November 3, 2017

"I always felt I would be running and winning against Bernie Sanders, not Crooked H, without cheating, I was right."


ADDED: Other Trump tweets reacting to Donna Brazile's spilling her story (in order from oldest to newest and with one in italics because I'm only suspecting that it belongs in the set):
Donna Brazile just stated the DNC RIGGED the system to illegally steal the Primary from Bernie Sanders. Bought and paid for by Crooked H....

....This is real collusion and dishonesty. Major violation of Campaign Finance Laws and Money Laundering - where is our Justice Department?

My Twitter account was taken down for 11 minutes by a rogue employee. I guess the word must finally be getting out-and having an impact.

Everybody is asking why the Justice Department (and FBI) isn't looking into all of the dishonesty going on with Crooked Hillary & the Dems..

...New Donna B book says she paid for and stole the Dem Primary. What about the deleted E-mails, Uranium, Podesta, the Server, plus, plus...

....People are angry. At some point the Justice Department, and the FBI, must do what is right and proper. The American public deserves it!

The real story on Collusion is in Donna B's new book. Crooked Hillary bought the DNC & then stole the Democratic Primary from Crazy Bernie!

Pocahontas just stated that the Democrats, lead by the legendary Crooked Hillary Clinton, rigged the Primaries! Lets go FBI & Justice Dept.

Bernie Sanders supporters have every right to be apoplectic of the complete theft of the Dem primary by Crooked Hillary!

The rigged Dem Primary, one of the biggest political stories in years, got ZERO coverage on Fake News Network TV last night. Disgraceful!

99 comments:

Fabi said...

Winning.

Henry said...

Masterful trolling.

You know, being crooked isn't a crime either. It's "a term with a legalistic feel but with close to 'no legal meaning whatsoever'" to quote an expert.

Clinton supporters keep telling us she isn't crooked because she didn't commit a crime. And yet she's still crooked.

WisRich said...

A lot of Schlonging going on in the Democratic party.

Nonapod said...

Mongol General: What is best in life?

Conan: To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women.

Unknown said...

Hahahaha! “Without cheating”? Really?

robother said...

"Crooked H" left Savannah, Lord she would not stop....

dreams said...

Trump just reinforcing the meaning of Trumped.

cubanbob said...

Trump is saying he would have beaten an old Communist if Crooked Hillary hadn't stolen the primaries. I have to admit Trump has a point. Does anyone seriously believe an old half out of the close Communist would have beaten Trump? Incidentally, has Sander's wife been indicted yet?

buwaya said...

I wonder how much effect the cheating actually had in the Democratic primaries. Some no doubt, but I dont think the DNC was all that relevant.
Sanders was obviously selected as a fake opponent. He campaigned poorly, his messaging was weak, he was given many opportunities he did not take. He did not want to win, that was never his charter.
Sanders surprising popularity was created by his supporters, who chose to back him by default. He became the leader of a movement he didnt actually want to lead.

John Tuffnell said...

Hillary had it all greased for her. Public expression of support by the current popular president. Nearly all media. All universities. Wall Street. Silicon Valley. The entrenched administrative deep state. All right thinking people who mattered. Pallets full of money. And she owned the DNC a full year before the nomination with her lawyer as its lawyer and a formal declaration of legal money laundering with the state committees.

Yet she struggled through and just barely won the nomination, and then only with the known legal cheating through the Superdelegates. All that and still not enough to win.

She should have titled her book "Why Arent I 50 points Ahead You Might Ask?" With all that collusion she couldn't figure it out either.

Snark said...

He's full of poo. I watched coverage of this on CNN last night, where the regular panelists were being so hard on the situation generally that the pro-Trump guy felt the need to jump in and defend Hillary Clinton.

lgv said...

Fairly accurate, but the framing of every Trump tweet is incredibly annoying. Despite agreeing with many of his positions and wanting to support his presidency, I can't help but retreat back in time when I couldn't stand to listen to him. This was well before he decided to run for president.

The MSM is ignoring it, CNN isn't, but they have everyone working the angle that it just poor DNC management. The key points are: 1) who was working the ship as it steered toward a $24m deficit, 2) was the deal that HRC rammed down their throat specifically designed to bypass the individual contribution limits to HRC's campaign and was this illegal, and 3) is this a play to shift the purchase of bogus Fusion GPS work to Hillary only and not the DNC?

That should be the message. Bernie wouldn't have won the nomination or election anyway.

john said...

"...where is our Justice Department?"

Get off the throne, flush, then walk down the hall and call a cabinet meeting. Justice will be across the table, slightly to your right.

