Democrats express outrage over allegations of early party control for Clinton in 2016

The Big Dog

Unregistered
The Big Dog
Joined
Jul 26, 2007
Messages
29,742
Donna Brazile, a former interim chairwoman of the party, says in a forthcoming book that an August 2015 agreement gave the Clinton campaign a measure of direct influence over the party’s finances and strategy, along with a say over staff decisions and consultation rights over issues like mailings, budgets and analytics.
Click to expand...

We all certainly remember that Sanders' supporters claimed the DNC had the thumb on the scale for Hillary. Now it seems that the thumb was Hillary's.

It would be fair to say at this point that the 2016 Democratic Primary was flat out rigged:

Ray Buckley, the chairman of New Hampshire’s Democratic Party, said that he first learned of the agreement while serving as DNC vice chair in 2016. “The day that Donna discovered this, she called me and I almost passed out,” Buckley said. “We were blatantly misled.”
Click to expand...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...e949da-c000-11e7-97d9-bdab5a0ab381_story.html
 
CNN asked Senator Elizabeth Warren if Mrs Clinton's contest against Democratic rival Bernie Sanders was rigged, and she said: "Yes."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41850798

At long last, the truth comes out.

But lets not kid ourselves, Warren knew it all along and played nice.

"Mr Van Doren, I'm also from New York, a different part of New York. I'm happy that you made the statement, but I cannot agree with most of my colleagues. You see, I don't think an adult of your intelligence ought to be commended for simply, at long last, telling the truth."

Quiz Show
 
Last edited:
Elizabeth Warren says it was rigged:

"Yes."
That was Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren's response to a simple question asked by CNN's Jake Tapper Thursday night: "Senator, do you agree with the notion that (the 2016 Democratic primary) was rigged?"

I agree with Warren. Brazile's revelations are quite astounding. Of course, it is hard to tell how much of her story is simply ass-covering, "It was like that when I got here," and how much is revenge, and how much is the plain truth. And it may just be confirmation bias, but Brazile's story has the ring of truth to me.

They were probably doomed anyway, but I would say that this is the end of the super-delegates.
 
Since she was actively involved in rigging the debates, I'm not sure I would buy her being outraged, or even bothered by it. She lost her right to be offended by it when actively participated in it.
 
The Big Dog said:
We all certainly remember that Sanders' supporters claimed the DNC had the thumb on the scale for Hillary. Now it seems that the thumb was Hillary's.
Click to expand...
Sanders was not and is not a Democrat. Why should he have gotten any support from them at all?

It would be fair to say at this point that the 2016 Democratic Primary was flat out rigged:
Click to expand...
No, it wouldn't. The only 'rigging' was Sanders pretending to be a Democrat so he could sponge off the DNC and steal votes from Hillary.

Not that I am complaining - if it wasn't for Sanders we wouldn't have Trump, and the US could still claim some respect. Those of us who hate America couldn't be happier!
 
Roger Ramjets said:
Sanders was not and is not a Democrat. Why should he have gotten any support from them at all?

No, it wouldn't. The only 'rigging' was Sanders pretending to be a Democrat so he could sponge off the DNC and steal votes from Hillary.
....
Click to expand...


Sanders was a candidate in the Democratic primaries. He expressed his views clearly, and it was up to the voters -- alone -- to decide whether he was a Democrat. The point is that Clinton was running the DNC and grabbing its money from the beginning.

Read Brazile's account:
When I got back from a vacation in Martha’s Vineyard, I at last found the document that described it all: the Joint Fund-Raising Agreement between the DNC, the Hillary Victory Fund, and Hillary for America.

The agreement—signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook with a copy to Marc Elias—specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings.
Click to expand...
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774

Note that the agreement she refers to was signed a year before the convention, long before the first primary.
 
Last edited:
What ... powerful and influential polititian uses power and influence to advance in politics?? I am shocked, shocked I am! Someone call News at e11eventeen, quick!
 
Oystein said:
What ... powerful and influential polititian uses power and influence to advance in politics?? I am shocked, shocked I am! Someone call News at e11eventeen, quick!
Click to expand...

Are you really trying to minimize the fact that these "powerful and influential politicians" rigged the primary election?

That is truly remarkable....
 
Bob001 said:
Sanders was a candidate in the Democratic primaries. He expressed his views clearly, and it was up to the voters -- alone -- to decide whether he was a Democrat.
Click to expand...

