Conclusions: While Hillary Clinton, technically, didn't do anything illegal in the last election cycle she did prove herself to be a Republican style politician who is a pathological liar who uses her gender as a political weapon (inaccurately). She suppressed opponents with back room financial deals that only came out later (after she has attacked the Democratic process from within with her un-American tactics - see info below). She's also attacked colored people as per the Republican's Southern Strategy (a tactic she and her husband used if office as well). She's a Republican style oligarch who shouldn't be allowed to run for office as families running for office creates dynasties like monarchies. Look what the Bush dynasty has already done. The Clinton's were in the White House and Hillary wants to go in there again while pushing her undemocratic cons, indicates a power hungry tyrant at best. Hillary even enabled GOP crimes as Senator by voting for action on their lies showing she lacks judgement. While Hillary hasn't committed any crime, to put someone of such obvious lack of moral responsibility or even moral awareness puts our country and our democracy at risk, i.e. character becomes very important and clearly Hillary lacks that, as every Republican politician does. Trump is simply an extreme Republican while Hillary is a moderate Republican. Both are Republicans though and the Republicans need to be investigated as a Domestic Terrorist party and not treated like they are honorable and truthful politicians. [Note: Obama seems to have accepted the role of "house nigger" since he became President, putting Republican traitors in his administration and killing innocents for no reason and can be expected to support Hillary for the sake of friendship the way media kisses the Bushs asses (and the Obamas do too). Given that the South does dominate American politics, it does make sense that Obama would adjust to a black persons's role in Southern politics/society].
The following simply outlines pieces of recent evidence that supports this (besides the links above) and that if Hillary runs again there will be Republican style lies, Republican style politics, Republican style foreign policy, and Republican style election rigging and opponent suppression through undemocratic means. Note: the whole "Democratic" party still uses the undemocratic "Super Delegate" to pick thier friends, like they did with Hillary last time...
Asked if DNC system was rigged in Clinton's favor, Warren says 'yes'
Inside Hillary Clinton’s Secret Takeover of the DNC When I was asked to run the Democratic Party after the Russians hacked our emails, I stumbled onto a shocking truth about the Clinton campaign.
When I got back from a vacation in Martha’s Vineyard, I at last found the document that described it all: the Joint Fund-Raising Agreement between the DNC, the Hillary Victory Fund, and Hillary for America. The agreement—signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook with a copy to Marc Elias—specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings. I had been wondering why it was that I couldn’t write a press release without passing it by Brooklyn. Well, here was the answer.
When the party chooses the nominee, the custom is that the candidate’s team starts to exercise more control over the party. If the party has an incumbent candidate, as was the case with Clinton in 1996 or Obama in 2012, this kind of arrangement is seamless because the party already is under the control of the president. When you have an open contest without an incumbent and competitive primaries, the party comes under the candidate’s control only after the nominee is certain. When I was manager of Al Gore’s campaign in 2000, we started inserting our people into the DNC in June. This victory fund agreement, however, had been signed in August 2015, just four months after Hillary announced her candidacy and nearly a year before she officially had the nomination.
Clinton Campaign Had Additional Signed Agreement With DNC In 2015
Updated at 11:56 p.m. ET: NPR has obtained the full memo from a Democratic source. Read it at the bottom of this story. What, exactly, did the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign agree to in 2015, before any votes had been cast in the Democratic primary? The question has roiled Democratic politics since Thursday morning, when Politico published an excerpt of Donna Brazile's upcoming book about the 2016 presidential race. Brazile took over the DNC as interim chair following Debbie Wasserman Schultz's sudden resignation during the Democratic National Convention. Once she was at the party's helm, Brazile wrote that she discovered an agreement that "specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party's finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff."
This agreement has been seized on by everyone from President Trump to Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren as proof that the DNC "rigged" the 2016 primary for Clinton.
The DNC and former Clinton staffers pushed back on Brazile's claim but never outright denied it.
