"A Shocking Truth": Donna Brazille Accuses Clinton Campaign Of "Rigging" Primary

[Optionpro007]

The Fox News opinion piece you used to make your argument for you does not cite any evidence to support its accusations.

Look at this statement from the opinion piece:

“With Clinton in control of the Democratic party’s staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, mailings and money, she was able to overcome the serious primary challenge by Sanders in securing the nomination. The DNC, which was supposed to remain neutral, had been neutered by Clinton. It devolved into nothing more than a willing accessory to a devious scheme for Clinton’s campaign to get rich at the expense of Sanders.”

Where is the evidence to support any of the accusations in this statement?

The dnc did have some responsibilities in the elections one way was scheduling the debates, which I already have gone over, and another was to organize and run the caucuses in states during the primaries. Bernie Sanders won the vast majority of caucuses. Like I said Clinton was in this weird situation where she was funding the dnc to support her opponent because Sanders didn’t have the resources to help fund the organization he was reliant on.

Sanders also entered into the exact same agreement as Clinton but he didn’t hold up his end.

Also, I don’t recommend outsourcing your thinking to Fox News. You should try thinking for yourself.

Haha. Like our resident Tony, you just pick on one issue to accommodate or excuse your own liberal narrative. Very disingenuous, very similar to your stance on the Gillespie ad. As I stated, your opinion, my opinion, are irrelevant at this point. Let's see what time, justice, and law, say about your party's alleged criminal actions.

In the meantime, here is a joke for all of us to laugh. Hahahaha

"
During a press conference on Friday, House Minority Leader Representative Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) commented on Donna Brazile’s accusations against the DNC by stating she wants to “focus on what’s really important to our country.”

Pelosi said, “You know what, you haven’t heard me relitigate last year’s election. I wasn’t involved in the presidential. I’m only looking forward. this is about the future. I haven’t had time to be reading any of that anyway, but nonetheless, what I’ve seen on the little tape running across the screen. Let’s focus on what’s really important to our country.”

She added, “I have responsibility for what I have responsibility for. I don’t have any interest in what I don’t have responsibility for when it comes to other campaigns.”

 

[CaptainObvious]

Haha. Like our resident Tony, you just pick on one issue to accommodate or excuse your own liberal narrative. Very disingenuous, very similar to your stance on the Gillespie ad. As I stated, your opinion, my opinion, are irrelevant at this point. Let's see what time, justice, and law, say about your party's alleged criminal actions.

In the meantime, here is a joke for all of us to laugh. Hahahaha

"
During a press conference on Friday, House Minority Leader Representative Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) commented on Donna Brazile’s accusations against the DNC by stating she wants to “focus on what’s really important to our country.”

Pelosi said, “You know what, you haven’t heard me relitigate last year’s election. I wasn’t involved in the presidential. I’m only looking forward. this is about the future. I haven’t had time to be reading any of that anyway, but nonetheless, what I’ve seen on the little tape running across the screen. Let’s focus on what’s really important to our country.”

She added, “I have responsibility for what I have responsibility for. I don’t have any interest in what I don’t have responsibility for when it comes to other campaigns.”

Dems now desperate to change the narrative that proof of the real collusion happened in their party. Suddenly she's not interested in anyones campaign other than her own. Yeah, right.

 

[UsualName]

Haha. Like our resident Tony, you just pick on one issue to accommodate or excuse your own liberal narrative. Very disingenuous, very similar to your stance on the Gillespie ad. As I stated, your opinion, my opinion, are irrelevant at this point. Let's see what time, justice, and law, say about your party's alleged criminal actions.

In the meantime, here is a joke for all of us to laugh. Hahahaha

"
During a press conference on Friday, House Minority Leader Representative Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) commented on Donna Brazile’s accusations against the DNC by stating she wants to “focus on what’s really important to our country.”

Pelosi said, “You know what, you haven’t heard me relitigate last year’s election. I wasn’t involved in the presidential. I’m only looking forward. this is about the future. I haven’t had time to be reading any of that anyway, but nonetheless, what I’ve seen on the little tape running across the screen. Let’s focus on what’s really important to our country.”

She added, “I have responsibility for what I have responsibility for. I don’t have any interest in what I don’t have responsibility for when it comes to other campaigns.”

I agree with your statement, only so much as there is no evidence just allegations. If or when evidence arises I will be the first to say there was “rigging”.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

Dems now desperate to change the narrative that proof of the real collusion happened in their party. Suddenly she's not interested in anyones campaign other than her own. Yeah, right.

I notice a couple lib sites today doing a "fact check" on whether Donna Brazilnut actually said the election was "rigged." Of course they conclude that she did not.

But these sites cherry pick their fights, eh?

Why don't they do an analysis of whether Elizabeth Warren now thinks the dem election was rigged? After all, she is a powerhouse in dem party now and donna brazile is just someone who is sleazing around in the background trying to redeem her own reputation by unsuccessfully trying to separate herself from her losing buddies who are no longer in power.

