Hillary didn't steal the nomination.......

[Forty Two]

Donna Brazile considered replacing Clinton with Biden during the campaign, because of Clinton's dishonest shenanigans. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... 0bde5cd0af

[Forty Two]

Over the previous six years, Democrats had lost 60-plus House seats, nine Senate seats, 14 governorships and 1,000 state and local offices. Russians didn’t do that.

Democrats did not do that. White folks scared of a black man did that two years into Obama power. They had less effect on national and presidential levels. But it was there 2010. He was giving black folks Obama phones. This had to be stopped!

That's a rock-solid argument regarding Hillary Clinton having been exposed as unethically coopting the Democratic National Committee and controlling it's activities, message and financing, starting a year before the Democratic Convention, and all the while lying to everyone - the media, the people, everyone - by saying that the democratic primary was free, open and fair, and that Hillary won "fair and square."

It's because the white folks who elected Barack Obama in 2008, and 2012, over privileged white males, were afraid. Those white people. So horrible. No wonder the left says it's not o.k. to be white and that we have decolonize the country from whiteness. Whitey really is horrible.

[Forty Two]

No, it wasn't rigged.

/thread

Oh, it was. Hillary Clinton took control of the DNC and by her agreement with the DNC, in exchange for funding operations, Hillary Clinton controlled hiring, firing, messaging and day-to-day operations of the Democratic National Committee. She was able to use the DNC to raise funds outside of campaign finance reform limits.

[Strontium Dog]

So your complaint is that a member of the Democratic Party was able to use the machinery of the Democratic Party to attain the Democratic Party nomination ahead of someone who wasn't and isn't a member of the Democratic Party.

[Forty Two]

No, that isn't the complaint at all.

The complaint is that she improperly and unethically take control of the day-to-day operations of the Democratic National Committee during a primary run by the Democratic National Committee in which she was a candidate, and all the while they lied and said that the system was fair and that the best candidate would win - although the DNC's message, and financial expenditures, etc. were all controlled by one of the participants in the contest.

I had promised Bernie when I took the helm of the Democratic National Committee after the convention that I would get to the bottom of whether Hillary Clinton’s team had rigged the nomination process, as a cache of emails stolen by Russian hackers and posted online had suggested.

So I followed the money. My predecessor, Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, had not been the most active chair in fundraising at a time when President Barack Obama’s neglect had left the party in significant debt. As Hillary’s campaign gained momentum, she resolved the party’s debt and put it on a starvation diet. It [the DNC] had become dependent on her [Hillary Clinton] campaign for survival, for which she [Hillary Clinton] expected to wield control of its operations.

she [Debbie Wasserman-Schulz] 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 [Hillary Clinton] 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.

It broke Donna Brazile's heart - she was chairperson of the Democratic National Committee after Wasserman-Schultz had to resign over allegations of favoritism to the Clinton campaign. https://thinkprogress.org/debbie-wasser ... 4bbdffb16/ [don't forget that this "closeness" between Clinton and the DNC was exposed at the time - only it was swept under the rug, because they preferred to focus on the alleged Russian hacking of the emails, rather than the content of the emails themselves].

So, what broke Donna's heart? Nothing? A big nothing? A completely ethical, normal manner of doing business? Why did she have to steel herself before "breaking the news" to Bernie Sanders?

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 [HILLARY CLINTON] campaign was using the party as a fund-raising clearinghouse. 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.

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?”

Right around the time of the convention, the leaked emails revealed Hillary’s campaign was grabbing money from the state parties for its own purposes, leaving the states with very little to support down-ballot races.

When the Politico story described this arrangement as “essentially … money laundering” for the Clinton campaign, Hillary’s people were outraged at being accused of doing something shady. Bernie’s people were angry for their own reasons, saying this was part of a calculated strategy to throw the nomination 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.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story ... 016-215774

Indeed - let's not forget that in 2016 when these allegations surfaced, they were laughed off, and the Democrats uniformly claimed that the primary had been open and fair, as usual. The Bernie supporters at the convention walked out in protest, claiming that it had not been fair. And, they were laughed off, with Hillary saying she won "fair and square."

If the situation was reverse, and Bernie won while holding a similar agreement for control of the DNC while lying about it, and Hillary lost, would there be any question that folks would be a tad nonplussed about it?

It is what it is. Perhaps not illegal. I don't know - if they're using the DNC to raise funds they could not raise through regular limited campaign finance reform donations, and shuffling money that would normally go elsewhere "to Brooklyn" during the primary.... that strikes me as questionable. Perhaps it needs an investigation. I don't know. But, to say there is "nothing to see here" is a bit of Apologetics, don't you think. Surely there is something off here?

This is Donna Brazile here - the same lady who funneled debate questions in advance to Hillary Clinton. Remember that?

[JimC]

Ancient history, really. And yes, the whole "manipulative politician" thing was why she was on the nose with voters, we get it...

No anti-Trump members of this forum were or are pro-Clinton, as far as I can see, so you are, to an extent, preaching to the converted...

[Forty Two]

It doesn't come across that way, JimC, and if I was preaching to the converted, nobody would be arguing with me. I had to post that in response to another "nothing to see here" post from someone engaging in Apologetics.

[JimC]

It doesn't come across that way, JimC, and if I was preaching to the converted, nobody would be arguing with me. I had to post that in response to another "nothing to see here" post from someone engaging in Apologetics.

No one is arguing from a pro-Clinton position was what I meant. People have implied that you do like flogging a dead horse more than is healthy, and that, where Trump is concerned, our sarcastic refrain of "yes but Hillary" has a point...