Elizabeth Warren Says 2016 Democratic Nomination Rigged For Hillary Clinton
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said “yes,” she believes the 2016 Democratic nomination for president was rigged in favor of Hillary Clinton , and that the party faces “a real problem” in dealing with the fallout from the revelation that Clinton’s campaign secretly took over control of the Democratic National Committee in 2015.
Responding to the disclosure by Donna Brazile, who became interim chairwoman of the DNC as last year’s election approached, Warren told CNN’s Jake Tapper on Thursday that Democratic leaders must restore faith in the party’s operations.
Tags
Who is online
88 visitors
“What we’ve got to do as Democrats now is hold this party accountable,” Warren said, adding that the current DNC chairman, former Labor Department Secretary Tom Perez is “being tested.”
She said that when Perez won the party post early this year, “the very first conversation I had with him [was] to say, you have got to put together a Democratic Party in which everybody can have confidence that the party is working for Democrats, rather than Democrats are working for the party.”
Brazile wrote in her new book , Hacks: The Inside Story of the Break-ins and Breakdowns that Put Donald Trump in the White House , that shortly after she took the DNC job in late July 2016, she discovered the Clinton campaign had signed an agreement to help keep the DNC financially alfoat, a deal in “which [Clinton] expected to wield control of its operations.”
The agreement between the DNC and the Clinton camp was signed in August 2015, several months before the primary season began and almost a full year before she officially secured the nomination over Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders (I).
Yeah....from an article in Vox.com by Jeff Stein:
"Donna Brazile, a longtime Clinton ally who stepped in as DNC chair last year in the wake of Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s resignation, published an excerpt of her upcoming book in Politico in which she disclosed the details of a fundraising agreement between the DNC and the Clinton campaign reached in August 2015.
“The agreement — signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and [Clinton campaign manager] Robby Mook with a copy to [Clinton campaign counsel] 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,” Brazile wrote in the story under the headline “Inside Hillary Clinton’s SecretTakeover of the DNC.” Brazile added of the deal:
“[Clinton’s] 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.”
So Hillary bought the DNC but kept it secret (her MO). Then the DNC collected money from Bernie supporters, claiming it was neutral, while Hillary used the organization to basically rig the primary in her favor. Hillary proves, once again, that she is a lying sack of shit.
Question?
Would you have voted for Bernie in the primaries? And if so, would you have voted for Sanders in the Presidential election if he had won the nomination?
I’m an independent and can’t vote in the democratic primary. If I could vote, I would not vote for any democrat in the primary or general election who supports gender bending and open borders. So, no, I wouldn’t vote for Bernie. And I certainly would never vote for a scoundrel like Hillary. No, I didn’t vote for Trump . . . he’s a dope. And, no, I don’t care that not voting for a scoundrel like Hillary is a vote for dope like Trump.
Then why should any of this matter to you? Sounds like you don't have a dog in this fight and that you're only here as a way of Clinton bashing!
Really? Care to answer who you voted for seeing as though you claim to be an independent?
This isn’t a dog fight but rather a contest to see who should lead the nation. I don’t want to be led by a scoundrel or a dope. If those two are the best that our political parties can produce, then both parties should be abolished.
I wrote in Comey’s name because I admired his ethics.
Naw, Clinton didn't buy the DNC. What you just witnessed was a classic "Grand old Gals" moment as opposed to the "Good old Boys" that we normally see. The women of the DNC decided that it was time for a woman President and they only had one and that was Clinton, and it was her turn. Decision made. Case closed, or so they thought.
Most of us already relied that during the primaries so I hope thinks it's a big shock.
Realized, not relied. Gotta check-up on the spellchecker sometimes.
For a fact and what a "piece" they chose.
It's just plain old fashioned lying, an art at which women have always been at least the equal of men.
The irony is that Hillary accused Putin of winning his election in 2011 by rigging it and the Russians exposed her trying to rig the primary in 2016. It didn’t really cost Hillary the election because the MSM drowned the story out with nonstop allegations from any woman in the last century who would publicly claim that Trump grabbed her privates. Although establishment democrats ignored Hillary’s skullduggery, many of the Bernie supporters were furious and stormed out of the party. Those supporters may be lost forever to third party candidates. Anyway, I’m glad Hillary was exposed as a rat and I dont care who did it or why.
These Democrats remind of the Hollywood Elites. Once they see the top dog fall, they all want to pile on to get their moments of fame. What happened to 2015 and 2016 Elizabeth? Why didn't you come clean at that time? Don't try and tell us you are just now coming to realize what went on at that time. Geezzzzzzz, these people must think we're complete idiots. Evidently they are correct to some extent.
Why don't you come clean and admit Hillary had control of the money and the budget for the DNC, so she permitted spending the money to collude with the Russians and signed the check. No one else had that authority.
At least the MSM is paying attention to the story of Hillary rigging the primary, even if it’s a year late. She probably colluded with the Ukrainians but what did you find about colluding with the Russians?
Why do you think Fusion GPS finally volunteered to reveal who paid them? Because otherwise they would have to give up their bank account information, which I'm sure if 10% of the investigation was aimed at anyone connected to Hillary they would find Fusion GPS bank account would have Russian fingerprints all over it.
Speculation, but speculation about the rigged primary proved to be true after all these months, although it was true back then. Does anyone think the MSM didn't know it at the time it was happening? Give me a break. CNN said they did all they could to help Hillary and all the MSM did all they could to help Hillary. They are the enemy of the American people. They didn't notice this primary rigging publicly today because they wanted to do the right thing. They were forced into doing it.
To a very large extent. Just look at the sleazy morons we elect to office!
