Derigging: Former DNC Chair Denies She Ever Said Primary Was Rigged Despite Book Allegation

220px-donna_brazile_1Donna Brazile’s disclosure of an agreement between the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton Campaign has recreated a firestorm in confirming widely held views that the primary was rigged to guaranty Clinton the nomination.  Even before the disclosure, many of us had reached that conclusion after debates schedules and other conditions during the primary seemed to uniformly favor Clinton.  Brazile however is now insisting that she never said the primary was “rigged,” though she stands by her disclosure of the agreement as well as her statement that the Clinton campaign was “cult-like.” It was a classic Brazile moment — reminiscent of her prior false statements to the media about leaking questions to Clinton before the debate and even suggesting that her emails were altered. Now Brazile is caught in her own Clintonian “meaning of is” distinction on what she wrote in her book.

In her book, Brazile has a rather bizarre section chastising CNN’s Jake Tapper for his criticism of her unethical conduct.  Brazile not only leaked the questions but then lied about it repeatedly in interviews.

We discussed earlier how Donna Brazile, the former chair of the Democratic National Committee and CNN commentator, denied the legitimacy of emails that showed her leaking a question to Hillary Clinton that would be asked verbatim at the CNN downhill event. I was highly critical of the failure of the media to investigate the claim, including confirming the receipt of the earlier emails from Clinton communications director Jennifer Palmieri. Brazile stuck by her false statements even after additional emails allegedly showed Brazile secretly feeding information to the Clinton campaign. Again, there was 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). Then, the declassified intelligence report directly disputed what Brazile had said.  Yet media remained relatively passive and again failed to press Palmieri on the issue.  Brazile later admitted that she gave the questions to the Clinton campaign in a Time magazine essay.  She simply said it was a “mistake” but does not address her lying to the media.

One would think that Brazile would now be contrite and leave at that but instead she expressed shock that Tapper did not defend her — part of the expectation of many in the Beltway that allies will watch each other’s backs.  In her book, she writes:

“The next day, even Jake Tapper took a swing at me, calling me unethical and ‘journalistically horrifying’ during a radio interview with WMAL even though I worked for CNN as a commentator not a journalist. When I called him on this, he did not apologize. His attack on me was really about him. He wrote in an email, ‘I don’t know what happened here except it undermines the integrity of my work and CNN … you have to know how betrayed we all feel.'”

Brazile responded, “The feeling is mutual, my friend.”

Brazile seems to think that she was not under the same ethical obligation of confidentiality as a commentator with access to the questions.  Many of us had previously criticized CNN for pretending that Brazile was “neutral” as a commentator despite her well-known support for Clinton.  Now it turned out that she broke this core rule of confidentiality.  She also ignores her repeated lies to the media, including CNN, in denying the story for weeks.

That same pattern was evident this week in Brazile awkward effort to claim that she never said that the primary was “rigged.”  She appeared on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” on Wednesday to deny that she ever said or intimated that it was “rigged” after Clinton aides went after her with hammer and tong this week.  The problem is that she did.  In the book, she wrote

I had promised Bernie when I took the helm of the Democratic National Committee after the convention that I would get to the bottom of whether Hillary Clinton’s team had rigged the nomination process, as a cache of emails stolen by Russian hackers and posted online had suggested. I’d had my suspicions from the moment I walked in the door of the DNC a month or so earlier, based on the leaked emails. But who knew if some of them might have been forged? I needed to have solid proof, and so did Bernie.

She then wrote:

By September 7, the day I called Bernie, I had found my proof and it broke my heart.

And later, regarding her call to Bernie, she wrote:

I had to keep my promise to Bernie. I was in agony as I dialed him. Keeping this secret was against everything that I stood for, all that I valued as a woman and as a public servant.

“Hello, senator. I’ve completed my review of the DNC and I did find the cancer,” I said. “But I will not kill the patient.”

Willie Geist correctly pressed Brazile on this point and what seems yet another example of Brazile’s inability to distinguish “spins” with “lies.”

GEIST: You said you came back and called Bernie after you found your proof. Proof of?

BRAZILE: Cancer. That there was cancer.

GEIST: But you said proof of it being rigged in the piece, no?

BRAZILE: I said — no.

Obviously, she was writing about rigging the primary in the book just as she also accused the Clinton campaign of being sexist in marginalizing her — even proposing“Gentlemen, let’s just put our dicks out on the table and see who’s got the bigger one, because I know mine is bigger than all of yours.”

