Naar nu blijkt heeft Hillary Clinton de macht over het Democratic National Committee (DNC) in 2015 in feite overgenomen, nadat ze dit comité redde met een financiële injectie uit het Hillary Victory Fund……
Het DNC had die tekorten te danken aan voormalig wanpresterend voorzitter Wasserman Schultz en het gebrek aan toezicht op dit comité door Obama.
Dat hare kwaadaardigheid Clinton de voorverkiezingen ten koste van de andere Democratische kandidaat Sanders op een heel smerige manier heeft gewonnen, was geen geheim, echter met deze nieuwe feiten wordt nog eens bewezen dat niet de Russen, maar juist het DNC en dan m.n. Clinton een wel heel smerig spel heeft gespeeld……… Niet vreemd dus, dat figuren als Seth Rich, die deel uitmaakte van het Clinton team, uit pure frustratie zaken hebben gelekt naar de pers…….
Donna
Brazile Bombshell: ‘Proof’ Hillary ‘Rigged’ Primary Against
Bernie
November
2, 2017 at 10:18 am
Written
by Jake
Johnson
(COMMONDREAMS) — In
an explosive and “deeply
disturbing”
piece
for Politico Magazine on
Thursday, former interim chair of the Democratic National Committee
(DNC) Donna Brazile drew upon her brief experience at the
organization’s helm to reveal the extent to which the 2016
nomination process was “rigged” in favor of former Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton.
In
her account, Brazile details the deep “internal corruption” of
the DNC, the role the ostensibly neutral governing body played as a
“fundraising clearing house” for the Clinton team, and how those
dynamics unfairly handicapped primary challenger Bernie Sanders.
Many
of the DNC’s most deeply embedded issues, Brazile notes, spring
both from former chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s poor management
and former President Barack Obama’s neglect, which left the
committee deeply in debt.
In
August 2015, the Clinton campaign—along with the joint fundraising
vehicle with the DNC, the Hillary Victory Fund—came to an agreement
with the committee to begin to pay off this debt, which had soared to
$24 million. In exchange, the DNC’s finances were placed “fully
under the control” of the Clinton team, “which seemed to confirm
the suspicions of the Bernie camp,” Brazile writes.
“When
the party chooses the nominee, the custom is that the candidate’s
team starts to exercise more control over the party,” Brazile
observed. “This victory fund agreement, however, had been
signed…just four months after Hillary announced her candidacy and
nearly a year before she officially had the nomination.”
Brazile
goes on to describe the terms of the agreement, which she describes
as “unethical”:
The
agreement…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.
Brazile
concludes the piece, which is an adapted excerpt from her forthcoming
book, by detailing a conversation she had with Sen. Bernie Sanders
(I-Vt.) shortly after she found the “cancer” at the heart of the
DNC—this so-called “Joint Fundraising Agreement.”
“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,”
Brazile writes. “I explained that the cancer was that she had
exerted this control of the party long before she became its
nominee….Bernie took this stoically. He did not yell or express
outrage. Instead he asked me what I thought Hillary’s chances
were.”
Unsurprisingly,
Brazile’s account immediately caught fire on social media,
provoking a mixture of outrage and vindication—particularly given
that it comes from a “stalwart”
establishment insider who admitted
to passing
debate topics to the Clinton team during her time as
a CNN contributor.
“Shame
on the DNC, on Hillary Clinton, and every Democratic operative
responsible for this bullshit. What a mess,” The
Intercept‘s
Shaun King wrote on Twitter.
If you ask ANYONE who is close to operations of the DNC today they will tell you that things are still a complete mess there financially. twitter.com/blakehounshell…
“Since
the election, it is not clear that the DNC has dealt with these
problems yet,” writes Clio
Chang of Splinter
News,
building on King’s point. “Tom Perez was installed as DNC chair
over Keith Ellison, a move that was largely
seen as
giving Democratic elites more control over the party….The DNC is
not doomed to repeat the problems of the past, but from Brazile’s
account, it’s clear that the organization requires a major
reckoning.”
Oooooweeee! “You can put truth in the river 5 days after lie, truth gone catch.” -Grandma
Thank you @donnabrazile politico.com/magazine/story…
By Jake
Johnson / Creative
Commons / Common
Dreams / Report
a typo
==========================================
Zie ook:
Twitter Admits It Censored Tweets About the #DNCLeak Ahead of
Het volgende artikel werd gisteren door Anti-Media gepubliceerd:
Democrats
in Denial After Donna Brazile Says Primary Was Rigged for Hillary
November
3, 2017 at 1:42 pm
Written
by Kevin
Gosztola
(SHADOWPROOF) Evidence
that the Democratic National Committee rigged the 2016 presidential
primary in favor of Hillary Clinton has been known for well over a
year. But the leadership of the Democratic Party has refused to
address evidence, preferring to “move forward” by coercing
Democrats who supported Bernie Sanders into uniting with the very
elements of the party responsible for losing to President Donald
Trump.
