Board 8 > Inside Hillary Clinton's Secret Takeover of the DNC

(+) Yeah! (+)

Also the actual person Joe Biden fucking sucks, as much as we may like the fictionalized ideal of Joe Biden that pop culture has created

Well this is a new one. Accepting this for the sake of argument, you don't think he's as bad a candidate as Clinton do you, let alone in the same universe of bad as Trump?

So what's your point?
---

https://twitter.com/ahumorlessfem/status/926249997376638976

According to this, the reason the money didn't go to the state parties right away was because Hillary couldn't discuss it to them until she was officially the nominee, which she wasn't four months because Bernie refused to drop out.

So rather than Hillary stealing money from the state parties, Bernie was blocking her from giving them money.
---

MrGreenonion posted...

https://twitter.com/mmurraypolitics/status/926083951906689025

Contra Donna Brazile's assertion, Bernie Sanders DID sign a joint-fundraising agreement w DNC in 2015 (he just never utilized it)

So basically this whole thing is bullshit

However, HER agreement gave her control of all the DNC funding including staff. HFA, HVF and DNC funds all collected and controlled by Hillary and her campaign. Sanders of course would ink a deal, but obviously didn't have that financial leverage with the party.
---

velocycloraptor posted...

https://twitter.com/ShaunKing/status/926116616902934528

Yikes

This is actually largely because like - explain the point of the DNC in the age of Super PACS.

There is none.
---

Yeah bernie why didn't you raise money that hillary controlled and was laundered into her campaign
---

Thanks for the facts, Greenonion.

I don't expect it to do anything, but I do appreciate it.
---

Also I really want to see the original agreement.

Because if the money going to the DNC was delayed until Hillary was actually the candidate, I wonder if her having control over the DNC happened at the same time.
---

If you think greenonion exposed anything you didn't read the article and neither did mark. Look at the many replies to the tweet if you want more insight. The doc bernie signed said the elected nominee would control dnc....hillary already was controlling it. That is what bernie asked to be investigated and what brazille is talking about
---

This is like the worst kept secret. Everyone knew this the second Hillary won the nomination.

Also, this was amusing to me.


---

well, she's referring to the general election in the first tweet, but yeah

anyone I'm somewhat pissed about it but also what else is new. the funny/annoying thing is people on twitter with takes like "it didn't affect the primary anyway" or "that's politics, just accept it".
---

Yeah why try to fix anything about society also vote dems to fix society is a bad message
---

https://twitter.com/WalktheTalkBern/status/926195470824640512

More evidence that runs counter to Donna Brazile's claims, but it cites references instead of ridiculous anecdotes about setting the mood to cry with Bernie over a tortured cancer metaphor so I guess it's probably garbage lol
---

Once more, from NBC News:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/memo-reveals-details-hillary-clinton-dnc-deal-n817411

However, the memo also made clear that the arrangement pertained to only the general election, not the primary season, and it left open the possibility that it would sign similar agreements with other candidates.

Still, it clearly allowed the Clinton campaign to influence DNC decisions made during an active primary, even if intended for preparations later.

"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," the memo states.

"Further we understand you may enter into similar agreements with other candidates," it continues.

uhh i mean grr rigged hillary so corrupt
---

https://twitter.com/jvgtweet/status/926573803567583232
---

https://twitter.com/davidsirota/status/926603748536827904
https://twitter.com/davidsirota/status/926602521308622848
---

velocycloraptor posted...

https://twitter.com/davidsirota/status/926603748536827904
https://twitter.com/davidsirota/status/926602521308622848

Do we know that the agreement Bernie signed (same agreement, two months later, admittedly) didn't give him the same privileges?
---

I don't know why Bernie would ask to investigate this if he knew it was there already, but as far as I know his agreement is not available online right now.
---

velocycloraptor posted...

I don't know why Bernie would ask to investigate this if he knew it was there already, but as far as I know his agreement is not available online right now.

Aside from Donna Brazille saying so, how do we know that Bernie specifically asked for this to be investigated?
---

velocycloraptor posted...

https://twitter.com/davidsirota/status/926603748536827904
https://twitter.com/davidsirota/status/926602521308622848

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/TODAY/z_Creative/DNCMemo%20(002).pdf

I mean yeah all that shit is in there and then also:

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.

I don't get what's hard about this. Donna Brazile, Elizabeth Warren, and I guess Dave Sirota now as well are all lying because the text of the agreement is right fucking there for everybody to see.
---

Let's not lump Elizabeth Warren in on this. She was questioned in the immediate aftermath of Donna's info drop. Should she have waited for more facts? Sure. But she was mostly just following what she heard in the news.
---

ehhhhh I don't take Warren to be malicious, just incredibly careless. She was asked a response off on something she had no idea about and just went with the latest "news". Definitely egg on her face and hurts her credibility on breaking news if she's that easily on board with sudden allegations but I wouldn't really call her a liar.

how did that auto copy paste like that
---

literally the entire article is talking about the primary, and then has one throwaway line about the general.

why in gods name would bernie sanders be agreeing to let hillary control everything in the general election assuming he won?

why is everyone so sure that donna brazille is lying about this?

best case scenario here is that the primary itself was still influenced by the agreement because the superdelegates and donors were given the incentive to support clinton because she would be in control of all spending, appointments, strategy, etc from the DNC regardless of who won.
---

Warren isn't some naive political rookie. She didn't step into this accidentally.
---

To answer the second question: Donna Brazille has proven very self-serving. You recall she was one of the major sticking points in the "DNC is rigged for Hillary" argument during the campaign because of that one Flint question. I remember she came on the Daily Show at some point after that and when the subject of her involvement came up, she sidestepped and kinda shrugged off any wrongdoing on her part. The fact that she has a book coming out and is kinda teasing stuff...I dunno, I trust her less than Hillary, honestly.