To me, we have two foreign powers meddling in our election to achieve opposing goals: Russia and Ukraine. Putin had the chance to expose Hillary as the primary-rigging rat that she is in retaliation for her saying that he won by rigging the election. I think he did it simply to embarrass her. Hillary as president would mean that sanctions against Russia would continue so he really had noting to lose by exposing Hillary. Nobody thought it would result in the election of Trump and that’s not the reason Trump won.
Ukraine has an interest in maintaining American sanctions against Russia. They thought Trump would buckle on sanctions and hit a reset button with Russia like Obama did when he came into office. I thought the Hillary campaign and DNC were colluding with Ukraine and said so a year ago in a conversation with amac.
That these two countries are using our election as a proxy war isn’t surprising since we meddle in everybody else’s affairs to the point of toppling governments indirectly or directly (including outright invasion). Trump had no reason to collude with Putin because, in my opinion, he never thought he was going to win. The investigation can turn up conversations between the Trump team and the Russians but talking to the Russians is not illegal nor is it unusual. All collusion may involve conversation but all conversation is not collusion and, if it is, then the Hillary team (or their surrogates) may have colluded with Ukraine.
At least the MSM has finally started probing the Hillary scandal with the DNC so maybe the investigation will turn to the Ukraine connection. It would be even more ironic if the democrats ended up frying themselves by starting an investigation to fry Trump.
That would possibly be valid if we were talking about office politics between two idiots, but in case you didn't notice the latest news, after the election the Russians, according to Vice President of Facebook, said the object changed from hurting Hillary to hurting Trump.
It would make more sense to work against Hillary at first than Trump because with the overwhelming MSM support of Hillary during the election, if she had won, the MSM would never expose the collusion between Hillary and Putin, not directly, through the hired help, so to speak.
Obama knew about all of this long before the election and didn't do anything about it and didn't let Americans in on it because he thought, even with the hacking and all the other things that were going o,n Hillary would still win. Only after it because doubtful she would and especially after she didn't did Obama and his minions go about all the unmasking and other illegal activity to try to keep Trump from taking office.
It's the same with the Democrat rigged Primary. You can't convince me the MSM didn't know it was true when so many were saying it was rigged. They ignored it and kept on promoting Hillary over Bernie with overwhelming evidence Bernie was doing much better than Hillary on the campaign trail, just like Trump was doing much better than Hillary on the campaign trail. Trump won almost all the counties in this country and visited many more than Hillary. Basically, Trump like Mike Brown of Massachusetts worked his tail off while Hillary sat back and expected, since she was being told she had it in the bag, would win in a landslide.
So it's not nonsense at all if you understand what has gone on. 1ofmany's comment above is very good as well.
There's a lot of truth in that Krishna on both sides.
You would think that Putin would have wanted Hillary to win, because she had proven, over the years, to being an incredibly stupid, malleable and easily led fool who would concede to his wishes and desires. He knew ahead of time that Trump would have given him a rougher time.
Putin would never want Hillary as president because she wouldn’t lift sanctions. Trump was a better option because he had already signaled his willingness to consider a reset. Ukraine, however, was pro-Hillary precisely because they knew she was anti-Putin and would likely maintain a hard line against Russia.
What a joke.
from inside the article:
Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, had not been the most active chair in fundraising her neglect had left the party in significant debt. As Hillary’s campaign gained momentum, the Clintons resolved the party’s debt.
Debbie was not a good manager. She hadn’t been very interested in controlling the party—she let Clinton’s headquarters in Brooklyn do as it desired.
.........................................................................
I find this funny, the DNC took Clinton’s money and then bitched the Clintons wanted some control of what that money was spent on.
LOL …Cry me a river.
Don't want to be beholden... Don't take someone’s money. …. No problem.
If you leave out the word "some", you'll be correct. The Clintons ran the DNC. They approved the budget, since the DNC was left practically bankrupt from Obama's neglect and Hillary basically became the DNC and approved all checks that were paid out. The dossier wasn't paid by the DNC unless you consider Hillary was the DNC.
Hey Six!!!
I guess "Crooked Hillary" lived up to her name......but we knew she was a crook long ago......
Umm.......newsflash to all you Trumpeteers thinking that this is a gotcha moment for the Democrats......most of us Bernie supporters thought that already! Bernie was an underdog trying to fight an uphill battle where Clinton already had one foot in the door!.....This aint new!
I wonder how many Bernie Supporters still voted for HRC.....
Just like the Ron Paul Supporters didn't vote for Mittsey, I doubt many voted for Hillary.....
When you know your candidate was bent over, not much left to support...
I have my doubts about that.....I remember reading a poll dating the end of Oct...first of November stating over 60% of Sanders voters voted or planned to vote for HRC......and that over 90% of them had already voted.......
Can't find the link right now....but I will look some more...
Found it...but for some reason.....I can't post it......it's from the Chicago Tribune....dated Nov. 3, 2016....
The more important question is who didn't vote for Clinton.....and to answer your question I voted for her in the Presidential election but was a Sanders supporter
Looks like Hillary needs to come clean and write a sequel to her book "What Happened"......and call it "What Really Happened"....
Hillary should call her book “I Stink”.
And now there's this:
"JOIN US" - New Tom Steyer TV Ad To Impeach Trump
(LINK)
Warren may not be honest about her heritage but at least she's honest about this.
Yeah now, why not then? Of course she knew the fix was in for Hillary, that's why she opted out of the presidential race. Warren comes out now proclaiming that the dnc is corrupt just to make herself seem clean and virtuous. Typical politician.
Way to get out in front of this Senator, LOL.
It's just plain old fashioned lying, an art at which women have always been at least the equal of men.