Given the prior false statements from Brazile, it is wise to focus on what is proven rather than what is said.  The agreement has now been acknowledged by the DNC which has promised “reform.”  DNC head Tom Perez admits that the DNC “fell short” of its obligations to Democratic voters due to the agreement with the Clinton campaign.  Of course, this occurs only after the disclosure.  For the past two years, the DNC has denied special treatment for Clinton despite obvious favoritism.  Debbie Wasserman Schultz was removed after she also made false statements and was later shown to be actively helping Clinton secure the primary win.  Indeed, one of the reasons that many are still infuriated about the hacking is that it disclosed much of this duplicity and lies.  The emails themselves have not been shown to be false.  People like Brazile were irate because the public was actually shown the truth, albeit through an illegal act of hacking.  I support the investigation into the hacking but it is also worth noting that the emails themselves showed a pattern of knowing false statements to the public by Democratic officials and politicians.

In the meantime, some voters are not happy with Bernie Sanders dodging the question of how the Clinton campaign effectively took control over parts of the DNC before the primary.  During the campaign, many were critical of Sanders reportedly honoring an agreement not to go after Clinton for such things as her undisclosed Wall Street speeches.  Indeed, he only gained traction later after he began to run against Clinton as the ultimate establishment figures and perhaps the worst possible candidate to run against Trump in an anti-establishment election.

As for Brazile, she will not be able to have it both ways: to be both the courageous muckraking DNC crusader while denying the clear import of her writings.  In the end, Brazile is likely done in this town. The book is the swam song of a political operative who torched herself in a spin of lies over her own conduct.

Here is the interview:

104 thoughts on “Derigging: Former DNC Chair Denies She Ever Said Primary Was Rigged Despite Book Allegation”

  1. She wanted to make large amounts of money by promoting her book, but then realized she went too far when she upset the Clintons and saw the potential repercussions.

    This woman like nearly all politicians are nothing more than parasites on the American public. But as long as we keep electing scum such as this, we can’t expect to have anything better.

    1. Darren

      Follow the money. The system is dysfunctional but unfortunately sacred. In the book of Constitution it says so. The priest Scalia says so. Take the money out of the equation and perhaps our oligarchic shame will approach a democracy, with the best of the best, instead of, as you so aptly put it, scum.

      Please, no ideological mumbo jumbo. The US is the last to get on board with a lot of stuff: available and affordable health care, strong and progressive public education, the election of politicians by the people and not the oligarchs, along with a few other things like a rational approach to arms and not the quasi religious dictums of the NRA and gun industry.

      1. “Take the money out of the equation and perhaps our oligarchic shame will approach a democracy”

        This is dreamland deluxe. Where has the money/ power ever disappeared? The Soviet Union, Stalinist Russia was great for those in power. Read 1984 and then read it again and again.

        1. Read the Constitution. Congress may tax ONLY for general Welfare not individual welfare and Americans have the right to private property which they alone may posses and dispose of.

          Redistribution of wealth and social engineering are unconstitutional.

          The whole welfare state is unconstitutional.

    2. The American Founders established a restricted-vote republic, not a one man, one vote democrazy. Early criteria were Male, European, 21 with 50 lbs. Sterling or 50 acres. Woman were busy perpetuating and growing the race and population. The “poor” were permanently precluded as they would “sell” their votes. Democrats grow liberal votes by massively and incessantly importing them. The greatest impact on the American vote is from invading foreigners.

      Republic – supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote.

  2. Professor Turley needs to call for a special investigation of the massive corruption of democrats, Brazile, Hillary, Comey (pre-exonheration), Shutlz, DNC, Obama and his seditious “deep state,” Rice, Holder, Mueller, Farkas, Power, “unmasking,” “wiretapping,” pay-for-play and the Clinton Foundation, etc. Julian Assange and any other individual with testimony or evidence must be given immunity and brought before Congress. Preposterously, they only go after little Bobbie Menendez for taking a plane ride.

    Democrats are not “Too Big To Prosecute.”

    All roads lead to Obama and the greatest political scandal in American history.

  3. Power corrupts. Money corrupts. Corrupt media corrupts the public’s opinion. A corrupted public elects corrupted politicians. Corrupt politicians and political consultants get large advances to write books that the ‘mass of men leading lives of quiet desperation’ keep buying just as they keep electing corrupt politicians who continue to be given air time in the corrupt media –whose paid on-air analysts and commenters used to work for corrupt politicians.

