Bizarre, Media, Politics

Brazile Under Fire As More Emails Purport to Show Secret Leaks of Questions To Clinton

220px-donna_brazile_1200px-Cnn.svgWe 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”?

There are now three troubling levels to this story. First, CNN maintained throughout the primary that Brazile (who was well known as a supporter of Hillary Clinton) was a “neutral” commentator. It was a facially ridiculous claim for anyone familiar with Washington. Second, Brazile then alleged passed along questions to Clinton in what would be a deeply unethical act. Third, Brazile then said that the emails were not real and that she could prove it.

The easiest way to confirm the earlier 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.

Now, the latest email show that Brazile revealed to the Clinton campaign the name of the person who provided her with a question that was asked of Clinton at a March 13 town hall co-hosted by CNN and TV One. Brazile also shared a question from a debate hosted by CNN a week earlier. She allegedly named Roland Martin, a TV One host who co-moderated a March 13 town hall with CNN’s Jake Tapper, as her source. The March 5th email shows Brazile sharing a question with Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta and communications director Jennifer Palmieri that was to be asked in a March 6 debate hosted by CNN in Flint, Mich.

In a March 12 exchange, Brazile again refers to Martin and offers to provide more than just the one town hall question: “I’ll send a few more. Though some questions Roland submitted,” Brazile wrote to Palmieri in the March 12 email thread, which is entitled “From time to time I get the questions in advance.”

Now the emails contradict the denials of other CNN figures about sharing questions with Brazile.

In a March 5 email, Brazile reportedly leaked a question that was to be asked the next day at a debate that was hosted by CNN’s Don Lemon and Anderson Cooper: “One of the questions directed to HRC tomorrow is from a woman with a rash . . . Her family has lead poison and she will ask what, if anything, will Hillary do as president to help the ppl of Flint.”

Then in the debate a woman named Lee-Anne Walters did ask the question of both Clinton and Sanders:

“After my family, the city of Flint and the children in D.C. were poisoned by lead, will you make a personal promise to me right now that, as president, in your first 100 days in office, you will make it a requirement that all public water systems must remove all lead service lines throughout the entire United States, and notification made to the – the citizens that have said service lines,”

In response, CNN again denied sharing questions and said “We are completely uncomfortable with what we have learned about her interactions with the Clinton campaign while she was a CNN contributor.” CNN has cut all ties with Brazile, but of course she remains the DNC head after replacing Debbie Wasserman Schultz (who ironically was viewed as working to rig the primary for Clinton).

It would seem of more than passing interest for the media to determine if the head of the DNC, let alone a former CNN contributor, is lying. Yet, there appears to be a minimal level of coverage of the story.

84 thoughts on “Brazile Under Fire As More Emails Purport to Show Secret Leaks of Questions To Clinton”

  1. And now, for a little comic relief. . .
    _______________________________________________________________________________

    Time: Investigating Hillary is an Attack on All Women

    November 1, 2016

    Daniel Greenfield

    Good morning. It’s Tuesday.

    Who’s up for another silly attempt to claim that Hillary Clinton is only being investigated for her rogue email setup because she’s a woman? This gem comes from Robin Lakoff, a Berkeley professor in sustained incoherence and special pleading.

    Hillary Clinton’s Emailgate Is an Attack on Women

    ‘It’s not about emails; it’s about public communication by a woman’

    I am mad. I am mad because I am scared. And if you are a woman, you should be, too. Emailgate is a bitch hunt, but the target is not Hillary Clinton. It’s us.

    The only reason the whole email flap has legs is because the candidate is female. Can you imagine this happening to a man?

    His name was General Petraeus. Thank you. Have a nice day.

    Clinton is guilty of SWF (Speaking While Female), and emailgate is just a reminder to us all that she has no business doing what she’s doing and must be punished, for the sake of all decent women everywhere. There is so much of that going around.

    That escalated quickly. And incoherently. Also I’m pretty sure it’s not the 20s or whatever decade Robin is parodying or channeling. But yes, Hillary Clinton is only in this mess because she’s a woman. It has nothing to do with anything else. That must be why Albright and Rice weren’t in the center of similar scandals.

