Bizarre, Media, Politics, Society

U.S. Intelligence Report Contradicts Donna Brazile In Email Scandal

220px-donna_brazile_1We 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 initially issued a remarkably weak response that it was “uncomfortable” with the new disclosures on Brazile’s actions while a CNN commentator. While CNN Worldwide President Jeff Zucker later called Brazile’s actions “disgusting” and others have denounced her actions and later contradictions, the DNC stuck with Brazile even praising her post-scandal appearance before staffers (with one notable exception). More importantly, despite the ease of simply questioning the other recipients to confirm or disprove Brazile’s claims, reporters have done little to confirm whether Brazile lied or told the truth about the emails (a significant story during the campaign). Now, the declassified intelligence report appear to directly dispute what Brazile has said but it is unclear if anyone in the media is willing to pursue the story against one of the most powerful figures in Washington Democratic circles.

The report states that the email material did not contain “any evident forgeries.” In other words, they were real emails, not forged. Yet, Brazile repeatedly insisted that the emails were doctored or forged.  That would seem to make this an even bigger story. If Brazile was telling the truth, the intelligence report is manifestly false or misleading.

During the campaign, Brazile dismissed the email and told Megyn Kelly that “I have seen so many doctored emails. I have seen things that come from me at 2 in the morning that I don’t even send. I will not sit here and be persecuted, because your information is totally false.” At the time, I noted that no one seemed even remotely interested in questioning the recipient: Clinton Campaign Adviser Jennifer Palmieri. Media could have asked to see the original emails since both Brazile and Palmieri had them. Instead, it was complete silence. Notably, Palmieri has been repeatedly on air but not (as far I as I find) asked to produce the emails or confirm Brazile’s account.  She has also not come forward with information despite being referenced in numerous publications in the controversy.

Now the question is whether the Washington media corp will confront Brazile and demand to see these emails to determine whether she knowingly lied to the public and the press.

The report also highlights the difficulty that many in Washington are facing in trying to rally the public against Russian hacking. Many citizens may not be as mortified that Russia revealed how their leaders were lying to them. The emails showed how the Washington establishment — including the press corp — misled the public and colluded behind the scenes. It is a hard sell to tell the public that they should be disgusted by Russia showing them how their leaders are dishonest, disloyal, and often despicable in their conduct.  While I view the allegations of Russian involvement to serious, the Washington establishment has little standing with voters to raise objections about their private alliances and communications being disclosed.  Only a third of voters felt that the Russians influenced the election (though another poll shows over half are “concerned”).  What is clear is that many voters valued the information and, if powerful individuals like Brazile lied in response to the disclosures, the hacking of the emails are unlikely to be the primary focus of voters.

248 thoughts on “U.S. Intelligence Report Contradicts Donna Brazile In Email Scandal”

  1. Pingback: CNN/ORC Poll: Roughly 80 Percent Of Americans Do Not Believe That Russian Hacking Changed The Outcome of the Election |

  2. @raceandlawweb, January 8, 2017 at 12:54 pm

    “Isn’t it ironic that as the intelligence report claims that our democratic process was being undermined by Russian hacking no attention is being paid to the fact that the Democratic party was rigging its own primary in favor of one candidate?

    “I wonder what the intelligence community would say about voter suppression, onerous ID requirements, elimination of polling places felony disenfranchisement laws? Could any of this possibly undermine our democratic process?”

    Rather than address the concerns you point out (or FBI Director James Comey’s intervention against Hillary Clinton in the election), the authors of the “Joint Analysis Report” thought it more important to criticize at some length the Russian TV network, RT:

    “One of the more revealing sections of the report deals with RT, the Russian worldwide television network, which regularly airs programming denigrating the United States, including allegations that American elections are rigged and that the United States is a ‘surveillance state.’ The Kremlin has invested $190 million a year in RT programming and now, according to its website, reaches more than 550 million people. The report notes that RT has ‘actively collaborated’ with WikiLeaks; its editor-in-chief visited Assange at the Ecuadorean Embassy in London in August 2013 and reached an agreement to provide access to ‘new leaks of secret information. ‘ ”
    https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-s-spy-agencies-detail-russias-role-in-boosting-trump-233520033.html

    In response to the report’s scathing criticisms, the head of RT has written an open letter to the CIA:
    http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/open-letter-cia-head-rt-margarita-simonyan/ri18406

  4. Can’t believe she has just been able to “skate” through all this controversy. Never has there been any mention of pending charges. What she did was unethical if not unlawful. But still she seems to be untouchable. Disgusting.