No, that's not how it works, actually. The Democratic Party isn't a democracy. They can nominate whoever they want.
 
Argumemnon said:
No, that's not how it works, actually. The Democratic Party isn't a democracy. They can nominate whoever they want.
Click to expand...

Who is "they?" The point is that the "party" -- however you define it -- shouldn't be run by and for the benefit of one candidate. The party and Clinton are not one and the same -- or shouldn't have been.
 
Last edited:
Argumemnon said:
No, that's not how it works, actually. The Democratic Party isn't a democracy. They can nominate whoever they want.
Click to expand...

That is how it works, actually. Clinton won the nomination by winning the most delegate votes. The point is that the electoral process was rigged.
 
Bob001 said:
That is how it works, actually. Clinton won the nomination by winning the most delegate votes. The point is that the electoral process was rigged.
Click to expand...

For certain definitions of the words "rigged" :rolleyes:

Remind me how much money Bernie brought to the DNC and downballot candidates ??

Remind me how long Bernie was a registered democrat ?
 
Yet the states kept less than half of 1 percent of the $82 million they had amassed from the extravagant fund-raisers Hillary’s campaign was holding, just as Gary had described to me when he and I talked in August. 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.
Click to expand...

Inside Hillary Clinton’s Secret Takeover of the DNC: When I was asked to run the Democratic Party after the Russians hacked our emails, I stumbled onto a shocking truth about the Clinton campaign.

Thus, Hillary not only screwed Bernie, she starved the State Parties too.

Just a powerful and influential politician, folks, nothing to see here.
 
Bob001 said:
Who is "they?" The point is that the "party" -- however you define it -- shouldn't be run by and for the benefit of one candidate. The party and Clinton are not one and the same -- or shouldn't have been.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? The Democratic Party (the "they") can nominate whoever they want. I said so already. They can do so for any reason they see fit. If they decide to change the way they operate and skip the primaries entirely, I don't think there's anything illegal about it.

Bob001 said:
That is how it works, actually. Clinton won the nomination by winning the most delegate votes. The point is that the electoral process was rigged.
Click to expand...

You're talking nonsense. Superdelegates can support whoever they want, and the others are assigned based on votes from Democratic voters. There's no rigging involved.
 
The Big Dog said:
Are you really trying to minimize the fact that these "powerful and influential politicians" rigged the primary election?

That is truly remarkable....
Click to expand...
Rigged = Influenced in their favor.
That's what politics is, in a nutshell.

Were lawe broken, or even just promises? Was anyone bribed? Any fraud? Or just internal DNC procedures violated? Anything anyone with standing could take to any court and not be laughed out? Then I might look into this more deeply.

I do not, by the way, like such shenanigans, never liked Clinton, certainly not as candidate. But this here looks like run of the mill power brokeradge.
 
Interesting to see when the "Sanders was not a real democrat" nonsense will dry up given the fact that the Clinton campaign ********** the State Parties too.
 
There's a difference between how people think the party should be run, and how people think the party is being run.

Personally I think parties should be run however they want. If you don't like it, take control or form a new party. But it seems like in the last presidential campaign there was a substantial mismatch between how registered Democrats thought the party was being run, and how it was actually being run.
 
The Big Dog said:
Are you really trying to minimize the fact that these "powerful and influential politicians" rigged the primary election?

That is truly remarkable....
Click to expand...

They are private organizations. The decisions of private organizations are not rigged.
 
BobTheCoward said:
They are private organizations. The decisions of private organizations are not rigged.
Click to expand...

It would appear that numerous senior Democrats disagree.

the DNC is an organization that is subject to its own internal rules, procedures, guidelines, and agreements. If powerful and influential politicians conspire to ignore those and pursue their own agenda in violation of those internal rules, procedures, guidelines, and agreements then indeed the process can be and was rigged.
 
Last edited:
Roger Ramjets said:
Not that I am complaining - if it wasn't for Sanders we wouldn't have Trump, and the US could still claim some respect. Those of us who hate America couldn't be happier!
Click to expand...

Proof? None.

Clinton won the popular vote by 3M. Still lost. Sander had nothing to do with that.
 
The Big Dog said:
It would appear that numerous senior Democrats disagree.

the DNC is an organization that is subject to its own internal rules, procedures, guidelines, and agreements. If powerful and influential politicians conspire to ignore those and pursue their own agenda in violation of those internal rules, procedures, guidelines, and agreements then indeed the process can and was rigged.
Click to expand...
Which specific internal rules etc were broken, how compulsory were they, and which means of redress are possible?
 