In a letter to DNC members, Chairman Tom Perez noted that the party reached joint fundraising agreements with both Clinton and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. "The joint fundraising agreements were the same for each campaign except for the treasurer, and our understanding was that the DNC offered all of the presidential campaigns the opportunity to set up a [joint fundraising agreement] and work with the DNC to coordinate on how those funds were used to best prepare for the general election."
That may be true — but two Democratic officials tell NPR that Brazile and Perez are referring to two different things. In addition to that joint fundraising agreement the DNC reached with both campaigns, the party and the Clinton campaign struck that separate memorandum of understanding giving the campaign staffing and policy oversight.
That document was signed on Aug. 26, 2015 — before, among other things, Vice President Joe Biden ruled out a run for president.
The DNC has not denied this characterization or timeline.
A Democratic official who has reviewed the document pointed out that in addition to the Clinton signoffs Brazile characterized, it included language stating that "nothing in this agreement shall be construed to violate the DNC's obligation of impartiality and neutrality through the Nominating process" and that "all activities performed under this agreement will be focused exclusively on preparations for the General Election and not the Democratic Primary."
The agreement also noted that the DNC "may enter into similar agreements with other candidates." (Read the full memo below.)
Still, Sanders' 2016 campaign manager, Jeff Weaver, said the agreement was the latest evidence the DNC tried to tip the scales against his candidate. He and other Sanders backers have regularly pointed to the party's scheduling of debates on weekend nights as one example of how DNC officials tried to aid Clinton's campaign.
"I think the DNC should apologize to the millions and millions of people who put their heart and souls into the campaign on both sides, frankly," Weaver told MSNBC Friday. "There are many people who campaigned for Hillary believing it was a fair process. It was not a fair process. And those people are the people who the Democratic Party has to re-establish faith with — the people, the rank and file of this party — allied, independents and other people." (Weaver did not respond to multiple requests for comment from NPR.)
...
Sanders and his supporters have long alleged that the DNC tipped the scales in the 2016 primary. A frequent piece of evidence cited for this was the decision to hold debates on weekends when viewership would be lower. Emails released by WikiLeaks on the eve of the 2016 Democratic National Convention showed that some DNC staffers favored Clinton and were vocal about it. U.S. intelligence believes those leaked emails originated with Russia's efforts to disrupt the 2016 campaign.
Brazile herself was eventually at the center of that controversy. Emails hacked from Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta and released by Wikileaks showed that Brazile, a former CNN commentator, passed along details about questions Clinton would receive at a primary debate and a candidate forum hosted by the network. Following those revelations, CNN ended its relationship with Brazile.
Current chairman Tom Perez was not at the DNC during 2016, but the contested primary and its lingering aftermath have loomed over the former labor secretary as he has tried to rebuild the party.
"Even a perception of impropriety — whether real or not — is detrimental to the DNC as an institution," he wrote in the letter to DNC members. "You have my commitment that 2020 will be a transparent process. That is why I want to make sure that the primary debate schedule is decided well ahead of the presidential primary process and why I stand by the essential work of the Unity Reform Commission."
That commission is charged with recommending changes to the Democratic primary process. On MSNBC, Weaver said its final conclusions — and whether or not they're adopted — will be a key indicator of whether the DNC stands behind its promise to be more welcoming to Sanders and his supporters.
Read the full memo, obtained by NPR from a Democratic source:
"This Memorandum is intended to memorialize our agreement regarding the creation and operation of Hillary Victory Fund (Victory Fund), a joint fundraising committee of Hillary for America (HFA) and the Democratic National Committee (DNC).
"HFA is prepared to raise and invest funds into the DNC via the Victory. In return for this financial support, HFA requires the appropriate influence over the financial, strategic, and operational use of these JFA-raised funds.