    Politics trumps everything in the Democratic food chain. If you hold the accepted political view and you are a known cheater, congenital liar, corrupt politician, or even a sexual predator – you will be given a pass by today’s corrupt media – and given air time to sell books. But if you are a Republican? You will be utterly destroyed by the same corrupt media.

  4. This is the problem with unreliable witnesses. Brazile has a history of lying to make herself look better. Therefore, her account of the primary being rigged, and her later retraction, are taken in that context. The excerpts from her book make Brazile look as though none of it was her idea, she expressed concern to her superiors, and then went along to get along. That may have been exculpatory embellishment. In addition, although her initial story makes sense in light of the favorable treatment of Clinton over Sanders, an unreliable witness taints the story.

    They should investigate this thoroughly, and speak with people who do not have a well documented history of lying to save themselves. Obviously, this would remove all politicians from the witness list.

    1. May I also add that we depend upon the media to keep politicians honest, and inform the public. When the media wholeheartedly throws in for one political party over another, to the expense of all journalistic integrity, then we have lost a very important brake on government and political misconduct. Their biased, and at times outright fraudulent, reporting on opposing parties further erodes public trust.

      They are the curb, and they are letting their favored horses run right through the reins.

    1. Has this woman no shame?

      Paul, as Frederic Bastiat states: This objective would demand more enlightenment than they possess.

      Men naturally rebel against the injustice of which they are victims. Thus, when plunder is organized by law for the profit of those who make the law, all the plundered classes try somehow to enter — by peaceful or revolutionary means — into the making of laws. According to their degree of enlightenment, these plundered classes may propose one of two entirely different purposes when they attempt to attain political power: Either they may wish to stop lawful plunder, or they may wish to share in it.

      Woe to the nation when this latter purpose prevails among the mass victims of lawful plunder when they, in turn, seize the power to make laws! Until that happens, the few practice lawful plunder upon the many, a common practice where the right to participate in the making of law is limited to a few persons. But then, participation in the making of law becomes universal. And then, men seek to balance their conflicting interests by universal plunder. Instead of rooting out the injustices found in society, they make these injustices general. As soon as the plundered classes gain political power, they establish a system of reprisals against other classes. They do not abolish legal plunder. (This objective would demand more enlightenment than they possess.) Instead, they emulate their evil predecessors by participating in this legal plunder, even though it is against their own interests.

      It is as if it were necessary, before a reign of justice appears, for everyone to suffer a cruel retribution — some for their evilness, and some for their lack of understanding.

        1. Karen,
          Agreed, but even more, he understood human nature. It is the one constant that no one wants to discuss. The framers of our system of government understood it and they did their best to design a government that could defend against it. Progressives have done a masterful job of convincing the American people that this sentence by Madison in Federalist 51 is possible: If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. Our politics today are a reflection of that kind of ignorance among the general population. Just the fact that Congress routinely polls less than 20% favorable but gets reelected @90% informs the political class their constituents are precisely the mud they need to rule without fear of reprisal.

          I like this section by Bastiat. And no, he’s not using Democrats as opposed to Republicans. All the same:

          The strange phenomenon of our times — one which will probably astound our descendants — is the doctrine based on this triple hypothesis: the total inertness of mankind, the omnipotence of the law, and the infallibility of the legislator. These three ideas form the sacred symbol of those who proclaim themselves totally democratic.

          The advocates of this doctrine also profess to be social. So far as they are democratic, they place unlimited faith in mankind. But so far as they are social, they regard mankind as little better than mud. Let us examine this contrast in greater detail.

          What is the attitude of the democrat when political rights are under discussion? How does he regard the people when a legislator is to be chosen? Ah, then it is claimed that the people have an instinctive wisdom; they are gifted with the finest perception; their will is always right; the general will cannot err; voting cannot be too universal.

          When it is time to vote, apparently the voter is not to be asked for any guarantee of his wisdom. His will and capacity to choose wisely are taken for granted. Can the people be mistaken? Are we not living in an age of enlightenment? What! are the people always to be kept on leashes? Have they not won their rights by great effort and sacrifice? Have they not given ample proof of their intelligence and wisdom? Are they not adults? Are they not capable of judging for themselves? Do they not know what is best for themselves? Is there a class or a man who would be so bold as to set himself above the people, and judge and act for them? No, no, the people are and should be free. They desire to manage their own affairs, and they shall do so.

          But when the legislator is finally elected — ah! then indeed does the tone of his speech undergo a radical change. The people are returned to passiveness, inertness, and unconsciousness; the legislator enters into omnipotence. Now it is for him to initiate, to direct, to propel, and to organize. Mankind has only to submit; the hour of despotism has struck. We now observe this fatal idea: The people who, during the election, were so wise, so moral, and so perfect, now have no tendencies whatever; or if they have any, they are tendencies that lead downward into degradation.