    If the candidate were male, there would be no scolding and no “scandal.” Those very ideas would be absurd. Men have a nearly absolute right to freedom of speech. In theory, so do women, but that, as the creationists like to say, is only a theory.

    Emailing classified information on your server to avoid transparency regulations is not free speech. It’s illegal for both public officials of both genders.

    But here’s Hillary Rodham Clinton, the very public stand-in for all bossy, uppity and ambitious women. Here are her emails. And since it’s a woman, doing what decent women should never do—engaging in high-level public communication—well, there must be something wrong with that, even if we can’t quite find that something.

    Illegally… emailing… classified… information.

  2. October 25, 2016

    A Retired FBI Agent Addresses James Comey on the Hillary Clinton Investigation

    By Hugh Galyen

    Mr. James Comey, Director

    Federal Bureau of Investigation

    J. Edgar Hoover Building

    935 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W

    Washington, D.C. 20535-0001

    Sir,

    I am writing regarding your public statement in July, 2016 informing the American people that the FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton was being closed without referring it to a Federal Grand Jury or the Attorney General of the U. S. for a decision whether or not to indict her. Strangely, you eloquently laid out enough of the evidence deduced from the investigation to strongly indicate there was abundant evidence uncovered during the investigation and interview of her to not only indict but to convict her in Federal Court.­­­­­­­ ­­­­­­However, you personally re-worded and soft-pedaled the actions she took as Secretary of State describing her actions as “extremely careless” in using a personal email and un-secured server for her communications while Secretary of State. You rewrote the statute, which is not your job.

    As a retired Special Agent of the FBI, I have standing to write this letter. My thirty years in law enforcement, including 22 years as a Special Agent with the FBI have given me the knowledge, expertise and experience to question and confront you for your perplexing actions, which (as you well know) were outside the normal standard operating procedure of the FBI and Federal judicial procedures. Some of the finest people in the world proudly carry the credentials of FBI Agent and you have soiled them and not allowed them to speak. But I will not be silent.

    Sorry, but NO SIR, MS Clinton was not merely careless or extremely careless. She was not even negligent or grossly negligent (as the statute requires). Hillary Clinton was knowingly purposeful in her decisions and actions to set up a server under her exclusive control and possession in order to control what information was available to the American public and Congress regarding her actions as Secretary of State. Furthermore, she took those government owned communications into her personal possession after leaving her position and knowingly and willingly attempted to destroy them so her nefarious actions could never be known or used as evidence of her corrupt moral character against her.

    Sir, what possessed you? Did you cave in to political pressure to unilaterally come to this decision? I fear that is the case, and Rule of Law be damned. I am embarrassed for and ashamed of you. You have set a precedent that can never be rectified… and certainly not justified. Shame on you, Sir. You ought to resign right now in disgrace for what you have done to tarnish the reputation of the finest Law Enforcement Agency in the world… for entirely political reasons.

    Normally, an investigation will be assigned to an agent, or team of agents with one being the Case agent, or the lead investigator. When the investigation is complete, an investigative report will be presented to the U.S. Attorney for the Federal District involved. It would be the U.S. Attorney who decides whether to decline prosecution for that investigation… NOT the FBI agent. But in the Clinton investigation, YOU (unilaterally) decided not to forward the investigation to the U.S. Attorney or the Attorney General of the U.S., but instead personally made the decision not to prosecute her or even provide the information to a Federal Grand Jury. You were wrong to take this upon yourself.

    Sir, in order to indict a subject, only a preponderance of evidence, or 51% is needed for probable cause to exist. You did not think even that level of probability existed? Who do you think you are fooling? What judicial proceeding did you think you were following?

    Throughout my years with the FBI, I (along with my fellow agents) took great pride in conducting each investigation in an unbiased manner regardless of the subject’s position or standing in the community.

