Donna Brazile Torches Hillary Clinton

[iNow]

1 hour ago, waitforufo said:

Hillary Clinton was an unelectable candidate

So unelectable that her numbers were actually higher than the person who won. 

 

[waitforufo]

10 minutes ago, iNow said:

So unelectable that her numbers were actually higher than the person who won. 

Just keep a firm grasp on that feather and flap it has hard as you can.  I'm sure you will fly one day. Here is the fact

So unelectable that the other person won.  That other person was Donald Trump.

Is that ever going to sink in for you?  Donna Brazile knows.  Remember your ideal democratic ticket?

Both Warren and Sanders believe Hillary rigged the primary.  Don't you respect those two politicians anymore?  At this moment the Democratic party is in shambles.  Why?  I know you struggle to figure it out but the answer for any reasonable thinking person has to be Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, and the Clinton wing of the Democratic party. There is no escaping it.  The Brizile bombshell is simply icing on the cake. 

[iNow]

1 hour ago, waitforufo said:

So unelectable that the other person won.  That other person was Donald Trump.

Is that ever going to sink in for you?

Help me understand. Why exactly do you feel I’m confused on this point?

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Who ya gonna believe? Me, or your own lyin' eyes?

He said that Mrs. Clinton “stole the Democratic Primary” from Mr. Sanders and asserted there was “Major violation of Campaign Finance Laws and Money Laundering.”

Mr. Trump on Thursday acknowledged that presidents are not supposed to interfere with Justice Department investigations, but he weighed in anyway with a series of Twitter posts early Friday morning and said the department should investigate the Democrats’ activity during the 2016 campaign. The American public, he said, “deserves it.”

“At some point the Justice Department, and the F.B.I., must do what is right and proper,” Mr. Trump said in a series of early morning Twitter posts that echoed some of the president’s comments late Thursday.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/03/us/politics/trump-says-justice-dept-and-fbi-must-do-what-is-right-and-investigate-democrats.html

 

Trump can't even get his own hand picked people at the Department of Juustice to take serious the notion that Hillary Clinton committed any crimes during the election or with regards to the Dossier yet waitforufo has different threads up pushing these things as if there is plainly something there. Trump has professed many times that heis a counter puncher. All of this is just him and his media lackeys trying to turn the narrative after the damaging indicts of two of Trump's campaign advisors. They are desperate to get people to look away.

[iNow]

1 hour ago, waitforufo said:

Remember your ideal democratic ticket?

Thanks for linking to it. Saved me some time. You do need to read better, though. It’s right there in the OP.

I asked a question 2 years before the actual election about how a Sanders/Warren ticket would be received. I wasn’t some fanboi pushing for it.

1 hour ago, waitforufo said:

Both Warren and Sanders believe Hillary rigged the primary.  Don't you respect those two politicians anymore?

Relevance?

 

——————————

4 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

“At some point the Justice Department, and the F.B.I., must do what is right and proper,” Mr. Trump said in a series of early morning Twitter posts

Hmmm... Any guesses whether or not he’ll still feel that way as they come after him?

Edited November 3, 2017 by iNow

[waitforufo]

4 minutes ago, iNow said:

You said, “Clinton was unelectable.” Except for about 70,000 individuals total across 3 swing states, that’s remedially false. 

She was running against Donald Trump and lost.  She should have steam rollered over him.  Yet she lost.  Since then it has been excuse after excuse.  Now we learn she rigged the primary to get the nomination.  

Since you won't answer my question about Sanders and Warren can I assume you don't respect them?  Did you ever?

19 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Currently the primary target is Hillary Clinton because they fear she may run again. If Warren or Sanders became a nominee they would become the focal point of such conspiracies and irrational complaints. It is all just character assassination. Attack, attack, attack now then down the road insist that the person who was attacked isn't a middle road candidate; that if one was serious about comprimise they would select someone else.

Oh please run Hillary again.  By the way, it Donna Brazil and Elizabeth Warren that are attacking Hillary now.  

