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. Turley is becoming a pathetic Republican hack. For every one of his ‘Pinko’ alerts there are a dozen Republican alerts ignored. DDT will certainly accept this report by the intelligence community, but nothing disparaging Putin.

    1. If you use the word “RepubliCon” then you combine convict with Republican.

    2. It takes a greater man to look at his own tribes failings than point the finger of blame at his obvious opposition.

      You just don’t get the subtlety do you?

      Get your ass down to Virginia and go take a hike with JT.

        1. Isaac is a breath of fresh air on this blog. 🙂 He has not allowed the Trumpian forces to muzzle him although they keep trying.

  2. It would be good to see market forces precipitate the diversification and reformation of our major news outlets. I, for one, crave news sources that are aggressive and present stories in a balanced and impartial manner. If anyone has an opinion about whether such outlets now exist and if so, who they are, I would appreciate your thoughts.

  3. Emails come up to the Clouds and thence, like Pence, back to Earth. I live on Cloud 9. I write my comments to this blog from Cloud 9. Many of you will question whether any person could live on Cloud 9 or any cloud. Well, I died back on January 3, 1967 in Dallas. I had my interview at the Pearly Gates and got admitted to Cloud 8. Later I upgraded to Cloud 9.
    The emails from Earth come through here. We can listen or read any email sent around the globe. I just know English so I cannot read the Russian emails.

    If you want to really learn some interesting facts about the recent Election in America then inquire of Megan Kelly of whether she knew that Trump had fondelled one of his staff workers often. The staff worker sent complaining emails to the RNC when she did not get a job in the new administration. She uses foul or fowl language in her emails to describe her body parts but says she is quoting Trump.

    The Russians have an angel up here on this Cloud who reports back to Moscow about emails he reads up here. This is how the Russian hacking works.

    Jack Ruby reporting from Cloud 9.

  4. I don’t care if reporter X is criminal as long as the data is accurate.
    “If you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. If the facts convict you attack the source.” — Democrats
    Whether or not the source of the Podesta and other DNC emails is despicable, if the facts are accurate ignore the source.

  5. What is a “pinko”? Is that some reference to some queer? To a communist? Marxist? FDR type Democrat?
    I asked a bum on the street corner what a “pinko” was. He said: “Hillary and Donald sitting in a tree. K I S S I n G. First came love. Then came marriage. Then came Hillary with a baby carriage.”
    I said t the poet bum: “What does that have to do with “pinko”?
    And he said:
    “Pinko, chinko, names like that have no sinko.”

    So I went on down the road to sinko de mio.

  6. CNN hired Brazile because in their ‘minds’, employing a Democratic Party consigliere is perfectly normal. She didn’t do anything a non-stupid person would not have expected her to do. CNN as an institution does not object to such behavior, because it’s salient employees do not object.

  7. This should be a HUGE story. It’s right out of “A Face in the Crowd”. CNN was engaged in trying to put over a candidate via improper and demagogic means.

    I guess the media has decided to stay mum on this one. Honour amongst thieves after all?

    1. Indubitably, most have no integrity. Consider that pair of frauds, Dan Rather and Mary Mapes. Mapes had been promoted within the ranks of the news business for 25 years, Rather for nearly 50 years. Both had what an ordinary working journalist would consider enviable positions. At no time were they discovered by their ‘layers-and-layers of editors’ and weeded out. What happened to them is that people outside the news business had the wherewithal to expose what they’d done and people at other news outlets elected not to protect them by trying to burying the story.

  8. Let’s play Jeopardy!

    “I’ll take DNC leadership for $800 Alex”
    Trebek: “The answer is…her lips move.”

  9. Does anyone seriously believe every nation-state does not attempt to influence other nation-state’s political atmosphere? If one were to believe Russia influenced the outcome of the United States election (and they would be incompetent to not to try), what did they do to accomplish their strategic goal? Did they hack into the voting system? There is no evidence of that. So what did they do? At worst, they exposed a political party and their candidate for the world to see. They pulled back the curtain and showed our electorate the corruption in the Democratic Party. At best, they demonstrated to the world that “fake news” is the cornerstone of the Main Stream Media. At worst, they enabled their preferred leader to take the reins of the United States government. The question then is what is Russia’s strategic plan? Or is it, what is Donald Trump’s strategic plan? Lord knows, at this point the Democratic Party is struggling to come up with a plan given the thrashing they’ve taken over the last 8 years.

  10. Welcome to Trumpistan, once again.

    It will only become more chaotic as the government by the people, of the people, for the people fades into that only remembered by historians…

    1. It will only become more chaotic as the government by the people, of the people, for the people fades into that only remembered by historians…

      What’s amusing is that you fancy anyone would take a partisan Democrats complaints about democratic procedure the least bit seriously. Roe v. Wade anyone?

    1. Deep thought, Michael; impressive in its totality and lucidity of expression.

      I suspect you read a fair amount — from books I mean?

      I ask because your contributions are so rabid in opinion that you must have reasons to defend such a scorched earth perspective, and so I would hope that you could post a bibliography, (kudos if it’s annotated), so the rest of us could catch up with your confidence of right/wrong.