    All were treated equally under the law. But you, Sir, decided to allow this corrupt, evil and nasty human being to go free and unchallenged for her treasonous actions (yes, treasonous, in my opinion) which threatened the security of this nation. Furthermore, you stopped short of investigating the Clinton Foundation as a RICO case (Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organization. This is a RICO case if

    there ever were one. Even an untrained person can tell from the communications which were recovered that Hillary Clinton spent more time working for the Clinton Foundation while Secretary of State than on State Business. It may be argued that Hillary did not do any State business UNLESS the Clinton Foundation benefitted. You decided to just let this uncomfortable truth alone without addressing it.

    I will conclude with this: Following my retirement from the FBI, I volunteered for a 12 month tour of duty in Afghanistan as a Law Enforcement Professional, embedded with U.S. forces as a subject matter expert in counter-terrorism investigations. For most of that year I operated “outside the wire” patrolling with the troops, interviewing witnesses to IED incidents and gathering evidence on the bad guys. The results of my work would then be reported through secure channels to the Commanding Officer. All reports and communications were required to be transmitted via secure and encrypted devices. Occasionally my remote location in the mountains of Afghanistan made transmission impossible and I would have to fly back to Bagram Air Base in order to securely report to the Commander of the battle space. It would have been convenient if I could have just called the Commander on my personal cell phone or written him an email on my personal laptop. But, had I done so I would have been reporting classified information via an unsecured device and it could have been compromised. These were, relative to Secretary of State communications, low level classifications of Secret. Had I ever sent even one in such a manner I would have been prosecuted and sent to Federal Prison for 20 years or so. That is how serious this violation is considered.

    Now, because of you, Hillary Clinton is allowed to continue her RICO activities and is running for President of the United States, the most powerful position in the world. You have trampled on the Rule of Law and destroyed the trust of the American people in the FBI and in unbiased enforcement of the law. How do you sleep at night? It is time for you to go and work for the Clinton Foundation.

    Sincerely,

    Hugh W. Galyean

    (FBI Agent, Retired)

  3. Ex-Assistant FBI Director: Clintons Are a Crime Family

    October 30, 2016

    Daniel Greenfield

    That’s quite an endorsement. And if there’s anything top FBI officials now, it’s crime families. Certainly this is probably the first serious level of experience that Hillary can claim in any field.

    “The Clintons, that’s a crime family, basically,” former assistant FBI director James Kallstrom said. “It’s like organized crime. I mean the Clinton Foundation is a cesspool.”

    “Kallstrom, best known for leading the investigation into the explosion of TWA flight 800 in the late ’90s, said that Hillary Clinton, the Democratic presidential nominee, was a “pathological liar.”

    He also blasted Attorney General Loretta Lynch, claiming that she impeded the investigation into Clinton’s private server.

    “The problem here is this investigation was never a real investigation,” he said. “That’s the problem. They never had a grand jury empanelled, and the reason they never had a grand jury empanelled, I’m sure, is Loretta Lynch would not go along with that.”

    Kallstrom also said that FBI Director James Comey and the rest of the FBI’s leadership were responsible for holding back the investigation, not the rest of the bureau.

    “The agents are furious with what’s going on, I know that for a fact,” he said.

    But according to the media, the FBI investigating Hillary is the real crime.

    1. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/26/donald-trump-dakota-access-pipeline-investment-energy-transfer-partners “Donald Trump’s close financial ties to Energy Transfer Partners, operators of the controversial Dakota Access oil pipeline, have been laid bare, with the presidential candidate invested in the company and receiving more than $100,000 in campaign contributions from its chief executive.
      Over 120 arrested at North Dakota pipeline protests, including journalists
      Read more

      Trump’s financial disclosure forms show the Republican nominee has between $500,000 and $1m invested in Energy Transfer Partners, with a further $500,000 to $1m holding in Phillips 66, which will have a 25% stake in the Dakota Access project once completed. The information was disclosed in Trump’s monthly filings to the Federal Election Commission, which requires candidates to disclose their campaign finance information on a regular basis.

      The financial relationship runs both ways. Kelcy Warren, chief executive of Energy Transfer Partners, has given $103,000 to elect Trump and handed over a further $66,800 to the Republican National Committee since the property developer secured the GOP’s presidential nomination.”

  6. If Donna actually “shared” a question about lead poisoning for a debate in Flint….she is too dumb to be taken seriously by anyone.