          1. Olly, I’m curious. When did you read Bastiat? Before or during your ideological conversion?

            1. When did you read Bastiat? Before or during your ideological conversion?

              First of all, I wouldn’t necessarily describe it as an ideological conversion. I’ve always been conservative by nature, but I only voted Republican because I was in the Navy and President Reagan was the first President I was eligible to vote for. I simply kept voting Republican primarily because of my own selfish needs.

              I didn’t start studying U.S. Civics until the 2008 election cycle. Sadly, it was the first time I had read the constitution. And yes, I had taken my oath 4 times before I retired in 1999. During that election cycle in one of the debates, Ron Paul was asked by the moderator what is the one book he recommended everyone read. He responded The Law by Frederic Bastiat. I reference it a lot because it’s a lot easier for people to digest than Locke or the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers.

              By the way, until I began studying, I was considering voting for Obama. He sounded great but I began looking for an answer to a question nobody was asking: What did he envision this country would look like after we fundamentally changed? I never got the answer so I didn’t vote for him. Now we have the answer.

              One more thing, if anyone reading it or any of the political philosophers the founding fathers used to put this thing together are not convinced of the reason and logic behind it, then do not claim to be in favor of the equal security of natural rights and a government established to secure those rights.

        2. California has been invaded and conquered. It is now a one-party communist dictatorship. There were two democrats and NO republican or third party candidates in the 2016 race for U.S. Senate. Voters had a choice between the democrat and the democrat. The communist party ensconced its official appointee, comrade hyphenate Kamala Harris, after a “show” election. The communist party international intends to ensconce her in the office of president as it unconstitutionally did the first half-white imposter, comrade Obongo, son of a foreign citizen and distinctly not a “natural born citizen.” You’d have to agree, this “fundamental transformation” of America is going swimmingly.

      1. And thus the vote FOR the “swamp” in the swamp of Virginia yesterday. Those folks know which side their bread is buttered on. It’s like the Mexican hometowns of drug cartel bosses wherein drug money flows abundantly. Virginia is the hometown of political parasites and confiscatory tax money flows there like Niagara Falls.

    2. “Has this woman no shame?”
      Having no shame is a prerequisite to being associated with the Clintons.

  5. On the one hand, you wanna just love this black female ex-DNC Chief for carefully and wonderfully placing a powerful torpedo through the engine compartment of HRC’s wide body ship. OTOH, this same black lady would not know the difference between a lie and the truth if it bit off her hand.

    If you are not a member of any so-called “protected class,” pay close attention: in 1970 VA’s population not born in the USA was 1%. As of Tuesday’s election, the rate is 12%. The changing of the USA to a nation of persons not born here is intentional work by your paymasters, TPTB. The old school (not Trump wing) Reps want the cheapest lowest educated workforce possible to maximize profits and depress wages. The Dems want such persons because they know they have permanently and forever lost the political debate among white middle class Americans, hence only non-Whites can grow the Democrat plantation.

    If you are a non-protected class person and you vote Democrat, you commit political suicide. Your only real hope is the Trump wing of the Republicans. I admit that hope is not much, but not much is a HELL OF LOT MORE THAN ZERO.

        1. Oh, yes. Just ask NickS. I disappear from time to time to, and often go to the Total Immersion Irish Poem Workshop down in Dry Prong, Louisiana. You check in on Friday night and until you check out on Sunday Morning, all your conversations have to be in Irish Poem form.

          Sooo, for example, if I am in a round table discussion and have to go to the Ladies Room, I have to couch my request in the form of:

          There once was a woman named Squeeky,
          And may I request, rather meekly- – –
          I really must run
          And do Number One,
          Before my poor bladder goes leaky!

          or, if you want the roast beef dish, instead of the crawfish,

          I don’t want to cause you no grief,
          But I would sure I’d be just as lief,
          To eschew the crawdad- – –
          It’s not that they’re bad,
          But I’d rather eat the Roast Beef.

          Let me tell you, by Sunday Morning, you are just firing on all mental cylinders.

          Squeeky Fromm
          Girl Reporter

  6. “Donna Brazile’s disclosure of an agreement between the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton Campaign has recreated a firestorm in confirming widely held views that the primary was rigged to guaranty Clinton the nomination…” HahahahahA……”widely held views,” you mean, like GRAVITY?