"Commencing on September 1, 2015 HFA agrees to raise funds for the Victory Fund sufficient to fund the DNC's data, technology, analytics, research, and communications operations. Specifically, HFA will agree to raise and to instruct the Victory Fund Treasurer, Beth Jones (who is employed by HFA) to transfer from the Victory Fund a minimum of one million and two hundred thousand dollars ($1,200,000.00) to the DNC from its share of the net proceeds under the allocation formula on the first day of every month (beginning October 1, 2015) for these activities (the "Base Amount"). In the event that the Victory Fund is not in possession of adequate net proceeds allocable to the DNC on the first of the month to make such transfer, it shall make the required transfer as soon as adequate funds are available.
"HFA's obligations under this agreement, and the release of the Base Amounts each month are conditioned on the following:
- With respect to the hiring of a DNC Communications Director, the DNC agrees that no later than September 11, 2015 it will hire one of two candidates previously identified as acceptable to HFA.
- With respect to the hiring of future DNC senior staff in the communications, technology, and research departments, in the case of vacancy, the DNC will maintain the authority to make the final decision as between candidates acceptable to HFA.
- Agreement by the DNC that HFA personnel will be consulted and have joint authority over strategic decisions over the staffing, budget, expenditures, and general election related communications, data, technology, analytics, and research. The DNC will provide HFA advance opportunity to review on-line or mass email, communications that features a particular Democratic primary candidate. This does not include any communications related to primary debates – which will be exclusively controlled by the DNC. The DNC will alert HFA in advance of mailing any direct mail communications that features a particular Democratic primary candidate or his or her signature.
- If asked by a State Party, the DNC will encourage the State Party to become a participant in the Victory Fund.
"Once HFA has raised the first $1,200,000 and it has been distributed to the DNC, HFA will be granted complete and seamless access to all research work product and tools (not including any research or tracking the DNC may engage in relating to other Democratic candidates).
"The parties also agree that they will enter into an agreed upon voter file licensing agreement. As consideration for that agreement, HFA will raise an additional $250,000 into the Victory Fund that will be distributed to the DNC no later than March 31, 2016.
"In addition, HFA will also raise funds for the Victory Fund that will distributed to the DNC in excess of the $1,200,000 monthly base amount (Excess Amount). The Excess Amount raised by HFA that is distributed to the DNC will be spent on the DNC's data, technology, analytics, research, and communications operations as directed by HFA (Special Projects). Although the DNC will remain responsible for the day to day execution of those Special Projects, HFA will determine (in consultation with the DNC) the Special Project's scope, strategy, staffing, budget, and manner of execution.
"Finally, HFA agrees that on a monthly basis the Victory Fund will provide the DNC a list of receipts and disbursements from the Victory Fund. The DNC agrees to provide monthly financial reports to HFA as it relates to the use of the funds distributed by the Victory Fund to the DNC.
"In the event that there is a disagreement in the operation of this agreement or the use of the Base Amount, the DNC department head and their HFA counterpart will meet and confer to resolve the matter. If that fails to resolve the disagreement, then you and I will resolve it. If there is still no resolution the DNC Chair and the HFA Chair will resolve.
"Nothing in this agreement shall be construed to violate the DNC's obligation of impartiality and neutrality through the Nominating process. All activities performed under this agreement will be focused exclusively on preparations for the General Election and not the Democratic Primary. Further we understand you may enter into similar agreements with other candidates.
"The attached Joint Fundraising Agreement will be entered into by HFA and the DNC (as well as by State Parties).
"This agreement will be reviewed on March 31, 2016 and either party may terminate any prospective obligation at that time.
"If this memorandum correctly summarizes our agreement, please reply by email with the text – 'Agreed by DNC'."
This is one reason that killed election turnout and convinced people there was no point voting in the Democratic primary as the Democratic party wasn't Democratic (or even honest) at all...
Hillary’s Superdelegate Coup Just Confirms to Millennials: The System Is Rigged
First, in Iowa, they battle for a statistical tie, with just a quarter-percent of the vote between Hillary and Bernie. So, naturally, the delegates from Iowa are divided fairly. Bernie gets 21 delegates and Hillary gets... 29?
Next, in New Hampshire, Bernie demolishes Hillary in a 22-point landslide victory. So, naturally, the delegates from New Hampshire are divided fairly. Bernie gets 15 delegates and Hillary gets... 15?
What is this strange world where a Bernie tie is an 8-delegate loss and a Bernie landslide is a tie? That’s when our intrepid Millennials start Googling and learn all about Marvel’s Democratic Superdelegates! (Just kidding; Marvel’s heroes are better-looking.)
What they learn is that there are 4,763 delegates who pick the Democratic nominee for president. But roughly 15 percent of them are Superdelegates (712 to be exact) who are the Democratic elected officials and party bigwigs. Regular delegates are split according to popular vote, but Superdelegates can vote for anybody they wish (that’s their super power).
Hillary, being the Queen Democratic Bigwig, has amassed quite a collection of these other bigwigs pledging to vote for her (355 to be exact). With some quick Excel work, Millennials figure out that Hillary already had 14.9 percent of the votes she needed to get the nomination before the first caucus was ever tallied in Iowa.
Then they plug in a few more formulas and learn that in New Hampshire, it took convincing 60,631 voters to choose Bernie to match the choice of Gov. Maggie Hassan, Rep. Ann Kuster, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, and three Democratic National Committee cronies for Hillary.
In other words, one vote from these one-percenters for the Wall Street candidate is worth 10,105 votes from the 99-percenters for the Democratic Socialist candidate. Unfortunately, one-man-one-vote only applies to actual federal elections, not party primary processes.
The more the Millennials (and my people, Gen-X) learn about this, the more convinced they will be that the system is rigged and the current crop of establishment Democrats want to keep it that way. That leads to more popular votes and mortal delegates for Bernie and forces Superdelegates to re-evaluate whether they want to go against the people or go against the Clinton Dynasty.
Clinton and the DNC Are Not Just Colluding — They’re Changing the Rules for Superdelegates
The award for most deliberate and egregious burying of a lead has just been handed out.
It goes to NBC News, for a story entitled, “Bernie Sanders Makes Things Awkward for Hillary Clinton’s DNC Takeover.”
Put aside for a moment that the story’s central premise is the uncritical repetition of a nonsense: the idea that a major-party convention can’t — as in literally cannot be — planned without a nominee being declared at least a month and a half in advance. We know that’s untrue because, up until a week ago, that’s exactly what the GOP was (with minimal public grousing by RNC Chair Reince Priebus) planning to do.
More importantly, in the context of Democratic National Committee rules — which, as DNC officials Luis Miranda and Debbie Wasserman Schultz have both explained to the media repeatedly, dictate that super-delegates cannot be tallied until July — there can be no doubt about which sentence in the above-cited NBC News story is the most important. It’s this one, about what the Clinton campaign and the DNC have been up to since April(more than three months prior to the Party’s late-July convention):
Back-channel conversations have already begun between Clinton’s campaign and the DNC about what role the party will play in the general election. These discussions are happening out of sight for now to avoid the appearance of collusion before the party has formally selected a nominee.
Where does this information appear in the article? In the very last sentence, of course.
That’s the spot in a hard-news article reserved for (assuming there’s no “kicker”) the least important piece of information in the article.
Or it would be, had not some editor at NBC News switched the rules around.
That’s something that’s becoming not just a trend in, but a cancer upon, the 2016 presidential election, so let’s go back in time to find the root of the problem. If you can, cast your mind all the way back to February 19th — less than 90 days ago. On February 19th, only two states — Iowa and New Hampshire — had held primary votes for the Democratic presidential nomination. The results in Iowa (a tie) and New Hampshire (a landslide victory for Bernie Sanders) had at that point made Sanders the front-runner for the nomination.
Sanders was the leader in the popular vote.
Sanders was the early leader in the all-important pledged-delegate count.
