Brazile Denies Sending Controversial Email Despite Claims Of Authenticity

220px-donna_brazile_1One of the least pursued stories in the mainstream media has been the denial of Donna Brazile that she sent the controversial email leaking a question to Hillary Clinton that would be asked at the CNN presidential downhill. Of course the easiest way to confirm that story is to ask the recipient campaign adviser Jennifer Palmieri who is readily available to the media. However, reporters have not pressed Palmieri. In the meantime, Brazile gave a rambling denial of the story that would normally trigger a feeding frenzy. In addition, some techies have posted a research that they say strongly support claims of authenticity, but the response of the media has been crickets.

Here is Brazile’s denial:

Brazile claimed that the emails were “doctored” and the information is “false.” She further claimed that reporters like Kelly who asked about the scandal are like “thieves” — something that would normally prompt a backlash. The claim that this is “falsified information” can be confirmed by producing the actual email and questioning Palmieri but reporters have either not asked or the Clinton campaign has refused to answer.

Tech blog Errata Security has claimed that the email was verified using an everyday verification program. It relied on DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) which was used by HillaryClinton.com, to verify emails to recipients and avoid spam filters. By looking at the DKIM “key” to the receiver to verify the sender, the site insists that the email hasn’t been tampered with. Cybersecurity expert Robert Graham said that if the emails were altered in any way, the software would have declared the email unverified.

I am no techie, but the important question is why this story is not being pursued since it involves not only a question of rigging this events by the media in favor of Clinton but also involves the question of whether the head of the DNC lied in response to the story. Perhaps the start could be with asking the Clinton for the original email and asking Palmieri? The New York Times covered the story but simply mentions Palmieri without any indication of any attempt to confirm one or the other account from a known witness. Instead, the newspaper simply reports the controversy rather than try to confirm the truth.

24 thoughts on “Brazile Denies Sending Controversial Email Despite Claims Of Authenticity

  1. And we can probably expect under Clinton’s Administration to ignore further media mergers since it is easier to collaborate with a single medium than to expect a diverse group to lie and hoodwink the American citizenry as easily or willingly.

    As long as democrats keep protecting party operatives by enabling corruption and sleaze, the DNC operatives will continue to be crooks.

    • Yep, Autumn’s video from yesterday was very telling. Maybe the Clinton folk might want to pay attention to this. Almost Lenin-Trotsky-ish. Too bad we all know the Monty Python weight is going to fall out of the sky on him at any time. Brazile’s brazen attitude really reflects the gang-style of this whole Clinton crime wave. And the mafia had to do it the hard way.

  2. I thought her attempt to spin this was quite disingenuous and amazingly brazen. (Since this lie, Donna has been caught in others as well.) She touted her Christianity, which if Jesus were in the grave, he’d be rolling in it!

    I know about persecution, she screams! Yes, as a Christian, you most certainly do know about persecution. Your faith has 2000 years experience in persecuting people for not believing the way you think they should. Would you like to talk native Americans, witch trials, etc? No? I didn’t think that you would.

    Here she was messaging Christian believers, ones who do know the hideous history of persecution towards Christians but do not know about the equally hideous crimes committed by Christians in persecuting peoples of other faiths or no faith. She is trying to get them on board with her using this very cynical “dog whistle”.

    I notice that many of the worst criminals like to compare themselves to Jesus or Christian martyrs. The bankers said they were being persecuted like Jesus in 2009, just after blowing up our economy and getting large thank you bonuses! It’s really quite insane.

    Donna is lying, an act prohibited by her Christian faith. She is a persecuting Christian, not a persecuted one.

    There is in fact a technical way to verify the e-mail which has been done. As a Christian woman, she should repent of her sins, admit her lies and start living a good life, one that does not ally her with corruption, inciting violence and lying to the public.

  3. That Brazile was on the panel to begin with is a demonstration of how fraudulent the procedures were for choosing it. This is a woman canned by Michael Dukakis in 1988 because he found her an embarrassment.

  4. What struck me is the low-grade, disrespectful response of Brazile in the interview w/Megyn Kelly.
    Many people believe that Ms. Kelly is angling for a new job @CNN, so Ms. Brazile may have been caught offguard when MK interviewed her, but she still should have had a better excuse/answer than her pathetic use of the Race card.

    Ms. Kelly surely won points with prospective future employers, and Ms. Brazile is no doubt fuming that she was made the Billy goat – in the process. Astute observers may have noticed some of the subtle signs that MK is no longer seen in the same FOXlight as she once did. E.G. O’reilly no longer signs off by saying: “Ms. Megyn is next.”.