  7. This is a lay up for anyone interested in identifying ethical malpractice. For anyone to make one keystroke in defense of this effectively eliminates that individual from the realm of intellectual honesty. It’s one thing to be thought a partisan hack but another to post and remove all doubt.

  8. The queen of sleaze has done it again, and there is no reason to believe she won’t continue if elected.
    She promises to be the least respected president in American history.
    She is a driven woman, almost to the point of obsession, and the hallmark of her career is consistency…
    in duplicity, lies, subterfuge and Machiavellian politics.
    It isn’t going to happen, but just once it would be nice to hear some of these people, say, Donna Brazille, say. “OK, you caught me. I did it, I’m guilty as hell, so let the chips fall where they may.”
    The effects of institutional lies throughout government is far more serious than given credit for. When a people lose faith in their institutions, nothing good is going to happen.

  9. The purpose of the media is to deceive and misinform. Capitalism could not function otherwise. Elections are rigged in multiple ways, and the fact that Sanders is being a good boy and keeping his lips firmly pressed to the Clinton family’s asses demonstrates that dissent in the U.S. Is a dog and pony show. Queen POTUS will soon have us into a war and most everyone will be scratching their heads wondering how that could have happened.

    1. Sounds good, but we are certainly not a capitalist society. We are at least corporatist with a revolving door between government, industry, and banking–and going over the rails to full fascism. But yeah, no one outside of people leaning toward as the lesser of two evils seem to have a clue how precarious the world situation is right now. Then we have the Clinton memes who follow the “repeat the lie” until it is true crowd.

    2. @Kevin

      re: “the fact that Sanders is being a good boy and keeping his lips firmly pressed to the Clinton family’s asses demonstrates that dissent in the U.S. Is a dog and pony show.”

      Bernie knew they would take him out IMO but he continued on ramping up the final rallies to 2 or 3 a day plus town halls and press conferences. He got his message out there so thoroughly that no real Berner would ever vote for HRC no matter what he was forced to say later on. I think they threatened Jane or the grands .

      We BernieorBusters are voting for Jill Stein – and in swing states for Trump.

  10. Wasserman Schultz was disposable; Brazile, for the most obvious of reasons, is not. Hillary spoke of deplorables? Well, Brazile is one of the untouchables. She will remain, where she is, out of fear of antagonizing Clinton’s African-American base prior to a tenuous election. Even though she deserves the boot, having lost any semblance of credibility, she will remain in her position. The duplicitous media fears touching her like it would fear touching the third rail.

  11. Mind bender trick goes bad. And mommy destroys the laptop. Did the hard drive survive?

  16. Reblogged this on Dave Alexander & Company with David Edgren and Gus Bailey – The Artisan Craft Blog and commented:
    I have found a way to make money blogging. I own the legal rights to the use of the words “leaked, corruption, email, Weiner and Clinton,” when used together in an article. Thank you for your financial support. I am now a millionaire, though my cash counter is broke, so I might be a billionaire by now.

  17. The pivotal phrase of this election and politics in America in general seems to be, ‘in spite of’. It won’t be the person who is seen to be able to do the best job but the person who is elected, ‘in spite of, all their shortcomings. Trump’s shortcomings far surpass those of Clinton’s. At least Clinton has a game plan, knows the territory, makes mistakes and acknowledges them, and has not been disowned by a quarter of her party. Then there’s Trump. But you see what you want to see and hear what you want to hear.

    1. The Canadian wins the Broken Record/Rainman Award. “Clinton..definitely Clinton.”

      1. @nick, Looks like I uncovered this guy (Assiac) for who and what he is? He kept singing the same tune over and over with no skin in the game. Go get’em nick.

    2. Neither impress me, but to say Trump’s shortcomings surpass those of Clinton’s is a stretch. She has been in politics for what 30+ years and had some sort of clearance most of that time. She obviously does not understand the “territory” despite acknowledging a mistake. She allowed an unsecured server to be setup in her home. At that level within government and military, those that have a clearance should understand that possessing a clearance and having access to classified material makes you responsible for the security of the data. RET Gen Flynn noted that there are things he will not be able to discuss even on his death bed and Secretary Clinton was 2 levels above him. Her subordinates and the GS15 that managed the project of implementing the server should have known better. There are clear guidelines and annual training for everyone possessing a clearance. If someone at a lower level had this lapse in judgment, they would receive severe consequences.

