Hillary Clinton Robbed Bernie Sanders Of The Democratic Nomination, According to Donna Brazile

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: MotherMayEye

I'm in the office and don't have time for research ATM ... how does that time-frame agree with her announcement of candidacy for 2016?

She had already announced.

But, it's preposterous that Brazile says she didn't know about this deal. Politico reported on it back in September 2015. It's like she threw DWS under the bus and I am not sure why she would do that.

Brazile is not the sharpest pencil in the box at best. I look forward to the facts coming out ... I have a suspicion that Ms. Brazile herself is creating a bit of a smoke-screen for some reason.

again thank you for proving my point.

Donna Brazile, who is in a much better position than you when it comes to how the DNC works, says it was rigged and you once again ignore the evidence and then demand proof.

Give it up.. the party you are defending did this to itself. Stop making excuses for Clinton and cronies illegal and unethical behavior.

a reply to: butcherguy

From what I have read, he was cheated of campaign funding that was due him during the primaries. There also many questions about whether he was cheated of votes in a number of states, including Nevada, IIRC.

I had read somewhere how this was pulled off ...something to do with adding a "s" to some thing like act blue [s] .. not sure its mentioned in this interview

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Xcathdra

The DNC itself admitted they rigged the primaries and had every right to do so.

The DNC did this blatantly in front of everyone then pretended it was a fair process. That is what kept the bernie voters home. Had he lost fairly hillary may have had a chance.

Do you have evidence of election or voter fraud in any Democratic Primary or Caucus in 2016? Or not?

yes and I linked you to the article about the lawsuit where the DNC argued in federal court they could rig the primaries, they did in fact rig the primaries and the courts cant do anything about it.

Yet another example of you demanding proof then ignoring it only to demand it again.

originally posted by: ausername

originally posted by: AlaskanDad

originally posted by: Annee


Bernie is the gift that keeps on giving to the Republican Power.

All he does is divide the Dems even more.

Bernie was the nominee that could have delivered millions of independent votes that the dems needed. Hilley your preferred candidate was a corporate politician that scared away the independents.

Keep polishing that Hillary turd all you want, in the end it's still a turd that lost to Trump!

She didn't lose to Trump, she lost to the Russians dude, get with the program here.

We need to learn more from the Russians for future elections, Clinton campaign spent like $1.2 BILLION and the Russians defeated her on Facebook etc for something like $100 grand or less.

Impressive efficiency.

Russians had very little to do with Hillary losing the election. It was her shady primary tactics that caused many progressives to either not vote or vote for Jill Stein. Trump on the other hand, won his primary fair and square and did a lot to unify the right and get them excited to vote. No body likes Hillary, that's why she lost. Russians had nothing to do with it.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: AlaskanDad

Then he should have run as an Independent.

That would have done the dems no good at all!!!!

As an independent all he could have done is take votes away from the Dems, as a democrat he could have strengthened the party by bringing the independents votes to the dems!

a reply to: interupt42

Has it really got to the point that people can't see such blatant corruption for what it is? That they can't see that their shared interests in the long run are much better served by joining together to seek solutions and pressing for change?

Jeez.. even the #show that is Syria, those factions managed a temporary ceasefire on occasion when they recognised that it was mutually beneficial..

Maybe folks could try that; temporarily suspend hostilities to take down the corrupt disgusting pieces of crap that are ruining your country and then, once that's done, they could always get back to the bickering later...

originally posted by: Steak
Could this be the end for the DNC?

No , not even close.

The end will not come to the DNC until the GOP goes down with them. They are one in the same but with opposing rhetoric. The GOP and DNC have only one purpose and that is to let the people think they have a voice while the lobbyist rob us blind.

Funny things that occur during a GOP or DNC controlled gov;'t

1. Govt keeps getting bigger

2. Lobbyist always on the winning side.

3. Personal privacy and consumer rights diminish

4. Taxes continue at same levels with no significant decreases.

5. Healthcare continues to be broken for the people but working for the lobbyiest such as the republicans letting the Obamcare abomination to continue.

6. The .01% keeps getting richer while everyone else keeps working more for less.

7. Global conflicts continues

8. Personal debts continues to incline.

9. etc.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: MotherMayEye

I'm in the office and don't have time for research ATM ... how does that time-frame agree with her announcement of candidacy for 2016?

She had already announced.

But, it's preposterous that Brazile says she didn't know about this deal. Politico reported on it back in September 2015. It's like she threw DWS under the bus and I am not sure why she would do that.

Brazile is not the sharpest pencil in the box at best. I look forward to the facts coming out ... I have a suspicion that Ms. Brazile herself is creating a bit of a smoke-screen for some reason.

You know I have some liberal views and I'm not a Trump fan, but Brazile is spot on here and telling the truth. The DNC lawsuit pretty much sums it up like this too. All of that is on the internet. The email links confirm this as well. Three strikes and your out.

Hillary lost because of the shady primary tactics. People saw through it and either didn't vote or voted for Jill Stein or another third party candidate.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Xcathdra

The DNC itself admitted they rigged the primaries and had every right to do so.