  5. Other things at wikileaks: Obama of course lied about his knowledge of Hillary’s private “basement dwelling” server. And then the poor guy who tried to clean up the Clinton Foundation’s crimes made an emergency plea for asylum citing the death of the head of wikileaks on Oct. 22nd as a reason.

    We have no justice in this nation.

  6. As a fan of Megan Kelly, I watched that interview. Unless it’s a human interest story, anyone giving an interview to Ms Kelly is in the hot seat, with no quarter given. She’s mercilessly drilled down on painful topics for Trump, Clinton, and everyone else who steps onto her stage. I can almost hear the squeaky light as it gets turned on to the person’s face in the interview room. That’s how journalism should be.

    It has been proven that Brazile was not honest in her response. Perhaps she is counting on the jaded tolerance of her party, in which they dutifully ignore the most egregious lies, corruption, and wrongdoing in a Machiavellian tactic, while inexplicably believing “their side” is morally superior. Politics is a nasty business, and we are getting a good, hard look.

    And I thought it absurd that a grown woman would claim Ms Kelly was persecuting her by asking her tough questions and not allowing her to dodge. She’s been around too much State Approved Liberal Media stations that fawn and ask softball questions.

    If Brazile faces no consequences, besides a moment of embarrassment, for being caught cheating with the question, or lying about it afterwards, then there truly is no impediment to more bad behavior in the future.

    So we need to make a decision. Do we want a government ruling class, above the law, while the rest of us are peasants, or do we want fairness, accountability, and democracy?

  7. Clearly no one wants to be personally murdered by Hillary like all those state troopers and people who have crossed her. I heard that hit squads are actually going to be part of her transition team, and if that’s not true then we can probably revive the whole FEMA camp thing, and if that’s not true then maybe her “transition” team is going to force christians to use the wrong bathrooms and transition to the opposite sex, and of course if THAT isn’t true then maybe everyone is just really f-ing tired of this horrible sh*tshow campaign this year and want it to be over so we can all go take showers (alone, thank you), and get on with life.

      • You mean what Julian Assange shared that he got from the Russian state hackers? I’m sure we can take all that at face value and that the Russians have no interest in seeing a bloviating clown like trump elected and that they would never manipulate documents to their own advantage.

        Assange has gone round the bend. He once was some kind of underground hero but he’s little more than a captive nutbag now

        • The emails are the emails. Flail about as you may, but the Russians do the same thing we do–Oh, but I forgot, we know that as long as there is a Democratic government in place, that’s OK. If team A-B-C-or D would get in, they’ll become guilty of the things us that are just dandy now. Us independent folk would like to apply the same standards whoever is in. If it helps, you can keep all my points and use them as a base for your argument if Trump gets in and does business as usual.

    • Birthday,
      There may have been other factors at play in the primaries.
      In the first 30 primaries….I think there are a total of 38…Trump won 13 of 16 “open” primaries.
      He won only 6 of 14 closed primaries, those restricted to voters registered as Republicans.
      This indicates an extremely high level of “support” from non-Republican voters.
      I agree that the nomination of Trump denied the GOP a very good chance at defeating a widely disliked and distrusted Democatic nominee.
      Her best chance was if the Republican nominee was even less trusted, and more disliked.
      Trump fit the bill, and he had A LOT of help from non-Republicans in gaining the nomination.
      A Hillary supported might help her by voting for her in an open primary; that same Hillary supporter can probably help her more by crossing over to vote for Trump.

  8. Just one question. Washington DC and the counties of Maryland and Virginia that souround DC are arguably the wealthiest areas in the country. Why? What is produced here that creates all this wealth? I think we all know what’s produced here.

  9. JT says: “I am no techie, but the important question is why this story is not being pursued since it involves not only a question of rigging this events by the media in favor of Clinton but also involves the question of whether the head of the DNC lied in response to the story.”

    I have answered many times why the truth is not being pursued. IT’S BECAUSE THE MEDIA AND POLITICIANS DON’T WANT YOU TO KNOW THE TRUTH.

    Are we clear on this point? I put it all-caps to make it easy for you. The media are merely PRESSTITUTES.

  10. […] We discussed earlier how Donna Brazile, the interim chair of the Democratic National Committee, denied the legitimacy of emails that showed her leaking a question to Hillary Clinton that would be asked verbatim at the CNN downhill event. The media has largely declined to investigate the claim, including confirming the receipt of the earlier email from the Clinton staffer. Now additional emails allegedly show Brazile secretly feeding information to the Clinton campaign. Again, there has been relatively little media attention to the story and CNN issued a remarkably weak response that it was “uncomfortable” with the new disclosures on Brazile’s actions while a CNN commentator. “Uncomfortable”? How about words like “unethical”? […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s