 2016
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/clinton-fundraising-leaves-little-for-state-parties-222670

“States…are essentially acting as money laundering conduits for them (the Clinton campaign and the DNC)”

“the (Hillary For America) victory fund was essentially a pass-through to allow Clinton to benefit from contributions that far exceed the amount that her campaign could legally accept.”

“Clinton’s campaign would control the movement of the funds between participating committees”

“what happens to the cash after that initial distribution is left almost entirely to the discretion of the Clinton campaign. Its chief operating officer, Beth Jones, is the treasurer of the (Hillary For America) victory fund.”

Unknown said...


Nothing happens in that party without establishment planning. Especially from Donna Freaking Brazile! She's not turning heel to face (or is it the other way?) she is still just the water carrier.

This is part of a rebranding.

The Dem Brand is more used up after Obama/Clinton than the Batman franchise was when Clooney took over. Batman and Robin - Tomato-meter 10%

You could dissolve the party and create a Socialist Workers Party... instead

The BernieBros come home when you offer a narrative for all the losing.

C'mon, Laiwatha pops up the same day to add to the street theater.

MikeR said...

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/926249604936556545?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fpjmedia.com%2Ftrending%2Fhillary-clinton-given-democratic-woman-year-award-day-revealed-rigged-2016-democratic-primaries%2F
President agrees with Althouse.