      1. But the server was protected in a most secure manner by Secret Service agents. According to HRC herself, the house was protected by SS agents at all times. So nobody could get to the server without going through the SS. Now this was the argument put forward by HRC herself. If this argument doesn’t make her the stupidest person to ever have used a computer, I’m not sure what will. And she will most likely be our next President. There are so many actions she has done over the past 30 years of public life that are so incredibly dumb. I honestly believe she is not the smart person all her supporters believe her to be.

        1. She is stupid and she is ambitious. Therefore she is perfectly qualified to let the deep state guide her hand as killer-in-chief.

        3. Paul, HRC is not stupid. She is arrogant and entitled – annoyed she even has to answer questions from the hoi polloi. Well, I hope the basket of deplorables unite with the independents and send her arse packing.

      2. You can’t compare the public sector shortcomings of Trump with those of Clinton as Trump has no experience other than profiting from not paying taxes and screwing all those without the money to make their case in court. Trump’s experience is in real estate something he was born into with a silver spoon in every orifice. There’s the problem they are not the same animal. One can only compare their ability to survive in their own theaters and their experience in the public sector. Trump has gone bankrupt in a third of his ventures. He has succeeded in a third. The other third were neutered. Trump has exhibited absolutely no common sense in his hatred fueled charge for the White House. He has successfully tapped into a third of the voters, those voters that ignore his shortcomings and see him as a white knight. Clinton’s supporters are well aware of her shortcomings. Here’s hoping that the middle third, those that will decide, understand what a buffoon Trump is and how much damage he can do. He has already made the US the laughing stock of the world which seemed to be something that Americans must have had enough of with the Team Bush. But, apparently not.

        Trump’s incompetence far surpasses that of Clinton. Trump’s hypocrisy far surpasses that of Clinton. Trump is no where as intelligent as Clinton. Trump has not an iota of the temperament to be President of the US, perhaps the Philippines but not the US.

        1. Oh bullsh!t. When the Democratic Party issued a casting call for overly-pretentious, self-righteous twits and schmucks, you answered the call! Your “Trump is Horrible!” and “Trump is stupid” schtick is just the lie you tell yourself to justify voting for a lying, crooked Wall Street suck-up. You aren’t fooling anybody but yourself. I swear someone would have to duct tape you to a chair, and use about a week of Cult Deprogramming techniques to reintroduce you to Reality.

          Squeeky Fromm
          Girl Reporter

          1. He’s Canadian. While he’s gassing at us over the accomplished-but-vulgar Mr. Trump, the executive in his country is in the hands of a lapsed drama teacher / serial grad school drop out.

            1. If Trump was the Democrat, and Hillary was the Republican – – – Isaac would be urging us to vote for Trump and telling us how horrible Hillary was. People like him are pretty much brain dead on politics. They haven’t had a New Thought in years. I used to be a Hillary supporter, and I never doubted for one minute that she was a conniving, lying, scheming crook. But I figured the Republicans would run somebody just as crooked, but just better at hiding it.

              When the email scandal first broke, I said adios to Hillary because her actions were sooo stupid. Then, the GOP nominated Trump, and I think that he is a genuinely good and decent person. To me, the choice is obvious.

              Squeeky Fromm
              Girl Reporter

              1. So, obviously you are one of that ‘third’ of mindless voters who think that they will be part of the solution to ‘take back America’, ‘make America great again’, ‘kick out all the corporate lobbyists’, lower taxes on the rich, trickle it on down, use more coal, xenophobia, etc by electing a vacuous hairdo. There’s a place for you in Idaho. The Bundy’s are interviewing. Lock and load.

                2. No, Isaac, I am hardly “mindless.” I am just not a lifelong member of the Democratic Party Cult. Frankly, I see things much more clearly than you. That is why you constantly call everybody else “stupid” without ever really getting into exactly how it is that they, or their positions, are stupid.