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Ten oz said:

 Mr. Trump on Thursday acknowledged that presidents are not supposed to interfere with Justice Department investigations,  

!

Moderator Note

This is wildly off-topic. Let's stay on target here.

other OT posts have been removed

 

[iNow]

2 hours ago, waitforufo said:

Since you won't answer my question about Sanders and Warren can I assume you don't respect them?

Of course you can. I can’t force you to be correct. 

[Phi for All]

20 hours ago, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

This is wildly off-topic. Let's stay on target here.

other OT posts have been removed

 

I know we're short on staff that post in Politics, and I've said my piece, so if you don't mind, I'll bow out to moderate and give you a chance to post, swansont.

[swansont]

As Phi has indicated, I will recuse myself from moderating from here on out.

Discovering the dishonesty of her party made Donna Brazile cry.

The problem is that this is BS. There are a few things that she neglected to mention, i.e. Brazile sins by omission

A) The memo that's mentioned pertained only to the general election. Bernie was offered the same deal. 

B) Clinton couldn't release the money from the HVC until a nominee was declared

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/358727-clinton-dnc-deal-revealed-in-memo
https://twitter.com/ahumorlessfem/status/926249997376638976

IOW Hillary raised a crap-ton of money to get the Dems out of debt and Bernie was a dick to the Dems by not conceding, delaying the money she raised from being deployed. The majority of it went to the DNC and the state organizations, and some of it went to her campaign.

Here's the breakdown of the disbursements
https://www.opensecrets.org/jfc/summary.php?id=C00586537

[iNow]

Has anyone pointed out that none of the money raised by the DNC could be used until AFTER a candidate was chosen in the primary anyway? So, it’s moot.

Hillary campaign did have veto power on staffing decisions at the DNC, and that should be changed, and the Bernie folks have every right to be angry, but it almost certainly had no impact on the outcome. 

EDIT: x-posted with swansont who raised a very similar point. 

[swansont]

On 11/2/2017 at 8:01 PM, waitforufo said:

 I find it interesting that Donna Brazile would burn Hillary down in such a way after admitting to giving Hillary primary debate questions before Hillary's match up with Bernie .  Perhaps she didn't know just how deep the Hillary rot ran in the Democratic party when she gave Hillary the questions.  Maybe we would have President Sanders now if Hillary had any ethics.  

So if Brazile gave the questions, how is it "Hillary rot"?

And the fundraising agreement was with the DNC and the state organizations, so again, how is this "Hillary rot"? 

On 11/3/2017 at 0:48 PM, waitforufo said:

So why did Democrats even allow Bernie to compete? 

How would they stop him? You file the paperwork and get enough signatures, and your name goes on the ballot. Details vary by state, and caucuses are handled differently, of course. But the states run the primaries.

On 11/3/2017 at 0:48 PM, waitforufo said:

Once he was allowed, don't you believe the competition should have been fair.

What, exactly, was unfair? You have only presented innuendo and irrelevancies. As has been noted, the fundraising done was for the national election, not the primaries.

[Ten oz]

21 minutes ago, iNow said:

Has anyone pointed out that none of the money raised by the DNC could be used until AFTER a candidate was chosen in the primary anyway? So, it’s moot.

Hillary campaign did have veto power on staffing decisions at the DNC, and that should be changed, and the Bernie folks have every right to be angry, but it almost certainly had no impact on the outcome. 

EDIT: x-posted with swansont who raised a very similar point. 

Bernie Sanders is an independent. Why do his supporters have a "right" to be angry at the DNC? Sanders didn't need the DNC to get elected to the Senate and didn't/ doesn't need the DNC to run for POTUS 

[iNow]

No, but he did provide the paperwork and signatures required by the party to run in their primaries. IMO, that means he (and anyone else passing that threshold) should be treated fairly and equally. 

This too, however, is entirely moot unless Clinton vetoed a staff pick that could’ve changed the outcome in Bernie’s favor. 