  7. As Michener wrote, ‘a friggin in the riggin’. Lies, those pesky little things that just won’t go back into the bottle. What is truly worrying is that, at the top echelons of public service, how do these people exist. Is that our best?

  8. Quit picking on Poor Old Donna B.!!! Haven’t you schmucks ever heard of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle??? The quantum theory thingy where a thing can exist in two different states at the same time??? That is all this is. The primary was both rigged and not rigged until somebody opens the box and lets the cat out of the bag, so to speak. Anyway, Poor Old Donna B. deserves an Irish Poem!

    De Rigeur???
    An Irish Poem by Squeeky Fromm

    There once was a toady named Donna,
    A typical Democrat fawner*!
    She sucked up to Bill,
    And later to Hill—,
    And then tried to salvage her honor.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    *Fawner – – – at least, a synonym for bootlicker:

    Synonyms of ‘bootlicker’ noun

    yes man
    brown-noser (taboo , slang)
    ass-kisser (US , Canadian , taboo , slang)
    Copyright © 2016 by HarperCollins Publishers.

    1. Squeeky, where the heck have you been? Olly, Allan, and I have had to keep this boat afloat all by ourselves!!!

      1. Hi FFS! Oh, I was busy with Halloween, and getting the yard winterized, and Penelope had a few things for me to do. Plus, every now and then I have to take a little break from those certain liberalish commenters here who belong in a mental institution. If you hang around maniacs too much, the craziness tends to osmose over into you. I have to remind myself that probably about half the country isn’t totally batpoop crazy.

        Thank you for missing me!

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

        1. …And I thought you had met a good looking man who was a Progressive and you were undergoing Progressive brainwashing. 🙂

          1. Oh, there were a couple of good looking guys at one of the parties, and they kept hitting on me. But I think it was the Vampira Outfit, and not my brains that attracted them. Which, it would not have mattered, because I have sworn off romantic liaisons for good.

            Squeeky Fromm
            Girl Reporter

            1. Squeeky – friends with benefits is not to be sneezed at. 😉 Glad to see you back. 🙂

              1. My idea of “benefits” is not having to put up with them at all. 🙂 Friends with benefits is like going to the pound to pet the poor stray dogs. But if you do that, there is no way you aren’t going to take a few home to live with you. Sooo, best to just stay away from the whole insane mess altogether. Just my humble opinion.

                Squeeky Fromm
                Girl Reporter

                1. Squeeky – it is a matter of self-control. 😉 However, it is your life and I only suggest.

              1. Seven years before my current young and tender age. I think I am just a very fast learner. Just look at all the people who go through lover after lover and it always ends the same way. Why go through all that stress and furor for some momentary little spasm of pleasure? Not worth it to me. More trouble than its worth.

                As far as I am concerned, the only reason to be with a man is if I want to have children, and then I would have to keep him around since he was the father.

                Squeeky Fromm
                Girl Reporter

                1. Squeeky, I’m not one to address this situation for I fell in love within 20 minutes at a very young age and knew this was the woman I would spend the rest of my life with. I told my brother that same day, but my wife and I both dated a number of years before we tied the knot and more years before we had children. Therefore my experience in the real world is very limited, but I wouldn’t trade it for anything.

                    1. I just don’t view sex as some sort of fun sport. Because it just isn’t fun to me. I am weird and I have no interest whatsoever in that activity. Softball on the other hand. . . 🙂

                      Squeeky Fromm
                      Girl Reporter

                    2. Squeeky – sex is not a sport, except to some idiotic sub-cretins. It is more two people working towards each other’s goals. It is also all-year. Softball you have to have a team, weather, etc. Can’t play in the snow, sleet. Not really an indoor sport. And one side always loses.

  9. Donna Brasile is a first class political A hole. The best thing to do is not buy her book and turn off the tv whenever she is on. She was in the tank for Hillary 100%. Even after the defeat she was still there for her. It now appears the Ds are trying to break away from the Clinton stranglehold and she wants to keep a piece of her pie. So rat on the Clintons and then say you didn’t rat on them just in case the Clintons maintain some power. First class A hole.

    1. Paul,

      I think that’s a good summary. I’d only add this–it is possible that Donna thought she was too well connected to have anything happen to her if she went up against Hillary. She may be finding that she miscalculated about that.

      I don’t know if you read her musings on Seth Rich but they were quite interesting.