                  For just one example, the whole illegal alien thingie. How does bringing in millions of low-skilled workers help America, or Americans. Oh well, anybody who was sophisticated and urbane would just know that it’s xenophobic to object to that. That kind of attitude. That is what you come across as. Somebody who thinks they are intellectually superior, yet doesn’t really deign to ever explain their positions.

                  But, we do get a lot of duopoly blather from you. Face it, you are just a supercilious twit, and there is help for you, but you would have to get off your high horse for a while. Like I said above, you need a cult-deprogramming intervention, but you could accomplish the same thing by just opening your eyes, and your mind.

                  Trump is the anti-establishment candidate the Left has supposedly been crying for. A practical type of Bernie, and now that he is here, you gonzos can’t get past the party affiliation long enough to see it. Its a mindset thing, and you are hardly alone when it comes to having this affliction. If you lived in The Emperor’s New Clothes, you would have been one of the ones flim-flammed by the Crooked Tailors, that only the smart and sophisticated could appreciate the fine fabric. You would have fallen for it hook, line, and sinker.

                  Squeeky Fromm
                  Girl Reporter

              2. Matthew Dowd ‏@matthewjdowd 20m20 minutes ago

                Just so it is clear and I said this on air a number of times – trump is a sexual predator and his behavior is unacceptable. Not just words.
                0 replies 46 retweets 80 likes Guess people have varying ideas about what “good and decent” are.

                1. Hogwash. You are just another brainwashed Democratic Part cult member who believes whatever garbage they throw at you. Jesus H. Christ, have you not been watching the Project Veritas videotapes where the Dems do all the little underhanded stuff to sway public opinion?

                  I used to be a Hillary supporter, but the difference between me and you, is that (1) I can assimilate new information and (2) I am not afraid to see something for what it is.

                  Squeeky Fromm
                  Girl Reporter

    3. Clinton’s as much a sleazeball as Trump ever was. You’ll need to admit that before getting over the credibility hurdle. She wasn’t a part of the US that I grew up in.

      1. You mean she was’t a part of the Nixon America, the Reagan America, the McCarthy America-depends on how old you are. Growing up in Canada, most Canadians knew more about the US than most Americans. That has been pretty well established by now. As long as you keep about 70% of Americans happy with cheap gas, big screens, and beer you don’t hear much and that’s because they don’t have much if anything to say because they don’t know. About 30% of Americans stay informed; not that much or even close to it know anything about the rest of the world. It’s sad but true and doesn’t even make most Americans angry or defensive in any way. It’s kind of that ‘If it ain’t broke, why fix it?’ thing partnered with that ‘We’re number one.’ or ‘How many nuclear/nucular aircraft carriers have you got? The problem is when one discovers that it is ‘broke’, it’s too late or at best it will take many, many, many more years of ‘fixin’. America’s options for leadership reflects America’s involvement in its leadership. If you want to get scared then listen to Trump at one of his rallies: hate, ignorance, lies, stupidity, etc…..

        1. most Canadians knew more about the US than most Americans. That has been pretty well established by now.

          No. Most Canadians maintain the fancy they know more.

          People don’t care to know about Canada because it’s a vapid non-country.

        2. Issac: “You mean she was’t a part of the Nixon America, the Reagan America, the McCarthy America-depends on how old you are.”

          No, to the contrary, she was a part of the film noir known as Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, both Bushes, Bill Clinton, and now Obama. I refuse to be a part of it any longer, but apparently you do.

          In essence, you’re arguing that it’s futile to object because government is inherently and systemically corrupted. Arguments like this are all fun and games on the playground, but it’s killing and displacing hundreds of thousands of people and has to stop. Get serious. Clinton will continue it. She’s a paid shill.

          As for Canadians knowing more about the US than we do and only 30% of Americans being informed, I note that there are as many people in this state as there are in Canada, and I would guess that the complexity of just why increases exponentially . We’re worked to the bone for our paymasters. We have one of the highest rates of weekly-work hours in the western word. The result is that the labor class and poor, which together make up the majority of the population of this country have little favor during idle time for the subtleties of sleazebag politics and propaganda.