      If not, I understand.

      1. Jose,
        That’s a tasty word salad, however it lacks any calories. Instead of asking Michael to fill your plate, why don’t you express your own thoughts on the subject?

        1. It’s not word salad, OllyBoy.

          It is an observation; are you upset at being called out as Niki’s boy? Don’t bother me with this dribble, that was your decision.

          If you want to know my opinions, read the whole blog; not just one comment that you stubbled upon, or is this beyond your grasp.

          Marines — think the world revolves around them, when really they are pawns in a game they don’t comprehend.

          1. Likewise Whatasham. You would be wise to demonstrate a modicum of respect for our Marines. It’s what they do comprehend that keeps your right to post alive. And to enlighten your ignorant soul further, us Chief Petty Officers in the United States Navy stand with our brothers and sisters in the USMC. Thus endeth the lesson. You’re welcome!

  11. This whole election of Trump has really exposed the media’s very specific biases.

    Donna B’s actions just exposed how high the influence went.

    The media’s reluctance to cover this story with any curiosity at all just validates the idea that collusion is SOP.

    The Democrats can’t ignore Bernie Sanders supporters any less than they did trump supporters.

    1. Do you have a link for your claim, PS; or does it just make you feel good to spout.

      ‘False News’ has been around since Gutenberg; much before actually, but the works were not so easily distributed due to the necessity of hand copying — whether the medium was clay, stone, or vellum.

      Do y’all forget the phenomena of ‘video new releases’ of the ’90’s; and their sick evolution to the ‘false news’ of today?

      It’s the same shit, its been called propaganda for a long, long time.

      Don’t y’all work yourself into lathers due to what has come before and what will come after. This is and will be a continual battle against the state — the freedom of expression, the freedom of information, and the freedom to combine the two.

      Jill is the only one here that has a clue.

    1. How is CNN trying to play out the script from “A Face in the Crowd” less serious than Trump? Trump was only one-half of the recent carnival. CNN deciding who should be president and then conspiring to cheat or steal to put over that candidate, with the remaining media conspiring to stay quiet, is every bit as serious as Trump winning the election.

      1. Damn, good film “A Face in the Crowd” – Andy Griffith’s finest role IMO! Need to re-watch. His contempt for his audience is exactly like the DNC’s. Thanks for reminding me of it! =)

        1. Autumn – Andy Griffith was best in No Time For Sergeants. A Face in the Crowd comes in 2nd. 🙂

            1. Nick – he was so proud to be Permanent Latrine Orderly. And he did a bang up job on those latrines. 🙂

              1. Paul, Great flick and Don Knotts playing a shrink was perfect for him. He took that small role and made it memorable.

  12. What’s the problem here, Ben? She *IS* one of the most powerful figures in Washington Democratic circles. The fact that the media hasn’t pursued this story is appalling.

  13. “one of the most powerful figures in Washington Democratic circles” ???

    How about just the facts, Professor.Turley.

    And keep us posted on this, please.

    1. Another butt hurt Progressive, still in denial, eh?

      Yes, you’re right…Turley and Putin manipulated the electors to vote for Trump!

    2. Turley runs a great blog, but he has borders over which he will not pass. He is not going to go after Brazile, CNN, et. al., for the same reason he will not go after certain issues in the legal profession (e.g. the proliferation of bozo law schools). Pursuing certain issues would make him very, very unpopular amongst the vast majority of his colleagues, peers and neighbours.

  14. “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.”

    We both know the answer to that question – the Pinkos have two sets of ethics: an open minded code for themselves, and a second, much harsher code for conservatives.

      1. I await your evidence of ultra high ranking media persons conspiring w/Republican National Committee and POTUS candidate, then being caught red handed, then directly and purposely lying about it to the public.

        Stop soft pedaling how outrageous is the media and DNC regard for transparency and truth in regards to manipulating the last election and the last nominating process in which they purposely did not have a level playing field (favored HRC, disfavored Bernie).

        Next time you get a ticket, tell the officer many others are speeding, and why does he pick on you.

        1. I’m blown away by the uber contempt HRC’s forces at the DNC had for Sanders and his supporters. First off to push him aside because she was supposedly entitled to her coronation and and next because of the arrogance in assuming Bernie’s supporters would automatically vote for her.
          The fact that Pelosi and crew are still doing business as usual just reinforces the contempt.
          the fact remains, HRC couldn’t even beat Trump and that stings and lives on like a bad tattoo.
          The idea that the DNC is going to make Perez, Ellison has no chance when the day is done, he’s just a false option to pretend to appeal to progressives, shows just how desperate the last generation of the old guard is trying to hold on to power.
          No where was anyone who supported Sanders suggested for DNC chair. You know like Tulsi Gabbard.
          Mark my word she’ll be the first female President.

          1. Great comment!

            Mark my word she’ll [Tulsi Gabbard]be the first female President.


    1. Who are the “pinkos”?

      Anyone that disagrees; anyone with a thought that differs from yours?


      So secure in your left/right, commie/socialist, free trade/slave wages perspective that you use a descriptive pronoun from the 1950’s.

      Glad you’re keeping up with current events.

Comments are closed.