  5. Isn’t it ironic that as the intelligence report claims that our democratic process was being undermined by Russian hacking no attention is being paid to the fact that the Democratic party was rigging its own primary in favor of one candidate?

    I wonder what the intelligence community would say about voter suppression, onerous ID requirements, elimination of polling places felony disenfranchisement laws? Could any of this possibly undermine our democratic process?

    2. That’s because Turley is not starting threads re what people want to comment about.

      1. I would like to see Turley himself comment on whether he thinks the misdeeds of the Russians are worse than those of the Democrats, or not.

  7. Interesting snippet over at Moon of Alabama,

    http://www.moonofalabama.org/

    John Harwood covers “the economy and national politics for CNBC and the New York Times.” More then 100,000 people follow him on Twitter. He is known as Hillary Clinton supporter and chummy with John Podesta who ran Clinton’s election campaign.

    Harwood set up a simple poll. It is not statistically representative but gives a picture of a general sentiment.

    http://www.moonofalabama.org/images5/Harwood.jpg

    This result surely shows the limits of power of the so-called Intelligence Community. But it is worse: yesterday’s “Russian hacking” claims failed to convince even its most ardent and anti-Russian supporters.

    Daily Beast: U.S. Spy Report Blames Putin for Hacks, But Doesn’t Back It Up

    Kevin Rothrock (Moscow Times):

    I cannot believe my eyes. Is this really part of the US government’s intelligence case?

    I’ll say it: the declassified USG report “Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections” is an embarrassment.

    Susan Hennessey (Lawfare, Brookings):

    The unclassified report is underwhelming at best. There is essentially no new information for those who have been paying attention.

    Bill Neely (NBCNews):

    Lots of key judgements but not many key facts & no open proof in US Intell. report into alleged Russian hacking.

    Stephen Hayes (Weekly Standard):

    The intel report on Russia is little more than a collection of assertions. Understand protecting sources/methods, but it’s weak.

    Julia Ioffe (The Atlantic):

    It’s hard to tell if the thinness of the #hacking report is because the proof is qualified, or because the proof doesn’t exist.

    @JeffreyGoldberg Have to say, though, I’m hearing from a lot of Russia watchers who are very skeptical of the report. None like Putin/Trump.

    When you lost even Julia Ioffe on your anti-Russian issue .

    ..

    1. Yeah, Julia Ioffe – she was the “journalist” (and I use that term loosely) who tweeted – actually tweeted to the world – that Trump must be f**ing his daughter, right? THAT Julia Ioffe?? John Harwood is a tool. Not even worth the time of day.

    2. Noticed that Jeffrey Goldberg (stooge for Obama) was made editor-in-chief of The Atlantic Gotta stay on top of this sh*t. And I do mean sh*t.

  8. @Dave Cee, January 7, 2017 at 6:28 pm
    “I sincerely doubt that. He might last a year, maybe. He’s been lying his ass off, and he’s not even sworn in yet. He’s not going to get 8 years that way. Yesterday’s response to the briefing with intelligence shows his complete ignorance of the facts.”

    I take it you were at the briefing and understood the facts presented, whereas Trump didn’t.

    What facts did you hear that Trump missed?

  9. @Jay S January 7, 2017 at 12:23 pm
    “The real or exaggerated misdeeds of various Democrats is infinitesimal potatoes, compared to the risks of outside hijacking or derailing of our political process.”

    The ethics-free argument you’re making is that home-grown American political corruption of the electoral process is nothing to worry about, but any exposure of that corruption (“derailing our political process”) by some other country’s government poses a huge risk to the whole American political process.

    What do you think distinguishes your argument from “my country right or wrong” pseudo-patriotism distilled to its morally bankrupt essence?

  11. Maybe people in public office and whatnot should not use emails. Diplomats can send diplomatic pouches. Brazile could send telegrams in New Orleans cajun and have a translator on each end. Hillary can keep on emailing because no one cares anymore except Monica and Bill. Trump can Tweet or Twit or however ya spull it. As Bernie said: No more damn emails.

  12. Clarification:

    Upthread, I wrote, “Remember, no one has ever disputed the authenticity of the DNC emails as reported out by Wikileaks, whatever the source.”