The first question is a bit tougher because there's a lot of legalese to sift through and I can't be 100% sure I'm reading right. But I DON'T think that's what it's saying at all. I think the idea of those forms is that a candidate agrees to help fund the DNC for the general election, and that the DNC can enter into an agreement with multiple candidates. Under your interpretation, Bernie could theoretically exercise control over Hillary if SHE won as well.
---

http://www.npr.org/2017/11/03/561976645/clinton-campaign-had-additional-signed-agreement-with-dnc-in-2015?sc=tw

" 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."

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/11/03/politics/dnc-clinton-memorandum-of-understanding/index.html

"According to a copy obtained by CNN, the document does not give the Clinton campaign outright authority to make staffing decisions for the DNC, but it does give the Clinton campaign a say in who the DNC considers for positions like communications director and senior staff in communications and technology and research departments."

"Initially, Democrats believed that Brazile was referencing the joint fundraising agreements signed by both Clinton and Sanders campaigns in 2015.
But a senior Democrat with knowledge of the situation tells CNN that Brazile was referring to a separate agreement with the DNC that gave the campaign considerable control of the party.
The agreement outlined that Clinton campaign personnel "will be consulted and have joint authority over strategic decision over the staffing, budget, expenditures and general election related communications, data, technology, analytics and research. The DNC will provide HFA (Hillary for America) advance opportunity to review online or mass email, communications that features a particular Democratic primary candidate."

essentially, the part about the general are true..but hillary had a seperate agreement that allowed her to have oversight of the DNCs appointments and hiring in the primary

regardless, the most troublesome part was her money laundering to her campaign.
---

https://twitter.com/WalkerBragman/status/926621400512782336
https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2017/11/the-rigged-primary-did-cost-bernie-sanders-votes-w.html
---

Through Brazile's piece, we can infer answers to some of the biggest questions from the primarylike why superdelegates and party leaders lined up behind Clinton so quickly

...Really? That was a big mystery?
---

Okay, your concerns make more sense given that new context. Still, I'm looking at it from the following perspective:

Under previous leadership, throughout the Obama administration, the DNC's incompetence put them WILDLY in debt. Hillary, being a prolific fundraiser, offered to help bail them out, as regardless of the primary outcome, she would be doing her damnedest to help out the DNC and democratic candidates. Given that she's coming in to a sinking ship to try and repair the damage, I can understand wanting to exercise a LITTLE control over them to make sure the DNC isn't frittering away her donation.

Additionally, there's nothing to say that Bernie (or O'Malley, Webb and Chafee) wasn't given the same opportunity, but chose not to. This is all speculative on my part, I admit.

As for your two most recent links, the first doesn't mean much of anything. It could mean during the primaries, it could mean solely during the general election. For all we know, it could mean "after Hillary mathematically won the nomination but before the Democratic Convention".

The other link doesn't really offer anything new that we haven't already discussed, but it does trouble me. Just based on the title, it says "Rigged Primary" and "DID Cost Bernie Votes" without doing much of a job at all (good or bad) of explaining the rigging or explaining cost votes, other than accusing the DNC of squashing Bernie's media coverage. Meanwhile, it spends a large chunk of its page quoting tweets from Hillary supporters specifically designed to make them look combative and inspire a division between the Hillary and Bernie factions.
---

Also, I'd like to point out from this morning, since she started all of this:

https://twitter.com/donnabrazile/status/926481086544273408
---

I don't think it was "rigged" either. It was influenced in an unfair manner. And while I think that is a problem, the larger problem is the DNC is run like garbage, broke, and losing seats on all levels of government while consistently trying to stop/stave off the influence of the Berniecrats, which is where all the excitement is. It refuses to change, and it is supposed to be the party of change. It is behaving extremely conservatively, constantly attempting as a strategy to convince GOP voters to change sides by acting more like them, which will never win them over, instead of exciting IND/nonvoters.

And let me just say that way more of the blame for the DNCs woes lie with Obama/DWS than anyone else.
---

I don't see it this way at all. I think the DNC is just generally mismanaged and running around like a chicken with its head cut off after getting utterly fucked by the Republicans over the past 8 years. But I think they're definitely allowing Berniecrats to become the face of the party. Hence why Elizabeth Warren and Bernie are such prominent voices now.
---

StealThisSheen posted...

Through Brazile's piece, we can infer answers to some of the biggest questions from the primarylike why superdelegates and party leaders lined up behind Clinton so quickly

...Really? That was a big mystery?

It's not like they didn't do that much 8 years prior, either.
---

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/sanders-campaign-document-reveals-fundraising-relationship-dnc/
---

velocycloraptor posted...

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/sanders-campaign-document-reveals-fundraising-relationship-dnc/

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/sanders-campaign-document-reveals-fundraising-relationship-dnc/story?id=50926505

Your link didn't work. But yeah, I'll admit I was wrong. I still think the situation is a lot more complicated than "Bernie got screwed, Hillary was corrupt", given the DNC's awful financial state pre-Clinton cash influx, but just from an optics perspective, the DNC needs to stop doing shit that even has the APPEARANCE of malfeasance.

Now, I personally don't agree with just burning the platform down and letting progressives take over, because I think that's unfair to the people who legitimately liked Hillary and her ideas for moving the country forward. BUT, there are some basic steps that can be taken to at least fix the perception of corruption. Getting rid of super-delegates is the biggest one. I GET the purpose they serve (and if the RNC had them, maybe they wouldn't have allowed an incompetent former Democrat to win their party's nomination), but they're really not helping that much. Plus it makes Dems look hypocritical when they bitch about the electoral college subverting "one person, one vote".
---

Ah sorry about the link, I am bad at phones.
---