Keep in mind too that our OP is merely trying to sow discord and introduce wedge topics (much like a good little Kremlin troll).

[Ten oz]

13 hours ago, iNow said:

No, but he did provide the paperwork and signatures required by the party to run in their primaries. IMO, that means he (and anyone else passing that threshold) should be treated fairly and equally. 

 

I my opinion the party made it clear a year before the first vote was cast that Hillary Clinton was the nominee. Sanders ran merely to increase his brand; never expected to be successful as he was. Democrats cleared the field for Hillary Clinton to be the nominee. Others who could have ran like Biden, Kerry, Warren, Booker, Bloomberg, Cuomo, Dean, and etc stayed home knowing Clinton was the nominee. It created an opportunity for someone to come in and make noise by riding the wave of negative Clinton media on the right. Shame on Sanders for taking advantage. No way Sanders would have been even 10% as successful had others not all deferred for Clinton.

Lets not forget that Clinton actually won more votes in the 08' primary than did Obama but it was the super delegates than gave Obama the nomination. Many Clinton Democrats wanted Clinton to fight on the floor at the DNC for the nomination. Instead she became one of Obama's strongest cheerleaders. Sanders got 13 million votes in 16'. Back in 08' Clinton received 18 million votes (many more than Sanders). Similar to the DNC in 16' the party was split with Clinton supporters crying foul and demanding at the very least she get the VP slot. Ultimately Clinton did concede, wasn't made VP. but still unified the party by fervently supporting Obama. Inmy opinion Sanders only begrundingly endorsed Clinton and accepted the role victim bycontinuing to complain about the DNC straight through. Bernie Sanders refusal to be a team (Party) player is exactly one of the reasons why it is and needs to be a party nomination.

NEW YORK — Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton Tuesday refused to bow out of the Democratic race Tuesday, hoping to maintain leverage as Barack Obama clinched the delegates needed to secure the party's nomination.

Clinton told supporters in a rally at Baruch College that she would consult party leaders in coming days on how to move forward, but that, "I will be making no decisions tonight."

"A lot of people are asking, 'What does Hillary want?'" Clinton said. "I want what I have always fought for: I want the nearly 18 million people who voted for me to be respected and heard."

Clinton told the crowd she would consult in the coming days with advisers about the fate of her moribund candidacy. But her remarks came hours after she told congressional colleagues she would be open to joining Obama as his running mate.

Top supporters see her as V.P.
Many of her top supporters spoke openly of Clinton's potential vice presidential prospects. Lanny Davis, a former White House special counsel under President Clinton, said he told the former first lady Tuesday that he was initiating a petition to press Obama to select her for the second spot on the ticket. He said Clinton did not encourage or discourage the step."

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/24953561/ns/politics-decision_08/t/clinton-refuses-concede-nomination/#.Wf8LGjtrzIU

 

"Leading up to her address, there was a lot of speculation about what she would say and whether she would make a strong enough call for unity. But she made a very strident case for Obama's candidacy.

"No way. No how. No McCain. Barack Obama is my candidate. And he must be our president," Clinton said."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/26/dnc.main/index.html

[iNow]

Advocating fair and equal treatment in primaries and elections is not mutually exclusive with thinking Bernie could and should’ve done more to help Clinton or that his involvement likely drew voters away / prevented potential voters from casting a vote at all. 

[Ten oz]

2 hours ago, iNow said:

Advocating fair and equal treatment in primaries and elections is not mutually exclusive with thinking Bernie could and should’ve done more to help Clinton or that his involvement likely drew voters away / prevented potential voters from casting a vote at all. 

An independent shouldn't expect to be the nominee of a party to which they do not belong. Sanders exploited a loophole in my opinion. 