Scott McGlasson said...

The DNC argued in court that they are not required to run a fair primary system, didn't they? Also, the biggest part of this story, to me, is the one that doesn't seem to get mentioned as much; as part of the agreement, HRC controlled the hiring & firing strings. Even if all the rest of it fell away, this ensured that she would control the primaries, control the convention, and the nomination.

Scott McGlasson said...

He's full of poo. I watched coverage of this on CNN last night, where the regular panelists were being so hard on the situation generally that the pro-Trump guy felt the need to jump in and defend Hillary Clinton.

Maybe only partially full. The "big three" networks ignored the story, from what I've read this morning.

buwaya said...

Technical issues are not very significant in a propaganda war.
The general concept is more important, and in this case the point of the tweeting is to create a frame, and that is that the system as a whole, and the MSM, are untrustworthy and hypocritical. The details are not too relevant.
As for being abrasive, Adams has this in his model, in that it provokes imprudent reactions, which become yet more material for propaganda. These are like the bullfighters banderillas and cape.

n.n said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
tim in vermont said...

If he keeps this up, I may turn into a sycophant.

Bob Loblaw said...

Hillary had it all greased for her.

By Obama, in the end. The national party was so far in debt by 2015 it had option other than to take Hillary's money. And that meant she could put all her people in every position that mattered. It meant every press release the party put out had to be vetted by Hillary's campaign, and every decision the Democratic party apparatus made at the national level was viewed in light of "does this help Hillary's campaign?"

Which is all fine, I guess, if you assume there was no way she could fail to get the nomination, something that may even have been true because of the superdelegates.

At this point Bernie is looking pretty good. Donna Brazile came to him a few days before the election and laid out just how much Debbie Wasserman Shultz had been stacking the deck, yet he still swallowed his pride and supported Hillary. The party higher-ups won't forget that.

n.n said...

So, the DNC conspired with the Obama administration, Clinton et al, and foreign assets in order to deprive Democrats of a candidate, and to disenfranchise Americans. The mainstream media, including NYT, WaPo, PBS, NPR, et al were fellow conspirators and participated in a cover-up of the Democratic effort to sabotage the democratic process.

I wonder if anyone has traced Obama's several hundred million in foreign-sourced donations that were used to influence Americans to vote for the Democratic candidate.

Water Closet and the Nigerian phishing expedition continue to confirm the class diversitist, trans-human, anti-native, anti-democratic character of the DNC and Democratic conspirators.

It's the fourth trimester and the baby hunt has concluded with exposure of witches and warlocks. There will be no baby on the barbie tonight. The DNC made the wrong Choice and they Planned for nought. Now if we can just reform Obama's born-alive penalty act.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

The Donna Brazile bombshell can only mean that some Democrats are afraid Hillary Clinton will run again. That may also be a reason for what Althouse is calling the politicization of sexual harassment in the media (but has it been?).

Donna has also created a problem for Bernie. Getting cheated out of the election is a big black mark against Bernie's qualifications for the office. We don't want Presidents who can get cheated.

That may also be what was behind the collusion narrative, making it appear that Hillary got cheated. As for Donald, better to be the cheat than the cheated.

tim in vermont said...

. I watched coverage of this on CNN last night, where the regular panelists were being so hard on the situation generally that the pro-Trump guy felt the need to jump in and defend Hillary Clinton.

Yes, CNN is where you go to get the unbiased and complete facts.

tim in vermont said...

CNN'S putative Trump unsupporter's first mission is to not go to far and actually help Trump.

SGT Ted said...

Hillary Clinton purchased the DNC for her run for the presidency. That's the bottom line.

rehajm said...

The Donna Brazile bombshell can only mean that some Democrats are afraid Hillary Clinton will run again.

I think she's seen as an invaluable water carrier for the lefties. Demonstrated commitment to go the extra mile. Plus black lady! She's a bit of rehab project but they can drop her like a hot rock if it doesn't work.

rehajm said...

If you're team leftie you also can't afford to abandon the people willing to do the shit jobs that get caught.

holdfast said...

I still think that a case for fraud could be made out. Fraud on donors who thought that they were donating to the DNC, not the HRC campaign.

Scott McGlasson said...

something that may even have been true because of the superdelegates.

Superdelegates...the official two-tiered, aristocratic system of the DNC.

Stephen said...

Those are a lot of tweet-flames that media moths cannot resist. The question is, what's the real story that he's trying to distract us from: North Korea, new Fed chair, tax bill...?

Assrat said...

>Trump is saying he would have beaten an old Communist if Crooked Hillary hadn't stolen the primaries.

It would make an interesting what-if. Isn't Bernie the guy who claimed he was paralyzed with indecision over the purchase of a pair of blue jeans? I'd love to see that commercial.

buwaya said...

The Donald frame is that all of US politics and conventional media is "purchased", by nature.

Thats the "swamp".

tim in vermont said...

I would have voted for Bernie. I didn't know what a great president Trump eould be.

bgates said...

the regular panelists were being so hard on the situation generally

lol. "The situation"? That's what they were hard on? The guy from Jersey Shore? You can't even say the words "corrupt Democratic Party".

rehajm said...

The question is, what's the real story that he's trying to distract us from: North Korea, new Fed chair, tax bill...?

There's no reason assume a distraction. He would like to call attention to crooked Hillary and the DNC as told by Donna Brazile.

Achilles said...

buwaya said...
I wonder how much effect the cheating actually had in the Democratic primaries. Some no doubt, but I dont think the DNC was all that relevant.

It was just another example that the uniparty is all a sham. Both parties were just a tool to make sure the only candidates were approved by the donors. The Republican party apparatus itself stayed neutral during the primaries more out of cowardice and stupidity than propriety.

Sanders was obviously selected as a fake opponent. He campaigned poorly, his messaging was weak, he was given many opportunities he did not take. He did not want to win, that was never his charter. Sanders surprising popularity was created by his supporters, who chose to back him by default. He became the leader of a movement he didn't actually want to lead.

Exactly right. Bernie's life has demonstrated he is not particularly intelligent. He didn't realize until the west coast primaries he actually had a chance and even then he flubbed it. The "We don't care about your damn emails" was obviously scripted. That debate made WWE fans laugh.

Robert said...

This tweet storm is a work of art. Don't think Jeff Sessions will wake from his slumber but maybe he sleeps like a cat?

Yancey Ward said...

buwaya wrote:

"I wonder how much effect the cheating actually had in the Democratic primaries. Some no doubt, but I dont think the DNC was all that relevant."

Not much is my opinion. Sanders could have defeated her, but he had to hit her where she was most vulnerable right from the start in late 2015. He didn't do that because he didn't really believe he could win until it was too late to do so.

tim in vermont said...

Was it Machiavelli who said "Give me the power to nominate, and I will care little for your power to elect." That's how the donors feel, because unlike the general, you can with the primary with enough money, usually, until Trump upset that apple cart and gave all of the big money donors and their toadies like Unknown fits.

Paul said...

Crooked Hillary must have dirt, lots of dirt, on many in the government.

That is the only explanation of why she isn't in jail.

tcrosse said...

The purpose of the Superdelegates is to keep the damn primary voters from having too much to say about the nomination. Otherwise you end up with a nominee like George McGovern whom the primary voters favor but the Party Pros and the electorate don't.

Hagar said...

I do not believe Donna Brazile thought up this "confessional" by herself.

Todd said...

rehajm said... [hush]​[hide comment]
The question is, what's the real story that he's trying to distract us from: North Korea, new Fed chair, tax bill...?

There's no reason assume a distraction. He would like to call attention to crooked Hillary and the DNC as told by Donna Brazile.

11/3/17, 12:36 PM


You have to forgive him, he is used to 8 years of distractions and "never let a crisis go to waste" he no longer knows that not all comments are done to distract the plebs from some crooked activities.

tim in vermont said...

Individuals who had maxed out their $2,700 contribution limit to the [Hillary] campaign could write an additional check for $353,400 to the Hillary Victory Fund—that figure represented $10,000 to each of the 32 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 [Hillary's campaign headquarters] Brooklyn.

Yes yes yes. The sooner everybody stops talking about this, the better! How in the world could anybody even imagine that it could have been a leak, or that any Sanders supporters could have been disgruntled enough to leak it.

We know it was the Russians who did it by some unknown mechanism different than all of the other hacks, because a bunch of Democrat appointees at the top of intelligence agencies, who were not allowed to look at the computers told us so! It was a RUSSIAN HACK!!!!

tim in vermont said...

If I were a believing Democrat, I would want to know what the fuck went wrong in my party in such an important election, but the Democrats here all want to move on, and not look into it.

D.E. Cloutier said...

Re: "He's full of poo."

To many Americans in Trump's generation, the networks are CBS, NBC, and ABC.

CNN, Fox, and MSNBC are "cable news."

mike c said...

Trumps tweets are just LOL. They are so true and yet funny. But why arn't the other republicans saying similar things? Are they still afraid of cnn and nbc?