The DNC did this blatantly in front of everyone then pretended it was a fair process. That is what kept the bernie voters home. Had he lost fairly hillary may have had a chance.

Do you have evidence of election or voter fraud in any Democratic Primary or Caucus in 2016? Or not?

yes and I linked you to the article about the lawsuit where the DNC argued in federal court they could rig the primaries, they did in fact rig the primaries and the courts cant do anything about it.

Yet another example of you demanding proof then ignoring it only to demand it again.

Why have a primary at all? It's to dupe members of their own party. I'm not sure why people would actively defend this.

Already posted hours ago

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Guess I should have went with a more catchy title instead of the title on Politico.

Oh well.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Xtrozero

That is untrue.

Clinton won the vote in the Primaries and Caucuses by 54%.

Yup, and Putin won his last election by 64% and Raul Castro won by 98%

Very impressive,

a reply to: Wide-Eyes

But he was compensated, and didnt say a word since, so yeah it was fair to him, maybe not for the voters and the convention that were insulted and kicked out

a reply to: Indrasweb

Has it really got to the point that people can't see such blatant corruption for what it is?

Absolutely it has, just look around here and on the MSM.

People are to busy blaming the 'other' party and concentrating on the issues of the 'other' party instead of holding their own party accountable.

The crazy thing is that a democrats can never influence the GOP and vice versa , they can only influence their own party. Hence the cycle continues and keeps getting worse.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I agree with that.

This story she wrote about herself -- and how gosh-darn bad she felt telling Bernie -- just seems full of fluffy feel-goods and doesn't jibe with reality, IMO.

I have never been a fan.

originally posted by: Annee
Bernie had no business running as a Democrat. He's not a Democrat. He's never been a Democrat.

Why should Bernie get special treatment.

#votersmatter

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Xcathdra

It's election fraud, or a show election, duping the public into thinking it has a choice in the matter. This is pure corruption, something found only in dictatorial regimes.

Actually sounds like Clinton went for the Putin election model.

originally posted by: whywhynot

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Xtrozero

That is untrue.

Clinton won the vote in the Primaries and Caucuses by 54%.

Yup, and Putin won his last election by 64% and Raul Castro won by 98%

Very impressive,

Lil Kim got 100% in North Korea.

a reply to: Hazardous1408

Some states did not allow people to become registered Democrats in time for their primary elections.

That's one reason Sanders lost a few primaries.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Again thank you for proving my point. It is NOT an opinion piece and trying to dismiss inconvenient facts is pathetic.

7 Jaw-Dropping Revelations From Hearings on the Motion to Dismiss the DNC Fraud Lawsuithggh

Read the above. You will see the information addressed is linked to the court filings by the DNC as responses to the charges.

The key points -

1. The crux of the Motion to Dismiss asserts the Judge is not in a position to determine how the Democratic Party conducts its nominating process.

2. The Democratic Party views itself as having authority to favor a candidate without any legal repercussions.

3. Judge Zloch appeared skeptical, noting the Democrats’ interest to obscure the guarantee of the Party’s impartiality clause.

4. The Democrats insist that “impartial” cannot be defined, so the DNC’s impartiality clause is akin to a political promise in that it can not be guaranteed.

5. DNC’s legal counsel appeared unaware of any procedures in place to determine how the DNC supports state parties as they conduct individual primary nominating contests.

6. The Democrats’ lawyers take the position that while the Democrats are not legally obligated to conduct the primary fairly, they did, in fact, conduct the 2016 primary fairly.

7. In closing remarks, U.S. Federal Court district judge emphasized: “Democracy demands the truth”.

Each point above is addressed and like I said each section is linked with a copy of the brief the DNC lawyers filed. This is the DNC counter to the claims. The DNC fraud lawsuit was dismissed because the judge said he doesnt have jurisdiction. That is why it was appealed and why lawsuits were filed individually in each state.

With Brazile announcement it should go a long way for the federal appeals to the judges dismissal.

Now that you have been provided evidence several times your next step would be to READ and UNDERSTAND whats going on instead of lying about the facts in an effort to rationalize your support for a party that feels its beholden to no one.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Xcathdra
"The DNC official, Donna Brazile, now a political analyst, wrote in Politico Magazine on Thursday that she discovered an August 2015 agreement between the national committee and Clinton’s campaign and fundraising arm that gave Clinton “control (of) the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised” in exchange for taking care of the massive debt leftover from President Barack Obama’s 2012 campaign."

So that was August 2015. Interesting.

In September 2015, Politico ran a story on a deal that Obama made with the DNC to help take care of his 2012 campaign debt.

AND BTW....look where the bulk of the debt was owed:

The bulk of the Obama campaign's remaining debt — almost $1.7 million — is owed to Perkins Coie, the prominent law firm favored by Democratic presidential candidates. The campaign is still racking up the bills there, too. Obama for America paid back nearly $12,000 in debt in the second quarter, according to the campaign's Federal Election Commission report, but incurred nearly $194,000 in new bills.

Link


In a related thread: REPORT: Barack Obama Paid Nearly $1 Million To Firm That Created Fake Trump Dossier

Bingo !!