          Canadians can always look forward to humoring themselves with their uninformed neighbors to the south who continuously vote for corrupted politicians who will kill for their benefactors. As an informed Canadian viewing the candidates from arm’s length, what’s your excuse for doing so?

          Resigned to supporting liars, cheats, and murderers as if we can do no better, one’s character becomes clear.

          1. No, to the contrary, she was a part of the film noir known as Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, both Bushes, Bill Clinton, and now Obama. I refuse to be a part of it any longer, but apparently you do.

            Well, you could always emigrate. Don’t think your law license will transfer, though. Glenn Greenwald fancies Brazil, which has a homicide rate of 25 per 100,000.

              1. America has lost its way, its conscience,

                The red haze has never been in any position to instruct anyone on where to go, much less on matters of conscience. Red haze denizens choose vile and stupid causes to establish themselves as Special.

          2. Steve

            Returning to the point, America’s interpretation of democracy is dysfunctional, embarrassing, and shameful. The main problems have to do with Americans’ belief in the illusion of choice or democracy and how it is tied to sacred texts and their momentary interpretation. A corporation is not a person. The Second Amendment is only half used and almost totally ambiguous. Americans would rather receive cheap gas than take care of their base societal structures. The respect and admiration for the corporate administration that runs the economy blinds to the reality that the worker is the element that is indispensable, not the CEO. America’s problems stem from Americans’ beliefs in illusions and not reality. Trump plays to that illusion. He is no less corrupt and disgusting than Clinton, in fact vastly more so.

            Trump speaks to the ignorant who would believe that ‘he alone’ can fix this mess. Clinton, regardless of all her shortcomings, preaches staying the course and repairing the mess en route. Clinton is no more or less disgusting than Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Hubby, etc. She is vastly less dangerous than Trump. Trump has no idea of what he is talking about. When you rant and rave and focus hatred on your opponent as your only point, for a third of the voters you don’t need to know what you’re talking about. Chicken Little the fear monger got the mob to the cave.

            Clinton may sleep with foxes but Trump is the fox. Have you given any thought whatsoever to his tax change proposals? The border wall idea has been shot down by the people who live along the border. Jobs have not left America because of trade pacts but because Americans refuse to take ownership of their corporations. Germany has more trade pacts than the US but their companies can’t up and leave because the CEO decides to address the shareholders. The shareholders come second to the workers in Germany. In the US the workers come last. And, you want to elect a CEO who uses sub minimum wage undocumented labor as President. If you really want to understand Trump you need to put your hatred for Clinton aside and research carefully, Donald Trump. Trump is the fox who is claiming that he can do a better job running the chicken coop.

            As for me being an informed Canadian, I have lived the past thirty + years in the US, am a naturalized citizen, and am constantly shocked by the ignorance I encounter here in the US regarding what is going on. It is human nature to focus on one’s own first and the complexities and contradictions of any nation’s workings encourage the average person to take refuge in the bliss of ignorance. However, step back and see how other countries have evolved their democracies from the traditional ‘us and them’, left/right, right/wrong stance to multiple parties interacting to run things and recognize that America still runs on the fuel of the hatred of one party for the other. Step back and recognize how much private concentrated wealth plays in our system and how little it plays in other systems. Step back far enough and remove yourself from the illusion. You will see Trump as playing to the illusion as there is no material there other than the illusion.

            Perhaps a revolution is in order but Trump is certainly not the appropriate leader. Choosing Trump to change things is tantamount to the colonists choosing another European monarch to rule in the place of King George in 1776. In any event the revolution must come from the bottom up. There are existing examples. In Canada, if you are not too xenophobic to accept a foreign paradigm, the transition from the two party system started in the provinces when provinces like BC created the Social Credit Party and the New Democratic Party to increase the people’s choice to four from two. This happened in other provinces until it changed the federal system. Canada and the US are extremely different in many ways but they are both democracies. The fact of the matter is that Canada’s democracy is a working democracy while America’s democracy is an illusion and in reality an oligarchy. Read your history. It is not the first time this has happened. And, never in history did a buffoon promising the sky do anything but make matters worse. Better the devil we know for now while the changes take place in the details.

