Donna Brazile’s Trash Talking HRC
Nancy LeTourneau at Washington Monthly has an article up on HRC and her running for the presidency. It is a worthy read as it refutes Donna Brazile and Elizabeth Warrens accusations using Open Secrets (Hillary Victory Fund) on HRC funding the DNC and the states in addition to when she took control.
Here is what is in question as written by Nancy Letourneau:
“So it is not unusual for a nominee to exert control over the DNC once they have been chosen. As CNN reported, that transition began in June 2016, when Clinton had secured enough votes to win the nomination. Brazile’s own account of her conversation with Gary Gensler, the chief financial officer of Hillary’s campaign, happened after the Democratic Convention—meaning that the transition had already taken place.
Brazile does, however, suggest that the agreement she reviewed in August 2016 had been signed in August 2015. It has now become apparent that she needs to share what she saw with the public, because in releasing John Podesta’s hacked emails, Wikileaks provided the final template for the 2015 agreement between the Clinton campaign, the DNC and state parties. The emails to which the document were attached include talking points to share with state parties encouraging them to sign up. Nowhere in the text of the agreement is there any reference to the kind of control of the DNC by the Clinton campaign that Brazile wrote about.“
As Nancy said, it is time for Donna to release the document she is claiming gives the control in 2015.
The funding as can be found in Open Secrets:
“Amount raised – $529,943,912
Beneficiaries:
Clinton campaign – $158,200,000
DNC – $107,533,318
State parties – 38 states each received between $2,494,000 and $3,423,484”
“Brazile also recounts the concerns raised about the Hillary Victory Fund by Politico in May 2016 about money from the fund not getting to the states that had signed the agreement.” It looks like HRC shared the funding to me.
Again Democrats as led this time by Donna Brazile are investing in self destruction for 2018. During the Kerry campaign I had asked a few “why” questions of Donna via email. Rather than answer the questions, she just resorted to accusations of harassment which was completely off base. Having done the same with Senators and Congressmen, I am used to blunt replies; but, they were in answer to a question. She chose not to answer. I do not find Donna to be genuine.
Beyond sad.
Liberals make the worst team mates, mainly because they eat their own.
Meanwhile, imagine the tax plan we would have had if Trump had given speeches fir Wall Street,
Elizabeth Warren believes Brazile. It’s sad that liberals and centrists are so arrogant and corrupt that they would rather lose or cheat than compromise with the left.
I don’t think you understand the hell you’ve unleashed with this blatant dishonesty. Everyone will just lose their trust in you.
Brazile is helping the rightwing? She’s doing what she thinks is right. You can’t run a fair primary if one candidate already controlled the entire party.
I am a registered Independent. So I have no dog in this fight. But I was curious so I followed the links to get to the original Politico article.
See: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774
“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. ”
In that article Donna Brazille is telling us that the agreement to pass all of that control to the Clinton campaign, had been signed in August 2015.
Donna Brazile is a very intelligent faithful member of the Democratic party. And she has been a faithful member for a very long time. She can be judged by her previous words and deeds. I would describe her as a zealot. (I am not a fan.)
I see no selfish reason for her to speak out against her party now.
It seems to me that what we are reading is a good faith effort to expose behavior which should never be repeated.
I have a greater respect for Elizabeth Warren. If she is echoing Donna Brazile then something went wrong. Perhaps Bernie Sanders was poorly treated.
Would you rather see Donna Brazile’s tactics or see a Donald Trump emulator hijack the Democratic party?
The voters are dissatisfied.
JimH,
If that is the case. The question is raised about the date of that agreement. Strange that the Wikileaks releases did not find that to be the case, and that Brazile has not yet released her copy of the agreement showing that date.
That leaves it up to her as the author plainly states.
I git a hard tune believing she would not have a copy.
“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.”
Hey, I want to see this story proven. And Brazile is suffering from a credibility standpoint as her accusations about the HVF have been shown to be false.
I cannot speak to her motives, but she did write a book, and attacking Hillary always sells on both sides of the aisle.
Read my reply to Jack. Donna Brazile is backtracking
EMichael, forget about your dishonest implications about Wikileaks and selling books.Those are not really relevant.
Brazile a long time loyalist would have to be insane to make up the existence of the Aug 2015 agreement.
Hey I want to see Hillary or Robbie Mook or DWS come forward, you dishonest piece of trash.
Brazile is probably holding on to the proof until one of these corrupt individuals accuses her of lying.
Now it’s just worthless anonymous scumbags like EMichael.
EMichael you and your tiny cohort of 8 percent Bernie haters are beyond irrelevant. Elizabeth Warren realizes it’s time to come clean. And you go after her as a “Bernie Bro”? Have you no shame???!!!!
NBC has the story. Turns out the agreement related to direction regarding the general election and specifically did not apply to the primary. In other words, Donna got some ‘splain’in to do.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/11/3/1712377/-Donna-Brazile-backtracking-already-No-The-primary-system-wasn-t-rigged “Donna Brazile backtracking already- “No The primary system wasn’t “rigged”!” I am sure her fooling around will impact the Virginia Election. She needs to be fired.
I read your version also.
Everybody knew that the DNC favored Hillary, just as everybody knew the RNC did not favor Trump. What is new here, this agreement? The question is if this agreement or even the broader well-known DNC favoritism of Hillary had not been there, would Bernie have won the nomination? To get more precise, would he have taken even one more state than he did in the nomination fight? Keep in mind that where he did his best was in the caucus states, which were supposedly under the control of party hacks, not the primary states. Also keep in mind that Hillary beat him without even taking account of the superdelegates, where indeed her control of the party machinery gave her a massive edge. But she did not need it.