Now,
former interim DNC chair Donna Brazile has given credence to claims
that the DNC rigged the primary, which is what members of the Sanders
campaign and supporters have repeatedly asserted—even though most
DNC officials or Clinton supporters treat such claims as the product
of sexism or downright foolishness.
Brazile found
a copy of
the joint fundraising agreement between the DNC, Hillary Victory
Fund, and Hillary For America. It was signed by former CEO of the DNC
Amy Dacey and Robby Mook, who was Clinton’s campaign manager. The
Clinton campaign’s legal counsel, Marc Elias, was copied.
It
specified that Clinton 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.” Now, former interim
DNC chair Donna Brazile has given credence to claims that the DNC
rigged the primary, which is what members of the Sanders campaign and
supporters have repeatedly asserted—even though most DNC officials
or Clinton supporters treat such claims as the product of sexism or
downright foolishness.
The
agreement was inked in August 2015, which was months before the first
votes were ever cast in the primary.
As
Brazile put it, “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.”
A
story from Politico in May 2016 revealed how
the Clinton campaign setup a fundraising operation through state
party apparatuses that was essentially money laundering. States only
kept less than a half percent of $82 million raised. This was a
method to circumvent campaign finance limits. It also put Sanders at
a disadvantage, as the state parties weren’t fairly making these
funds available to his campaign.
DNC
chair Tom Perez appeared on CNBC and was asked about what Brazile
wrote. “Well, hey, we’re moving forward. We’re building, you
know, I’ve been asked that question a number of times since I
started.”
Perez
suggested he would ensure plans for the nomination process in 2020
were fair and transparent. The primary debate schedule would be set
in advance before any officially declared candidates are known. But
what if DNC officials already have a candidate for 2020 in mind, like
they did with Clinton?
In
October, as widely
reported,
Perez “stripped a number of longtime party officials of their
‘at-large’ delegate status or leadership positions, while
appointing a slate of 75 new members that include[d] Clinton campaign
veterans, lobbyists, and neophytes.” Many of those demoted were
progressives who backed Sanders or Minnesota Representative Keith
Ellison when he ran against Perez for DNC chair.
Some
of the people tied to corporate interests, who were granted
superdelegate votes, included Joanne Dowdell, who was a registered
lobbyist for News Corp (which owns Fox News) and Manuel Ortiz, a
lobbyist for CITGO Petroleum Corporation and Citigroup. And ten
other newly
appointed superdelegates
had previously registered as federal lobbyists.
Indiana
Democratic Representative Andre Carson also was on CNN and asked what
he thought of Brazile’s allegations. Initially, Carson refused to
address them and said he knew Brazile and would probably read her
forthcoming book. Wolf Blitzer pressed him, and Carson deflected. He
maintained he had no knowledge of any fundraising deal between the
Clinton campaign and DNC.
“If
what Donna Brazile is saying in this new book is true, I assume you’d
be pretty upset that there was this formal arrangement to use the
DNC, the assets of DNC, which are considerable, to help this one
presidential candidate and in the process hurt others who may want to
challenge her for the nomination,” Blitzer added.
It
did not visibly bother Carson at all. Addressing Clinton and Sanders
supporters, Carson answered, “Going forward, we need to come
together. Though we may have our differences and different approaches
in terms of methodology. We have to come together and use our numbers
to make sure we don’t re-elect Donald Trump or see another Donald
Trump rise.”
This
strategy for unity, which involves forcing conformity among Sanders
supporters, failed at
the Democratic National Convention, and it failed to ensure Clinton
had the turnout among working class people of color and young people
that was necessary to defeat Trump, especially in swing states. It
has, however, helped officials obstruct accountability, transparency,
or any transformation away from the very centrist agenda that has
ensured the party remains weak.
One
of the few Democrats to recognize reality was Democratic Senator
Elizabeth Warren. She appeared on
CNN and emphatically answered, “Yes,” when asked if she thought
the DNC rigged the primary. She said the Democratic Party needed to
be “held accountable.”
Warren
was hounded throughout the 2016 Democratic primary by Sanders
supporters for remaining silent about who she supported. Her silence
was regarded as a favor to the Clinton campaign that was intended to
help the campaign ensure the scales did not tip against them in key
New England states.
What
Warren said flustered several Democrats, including Joy Ann Reid, a
Democrat and MSNBC host with quite the following on Twitter.
Reid
contended, “The question is: what does the DNC actually do, and can
it, even if it wanted to, rig 50+ primaries for any given candidate?”