Primaries are not open and "fair" contests. Some states hold caucuses, some have closed voting, and the process is staggered with different states get more premium polling dates. Super delegates also are tossed into the mix and have no obligation to support a candidate who gets the most votes in their home states. The whole process is designed to ensure the party has positive control. It is not meant to be fair and equal. It is meant to boost the profile of the nominee and get the whole party bought in. If anything the GOP should consider changing their rules in the future to be more like the DNC was in 16' so that someone like a Trump who isn't a typical or loyal party member can't hijack the nomination. Had the GOP had superdelegates Trump probably doesn't win the nomination. 

On 11/3/2017 at 0:48 PM, waitforufo said:

I don't see Donna Brazile as a person seeking to distract from Trump issues.  Can you?  These issues are completely independent.  This primary rigging simply speaks to character of Hillary Clinton and those running the DNC.  Criminal?  I don't know that much about campaign finance law to know.

Donna Brazile isn't saying the Primary was rigged but rather Clinton had influence because of a connection between her campiagn's and the DNC's money raising apparatus. It is also worth acknowledging that Brazile also claims she was pressure to put a plan together to potentially replace Clinton and give the nomination to Biden. Doesn't seem the DNC was overly loyal to Clinto per se. Tom Perez also made a good point, one I had forgotten,  about the way primaries are structure; states manage the voting in primariesraces while theDNC manages the caucauses. Sanders did better in caucuses than he did in election voting were Clinton beat him by 4 million.

"The comments came as Brazile details the fundraising agreement in her new book, writing that it was “a cancer” that disadvantaged Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) because it gave Clinton's campaign a measure of influence over some DNC operations in exchange for helping the party raise money.

Still, asked Sunday on ABC's “This Week” whether the primaries were rigged in favor of Clinton, Brazile told anchor George Stephanopoulos, “I found no evidence, none whatsoever.”"

"Brazile writes in her book, “Hacks,” that she had settled on Vice President Joe Biden as the best replacement and had serious doubts during that period about the direction of Clinton's campaign but did not initiate the process. As party chair, she did not have the power to unilaterally replace the nominee.

“I was under tremendous pressure after Secretary Clinton fainted to have a 'Plan B,' " Brazile said on ABC. “I didn't want a Plan B. Plan A was great for me. I supported Hillary, and I wanted her to win. But we were under pressure.”

Brazile said she kept her own counsel during this period and did not talk about it with Biden. “This was something you play out in your mind,” she said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/11/05/brazile-says-she-found-no-evidence-that-democratic-primaries-were-rigged-for-clinton/?utm_term=.7adb3890fac4

 

[swansont]

Apparently Brazile mixed up two different agreements. 

https://deepstatenation.com/primary-error-donna-brazile-mixed-up-two-different-clinton-dnc-agreements/

Quote

It is also normal for the nominee to sign a whole new Joint Fundraising Agreement with the DNC, which is exactly what Clinton did. Brazile has two different Agreements mixed up in her mind — and her publisher has failed on a basic fact-check. Either someone is too lazy to read the actual DNC documents for themselves, or they are lying on purpose.

 

[swansont]

Quote

 

Donna Brazile, the former interim chair of the Democratic National Committee, said she "found no evidence, none whatsoever" that the Democratic primaries were rigged in favor of Hillary Clinton, dialing back an earlier statement in a Politico tell-all that the DNC was "rigging the system" for Clinton. Brazile made the comments in an interview on ABC's "This Week."

 

https://www.axios.com/donna-brazile-i-found-no-evidence-of-election-rigging-2506684849.html

Like all the rest of the alleged Hillary scandals, there's no actual substance once you look at it. 

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

https://www.axios.com/donna-brazile-i-found-no-evidence-of-election-rigging-2506684849.html

Like all the rest of the alleged Hillary scandals, there's no actual substance once you look at it. 

In the OP waitforufo's link included a line saying something to the effect that while laws were not broken it was somehow unethical. Everyone has understand from the beginning of this thread that Clinton hadn't substantively done anything wrong. It is all just mud throwing. 

Edited November 6, 2017 by Ten oz
Correct typo