Matthew Sablan said...

I wonder how Brazille is so shocked when she cheated to get Clinton questions for the debates. Did she think that Clinton was only hoodwinking the people they both disliked? It seems to more this is more of a shock that Clinton would betray *her*.

Michael K said...

" But why arn't the other republicans saying similar things? Are they still afraid of cnn and nbc?"

Yes. Limbaugh said the same thing today.

Chuck said...

Geeze, if only Trump had this sort of focus on pending legislation, and had this kind of focus on the details. Oh well; that might not go so well either.

Michael K said...

"He didn't do that because he didn't really believe he could win until it was too late to do so."

Maybe that new house was involved.

Chuck said...

Michael K said...
" But why arn't the other republicans saying similar things? Are they still afraid of cnn and nbc?"

Yes. Limbaugh said the same thing today.

Both guys -- Trump and Limbaugh -- who could never, ever be troubled with any sort of real policy. Both of them (by admission?) "entertainers." When was the last time that Limbaugh did anything detailed about a real policy? Like the "replace" part of "repeal and replace"...?

Even Rush Limbaugh had to abandon "the Limbaugh Institute of Advanced Conservative Studies." He now has the most awkward, convoluted name for it; the Limbaugh Institute for Anti-Liberal Studies, or something like that.

tim in vermont said...

Remember Chris Hitchens wrote a book about the Clintons called "No One Left to Lie to"?

Well, he might have been a bit premature, but maybe we are getting close to that point.

AllenS said...

Pocahontas just stated that the Democrats, lead by the legendary Crooked Hillary Clinton, rigged the Primaries!

God, I love it. Not only is it called "winning", but most importantly, it's called "kicking them in the nuts".

Chuck said...

buwaya said...
The Donald frame is that all of US politics and conventional media is "purchased", by nature.

Thats the "swamp".

And of course, that is the left-wing construction. Shared, by most accounts, by one Donald J. Trump, at least as far as anybody can figure him out. Or cares to.

Here's MSNBC -- MSNBC! -- praising Trump for his opposition to Citizens United v FEC:
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/trump-wrong-about-basically-everything-except

It was "the one thing" that Trump got right, in the view of the MSNBC lefties.

It really makes mw wonder about a guy like David Bossie, who was President and Chairman of Citizens United, who then turned and became a Trump campaign operative. Maybe Bossie explained to Trump why Trump was wrong about criticizing the Supreme Court decision. Maybe Bossie just wanted the job. I don't know. I'm not even sure, anymore, if I care. I'd be interested in talking to Bossie about it if there were free cocktails involved.

readering said...

Donald never believed Bernie would win the Democratic nomination. He believed the polls, which showed both himself and Hillary leading their respective primaries from the start.

Had Bernie managed to win, there would have been a serious independent candidate (and that's who I would have voted for).

buwaya said...

"And of course, that is the left-wing construction."

Hardly. This distrust of centralized power has excellent ancient and modern conservative roots.

Again, and again and again, I recommend Russell Kirk as a good start (though he is rather too "American" in scope). "The Conservative Mind" is available on Amazon Kindle.

buwaya said...

"Both guys -- Trump and Limbaugh -- who could never, ever be troubled with any sort of real policy. Both of them (by admission?) "entertainers." When was the last time that Limbaugh did anything detailed about a real policy? Like the "replace" part of "repeal and replace"...?"

True politics is never about "real policy", because these things are simply the result of underlying power relations, and that is the outcome of cultural conditions. An obsession with the mechanics of policy is a failure of perspective, truly failing to see the forest for the trees, or rather the leaves.

It is akin to one of the worse failures of management, which is micromanagement. A real managers sight should be on objectives, and then on personnel, and then on plans. And then, if at all, on the details of execution of plans and procedures, but for the most part this should be simply a matter of oversight of personnel.

It is well, for instance, to read Confucius, in order to obtain the right perspective on the importance of things.

wildswan said...

The networks aren't covering the Brazile-Crooked Hillary story so Trump sends out a tweet storm. His followers all read the Politico story. And all the Sanders supporters become aware and read it also. The entire group knows the story and that the MSM is not covering it. They observe the distortions on CNN and WaPo.