Barkley:
Sorry, I have to keep approving your comments and posts. I know Dan is working on it.
Barkley:
The revelation according to Brazile and others is the agreement favored HRC in the end and she was the decider before the convention even occurred. As it turns out, this was not true and it has been stupidly put into play before another critical election.
The end to this hoopla just before the “Virginia” election is Brazile lied for whatever reason (sell books?), Warren agrees (which takes her down several notches in my mimd), and the Dems once again look silly. Once again, Dens look silly and lazy as you have described them in Virginia. There was a “so-called” purge of Sander’s supporters in the Dem party positions. Why it occurred, got me, other than to put people with similar views in place, a failed stance in the past as we are diverse, and a typical business management alignment. This recent purge gets tossed into the fray so to speak.
It is really not about Sanders anymore. It is about why Dems look like buffoons and can not get it together even when the Repubs and Trump are acting crazily. We can not get in there for the kill because of our own clumsy and stupid actions. The promulgator of this latest blowup Brazile should be fired. She was a joke earlier in the 21 century and she is now.
Run,
The part I do not get is the thought process of Warren. From what I have seen if she wants to run in 2020 she would have no opposition(except Bernie) so why did she jump into this? It can only hurt the party, which means it hurts her.
Beyond frustrating
“This victory fund agreement, however, had been signed in August 2015, just four months after Hillary announced her candidacy and nearly a year before she officially had the nomination.”
See: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774
If the agreement which Donna Brazile cited in the Politico article was not dated August 2015, then she has lied.
If the agreement, which Donna Braziile cited in the Politico article, did not grant the Clinton campaign control of “the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised”, then she has lied.
To what end? The DNC would clearly and unequivocally state that she had lied and she would be ruined.
But the DNC has not clearly and unequivocally stated that she lied. Why not?
JimH,
Good point. Perhaps because the DNC has new leadership and is trying to wait until the entire book is put out there.
But I agree, this is the largest point that has to be decided.
Here is all I have seen so far.
“”Nothing in this agreement shall be construed to violate the DNC’s obligation of impartiality and neutrality through the Nominating process. All activities performed under this agreement will be focused exclusively on preparations for the General Election and not the Democratic Primary. Further we understand you may enter into similar agreements with other candidates.
“The attached Joint Fundraising Agreement will be entered into by HFA and the DNC (as well as by State Parties).
“This agreement will be reviewed on March 31, 2016 and either party may terminate any prospective obligation at that time.
“If this memorandum correctly summarizes our agreement, please reply by email with the text – ‘Agreed by DNC’.”
http://www.npr.org/2017/11/03/561976645/clinton-campaign-had-additional-signed-agreement-with-dnc-in-2015
EMichael,
Thanks for that link. So there was a 2015 agreement which had been agreed to long before Donna Brazile took over as the interim chair of the DNC. (She had been appointed as interim chair in July 2016.)
The 2015 agreement is included in the article to which you linked. The part that seems to have offended Donna Brazille was the section with the heading:
“HFA’s obligations under this agreement, and the release of the Base Amounts each month are conditioned on the following:”
This sentence seems to cross the line:
“Agreement by the DNC that HFA personnel will be consulted and have joint authority over strategic decisions over the staffing, budget, expenditures, and general election related communications, data, technology, analytics, and research. “
Note that references to the general election related items came in the second part of that sentence.
Apparently the DNC staff had interpreted that sentence to mean that any expenditure had to be approved by HFA after the agreement had been accepted. (Thus during the primary.)
“I had been wondering why it was that I couldn’t write a press release without passing it by Brooklyn. Well, here was the answer.”
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774
So I do not believe that Donna Brazile lied.
The CYA section on neutrality is meaningless. We are all adults here. It was extremely unlikely that HFA was going to approve an expenditure of funds which did not directly benefit Hillary Clinton in some way.
In the long haul Donna Brazile has probably done the party a favor. That 2015 agreement apparently came about because of the DNC’s debt. As Donna Brazile noted in the article linked below, the DNC would normally shrink the staff between presidential elections and too many consultants had been ‘stuck’ on the payroll. The burn rate was too high:
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774
Umm, when Brazile became DNC head, Hillary had locked up the nomination.
Second, what part of this:
“All activities performed under this agreement will be focused exclusively on preparations for the General Election and not the Democratic Primary”
do you think it means it does not apply to the entire agreement?
EMichael,
I view that entire paragraph as pretense.
Tulsi Gabbard has weighed in.
“The DNC secretly chose their nominee over a year before the primary elections even occurred. This shines a light on how deeply broken our campaign finance laws are, and how they’ve weakened individual candidates while strengthening and empowering political parties and special interested,” Mrs. Gabbard says in a video she blasted out Friday. “These laws allowed the Clinton campaign to bypass individual campaign contribution limits by funneling millions of dollars through the DNC and state parties — taking control of the DNC in the process.”
JimH,
C’mon, Man!
You cannot take the document as real except for one part. Well, not and be honest. It is real or it is not real.
The Hill adds to the stinking pile. HRC was “grossly negligent”. And Comey doctored a report – On who’s orders?? Comey’s boss perhaps? After all, Loretta Lynch met with Bill C just 6 days before Comey changed the report. Nothing to see here at all, right?? What fool believes that?
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/358982-early-comey-memo-accused-clinton-of-gross-negligence-on-emails
go away please.
You know nothing about the law in question. This word change is meaningless to all but those with CDS.
Take a look at the statute in question,
EM:
No one places any credence in John Solomon. He is making stuff up and numerous others have pointed this out. It is mostly rehashed stuff.