  10. Hit the road Donna. You too Hillary. Don’t you come back no more no more.
    Good reference in comment before me.

  11. Just another politician lying…what’s the problem then? they all lie to a certain degree some and some to less degree, nothing new, you should read by blog, much funnier

  12. I could be wrong but didn’t the current leader of the DNC appoint her as chair of their ethics committee?

    1. Olly – the DNC Rules committee – that was Tom Perez who is steadily becoming even more despised. Perfect fit no?

  13. Linda, Just a quick note: at least in the case of wikileaks, they did not receive any RNC e-mails. If they had, they would have published them. As to others in the press, who can say. They could be sitting on them just as they do a whole lot of other information.

    For others here is an article which questions the e-mails were hacked:–-so-he

    As for Brazile. Yes, just stick with facts revealed. She is a known liar so we have to look elsewhere to see what part of what she says is verified. In this case, the rigging of the election is verified by Donna’s own actions, the e-mails and a host of other evidence.

    1. Jill-
      “Wikileaks did not receive any RNC e-mails”… what is your evidence and if you are correct, why didn’t they “receive” any?
      Rhetorically, do you have any concerns about rendering judgements based on information that is egregiously discriminatory in its gathering and is also illegally obtained?

      Relative to “known liar”, do you also apply that description to Donald Trump?

      1. Linda, Jill already answered you. If Wikileaks had received RNC emails they would have published them.
        Also, the topic is Donna Brazile, not Donald Trump. Try to keep up.

        1. FFS,

          The really interesting thing to note is no one, not wikileaks, not right wing, not left wing media published any RNC leaks or hacks.

          I agree with what you wrote below about Seth Rich.

      2. Linda,

        Last question first. Yes. Trump is a known liar. I really don’t know anyone in our political class who isn’t. Maybe there are a few exceptions, certainly not at the top of the heap.

        It seems to me that you simply make statements about wikileaks that there isn’t evidence for. Assange said no one leaked RNC information to wikileaks. I don’t know why that didn’t happen. I do know that RNC computers were more “hardened” than DNC’s but that is only one speculation as to why their info was not leaked to wikileaks.

        As to leaks, I welcome them. The govt is completely corrupt. Whistleblowers have tried going through proper channels to get governmental wrongdoing addressed and they don’t get anywhere. In fact, they get harmed for trying. So this leaves leaks as one of the few avenues available to address wrongdoing by this govt..

        If we had a functioning govt. with the rule of law, there would be another way. As we don’t have that any longer, we need some way of knowing what this govt is actually doing. With that in mind, I will link to a new set of information just released by wikileaks today:

        1. “Few avenues available to address wrongdoing” – The oligarchy that replaced American democracy is less transparent, less accountable and far more difficult to stop than an elected government.

        2. Jill, How much more transparent can a President be than Trump who seems to tweet anything and everything he is thinking about that isn’t considered national security?

          1. Allan,

            He may be tweeting but that’s just taking him at his word without checking into what he’s really doing. You have to watch his actions. His administration is little different than Clinton’s would have been. His swamp is full to the top.

            JT’s advice is sound. Look at the actions, not the words. This holds for Brazile. It held for Bush and Obama and it holds for Trump. It also holds for both Clintons.

            1. Jill, you are missing the point. He is telling you what he is thinking at the time. What he may do might be different, but he was very direct about what he wanted to do. That means you knew where he stood. He is only President so don’t expect what he wants to end up with what happens.

                1. He has made it very clear where he stands and he is doing a good job.

                  1) He is pushing China to push North Korea. Of utmost importance. The Chinese had done more than ever before, but they may have to work harder.
                  2) He doesn’t want our industry to move from the US to China and will act to prevent IP theft. Previous administrations saw our relatively clean industry moving to China that is a major polluter. That transfer of industry and IP to China increased CO2 and pollution, cost American jobs and permitted the Chinese military to develop weapons that threaten our national security.
                  3) Trump correctly blames US policy for much of this because our trade deals he feels are not up to par. I agree with him.
                  4) Trump seems to be developing a successful relationship with the Chinese something that has been neglected. Bowing to the Chinese leader does not promote a successful relationship.
                  5) One has to understand China and the problems it faces as the country could easily fracture. One also has to understand that it more likely than not has moved in a more totalitarian direction.

                  1. China will change because of Trump’ forceful personality?

                    Trump’s goals in many situations will require Republican politicians to implement. Those politicians, like many Democratic politicians, are funded by global corporations and their owners.

                    Republicans lead the agenda to bankrupt the middle class but, they rely on the corporate, Walton and Gates-funded Center for American Progress to do so.