And here’s where the super-delegate count stood on February 19th:
- Hillary Clinton: 451
- Bernie Sanders: 19
Now it’s May, and we’re being told that the sole purpose of the Democratic “super-delegate” has all along been to acknowledge the popular-vote and pledged-delegate leader.
Except that’s nonsense.
Hillary Clinton courted hundreds and hundreds of super-delegates at a time when there was no popular-vote or delegate-count leader, and in 2016, as in 2008, she worked hard to keep her super-delegates even in those times she was neither the leader in the popular vote nor the leader in the delegate count.
The reason for this is that super-delegates have absolutely nothing to do with the popular vote or the delegate count.
And Clinton knows it.
Basically, The Superdelegate System Isn't Just Rigged—It's Designed to Destroy the Will of the People
Note - Corporate media always supports the rich special interests and their representatives over the people of the United States helping to subvert democracy and the democratic process:
If media commentators ignore the fact that everyone in the democratic primary knew the system was rigged AND lost hope (which explains Hillary's OVERALL total in the primary) then they are either stupid or purposely biased against truth when their candidate is concerned (i.e. an emotional block, like the people/media are with 9/11 and the media is with Iraq, healthcare, muslims, rape in the army, international war crimes, climate change, FCC's attempt to curb free speech i.e. begin the destruction of the 1st amendment of the constitution and basically anything that would make the party of 9/11 look bad).
Flashback: 10 ways the Democratic primary has been rigged from the start This race is still far from over, but that won’t stop the establishment from trying to hand the nom to Hillary
It’s not over. Far from it. The economic and political establishment, which includes the Democratic National Committee, its Wall Street and corporate backers and the major media—most of it now owned by a half dozen big corporations—have worked feverishly to turn the Democratic primary process into a coronation for Hillary Clinton. Bottom line: they wanted to declare it over before actual voters could vote, but their carefully crafted strategy began to #FeelTheBern. Here are 10 ways the establishment has sought to orchestrate the results, and why the race has a long ways to go.
1. Major Media Blackout When Sanders began his campaign, as he often recounts, he had virtually no national name recognition and trailed Clinton by 60 to 70 points in national polls. The major media barely breathed his name, even when he began drawing crowds of 20,000 or more to summer rallies. This was partly the result of the obsession with Trump, but also because the conglomerates controlling the media hardly wanted to promote such a fierce critic of Wall Street and the 1 percent. In December, the nightly news networks had allotted Trump 23 times more coverage than Sanders; on ABC alone 81 minutes to Trump for the year, compared to only 20 seconds for Sanders. While Sanders was holding extensive campaign events and press availabilities for months, Clinton was mostly avoiding public events and media avails, with the media largely ignoring its rebuff. (Even today, Clinton often passes on press conferences.) 2. They’re Debating When?
It’s not over. Far from it. The economic and political establishment, which includes the Democratic National Committee, its Wall Street and corporate backers and the major media—most of it now owned by a half dozen big corporations—have worked feverishly to turn the Democratic primary process into a coronation for Hillary Clinton. Bottom line: they wanted to declare it over before actual voters could vote, but their carefully crafted strategy began to #FeelTheBern. Here are 10 ways the establishment has sought to orchestrate the results, and why the race has a long ways to go.
1. Major Media Blackout When Sanders began his campaign, as he often recounts, he had virtually no national name recognition and trailed Clinton by 60 to 70 points in national polls. The major media barely breathed his name, even when he began drawing crowds of 20,000 or more to summer rallies. This was partly the result of the obsession with Trump, but also because the conglomerates controlling the media hardly wanted to promote such a fierce critic of Wall Street and the 1 percent. In December, the nightly news networks had allotted Trump 23 times more coverage than Sanders; on ABC alone 81 minutes to Trump for the year, compared to only 20 seconds for Sanders. While Sanders was holding extensive campaign events and press availabilities for months, Clinton was mostly avoiding public events and media avails, with the media largely ignoring its rebuff. (Even today, Clinton often passes on press conferences.) 2. They’re Debating When?
Related Links;
No comments:
Post a Comment