She added, “Even if one objects to the [joint fundraising
agreement], as Donna did, it didn’t hurt Sanders financially. By
April, he’d raised as much as [Clinton].” She insisted Clinton
won the nomination because she received more votes than Sanders.
However,
what those in denial refuse to confront is that Clinton may have
received more votes because citizens believed it was impossible for
Sanders to win, since the news media kept reporting Clinton had so
many more superdelegates than him. Plus, whether Sanders was able to
overcome the impact of an unethical fundraising agreement does not
change the reality that it made the primary unfair.
Hillary
Rosen, a prominent Democratic Party strategist who regularly appears
on CNN, insisted Democrats could not reckon with Brazile’s
allegations when attention must be paid to the GOP’s tax proposals.
She also misleadingly argued Brazile could not find any evidence that
the system was rigged against Sanders, which is not what Brazile
wrote. Brazile said she could not find any evidence to support
widespread claims until she came across the joint fundraising
agreement.
“The
voters chose Hillary Clinton, not Bernie Sanders, and it had nothing
to do with any staff person at the DNC,” Rosen asserted.
In
May 2016, Rosen said, “Bernie Sanders is losing this race, and
instead of taking it like a man, he’s working the ref. He’s
encouraging his people to think that the system is rigged. The system
he signed up for as an independent to run in a Democratic primary.
This constant sort of whining and complaining about the process is
just really the most harmful thing, in some ways, he could do because
he’s encouraging his supporters to think that the process actually
is cheating them, and they’re not.” So, Rosen has an interest in
maintaining her denial of reality.
The
reality is hundreds of superdelegates pledged their allegiance to
Clinton before votes were cast in Iowa, a limited number of debates
were scheduled to ensure voters had the least amount of exposure to
Clinton opponents, the DNC and Clinton campaign falsely accused the
Sanders campaign of “stealing” voter file data, and Democratic
women supporting Sanders faced forms
of retaliation for
not supporting Clinton.
By Kevin Gosztola /
Republished with permission / Shadow
Proof / Report
a typo
================================
en: ‘Russiagate? Britaingate zal je bedoelen!‘
en: ‘Facebook gebruikte ‘fake news’ beschuldiging om de aandacht voor schandalen af te leiden‘
en: ‘New York Times: eerste Israëlische inval in Gazastrook sinds 2014 >> fake news!‘
en: ‘Noord-Koreaans ‘bedrog met nucleaire deal’ is fake news o.a. gebracht door de New York Times‘
en: ‘WikiLeaks: Seth Rich Leaked Clinton Emails, Not Russia‘
en: ‘Hillary Clinton en haar oorlog tegen de waarheid…….. Ofwel een potje Rusland en Assange schoppen!‘
en: ‘Murray, ex-ambassadeur van GB: de Russen hebben de VS verkiezingen niet gemanipuleerd‘
en: ‘Obama gaf toe dat de DNC e-mails expres door de DNC werden gelekt naar Wikileaks….!!!!‘
en: ‘VS ‘democratie’ aan het werk, een onthutsende en uitermate humoristische video!‘
en: ‘Democraten VS kochten informatie over Trump >> Forgetting the ‘Dirty Dossier’ on Trump‘
en: ‘Hillary Clinton moet op de hoogte zijn geweest van aankoop Steele dossier over Trump……..‘
en: ‘FBI Director Comey Leaked Trump Memos Containing Classified Information‘
en: ‘Publicly Available Evidence Doesn’t Support Russian Gov Hacking of 2016 Election‘
en: ‘Russia Is Trolling the Shit out of Hillary Clinton and the Mainstream Media‘
en: ‘CIA de ware hacker en manipulator van verkiezingen, ofwel de laatste Wikileaks documenten……...’
en: ‘CIA malware voor manipulaties en spionage >> vervolg Wikileaks Vault 7‘
en: ‘CIA deed zich voor als het Russische Kaspersky Lab, aldus Wikileaks Vault 8…..‘
en: ‘WannaCry niet door Noord-Korea ‘gelanceerd!’‘
en: ‘False flag terror’ bestaat wel degelijk: bekentenissen en feiten over heel smerige zaken……….‘
en: ‘FBI, de spin in het Russiagate web……..‘
en: ‘CIA en 70 jaar desinformatie in Europese opiniebladen…………‘
en: ‘Rusland zou onafhankelijkheid Californië willen uitlokken met reclame voor borsjt…….‘
en: ‘‘Russiagate’ een complot van CIA, FBI, Hillary Clinton en het DNC………..‘
Zie vervolgens ook:
!["Neither of [the leaks] came from the Russians," said Craig Murray, former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and a close associate of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange. "The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks." (Associated Press)](https://twt-thumbs.washtimes.com/media/image/2016/12/14/CraigMurray_c0-194-1234-913_s885x516.jpg?921e5bd9fce9f40a466ff126275f6d943061adc2)