                    1. “China will change because of Trump’ forceful personality?”

                      No. China may change in ways favorable to the US because such change wasn’t demanded before. Now there are demands on China that may be beneficial to both nations.

                      Both parties are guilty of placing their self-interest above the interests of the American people. However, sometimes a few leaders can embarrass the rest into doing the right thing.

                      “Republicans lead the agenda to bankrupt the middle class ” That is what Obama was in the process of doing whether you wish to recognize it or not.

    2. Jill, if you can, please clear up my confusion. As I currently understand it, the emails in discussion were “leaked” not “hacked.” But there have been so many references to so many emails, it’s hard to keep track of.

      1. slohrss29- Are there those who are intimating that Democrats willingly provided damaging, internal campaign e-mails for public dissemination? And, in contrast, Republicans didn’t? (Sarcasm)

        The distinction between a “hacker” and the “leaker”, no doubt matters to the persons involved in the activities. But, what people in democratic countries should be concerned about is the disproportionate influence (funding) to affect the nation’s elections while the country’s people increasingly lose power over their futures.
        As an example, the American Legislative Exchange Council is an abomination in a democratic nation.

        1. ” Are there those who are intimating that Democrats willingly provided damaging, internal campaign e-mails for public dissemination?”


      2. slohrss29, It is also my understanding that these e-mails were leaked. There were some information from Guccifer that may have been “hacked” but the e-mails show internal evidence of being a leak. (For example, the copy speed is consistent with physical access and use of a USB drive per William Binney and others).

          1. Jill and slorss29,
            Is your conclusion that a saboteur within the Dem. party stole and transmitted info. to Wikileaks? And, Republican party politicians benefitted from the theft?
            If the Repub. party had been similarly sabotaged by someone who betrayed the organization, would your opinion be as sanguine?

            1. Linda a “saboteur”? how about a truth teller who couldn’t stand the deception and rigging. Assange put out that information so everyone could have access – which surely affected those who were sitting on the fence and contemplating “holding their nose” and voting for HRC. Anyone with integrity decided not to vote for her.

              1. I agree Autumn.

                Linda, to me, you are too binary in how you see things. This information benefited the American people. A leak of information would have benefited the American people as well. There are still some people of honor left in the world. When they see wrong doing they try to do something about it. That doesn’t make them a saboteur, it makes them exactly what Autumn said, a truth teller. The saboteur is the upper echelon of this govt. and corporations. This has nothing to do with which party these people belong to. You keep trying to frame it that way, but your frame doesn’t fit reality.

                1. Dissemination of Republican Party campaign e-mails (gathered illegally) might have prevented Trump’s election- a win for the world.

                  1. How is that, Linda? What information is in those e-mails? Can you share some excerpts with us?

                    1. The likelihood of “sharing excerpts” would increase if, for example, a foreign government who preferred a presidential candidate or wealthy people with disdain for democracy spent big bucks for targeted hacking.

                    2. So there is no basis for your comment whatsoever, other than your dislike for President Trump.

  14. Ms. Brazile is a congenital liar; why is she still a public figure?

    And the rubes will buy her book in spite of its many lies – says something about the American public.

    1. Why? Same reason Hillary is still treated as a respected public figure. Same reason ‘the rubes’ will buy Hillary’s book. Same reason Hillary is being honored and given awards by all kinds of supposedly respected organizations.

      Donna Brazile’s book shows us that Hillary ran the most incompetent, corrupt presidential campaign we’ve probably ever seen, yet Hillary was just honored with the ‘2017 Democratic Woman of the Year’ award. I kid you not.

      I predict Donna Brazile makes a run for some kind of public office in the near future. And she’ll win, too.

      1. TBOB re: “I predict Donna Brazile makes a run for some kind of public office in the near future. And she’ll win, too.”

        Yep, Donna the lyin’ Buffalo is exactly what Dims want. Black (check), victim (check) liar (check) elderly (check)

        BUT unless she runs in CA or NY I predict she will be slaughtered

        1. Yeah when Hillary reportedly flew into a rage during the campaign and called Donna a brain dead water buffalo, I guess she didn’t expect Donna would have the balls to write a tell-all book about Hillary’s imcompetence and corruption. Paybacks are a b*tch, eh Hillary?

  15. She participated in the rigging and now she gets to sell a book about them! It’s appalling.

    1. “She participated in the rigging and now she gets to sell a book about them! It’s appalling.”

      So did Hillary.