It's the repeated occurrence of events like this - events which are not in the media but are as widely known as if they were in the media - that lead to surprising election results such as the Glorious Election of 2016. "The Washington Post - where Democracy Dies in Darkness" Perhaps. But perhaps democracy lives in media-darkness. Perhaps our would-be masters just can't find out what we know about what they say did not happen because how do you poll whether deep-sixing facts has worked? "Have you forgotten yet that Hillary cheated Bernie during the primaries? When did you forget that Hillary kept for her own national campaign all the money raised specifically as a donation to the state parties? Did you hear Donna Brazile's story or the WaPo whitewash or both? Which did you believe? If you did not believe Hillary - why? If you did not believe Donna Brazile - forget I asked." And so on.

And I notice a gap in the story so far. A mysterious gap like the gap they just discovered in Cheops Pyramid by using muons or moveons or something like that.

tim in vermont said...

An obsession with the mechanics of policy is a failure of perspective, truly failing to see the forest for the trees, or rather the leaves.

Don't tell me you are calling Chuck 'purblind' too!

Ferananidinanide said...

Nonapod said...
Mongol General: What is best in life?
Conan: To crush your enemies,


Unless your enemy is a pill-bug.

Unknown said...

Wow, it's amazing how Chuck comes across as defending Hillary clinton here. See, Chuck: when you spend all your time attacking Trump when he's pointing out massive leftist corruption and criminality, you are in fact defending Hillary.

Not even ARM and other leftists are giving HIllary Clinton a pass. You are. Because you want the story to be about Trump, not about HIllary's corruption and criminal activity.

Yet another example of how no one believes that you are a Republican. Because any Republican worthy of the name would be pouncing on yet another example of Democrat party shenanigans. You, however, can't do that.

--Vance

tim in vermont said...

You know who else is purblind? Rhinos, look it up. I am just. saying.

Chuck said...

Wow, it's amazing how Chuck comes across as defending Hillary clinton here. See, Chuck: when you spend all your time attacking Trump when he's pointing out massive leftist corruption and criminality, you are in fact defending Hillary.

That is so "Trump." One of the "Trumpiest" things I've seen in a while.

I've said nothing in defense of any Clinton, or any Democrat. And Vance seems to be aware of that inconvenient fact. The simple fact of criticizing Trump, when the messaging needs to be about Hillary and the Dems, makes me a defender of Hillary.

In TrumpWorld, there can be no criticism of The Donald. Because it distracts. It's not part of the plan, the message, the script, the show.

You're like a bunch of 13 year-old girls, who've been psychoanalyzed perfectly by Scott Adams. Prisoners of your emotions. Facts don't matter. Policy doesn't matter. What matters are your feelings. Trump is pissing off all the right people. He's fun. You're having fun, and Trump is making you feel good.

Vance, the following is just for you. I have never supported, or voted for, a Clinton. I voted for the Republican nominee for president in 2016, just like I have for the past several decades. I think the Clintons are liars. I abhor the notion of another Clinton as president of the United States, nominating disasters to the federal bench like Breyer and Ginsburg.

tim in vermont said...

In TrumpWorld, there can be no criticism of The Donald. Because it distracts.

In CuckWorld, there can be no respite from the never-ending, all encompassing, take-no-prisoners criticism of Trump! Nothing else can ever be discussed. Any subject under discussion that does not further the removal of Trump is purely a distraction. What especially must not be. discussed is the rampant corruption that infests the Democrat Party. That must all be swept under the rug as distractions from the Lord's work of attacking Trump.

It's almost like Chuck is an agent provocateur intent on the destruction of the Republican Party as a viable national party!

tim in vermont said...

It would seem like the subject of this article was a scheme to launder donations, evade contribution limits to the point of making them a joke, and to divert donations from the DNC to the Hillary campaign. This is all new stuff, but since it is a distraction from the endless discussion of the high crime of tweeting unfiltered by the press by His Nibs, well, it should't be discussed at all!

Snark said...

To many Americans in Trump's generation, the networks are CBS, NBC, and ABC.

CNN, Fox, and MSNBC are "cable news.


Fair enough, but I'd say the implication is still there. The words "news network" are right in CNN's name, and he's constantly calling them fake news. So, "Fake news networks" certainly invites people to think CNN was included.

Fabi said...

"Geeze, if only Trump had this sort of focus on pending legislation..."

Geeze, there's an entire branch of government focused on legislation. Trump is not a part of that branch.

Chuck said...

tim in vermont said...
It would seem like the subject of this article was a scheme to launder donations, evade contribution limits to the point of making them a joke, and to divert donations from the DNC to the Hillary campaign. This is all new stuff, but since it is a distraction from the endless discussion of the high crime of tweeting unfiltered by the press by His Nibs, well, it should't be discussed at all!

You know, I sort of hate to do this because it supplies a free education to somebody like "tim in vermont" when he really doesn't deserve it.

But here goes...

tim the reason that e-v-e-r-y-b-o-d-y can know about this is because all donations to a federal campaign, and all donations to the DNC are reportable. Mandatory reporting. And limited by amount.

No money laundering. No evasion of limits. All reported. Any "diversion" as you see it is reported. Mandatory reporting.

I can tell you who would be big fans of your post; Senator John McCain and former Senator Russ Feingold. But even their law didn't prevent the legal political donations that you are aiming at.

I don't know what planet some of you are coming from, but on this planet, Republicans are not crying about legal campaign donations. Democrats might be. Ralph Nader might be. Democracy 21 might be. And Donald Trump, when he watches five minutes of television about "campaign finance reform," might be.

Now because of the relentless stupidity of folks like tim in vermont, I have to say this explicitly: I am not siding with Democrats. I am not defending Hillary. But I swear to God, many of you just don't understand campaign finance law and do not have a clue about what is and is not done under federal law, both before and after the cases of Citizens United v FEC and SpeechNow.org v FEC.

anti-de Sitter space said...

You folks are funny.

BTW, what was the fuss re X-pres (i.e. out-a-power dude) jabbering w/ Lynch in a plane?

Chuck said...

Geeze, there's an entire branch of government focused on legislation. Trump is not a part of that branch.

Then what was Trump doing, saying that he would repeal and replace Obamacare? That he'd "get everybody in a room," and make a deal on healthcare? A really great deal, one that only the Great Dealmaker could accomplish, that lowered premiums, lowered deductibles, lowered co-pays, provided "great care," and covered "everybody. Because we have to cover everybody... and the federal government has to pay."

Trump is the guy promising not to cut Medicare, or Medicaid.

Where does he step off, making those promises, if it isn't his job?

buwaya said...

X-pres whose wife is being investigated by the DOJ (Lynch).
Seems a clear violation, in spirit if not in letter, of various laws requiring government business be conducted in public.
And, of course, it looks bad. Cutting a deal with the DOJ.

I do wonder why she did it. One day there will be a memoir by someone.

The Cracker Emcee Activist said...

"Hillary had it all greased for her.

By Obama, in the end."

Obama wanted her cash, indeed probably felt entitled to it, but really had very good reasons to not want her to be President. I think Obama and Trump are the two pols who got exactly what they wanted out of 2016.

anti-de Sitter space said...

Buw,

So a gov person talking to a non-gov citizen must always be public. You may wanna let the WH know, cause it seems like they're not giving out transcripts (or, even visitor logs) re folks who stop by.

Anywho, I'm sure you would have been happy if BHO had told Lynch to stop looking into the HRC flim flam so that the FBI could instead focus on the T Party getting tax free status that's meant for entities that aren't focused on politicking. But, WJC talking to Lynch on a plane is unacceptable/illegal.

Got it.

Michael K said...

" One day there will be a memoir by someone."

Rush Limbaugh was talking to day about how there has been no "tell all" memoir by a Clinton associate.

Self Preservation instinct ?

Michael K said...

PB&J thinks the White House logs don't exist .

Got it.

buwaya said...

Giving a tax benefit (deserved or not, defensible or not, to whomevers way of thinking) to political allies of the admin but denying the same to its political opponents is a banana republic move.

Same goes for about a bazillion handouts, benefits, waivers, matters of prosecutorial discretion, and for that matter, running outright protection-racket moves, for payoffs.

The last administration was totally banana republic.

buwaya said...

And I dont mean the cheap clothing retailer who used to be cool.

tim in vermont said...

Well Chuck, you covered it all right up to the point where it was diverted from the DNC to Hilary's campaign before she was the nominee.

I am sure all of this shell corporation stuff is quite legal and on the up and up, and negates any wrongdoing on anybody's part. Just like paying money to Fusion GPS and letting them pay one of Putin's agents for dirt on Trump made that all on the up and up, but a Trump associate taking a meeting with a lawyer which produced nothing seems prosecutable, judging by what is written in the New York Times.

tim in vermont said...

I hate to. give you a free lesson in reading comprehension, but further, saying that HRC and the DNC made the contribution limits into a joke doesn't mean that I said that what they did was illegal, just utterly contrary to what Democrats claim to represent regarding campaign finance. Where the "laundering" comes in is taking DNC contributions to multiple state parties to give the appearance of legality, and then funneling all of that money to HRC's campaign.

anti-de Sitter space said...

Doc:

"https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/04/14/trump-to-discontinue-obama-policy-of-voluntarily-releasing-white-house-visitor-logs/?utm_term=.d8dd986758c7"

Buw:

http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/06/29/krauthammer-president-trump-vs-msnbc-morning-joe-scarborough-mika-brzezinski

Chuck said...

tim in vermont said...
Well Chuck, you covered it all right up to the point where it was diverted from the DNC to Hilary's campaign before she was the nominee.

I am sure all of this shell corporation stuff is quite legal and on the up and up, and negates any wrongdoing on anybody's part. Just like paying money to Fusion GPS and letting them pay one of Putin's agents for dirt on Trump made that all on the up and up, but a Trump associate taking a meeting with a lawyer which produced nothing seems prosecutable, judging by what is written in the New York Times.

Don't blame the New York Times on me!

I haven't seen any sort of good "collusion" case yet. I'm with my fellow conservative NeverTrumpers on that. Jonah Goldberg; Bill Kristol; Steve Hayes; we are just waiting and watching the Special Counsel's office. Not saying much of anything.

You, and several others, seem to want to do that all the time. Throw up some left-wing talking point as if it were mine, and then arguing with me about it. Strawmen. They aren't my arguments. Don't make me your all-purpose left-wing punching bag. Homey don't play dat.

Unknown said...

Why is Trump bashing his own Justice Department again?

tim in vermont said...

Still not answering the point about Hillary taking DNC contributions and sending them to her own campaign before winning the nomination. It stinks on ice. As has been pointed out to you many times, Culture is upstream of politics, politics is upstream of the law. If I were a Democrat, I would be as horrified as Donna Brazile claims to be.

Corruption is the main problem right now with the United States government, whether shell corporations make it legal or no. Very big of you to let a moment pass when stuff like this comes to light in order to continue your endless vendetta against Trump. It seems pretty likely, for example, that the Obama administration used the NSA to spy on an opposition campaign.

"I think if she were on your show, she would say those requests to unmask may have been attributed to her, but they greatly exceed by an exponential factor the requests she actually made,” Gowdy said. “So, that's her testimony, and she was pretty emphatic in it.”

The South Carolina Republican added, “So, we've got to get to the bottom of that. If there is someone else making requests on behalf of a principal in the intelligence community, we need to know that because we're getting ready to reauthorize a program that's really important to the country, but also has a masking component to it."



But abuse of the NSA, coming on top of the abuse of the IRS, as it did, is a "distraction" from the important task of delegitimizing Trump.

tim in vermont said...

I know you made a lot of noise about Trump's claim that he was "wiretapped," Chuck.

PackerBronco said...

Ah, so they would cheat the Democrat voters in the primary, but they would never OH NEVER think of cheating the rest of the voters in the general.

PackerBronco said...

Blogger Left Bank of the Charles said...
The Donna Brazile bombshell can only mean that some Democrats are afraid Hillary Clinton will run again.

11/3/17, 12:11 PM


Perhaps. I think it also means that they want her off the stage. She's sucking up all of the attention so that no other prospective candidate for 2020 has a chance. Quite simply even if she decides not to run, THEY WANT HER TO GO AWAY.

Laslo Spatula said...

wiuy[]''`1``````1

My cat just typed this on the keyboard.

He's good.

I am Laslo.

Chuck said...

tim in vermont said...
I know you made a lot of noise about Trump's claim that he was "wiretapped," Chuck.

Oh, I certainly did!

And in the subsequent months, what has Trump done, to clarify what he meant? How has Trump or anyone connected to him shown that the claim was true? And let us not forget that Trump personalized it as to Obama; that Obama was a weird (or sick) guy for the wiretapping affair. So how was Obama "weird (or sick)"?

The only reason that stories like that slide off the front pages is because every other day of the week Trump comes up with something even weirder and we have to chase that weirdness.

Earnest Prole said...

Someone on talk radio, perhaps Rush Limbaugh, noted the significance of the dirt Brazile dished: It represents the first time in twenty-five years that an insider has dared to betray the Clintons.

Drago said...

"Accidental Leftist" Chuck is now in full in #ObamaHillaryDefenseMode.

Unexpectedly.

Hey, just because Hillary colluded with Putin's pals to inject obvious FakeNews into our election and then obambi's minions used the fake info to abuse the FISA process to spy on a domestic political opponent, that is no reason for any "lifelong republican" to be upset.

Not. At. All.

Not to worry lads and lasses. "Accidental Leftist" Chuck is on the job doing the deflection work for the Dems that they don't have time for.

Next up: Chuckie has found the "perfect" candidate to defeat Stabenow...(wink wink)

Fabi said...

