Donald Trump & 2016 Election

[pilferk]

Hillary doesn't deserve a pass because she lost the election. Nor does Trump deserve a pass because he won the election.  Those articles are from last year, so they arent on everyone's  mind right now. But with that said, Trump should be held to the same standard as anyone else, if he broke the law there should be consequences.

First of all, one of those articles is from THREE MONTHS AGO.  I know...July 2017 seems like "last year", but it wasn't. I promise.

Second, the "violations" you're suggesting might have occurred on the Clinton campaign side ALSO OCCURRED LAST YEAR.

The fact the Clinton articles are more prominent in the (conservative) news cycle because the conservative news media needs something, ANYTHING, to talk about right now to deflect from what's actually going on doesn't make them more relevant. It is a CLASSIC example of misdirection.  Your point is...to be honest....a prime example that you are "falling for it".  I'm sorry...it is what it is.  On one side, you have actual indictments and a plea deal.  On the other you have rumor (about something that is slap on the wrist worthy) and conjecture (which has largely been debunked, investigated, or proven flat out false) being used to distract.   

Now...to continue, point to where I said she deserved a pass?  I said she's irrelevant, and the minor things that actually might exist out there, that have NOT been investigated, debunked, or disproven, don't rise to the level of a Mueller issue.  The one exception might be the Dossier payment, but only because he'll want to know what they know.  Doing it isn't collusion.  It's just not.  They hired a lawyer who hired a firm who hired a UK citizen who paid FORMER Russian intelligence agents for information...that their government did NOT want shared because they wanted control of it (reportedly....I'm not saying it's true, just that's what the supposition on BOTH sides is).  So....where's the collusion?  If we were playing the Kevin Bacon game you'd already be at 6 degrees of separation....

I also said they will get, if found "guilty" of violations, a slap on the wrist. In fact, they won't really even get that....because there is no longer a campaign (or elected official) to censure and slap on the wrist. Trump will get more, because he still has an active campaign infrastructure and finances in place.

BUT....at the end of the day, the intelligent thing to do is to investigate and potentially punish (if guilty) the people who are actually IN POWER and having an effect on our country.  That's called "prioritizing". You want them to go after Clinton? Great, then support THIS investigation, accept it's findings, and we can move on to her when that's taken care of. 

But, you know HER EMAILS!!!  Jesus H. Christ, she lost.  Pointing and saying "well, she's bad too" isn't a defense of what's gone on, or potentially is going on,  in the Trump campaign.

Hillary is living in the backwoods of nowhere, playing with her grandkids, and occasionally making a paid speech or two.

Trump is the leader (such as he is) of the free world.

Why should GRANNY be the priority?  Because the conservatives hate her with a burning passion?  She's not going to be president even if Trump is removed for some reason.  That would be Pence (or, I guess, Ryan). 

[pilferk]

Coming from someone who's boy is the ultimate snowflake lol. Wah wah the media is so unfair to me wah wah i'm gonna threaten their license cause i don't like what they say about me wah wah. You just know Donnie's days are numbered now and you're scared. I can't wait to see who turns on him to Mueller.

Shhhhh....let them bury their heads in the sand. They need their safe place to work out their feelings.

Anyone looking at this and thinking it has anything to do with Podesta, Clinton, or anyone other than the Trump Campaign is working VERY hard at convincing themselves.

Think of it this way, tim: The conservatives have the house, senate, and presidency.  And they've gotten dick done so far, mostly because Trump keeps fucking things up.  It looks like Tax Reform is even starting to fall apart.

If you have to endure some rah rah ditto head message board posting (which is so laughably bad, I honestly wonder if sandman is legit trolling just for fun and is a closet liberal playing a character) for that...you're in good shape!

They're a year in and have done....nothing. Zippo.  So the Trump effect isn't very effective, at this point.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Hillary doesn't deserve a pass because she lost the election. Nor does Trump deserve a pass because he won the election.  Those articles are from last year, so they arent on everyone's  mind right now. But with that said, Trump should be held to the same standard as anyone else, if he broke the law there should be consequences.