    I should have said that no one has ever credibly disputed the authenticity of the DNC emails as reported out by Wikileaks. I had watched and listened to several subject-changing and dubious denials by Brazile, but in the context of this thread didn’t have her in mind while alluding to the other DNC actors whose emails were leaked or hacked.

    1. The Dems and the DNC are trying to divert attention from the content of the emails to the non-story of where the emails came from or who leaked them. The DNC would not let the FBI even LOOK at their servers. I WONDER WHY? Could it be they don’t want us to see all the slimy stuff that was going on there? There is a reason they won’t let the FBI even look at their servers. They shouldn’t even have the option to withhold it from the FBI, right? If they actually believe Russia was interfering or hacking then WHY NOT let the FBI examine their servers? It all stinks. Shouldn’t we focus on the obvious systemic corruption at every level of the DNC that is revealed by the leaks? It doesn’t matter where the leaks came from so much as what the content of the leaks is telling us, right? It’s what’s IN IT is what matters to voters. But the media will divert the narrative to what they want you to focus on or believe. It’s pure propaganda garbage. What was going on at the DNC is the question – not did Russia interfere. Electing Trump just proves how smart the voters actually are. Screw the media.

    2. Well, you haven’t been paying attention, the truth is.. The emails shows no signs of being altered or tampered with, the conclusion is that the leaked emails was an inside job!

      1. I saw Greta VanSustern is getting her own show in the 6pm time slot over at MSNBC – a prime slot once filled by Al Sharpton if you want to believe – until they got smart and moved him to Sunday mornings and put something worth watching in the 6pm slot. Will be interesting to see ratings after the changes take place and how many loyal viewers follow Greta to MSNBC.

  14. “CIA, FBI, NSA CONFIRM WIKILEAKS PODESTA, DNC EMAILS AUTHENTIC: Clinton’s Words Caused Election Loss”

    1. Donna Brazile did win with voter suppression – she’s the DNC chair – but it probably has more to do with all the dirt she has on the Clintons and other Democratic Party elites.

      Brazille’s been a fantastic businesswoman using the American business model (i.e., it’s easier to receive forgiveness through denial than permission). She’s so Trumpesque.

    2. I want to know why she hasn’t been arrested?.. Obama is talking about Putin influencing the political process?.. But has no clear evidence!.. And the evidence is there that Deceitful Donna definitely influenced the political process by giving Hillary the questions to the debate!… Bag her and tag her!..

      1. Flash lightning – the National Enquirer has announced on its cover that Hillary will die in prison. Does that give you any comfort?

  16. “Brazile … told Megyn Kelly,
    “I have seen things that come from me at 2 in the morning that I don’t even send”
    “I will not sit here and be persecuted”

    Let’s see:
    – sleep walking/eating/sex are well-documented disorders and being increasingly-recognized; can somnambulist e-mailing be far-behind?
    – persecution complex.

    Sounds like Brazil’s not getting enough psychotropic meds.

  17. Both major parties have some work to do. The Repubs will be changed by Trump. The Dems do not have any small much less large collection of new people rising up through the forest. Enough of Bernie already. Enough of Jeb boy. Trump will probably get 8 years. No time off for good behavior. I happen to think that he is better than he sounds. Or looks. He has chosen some good people.

    1. Nope, not enough of Bernie. He was slain by the DNC, but he lives on. Jeb, on the other hand, was a total yawn from Day 1.

      Bernie needs to keep on keepin’ on. but unless a miracle happens the Dims are finished as they will never allow people like Tulsi Gabbard a position of leadership.

    2. I sincerely doubt that. He might last a year, maybe. He’s been lying his ass off, and he’s not even sworn in yet. He’s not going to get 8 years that way. Yesterday’s response to the briefing with intelligence shows his complete ignorance of the facts.

      3. Dave –
        I agree with you. But ….. Be ready for pushback. Most of the posters here seem to think that the Russians are great (with only innocent motives), Trump walks on water, the Clintons are Evil personified, and the entire federal government are clandestine agents of the Democratic Party.

  18. The only people buying this are those who bought, “if you like your insurance you can keep your insurance.” Most knew it was a lie from the outset.

    Clapper, CAUGHT lying to Congress over the collection of metadata, is now a paragon of truth? LOL.

Comments are closed.