Let's examine the Elizabeth Warren issue for a minute and fact check it. Perhaps one of the lefty sites can do a big multipage analysis of what the word "yes" means.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/02/politics/elizabeth-warren-dnc-rigged/index.html

 

[CaptainObvious]

I agree with your statement, only so much as there is no evidence just allegations. If or when evidence arises I will be the first to say there was “rigging”.

Then I'm sure you'll agree with all of these many allegations coming from top democrats themselves, that a Special Counsel is needed to get to the bottom of this, right?

 

[UsualName]

Then I'm sure you'll agree with all of these many allegations coming from top democrats themselves, that a Special Counsel is needed to get to the bottom of this, right?

Anyone can make an allegation. We see this all the time with Hillary Clinton, Benghazi, uranium, Russian collusion. It’s constant. For a legitimate justified special counsel headed investigation there has to be some kind of evidence or some precipitous event like when Trump fired Comey and it’s implication is of someone in power. Hillary Clinton isn’t in any power, unlike Trump. But, to be fair congress can just appoint a special counsel and it doesn’t need a justification.

However, I have no doubt this situation has been reviewed by the fbi from a campaign finance angle and is most likely not ongoing. I only say this because of Trump’s statements of frustration with the justice Department.

In terms of any shenanigans with the debate schedule, I don’t really know if that is a crime in itself, but there may be a way to connect it to misuse of campaign funds because the dnc is a private enterprise. There may be other issues we don’t even know about, too, that may develop as time goes on. Who saw Papadopoulos coming?

But, as things stand and what has been reported that we know about, a special counsel isn’t justified, imo. So, no, I don’t agree a special counsel is needed.

 

[CaptainObvious]

Anyone can make an allegation. We see this all the time with Hillary Clinton, Benghazi, uranium, Russian collusion. It’s constant. For a legitimate justified special counsel headed investigation there has to be some kind of evidence or some precipitous event like when Trump fired Comey and it’s implication is of someone in power. Hillary Clinton isn’t in any power, unlike Trump. But, to be fair congress can just appoint a special counsel and it doesn’t need a justification.

However, I have no doubt this situation has been reviewed by the fbi from a campaign finance angle and is most likely not ongoing. I only say this because of Trump’s statements of frustration with the justice Department.

In terms of any shenanigans with the debate schedule, I don’t really know if that is a crime in itself, but there may be a way to connect it to misuse of campaign funds because the dnc is a private enterprise. There may be other issues we don’t even know about, too, that may develop as time goes on. Who saw Papadopoulos coming?

But, as things stand and what has been reported that we know about, a special counsel isn’t justified, imo. So, no, I don’t agree a special counsel is needed.

I see. So simple allegations and wild eyed speculation from partisan opposition is plenty enough to turn the world upside down in the Trump case, but specific incidents brought to our attention by democrats themselves aren't enough to warrant an investigation of the Clinton campaign? Thank you again for providing us with a perfect example of the insanity that is demonstrated when dealing with a radical leftist.

 

[UsualName]

I see. So simple allegations and wild eyed speculation from partisan opposition is plenty enough to turn the world upside down in the Trump case, but specific incidents brought to our attention by democrats themselves aren't enough to warrant an investigation of the Clinton campaign? Thank you again for providing us with a perfect example of the insanity that is demonstrated when dealing with a radical leftist.

Well we don’t know there is a “Trump case”, there may be. The fbi was investigating Russian interference in the election until Trump fired Comey then the Justice Department appointed a special counsel to protect that investigation from Trump.

Congress passed and trump signed significant sanctions against Russia for the interference. So, no, Mueller’s Investigation is not for “simple allegations”, as you claim.

 

[ThunderThor]

She also played the race card (no surprise there,we knows dems are the true racist) and said the DemoRats treated her like a slave.

Another option is,she has no clue on how to run a campaign,she blew Dukakis and Gore campaigns using dirty tricks and playing the race card.

Anyway,turns out Donna is just another miserable and angry liberal,she hates everyone and blames others for her own shortcomings ..sound familiar?


Also this tidbit in article. "His Name Was Seth Rich"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...b75418-bf4c-11e7-97d9-bdab5a0ab381_story.html

Politics
Donna Brazile: I considered replacing Clinton with Biden as 2016 Democratic nominee

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

She also played the race card (no surprise there,we knows dems are the true racist) and said the DemoRats treated her like a slave.

Another option is,she has no clue on how to run a campaign,she blew Dukakis and Gore campaigns using dirty tricks and playing the race card.

Anyway,turns out Donna is just another miserable and angry liberal,she hates everyone and blames others for her own shortcomings ..sound familiar?


Also this tidbit in article. "His Name Was Seth Rich"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...b75418-bf4c-11e7-97d9-bdab5a0ab381_story.html

Politics
Donna Brazile: I considered replacing Clinton with Biden as 2016 Democratic nominee

Sounds like she is concerned about Arkancide.

As she should well be. Her life expectancy just went down.