Presidential candidates frequently make campaign promises that exceed their realm, Chuck. You know it, I know it, and probably most commenters here know that.

tim in vermont said...

And in the subsequent months, what has Trump done, to clarify what he meant? How has Trump or anyone connected to him shown that the claim was true?

I just quoted for you Gowdy saying that Samantha Power claims that person or persons unknown were unmasking people "incidentally" caught up in NSA surveillance of Trump using her name. So even though he was right that they were spying on him, you are fixated on exact meanings of 140 character tweets, or whatever.

This has to be a joke on your part.

Michael K said...

"Don't make me your all-purpose left-wing punching bag. Homey don't play dat. "

No, you are the "special left wing punching bag."

Bruce Hayden said...

“tim the reason that e-v-e-r-y-b-o-d-y can know about this is because all donations to a federal campaign, and all donations to the DNC are reportable. Mandatory reporting. And limited by amount.

No money laundering. No evasion of limits. All reported. Any "diversion" as you see it is reported. Mandatory reporting.”

“I hate to. give you a free lesson in reading comprehension, but further, saying that HRC and the DNC made the contribution limits into a joke doesn't mean that I said that what they did was illegal, just utterly contrary to what Democrats claim to represent regarding campaign finance. Where the "laundering" comes in is taking DNC contributions to multiple state parties to give the appearance of legality, and then funneling all of that money to HRC's campaign. ”)”

Think of this one - banks have to report transferring > $10k, so you do it in $9.5k increments. Maybe in the same day. Legal? Not really. Over the years, the Feds have apparently prosecuted a number of people just for that. It is called “structuring” (or sometimes “smurfing” if you use multiple people), and is considered akin to money laundering. As for that, money laundering involves changing the character of money by passing it through various entities and transactions. The passing it through various entities is termed “layering”, and bringing it back together is termed “integration”. Here, you start with maybe a $66k check. It is divided up and sent to 33 State Dem parties as $2k checks in the name of the contributor. These are dutifully reported as such to the FEC each state party. They then cut their own checks, and send the money back to the DNC, which they are allowed to do, and the DNC sends the money to a Clinton campaign entity, or spends it how her campaign directs. And, voila, they have managed to spend 33x the legal limits without seeming to violate the election laws.

And, yes, this was known, at the time to be going on, thanks, in particular, to some of the state organizations not bothering to bundle the contributions when checks were being cut back to the national organization (all dutifully reported to the FEC). So, a number of state organizations were recording identical check amounts from the same person at the same time, then a number of them were writing identical sized checks back. Already highly questionable, but maybe, just maybe, it could be almost justified as accidental or coincidental. What the Brazille revelations did was to claim that it was set up contractually by the Clinton people, and that gave it agency. All of a sudden, it could be shown that a single party (instead of winks and nods) was behind the scheme - coincidentally, the party that was benefiting from contributors being able to contribute 33x times the legal limit to her campaign. It may be no more illegal now, but proving it got a lot easier. Remember how Dinesh D’Sousa went to prison for essentially double contributing to a Senate campaign? The Clinton campaign was conspiring with and facilitating donors to contribute up to 33x the legal limits to her campaign (actually more, since the scheme also included flushing contributions through the DNC). And, they no longer can claim being the innocent recipient of those excess donations, since they set up the scheme. The “conspiring” is, of course, “conspiracy”, and the facilitating makes them accessories.

Bruce Hayden said...

Let me add that prosecution of the crime would start with an original >= $66k check or checks from one person, then follow it from the DNC to the state parties, back to the DNC, and thence to the Crooked Hillary campaign. That would likely be sufficient, esp if multiple contributors and their contributions were tracked. But a good prosecutor would likely make an even better case by flipping some of the contributors. Instead of following D’Sousa to a halfway house on the opposite side of the country, they could get immunity merely by testifying that they were told that their $66k or so checks were ultimately going to the Clinton campaign, and they relied on that when making the excessive contributions. Of course, with the Brazile disclosures, that may not be necessary, if they can get copies of the agreements between the various Dem organizations and the Clinton campaign.

tim in vermont said...

Shell corporations make everything legal! Viz., paying one of Putin's spies for info on Trump.

BUMBLE BEE said...

Paul said...
Crooked Hillary must have dirt, lots of dirt, on many in the government.

GOOGLE "FILEGATE".

TWENTY YEARS GONE.

Lyle Smith said...

Trump is fucking awesome! Woo!

furious_a said...

Trump is teasing the Dem zoo monkeys through the bars of their cages, and they are obliging him in spades. Mind the flung poo!