    1. Roscoe, I was fortunate enough to see Charles perform live – what an evening. Love this rendition. Sigh, we can only dream! =)

  16. No Republican campaign e-mails were dumped for the media to “expose”.
    If the activities of the minority party are investigated but, the majority party gets a free pass from the same scrutiny, what does Turley recommend media do to address the discriminatory disparity of treatment?
    Minority party defined – in debt and fewer than half of governorships, no majority in the U.S. House nor Senate.

    1. I double triple quadruple dare you to post one reliable independent link to Wiki/Julian Assange ever posting one false/fabricated email. You can not, because no such event exists. Further, Re. the alleged sexual charges against Julian, every single charge has been dropped and well proven to be false and/or fabricated to persecute Assange. .

      That said, Julian stated publicly multiple times that Russia did not provide the DNC 2016 emails. Then there’s this:

      1. I haven’t claimed to know the source of the hacked e-mails. Mueller may be able to identify important relevant information in the future.
        I’ve emphasized that democracies are threatened by selective targeting.

        1. According to Donna Brazil they knew they were being hacked for over a month and refused to close down the computer system. They also refused to permit the FBI to investigate which shouldn’t have been permitted because Russian hacking of the American political system is a national security issue.

          1. It is a nation’s citizens who suffer when entities distort a picture with dissemination of selective info.- e.g. hacking only one party’s e-mails.

            In the Romney campaign, when the “47 percent” comment was made to campaign contributors in a public place and was then, released to the general public, the info. had been obtained legally and the individuals releasing the info. were identified by name and as American citizens.

            When Obama was elected by both the electoral college and popular vote, McConnell said Republicans would defeat all of the President’s planned agenda. When Gore’s candidacy was defeated by a court decision, he said, “May God bless Pres. Bush’s stewardship of this country.”

            It is not surprising that the oligarch tyrants of other nations prefer Republican politicians.

            1. “It is a nation’s citizens who suffer when entities distort a picture with dissemination of selective info.- e.g. hacking only one party’s e-mai”

              Of course that is correct especially when the FBI is told **NOT** to investigate. That compromised national security. The fact that the Democrats refused to shut their machines down when advised by their own security people a was also risk national security.

              “were identified by name and as American citizens.”

              …And nothing was done. The Republicans didn’t stop an investigation of the incident to my knowledge.

              The lawless one’s seem to originate in the Democratic Party whose supporters have a double standard.

              You talk statements made (out of original context), but you forget actions. The Obama administration used the IRS to harass his enemies. The justice department let go criminals that had already been proven guilty of intimidating voters trying to walk into the building and vote.

              Lawlessness is what you seem to defend Linda along with a double standard.

                1. “What is the Republican record on egregious gerrymandering (destroys democracy)?”

                  I guess you recognize that you and the Democratic Party defend lawlessness and a double standard for you had no response to the above dialogue we were having and had to change the subject. That is typical of the low information individual.

                  First, you should respond to my last reply. If you don’t it means that you don’t care about the truth and wish to use the veil of ignorance to protect your ideology that likely you don’t understand.

                  Answering this newest charge that is another double standard blaming the opposition. Both parties partake in gerrymandering so if you wish to get rid of it advocate such a position for all parties. Perhaps a computer program could be created so that the computer algorithms determine boundaries. Remember, gerrymandering occurred before the modern Democratic or Republican Party existed.

                  But, surely you haven’t forgotten or perhaps you never knew that certain minorities pushed gerrymandering. That was the only way the minority felt it could be represented. The understanding of this problem requires a low-level understanding of mathematics so I am not sure if I have to spell it out for you or not.

                2. Linda – no gerrymandering could be worse than the one that protects Maxine Waters.

    2. You do recall Linda, how the Obama IRS harassed and audited Obama’s enemies along with preventing their 501C 3’s to be approved. You do recall Linda, how the Obama Attorney General showed little concern for the harassment of voters at a voting precinct even though they had been found guilty.

      1. I bet not many people know the DOJ recently found that the Obama IRS acted illegally and agreed to pay a $3.5 million dollar settlement to the 450 groups that were illegally targeted by Obama’s IRS.

        But since this wrongdoing was happening while Obama was trying to get reelected in 2012, it was not particularly newsworthy to the corrupt media – just as the recent settlement news was not either.

        You can imagine if the Trump IRS had done this, it would be nonstop media outrage and everyone in the country would have heard about it. Impeachment cries would never stop.

        But alas, the media had to protect their own by keeping the story quiet ensuring that Obama got away with weaponizing his IRS against his political opponents and few in the media even bothered to report on it.

Comments are closed.