First of all, one of those articles is from THREE MONTHS AGO.  I know...July 2017 seems like "last year", but it wasn't. I promise.

Second, the "violations" you're suggesting might have occurred on the Clinton campaign side ALSO OCCURRED LAST YEAR.

The fact the Clinton articles are more prominent in the (conservative) news cycle because the conservative news media needs something, ANYTHING, to talk about right now to deflect from what's actually going on doesn't make them more relevant. It is a CLASSIC example of misdirection.  Your point is...to be honest....a prime example that you are "falling for it".  I'm sorry...it is what it is.  On one side, you have actual indictments and a plea deal.  On the other you have rumor (about something that is slap on the wrist worthy) and conjecture (which has largely been debunked, investigated, or proven flat out false) being used to distract.   

Now...to continue, point to where I said she deserved a pass?  I said she's irrelevant, and the minor things that actually might exist out there, that have NOT been investigated, debunked, or disproven, don't rise to the level of a Mueller issue.  The one exception might be the Dossier payment, but only because he'll want to know what they know.  Doing it isn't collusion.  It's just not.  They hired a lawyer who hired a firm who hired a UK citizen who paid FORMER Russian intelligence agents for information...that their government did NOT want shared because they wanted control of it (reportedly....I'm not saying it's true, just that's what the supposition on BOTH sides is).  So....where's the collusion?  If we were playing the Kevin Bacon game you'd already be at 6 degrees of separation....

I also said they will get, if found "guilty" of violations, a slap on the wrist. In fact, they won't really even get that....because there is no longer a campaign (or elected official) to censure and slap on the wrist. Trump will get more, because he still has an active campaign infrastructure and finances in place.

BUT....at the end of the day, the intelligent thing to do is to investigate and potentially punish (if guilty) the people who are actually IN POWER and having an effect on our country.  That's called "prioritizing". You want them to go after Clinton? Great, then support THIS investigation, accept it's findings, and we can move on to her when that's taken care of. 

But, you know HER EMAILS!!!  Jesus H. Christ, she lost.  Pointing and saying "well, she's bad too" isn't a defense of what's gone on, or potentially is going on,  in the Trump campaign.

Hillary is living in the backwoods of nowhere, playing with her grandkids, and occasionally making a paid speech or two.

Trump is the leader (such as he is) of the free world.

Why should GRANNY be the priority?  Because the conservatives hate her with a burning passion?  She's not going to be president even if Trump is removed for some reason.  That would be Pence (or, I guess, Ryan). 

If you look at some of the previous articles I posted on the subject, they were from the Washington Post and The Hill, hardly conservative publications. 2 of the 3 articles you posted links to were from 2016. Huffpost article was the only one from 3 months ago. Huffington Post is like Fox News left, I take anything that they write with a grain of salt.

Doesn't matter if Hillary is in power or not. She was in a position of power and may have misused that position for personal or political gain. Why should we overlook that? Hold them all to the same standard.

Mueller may be looking into  Podestas brother, there may be something going on there.

[pilferk]

If you look at some of the previous articles I posted on the subject, they were from the Washington Post and The Hill, hardly conservative publications. 2 of the 3 articles you posted links to were from 2016. Huffpost article was the only one from 3 months ago. Huffington Post is like Fox News left, I take anything that they write with a grain of salt.

Doesn't matter if Hillary is in power or not. She was in a position of power and may have misused that position for personal or political gain. Why should we overlook that? Hold them all to the same standard.

Mueller may be looking into  Podestas brother, there may be something going on there.

One article you posted talked about the fact Clintons campaign funded the dossier, and doesn't provide much in the way of judgement about what that means (the post) and one alleges potential campaign finance law violations (The hill).  Which of those did I dispute or question? And which one is calling for Mueller to investigate THAT instead of Trump collusion?

Neither questions Mueller's impartiality (which is what I originally asked for) nor is there anything about making sure he "investigates the Dems" contained in either of those articles.  You're engaging in your own bit of deflection and misdirection, which, unfortunately, isn't going to work.  I'll say it again: The only ones concerned with pushing "The Dems" and Clinton to the forefront of any investigation is the conservative media. Because there's zero actual indications anything untoward might have happened. Yet, you know, you have 3 members of Trumps campaign either indicted or pleading guilty to stuff that looks sorta fishy. You have his son admitting to meeting with Russian agents.  But, you know, Granny and her emails. Again.

The huffpost (which I don't even read) was the first link on google.  I could post you similar links from Washington post, if you like:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-jrs-emails-could-put-him-in-legal-jeopardy-but-more-would-be-required-for-criminal-case-analysts-say/2017/07/11/02985360-6653-11e7-8eb5-cbccc2e7bfbf_story.html?utm_term=.d1bcaf0b5dbe

Also from July '17.  Took me another 30 seconds on google to ferret out, rather than just discount it because it's an inconvenient, pesky, fact.

And again, the "violations" you're talking about, in relation to Hillary, ALSO occurred last year.  And the post and hill aren't talking about them on a loop.   They're covering the actual news going on, specifically in relation to the indictments.  The conservative news media is screaming it on a loop,  trying as HARD as they can to get people to talk about Hillary, and not the obvious implications, here. And those internalizing that into their echo chamber seem to be the only ones really concerned by Hillary.  I trust the FEC will do what they always do in cases like this, to BOTH sides: Tell them not to do it again...and, if a campaign is still active, censure them and maybe "fine" them with a charitable donation. They are CIVIL penalties, not criminal ones. 

And...1) Who cares about Podestas brother and his firm?  And b) if he did something wrong....go for it.  But he's not remotely linked in any serious way to the DNC or the Clinton campaign. The indictment says Manifort hired Tony Podestas lobbying firm.  He did "stuff" for Manifort, at his (and Gates) direction. The Podesta group should have registered the lobbying firm as FARA and didn't.  They should pay whatever penalty is required for that. 

Again, the "source" (wait, don't we hate those? Or was that conservative media LAST week?) that first reported that Podesta was a big focus of the investigation did so via Fox News.  He resigned because they didn't do the FARA paperwork...as he should have. It was a dumb thing not to do.

This is pointless.  You want an echo chamber.  Have at it.  I'll take reality, thanks!

Guest starring role over for awhile.  Back to Halloween.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

This is pointless.  You want an echo chamber.  Have at it.  I'll take reality, thanks!

Guest starring role over for awhile.  Back to Halloween.

If I was looking for an echo chamber I wouldn't be posting stuff here, if anything me being here is preventing this thread from turning into an echo chamber ( not counting Sandman, of course). We can agree to disagree, but it maybe not a good idea to spend your time on hiatus in Snarkyville. 

 

[Dr. Blutarsky]

A good read https://www.cato.org/blog/poll-71-americans-say-political-correctness-has-silenced-discussions-society-needs-have-58-have

Poll: 71% of Americans Say Political Correctness Has Silenced Discussions Society Needs to Have, 58% Have Political Views They?re Afraid to Share

The Cato 2017 Free Speech and Tolerance Survey, a new national poll of 2,300 U.S. adults, finds that 71% Americans believe that political correctness has silenced important discussions our society needs to have. The consequences are personal?58% of Americans believe the political climate prevents them from sharing their own political beliefs.

Democrats are unique, however, in that a slim majority (53%) do not feel the need to self-censor. Conversely, strong majorities of Republicans (73%) and independents (58%) say they keep some political beliefs to themselves.

It follows that a solid majority (59%) of Americans think people should be allowed to express unpopular opinions in public, even those deeply offensive to others. On the other hand, 40% think government should prevent hate speech. Despite this, the survey also found Americans willing to censor, regulate, or punish a wide variety of speech and expression they personally find offensive:

    51% of staunch liberals say it?s ?morally acceptable? to punch Nazis.
    53% of Republicans favor stripping U.S. citizenship from people who burn the American flag.
    51% of Democrats support a law that requires Americans use transgender people?s preferred gender pronouns.
    65% of Republicans say NFL players should be fired if they refuse to stand for the anthem.
    58% of Democrats say employers should punish employees for offensive Facebook posts.
    47% of Republicans favor bans on building new mosques.

Americans also can?t agree what speech is hateful, offensive, or simply a political opinion:

    59% of liberals say it?s hate speech to say transgender people have a mental disorder; only 17% of conservatives agree.
    39% of conservatives believe it?s hate speech to say the police are racist; only 17% of liberals agree.
    80% of liberals say it?s hateful or offensive to say illegal immigrants should be deported; only 36% of conservatives agree.
    87% of liberals say it?s hateful or offensive to say women shouldn?t fight in military combat roles, while 47% of conservatives agree.
    90% of liberals say it?s hateful or offensive to say homosexuality is a sin, while 47% of conservatives agree.

 Americans Oppose Hate Speech Bans, But Say Hate Speech is Morally Unacceptable

Although Americans oppose (59%) outright bans on public hate speech, that doesn?t mean they think hate speech is acceptable. An overwhelming majority (79%) say it?s ?morally unacceptable? to say offensive things about racial or religious groups.

Black, Hispanic, and White Americans Disagree about How Free Speech Operates

African Americans and Hispanics are more likely than white Americans to believe:

    Free speech does more to protect majority opinions, not minority viewpoints (59%, 49%, 34%).
    Supporting someone?s right to say racist things is as bad as holding racist views yourself (65%, 61%, 34%).
    People who don?t respect others don?t deserve the right of free speech (59%, 62%, 36%).
    Hate speech is an act of violence (75%, 72%, 46%).
    Our society can prohibit hate speech and still protect free speech (69%, 71%, 49%).
    People usually have bad intentions when they express offensive opinions (70%, 75%, 52%).

However, black, Hispanic, and white Americans agree that free speech ensures the truth will ultimately prevail (68%, 70%, 66%). Majorities also agree that it would be difficult to ban hate speech since people can?t agree what hate speech is (59%, 77%, 87%).

Two-Thirds Say Colleges Aren?t Doing Enough to Teach the Value of Free Speech

Two-thirds of Americans (66%) say colleges and universities aren?t doing enough to teach young Americans today about the value of free speech. When asked which is more important, 65% say colleges should expose students to ?all types of viewpoints even if they are offensive or biased against certain groups.? About a third (34%) say colleges should ?prohibit offensive speech that is biased against certain groups.?

But Americans are conflicted. Despite their desire for viewpoint diversity, a slim majority (53%) also agree that ?colleges have an obligation to protect students from offensive speech and ideas that could create a difficult learning environment.? This share rises to 66% among Democrats; 57% of Republicans disagree.

76% Say Students Shutting Down Offensive Speakers Reveals ?Broader Pattern? of How Students Cope

More than three-fourths (76%) of Americans say that recent campus protests and cancellations of controversial speakers are part of a ?broader pattern? of how college students deal with offensive ideas. About a quarter (22%) think these protests and shutdowns are simply isolated incidents.

However, when asked about specific speakers, about half of Americans with college experience think a wide variety should not be allowed to speak at their college:

    A speaker who says that all white people are racist (51%)
    A speaker who says Muslims shouldn?t be allowed to come to the U.S. (50%)
    A speaker who says that transgender people have a mental disorder (50%)
    A speaker who publicly criticizes and disrespects the police (49%)
    A speaker who says all Christians are backwards and brainwashed (49%)
    A speaker who says the average IQ of whites and Asians is higher than African Americans and Hispanics (48%)
    A speaker who says the police are justified in stopping African Americans at higher rates than other groups (48%)
    A speaker who says all illegal immigrants should be deported (41%)
    A speaker who says men on average are better at math than women (40%)

Nevertheless, few endorse shutting down speakers by shouting loudly (4%) or forcing the speaker off the stage (3%). Current college and graduate students aren?t much different; only about 7% support forcibly shutting down offensive speakers.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

65% Say Colleges Should Discipline Students Who Shut Down Invited Campus Speakers

Two-thirds (65%) say colleges need to discipline students who disrupt invited speakers and prevent them from speaking. However, the public is divided about how: 46% want to give students a warning, 31% want the incident noted on the student?s academic record, 22% want them to pay a fine, 20% want to suspend them, 19% favor arresting the students, 13% want to fully expel the students. Three-fourths (75%) of Republicans support some form of punishment for these students, compared to 42% of Democrats.

People of Color Don?t Find Most Microaggressions Offensive

The survey finds that many microaggressions colleges and universities advise faculty and students to avoid aren?t considered offensive by most people of color. The percentage of African Americans and Latinos who say these microaggressions are not offensive are as follows:

    Telling a recent immigrant: ?You speak good English? Black: 67% Latino: 77%
    Telling a racial minority: ?You are so articulate? Black: 56% Latino: 63%
    Saying ?I don?t notice people?s race? Black: 71% Latino: 80%
    Saying ?America is a melting pot? Black: 77% Latino: 70%
    Saying ?Everyone can succeed in this society if they work hard enough.? Black: 77% Latino: 89%
    Saying ?America is the land of opportunity? Black: 93% Latino: 89%

The one microaggression that African Americans (68%) agree is offensive is telling a racial minority ?you are a credit to your race.?

Americans Don?t Think Colleges Need to Advise Students on Halloween Costumes

Nearly two-thirds (65%) say colleges shouldn?t advise students about offensive Halloween costumes and should instead let students work it out on their own. A third (33%) think it is the responsibility of the university to remind students not to wear costumes that stereotype racial or ethnic groups at off-campus parties.

20% of Current Students Say College Faculty Has Balanced Mix of Political Views

Only 20% of current college and graduate students believe their college or university faculty has a balanced mix of political views. A plurality (39%) say most college and university professors are liberal, 27% believe most are politically moderate, and 12% believe most are conservative.

Democratic and Republican students see their college campuses differently. A majority (59%) of Republican college students believe that most faculty members are liberal. In contrast, only 35% of Democratic college students agree most professors are liberal.

What Beliefs Should Get People Fired?

Americans tend to oppose firing people for their beliefs. Nevertheless, Democrats are more likely than Republicans to say a business executive should be fired if she or he believes transgender people have a mental disorder (44% vs 14%), that homosexuality is a sin (32% vs 10%), and that psychological differences help explain why there are more male than female engineers (34% vs. 14%). Conversely, Republicans are more likely than Democrats to say a business executive should be fired if they burned the American flag at a weekend political protest (54% vs. 38%).

Republicans Say Journalists Are an Enemy of the American People

A majority (63%) of Republicans agree with President Trump that journalists today are an ?enemy of the American people.? Conversely, most Americans (64%), as well as 89% of Democrats and 61% of independents, do not view journalists as the enemy.

These results aren?t surprising given that most Americans believe many major news outlets have a liberal bias, including The New York Times (52%), CNN (50%), and MSNBC (59%).  Fox is the one news station in which a majority (56%) believe it has a conservative bias.

Democrats, however, believe most major news organizations are balanced in their reporting including The New York Times (55%), CNN (55%), and CBS (72%). A plurality (44%) also believe the Wall Street Journal is balanced. The two exceptions are that a plurality (47%) believe MSNBC has a liberal tilt and a strong majority (71%) say Fox has a conservative bias.

Republicans, on the other hand, see things differently. Overwhelming majorities believe liberal bias colors reporting at The New York Times (80%), CNN (81%), CBS (73%), and MSNBC (80%). A plurality also feel the Wall Street Journal (48%) has a liberal bias. One exception is that a plurality (44%) believe Fox News has a conservative bias, while 41% believe it provides unbiased reporting.

Despite perceptions of bias, only 29% of the public want the government to prevent media outlets from publishing a story that government officials say is biased or inaccurate. Instead, a strong majority (70%) say government should not have the power to stop such news stories.

Americans Say Wedding Businesses Should Be Required to Serve LGBT People, Not Weddings

The public distinguishes between a business serving people and servicing weddings:

    A plurality (50%) of Americans say that businesses should be required to ?provide services to gay and lesbian people,? even if doing so violates the business owners? religious beliefs.
    But, 68% say a baker should not be required to provide a special-order wedding cake for a same-sex wedding if doing so violates their religious convictions.

Few support punishing wedding businesses who refuse service to same-sex weddings. Two-thirds (66%) say nothing should happen to a bakery which refuses to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding. A fifth (20%) would boycott the bakery, another 22% think government should sanction the bakery in some way, such as fining the bakery (12%), requiring an apology (10%), issuing a warning (8%), taking away their business license (6%), or sending the baker to jail (1%).

Clinton Voters Can?t Be Friends with Trump Voters

Nearly two-thirds (61%) of Hillary Clinton?s voters agree that it?s ?hard? to be friends with Donald Trump?s voters. However, only 34% of Trump?s voters feel the same way about Clinton?s. Instead, nearly two-thirds (64%) of Trump voters don?t think it?s hard to be friends with Clinton voters.

[pilferk]

You're not looking for an echo chamber, but find the "study" of a conservative think tank who's findings have been widely criticized and debunked (and who have a well documented and obvious bias)...and is owned (mostly) by the Koch brothers....compelling and interesting. 

And THATS why discussions are useless, and I'll not be reprising my guest starring role any time soon.

It's not Snarkyville, it's Realityberg.  Try visiting some time.  You might like it!!

[sandman]

WOW! Donna Brazile dropping the dirt on Hillary!

I highly recommend picking her up in any death pools you might be aware of. I think her reported cause of death will be "suicide." i'll guess sometime by March 2018. I certainly wouldn't get on a small plane with her. 

Tax plan looks good. now if the swamp can do the right thing and support the prez that so many of them despise, we'll get this thing done. Elections in a year...support the prez or they are in some trouble.

#MAGA

[Dr. Blutarsky]

So Hillary stole the nomination and the money. 

It is a bit surprising that this caught Donna by surprise as she has had involvement with the DNC since the light bulb was invented.

[chineseblues]

If I didn't know any better I'd swear you both were madly in love with Hillary. How about instead of focusing on a loser you guys focus on the criminals in the White House?

[Dr. Blutarsky]

If I didn't know any better I'd swear you both were madly in love with Hillary. How about instead of focusing on a loser you guys focus on the criminals in the White House?

It's all fair game for discussion. Isn't the thread title "Donald Trump AND 2016 Election " ?

[Dr. Blutarsky]

There, I fixed it. 

[chineseblues]

It's so funny watching you both fall for the spin and distractions. What's next, you guys gonna bring up Monica again?

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Hillary made the news today so it is being discussed. We all can't be cheerleaders for her.  This is actually a good thing for the Democratic Party as they need to look in the mirror before they can move forward.

This was not written by Sean Hannity , Alex Jones or Roger Stone. I admit that I have to commend Donna Brazile for writing this.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774

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.

By DONNA BRAZILE

November 02, 2017

Before I called Bernie Sanders, I lit a candle in my living room and put on some gospel music. I wanted to center myself for what I knew would be an emotional phone call.

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. I?d had my suspicions from the moment I walked in the door of the DNC a month or so earlier, based on the leaked emails. But who knew if some of them might have been forged? I needed to have solid proof, and so did Bernie.

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 had become dependent on her campaign for survival, for which she expected to wield control of its operations.

Debbie was not a good manager. She hadn?t been very interested in controlling the party?she 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 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.

***

The Saturday morning after the convention in July, I called Gary Gensler, the chief financial officer of Hillary?s campaign. He wasted no words. He told me the Democratic Party was broke and $2 million in debt.

?What?? I screamed. ?I am an officer of the party and they?ve been telling us everything is fine and they were raising money with no problems.?

That wasn?t true, he said. Officials from Hillary?s campaign had taken a look at the DNC?s books. Obama left the party $24 million in debt?$15 million in bank debt and more than $8 million owed to vendors after the 2012 campaign?and had been paying that off very slowly. Obama?s campaign was not scheduled to pay it off until 2016. Hillary for America (the campaign) and the Hillary Victory Fund (its joint fundraising vehicle with the DNC) had taken care of 80 percent of the remaining debt in 2016, about $10 million, and had placed the party on an allowance.

If I didn?t know about this, I assumed that none of the other officers knew about it, either. That was just Debbie?s way. In my experience she didn?t come to the officers of the DNC for advice and counsel. She seemed to make decisions on her own and let us know at the last minute what she had decided, as she had done when she told us about the hacking only minutes before the Washington Post broke the news.

On the phone Gary told me the DNC had needed a $2 million loan, which the campaign had arranged.

?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. 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.

Individuals who had maxed out their $2,700 contribution limit to the campaign could write an additional check for $353,400 to the Hillary Victory Fund?that figure represented $10,000 to each of the 32 states? parties who were part of the Victory Fund agreement?$320,000?and $33,400 to the DNC. The money would be deposited in the states first, and transferred to the DNC shortly after that. 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??

Gary said the campaign had to do it or the party would collapse.

?That was the deal that Robby struck with Debbie,? he explained, referring to campaign manager Robby Mook. ?It was to sustain the DNC. We sent the party nearly $20 million from September until the convention, and more to prepare for the election.?

?What?s the burn rate, Gary?? I asked. ?How much money do we need every month to fund the party??

The burn rate was $3.5 million to $4 million a month, he said.

I gasped. I had a pretty good sense of the DNC?s operations after having served as interim chair five years earlier. Back then the monthly expenses were half that. What had happened? The party chair usually shrinks the staff between presidential election campaigns, but Debbie had chosen not to do that. She had stuck lots of consultants on the DNC payroll, and Obama?s consultants were being financed by the DNC, too.

When we hung up, I was livid. Not at Gary, but at this mess I had inherited. I knew that Debbie had outsourced a lot of the management of the party and had not been the greatest at fundraising. I would not be that kind of chair, even if I was only an interim chair. Did they think I would just be a surrogate for them, get on the road and rouse up the crowds? I was going to manage this party the best I could and try to make it better, even if Brooklyn did not like this. It would be weeks before I would fully understand the financial shenanigans that were keeping the party on life support.

***

[Dr. Blutarsky]

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. A Politico story published on May 2, 2016, described the big fund-raising vehicle she had launched through the states the summer before, quoting a vow she had made to rebuild ?the party from the ground up ? when our state parties are strong, we win. That?s what will happen.?

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.

I wanted to believe Hillary, who made campaign finance reform part of her platform, but I had made this pledge to Bernie and did not want to disappoint him. I kept asking the party lawyers and the DNC staff to show me the agreements that the party had made for sharing the money they raised, but there was a lot of shuffling of feet and looking the other way.

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.

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.

When the party chooses the nominee, the custom is that the candidate?s team starts to exercise more control over the party. If the party has an incumbent candidate, as was the case with Clinton in 1996 or Obama in 2012, this kind of arrangement is seamless because the party already is under the control of the president. When you have an open contest without an incumbent and competitive primaries, the party comes under the candidate?s control only after the nominee is certain. When I was manager of Al Gore?s campaign in 2000, we started inserting our people into the DNC in June. 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.

I had tried to search out any other evidence of internal corruption that would show that the DNC was rigging the system to throw the primary to Hillary, but I could not find any in party affairs or among the staff. I had gone department by department, investigating individual conduct for evidence of skewed decisions, and I was happy to see that I had found none. Then I found this agreement.

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.

***

I had to keep my promise to Bernie. I was in agony as I dialed him. Keeping this secret was against everything that I stood for, all that I valued as a woman and as a public servant.

?Hello, senator. I?ve completed my review of the DNC and I did find the cancer,? I said. ?But I will not kill the patient.?

I discussed the fundraising agreement that each of the candidates had signed. Bernie was familiar with it, but he and his staff ignored it. They had their own way of raising money through small donations. I described how Hillary?s campaign had taken it another step.

I told Bernie I had found Hillary?s Joint Fundraising Agreement. I explained that the cancer was that she had exerted this control of the party long before she became its nominee. Had I known this, I never would have accepted the interim chair position, but here we were with only weeks before the election.

Bernie took this stoically. He did not yell or express outrage. Instead he asked me what I thought Hillary?s chances were. The polls were unanimous in her winning but what, he wanted to know, was my own assessment?

I had to be frank with him. I did not trust the polls, I said. I told him I had visited states around the country and I found a lack of enthusiasm for her everywhere. I was concerned about the Obama coalition and about millennials.

I urged Bernie to work as hard as he could to bring his supporters into the fold with Hillary, and to campaign with all the heart and hope he could muster. He might find some of her positions too centrist, and her coziness with the financial elites distasteful, but he knew and I knew that the alternative was a person who would put the very future of the country in peril. I knew he heard me. I knew he agreed with me, but I never in my life had felt so tiny and powerless as I did making that call.

When I hung up the call to Bernie, I started to cry, not out of guilt, but out of anger. We would go forward. We had to.



Donna Brazile is the former interim chair of the Democratic National Committee. Excerpted from the book Hacks: The Inside Story of the Break-ins and Breakdowns that Put Donald Trump in the White House to be published on November 7, 2017 by Hachette Books, a division of Hachette Book Group. Copyright 2017 Donna Brazile.

[tim_m]

So i called it. White man with a gun kills 58 and injures over 500, Trump basically says crazy man with a gun shit happens offers no solution like sensible gun laws. Isil sympathizer from Russia plows down pedestrians on a bike trail killing 8 and injuring dozens within hours Trump calls for ending diversity visa program by which perpetrator entered the US. If you don't see the problem here you are blind as a fucking bat.

[chineseblues]

No one here is cheerleeding for Hillary. She lost, she's not in the White House and she isn't president. You guys are focused on her tho (and not just today) instead of focusing on an investigation that is showing more and more that trumps campaign colluded with Russians. Ya know real illegal shit and not just some buttery males. Like pilferk said, time for you to visit reality for awhile.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

So i called it. White man with a gun kills 58 and injures over 500, Trump basically says crazy man with a gun shit happens offers no solution like sensible gun laws. Isil sympathizer from Russia plows down pedestrians on a bike trail killing 8 and injuring dozens within hours Trump calls for ending diversity visa program by which perpetrator entered the US. If you don't see the problem here you are blind as a fucking bat.

I agree we can use more sensible gun laws. We also don't need a diversity visa program. We don't have a diversity problem. No one has a right to come here.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

No one here is cheerleeding for Hillary. She lost, she's not in the White House and she isn't president. You guys are focused on her tho (and not just today) instead of focusing on an investigation that is showing more and more that trumps campaign colluded with Russians. Ya know real illegal shit and not just some buttery males. Like pilferk said, time for you to visit reality for awhile.

I've heard a lot of speculation but no evidence yet. This is the reality of it.