            It’s not what Trump says is wrong with Clinton, most of which is lies and exaggerations but what he can’t say about himself as there is no there, there.

            1. “Step back and recognize how much private concentrated wealth plays in our system and how little it plays in other systems. Step back far enough and remove yourself from the illusion. You will see Trump as playing to the illusion as there is no material there other than the illusion.”

              You think pay-to-play including taking $650K from Goldman Sachs and the crap her husband will pull given another term living in the White House, is some sort of prophylactic against concentrated wealth?

              I’m reminded of the comedian (whose name escapes me) on “Wait Wait Don’t Tell Me” who related what Honest Abe might have texted Gen. George McClellan (knowing the latter’s case of the “slows”) had the technology been around then: “WTF?”

            2. Isaac, This blog is a Trump rally for the most part. The Clinton supporters might consider moving on.

              1. Dave

                I understand that. But, all it takes is one convert. If my dark side was a little more perverse, I would rant and rave for Trump just to see how bad things can really get. Or, if I were younger, a lot younger.

            3. Issac,
              I agree with much of what you say. We do have problems here, which is why so many people are ticked off.

              That said, Clinton also plays to this illusion, what with her secret email and server and her public/private positions and her associations with corporatists.

              I do not support Trump, as you know. I want this charade of an election scrapped, the US Postmaster put in charge for a year while we start over.

              Regarding the choices before us, which candidate is more likely to be impeached if ever found guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors?

              The symbolism of electing a person who has officially flouted the rule of law and equality before the law means Americans care not for such things. Trump very likely matches Clinton with such contempt. However, he has not proven himself a disgraceful public official. Congress has an opportunity to redeem itself and stand up for what’s right (and enough people dislike Trump to make this probable). They do not have to pass his tax proposals, they do not have to fund a wall. If Clinton is elected Pelosi, Reid, and Feinstein and others will say whatever Clinton wants is golden (go ahead, oust Assad, sounds dandy!), and if anyone argues she is messing up then the chorus will be how dare you pick on a woman!

              1. Reid is retiring and I highly doubt Pelosi will be Speaker. Republicans will retain the House and possibly the Senate. So conceivably, the republicans will have the presidency, house, senate and the Supreme Court with a Trump victory.

    4. “At least Clinton has a game plan, knows the territory, makes mistakes and acknowledges them, and has not been disowned by a quarter of her party.”

      Game plan: oust Assad no matter the implications, continue the proxy war (or worse) with Russia, do some sweet deals with Wall St. and other corporatists

      Acknowledges mistakes: only if she gets caught and even then maybe not (the filmmaker causing riots at Benghazi…)

      Knows the territory: have a public and a private position, pay for play, avoid FOIA by whatever means

      Has not been disowned by her party: Bernie Sanders supporters would disagree

  18. If one doesn’t see just how corrupt the MSM is, they are blind, stupid, or both. Brazile is just another in a LONG line of sycophants who have become whores for the Clinton pimps. Damn shame, because I kinda like Brazile.

    1. Yea, unlike Shultz, Brazille would get the knife in your back with a nice warm smile.

  19. That CNN hired the head of the DNC as a commentator is the first problem here. How about hiring unaffiliated people for such positions? It’s hard to trust obvious political hacks.

  20. Simply because she is a “commentator” and not a news reporter. Everyone understood she was a Hillary supporter. Is there reason for surprise? Did CNN tell her not to share any question?

    1. Really! Should not have to tell people that have had a life long career in politics to do the obvious ethical actions. Oh wait, this is politics we are talking, so ethics is out the window and any actions that generates a win passes the ethics test. The debates are a sham to begin with, given they are setup and monitored by a non-profit sponsored by the Republican and Democratic parties. Oh, there’s no bias there either! HA!

    2. Someone had to tell her? Sorry, she knew sharing the questions was wrong although she may be of the opinion that the end justifies the means.

Comments are closed.