The Big Dog said:
It would appear that numerous senior Democrats disagree.

the DNC is an organization that is subject to its own internal rules, procedures, guidelines, and agreements. If powerful and influential politicians conspire to ignore those and pursue their own agenda in violation of those internal rules, procedures, guidelines, and agreements then indeed the process can be and was rigged.
Click to expand...

I don't care what numerous senior Democrats think.
 
The Big Dog said:
It would appear that numerous senior Democrats disagree.

the DNC is an organization that is subject to its own internal rules, procedures, guidelines, and agreements. If powerful and influential politicians conspire to ignore those and pursue their own agenda in violation of those internal rules, procedures, guidelines, and agreements then indeed the process can be and was rigged.
Click to expand...

You know when I said you just couldn't leave Clinton alone even though she's "done", and you said it was because she made a book? Yeah, no. You need your Clinton fix.
 
Oystein said:
Which specific internal rules etc were broken, how compulsory were they, and which means of redress are possible?
Click to expand...

Ask Elizabeth Warren and Donna Brazille and Ray Buckley.

If you had actually read Brazille's article that I linked in this very thread, you would have already answered the question yourself.

“No! That can’t be true!” I said. “The party cannot take out a loan without the unanimous agreement of all of the officers.”
“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 clearinghouse.
Click to expand...
 
Argumemnon said:
You know when I said you just couldn't leave Clinton alone even though she's "done", and you said it was because she made a book? Yeah, no. You need your Clinton fix.
Click to expand...

This is actually about the DNC, not me.

typical deflection/derail.
 
For the record: I think Clinton was a terrible candidate, the sort of dynastic insider the world could do so well without, and the Democratic party deserves all the scorn, contempt and ridicule in the world for not building up a better candidate (which Sanders of course was NOT). But you can't blame Clinton for using the leverage, the money, the inside connections she had. You can't even blame those within the DNC who bought the notion that HRC is the best pick and ought to be pushed. They were wrong - but being wrong is not a scandal.
 
The Big Dog said:
Ask Elizabeth Warren and Donna Brazille and Ray Buckley.

If you had actually read Brazille's article that I linked in this very thread, you would have already answered the question yourself.
Click to expand...
I asked not one but three questions.
One is answered with a claim - which perhaps needs some corroboration, namely which rule was broken. Was that a compulsory rule or just best practice? And what redress is possible?

Does anyone with standing want to sue? Whom? Where? On what grounds?
 
One more:

Clinton was overwhelmingly the nominee of Big Money. She was in a position to take over the DNC because she was chosen by Big Money for that role.

And THAT is the core of the problem here, as well of pretty much all the problems with GOP including the Trump desaster: that the 0.02% of the richest of the rich pre-select all the important candidates by throwing money at them long before any democratic (lower-case d) process like primaries, conventions or general elections take place.
Eliminate private campaign funding, and this problem disappears, as do many others.
 
Oystein said:
I asked not one but three questions.
One is answered with a claim - which perhaps needs some corroboration, namely which rule was broken. Was that a compulsory rule or just best practice? And what redress is possible?

Does anyone with standing want to sue? Whom? Where? On what grounds?
Click to expand...

and I answered it, and you did not address that or acknowledge the actual quote from the actual head of the DNC. "“The party cannot take out a loan without the unanimous agreement of all of the officers.” Rather, you just asked more questions trying to pretend that specific cites to specific section of the DNC agreement were necessary.

“The party cannot take out a loan without the unanimous agreement of all of the officers.”

what specific section of the agreement was she referring to? WHO *********** CARES?

Deal with that specific claim, and don't try to seduce people that specific cites are necessary in any way shape or form.

It is argument by minutiae, appeal to perfection, Gish Gallop and Just Asking Questions in a big disingenuous bow.
 
Last edited:
“The fact of the matter remains, the way the system was conducted, the DNC did not follow its own bylaws. And so if we’re going to have some truth talk here, let’s talk about reform and let’s talk about unity,” Nina Turner, a former Ohio state senator.

“This is really about a DNC that lacks accountability and transparency. Period,” Turner said.

I look forward to complaints that she did not cite the specific bylaw, and detailed legal questions about standing to sue (which no one brought up) which means.

Ignore it, all is well!

http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-rigging-dnc-sanders-primary-700875
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom