Inside Hillary Clinton’s secret takeover of the DNC

[marquee moon]

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

 

[dot com]

Did DNC have a disclaimer to cover it like the RNC?
Contributions are used to fund all RNC programs, and will be spent as the RNC determines within its sole discretion.

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

The only thing surpirising about that story is that it came from Donna Brazille. She's always appeared to be a Clinton operative.

 

[Demonwolverine]

Sounds like the states are still waiting for that trickle down.

 

[Colonel Angus]

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.

So Obama walked away???

 

[warak]

So Obama walked away???

just claim bankruptcy. it has worked tens of times for the President.

done

 

[Demonwolverine]

So Obama walked away???

Weird, that quoted me when I think you meant to quote the article.

Also, I wonder how much debt Obama inherited? Did he work to pay it back, or did he just increase it?

 

[bcobbdeacs]

Marquee,
Will your obsession with Hillary ever end? You are like a spurned, vindictive former lover. We have moved on, we have bigger fish to fry.

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

Marquee,
Will your obsession with Hillary ever end? You are like a spurned, vindictive former lover. We have moved on, we have bigger fish to fry.

What exactly have you "moved on" from? Something that you just learned today? Or something you already knew and didn't care about?

 

[bcobbdeacs]

What exactly have you "moved on" from? Something that you just learned today? Or something you already knew and didn't care about?

Moved on from his obsession with the Clintons. If they are guilty of something they can be housed in the same Federal prison as trump and his cronies. If they are not you need to start worrying about 2018 and further on. They can't hurt you anymore.

 

[Newenglanddeac]

Hillary derangement syndrome.

Did I do that right?

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

Moonz didnt write the book, the former chair of the DNC wrote it. Its important that you acknowledge corruption within your own party, so that you don't dismiss it the next time it occurs. That's the point. Its not about Hillary, it's about the average voter being so trusting and apathetic that we either ignore or deny corruption.

 

[wsc8521s]

Hillary was crowned as the candidate before the primaries even began. No establishment figures dared run against her. Then once the primaries got going, let's hold debates when no one's watching to silence any opposition, let's close primaries as much as possible, let's have superdelegates to "save" us in case things go haywire.

This showed and shows itself in HRC and her cronies bitter reaction to Bernie for offering any sort of opposition. It was her time, just like it was McCain's in 2008 and Romney's in 2012. Whoops

This is all utter nonsense.

Seems relevant

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

Hillary shills are trying to spin this into a financing issue, where Hillary is being unfairly condemned for "saving" the DNC with her fundraising. The fundraising itself is not the issue, the problem is that Hillary's campaign office was given control of the DNC before she won the nomination - thus Hillary's campaign had leverage on the entire Democratic party, and the entire primary. Every critic of Hillary pointed out that she was being treated like an incumbent, and now we have a firsthand account from the chair of the DNC that Hillary literally had all the advantages of an incumbent candidate.

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

You can't make this shit up.

 

[ChrisL68]

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.

So outside of the agreement, there was no evidence of any actual actions found which skewed the primary.

Your other concerns.

1. Closed vs. open primaries. Not controlled by the DNC at all. The DNC has control moreso over caucuses which are favorable to progressive populist candidates. Plus these rules have been in place for multiple elections and were all in place well before August 2015. NY didn't magically change their primary rules for this election.

2. Superdelegates- Again, this same rules that have been in place for multiple elections.

3. Debates- A big giant meh. They don't change anybody's mind, and there were plenty before the election was essentially over.

Again, still nonsense.

 

[wsc8521s]

"crowned as the candidate before the primaries even began." Still nonsense bub?

I'll admit perhaps my evidence wasn't perfect on all fronts (though your take on the debates is just that they don't matter rather than addressing the issue at hand). This would've been a more productive reply the first time around. But the larger point still resounds, and resounds loudly

 

[bcobbdeacs]

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.

So outside of the agreement, there was no evidence of any actual actions found which skewed the primary.

Your other concerns.

1. Closed vs. open primaries. Not controlled by the DNC at all. The DNC has control moreso over caucuses which are favorable to progressive populist candidates. Plus these rules have been in place for multiple elections and were all in place well before August 2015. NY didn't magically change their primary rules for this election.

2. Superdelegates- Again, this same rules that have been in place for multiple elections.

3. Debates- A big giant meh. They don't change anybody's mind, and there were plenty before the election was essentially over.

Again, still nonsense.

Thank you Chris, it is almost as if some people do not understand how campaigns work, not that I agree with how they are done but it is a big boy and girl sport.

 

[marquee moon]

Moonz didnt write the book, the former chair of the DNC wrote it. Its important that you acknowledge corruption within your own party, so that you don't dismiss it the next time it occurs. That's the point. Its not about Hillary, it's about the average voter being so trusting and apathetic that we either ignore or deny corruption.

Thanks

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

Thank you Chris, it is almost as if some people do not understand how campaigns work, not that I agree with how they are done but it is a big boy and girl sport.

Fishhook theory in action right here - you're both idiots who won't acknowledge that Hillary basically extorted control of the DNC nearly a year before she won the nomination - only possible because Obama bled the DNC dry in the 8 years prior.
It's not normal for a potential presidential nominee to be given control of a parties national campaign apparatus a year before the convention.