We also learned from Brazile’s exposé that my hypothesis laid out in Part 2 of the DNC Fraud Lawsuit series was right on the money. Now we have specifics.
Long before the election, the law firm repping both the DNC and the Hillary Victory Fund, Perkins-Coie, developed a strategy to use state parties as conduits for fundraising to the Hillary campaign. A 3-page Joint Fundraising Agreement was drawn up that specified the Hillary Victory Fund would completely control communications, data, analytics and research at the DNC. They would have joint authority with DNC over strategic decisions over the staffing, budget, and expenditures.
The victory fund also demanded review of on-line or mass email, and all communications that feature “a particular Democratic primary candidate.” Further, “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.” With the first $1.2 million raised, HVF would have “complete and seamless access to all research work product and tools.”
After specifying the manner in which HVF would control the DNC, Clinton’s team included the laughably disingenuous paragraph, “Nothing in this agreement shall be construed to violate the DNC’s obligation of impartiality and neutrality through the Nominating process.”
Brazile’s effort to rehabilitate her brand has opened a can of worms that are now crawling through the corpse of what once was the Democratic party. This is entirely predictable from a political operative who has specialized in self-inflicted wounds for much of her career. She didn’t have to steal CNN’s questions for Hillary Clinton in the primary debates. Was Hillary so petrified of debating Bernie Sanders that she needed a heads-up on questions in order to prepare? The Clinton campaign says no, which makes one wonder if Brazile was simply trying to ingratiate herself.
No one knew about the debate rigging until November, months after Brazile took the helm following revelations that Debbie Wasserman Schultz colluded with the Clinton campaign to kneecap Bernie Sanders in the primary. In an article that hasn’t aged well, The Guardian said, “Donna Brazile is a smart choice for new DNC chair,” because “worst that could be said is that she’s expressed passing annoyance with the Sanders campaign.” They might want to update that.
Once caught passing questions to the Clinton campaign, Brazile further damaged her brand by dragging her feet for five months before apologizing. Displaying a complete lack of self-awareness, she compared Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly to a street criminal for reporting on leaked information regarding her own leaking of the debate questions. Brazile said: “Podesta’s emails were stolen. You’re so interested in talking about stolen material; you’re like a thief that wants to bring into the night the things that you found that [were] in the gutter.”
She’d later claim the Russians fabricated the Podesta emails to create the illusion that she was caping for Clinton. Through it all she maintained that she felt no guilt or shame: “My conscience — as an activist, a strategist — is very clear.” She came to Jesus and apologized only after launching this flotilla of narratives to excuse her behavior. “By stealing all the DNC’s emails and then selectively releasing those few, the Russians made it look like I was in the tank for Secretary Clinton,” Brazile wrote.
Right up until this week, as her book Hacks is being previewed, Brazile has parroted the party’s lies, and covered up its corruption.
In the notorious excerpt published in Politico, Brazile spins a tale of her truth-seeking journey to find out, for Bernie Sanders, if the primary had been rigged against him. According to the piece, she embarked on her mission in September 2016—four months after the primary.
Brazil suggests she was shocked—SHOCKED—to find out that the primary had been rigged from the beginning. She writes that the scheme was cooked-up by DNC and Clinton campaign’s consigliere, Marc Elias, with Perkins-Coie. As counsel for both the DNC and the Hillary Victory Fund, Elias and Perkins-Coie engineered a strategy that utilized relaxed, post-McCutcheon fundraising limits to divert funds to the campaign. McCutcheon was the Supreme Court decision that removed limits on bundled fundraising for states.
The scheme as designed by Perkins-Coie gathered donations for the DNC, the candidate, and all the states participating in their Joint Fundraising Agreement. States presumably participated under the assumption that the DNC would funnel money raised in their states back to the candidates running down ticket.
Instead, the money that went into state accounts and was sucked right back out, sometimes on the same day. Sanders even filed a complaint about this during the primary (see Part 2 of the DNC Fraud Lawsuit series for a complete discussion). All that big talk about Hillary Clinton being a better Democrat than Bernie Sanders was predicated on the notion that her fundraising was invested in state victory funds for down ballot races, but for the most part that didn’t happen.
How much fundraising are we talking about? Most reports cite the post-McCutcheon figure of $353,400, which reflects the amount one person can give in one year. But in practice, big donors give for both partners in a marriage. Now we’re talking about $706,800. But wait, there’s more. That’s just for one year. Clinton started fundraising in 2015. After the new year, many of her donors re-uppped for a grand total of $1,413,600. When you read that the limit for fundraising in the 2016 presidential cycle was $353,400 that’s wrong. It’s almost a million and a half.
That money bought a lot of influence flowed right through the DNC, which wanted no part of a candidate like Bernie Sanders, who threatened to rain on their parade.
Now that the cat is out of the bag, you’d think the DNC would do everything in its power to reform that system and repair trust with voters. And you’d be wrong. In response to the Brazile allegations, DNC Chair Tom Perez announced that joint fundraising agreements would NOT go away. In his statement responding to Brazile’s allegations, he unveiled a new and improved joint fundraising agreement, called the Democratic Grassroots Victory Fund. It’ll be grassroots-y, we’re to believe.
But there is a deeper issue. Notice that Brazile prefaced her entire chronicle on the fact that Obama and Debbie Wasserman Schultz both left the party in debt. And notice also that Perez isn’t running low on deposit slips for contributions to the party.
That is because it is to their benefit that the party remains in debt.
As long as the party is in debt, it’s vulnerable to a corporate takeover. Their only goal is to get money by any means necessary. In her apologia, Brazile singles out the Democrats’ most fertile fundraising ground at Martha’s Vineyard, saying that it was after her vacation there in September that the truth about the Joint Fundraising Agreements was made explicit. I’ll bet.
It stretches credulity to the limit that Brazile didn’t know about the fundraising agreements that sold out the DNC fully to the Clinton campaign when she worked in the DNC, as she was stealing debate questions for Hillary during the primary. How could she not have known that Clinton HQ in Brooklyn ran everything, especially data and money.
Brazile might hope to be seen as the new savior of the party, but her storytelling only raises more questions.
In her Politico piece she says, “Debbie was not a good manager…she let Clinton’s headquarters in Brooklyn do as it desired …” How far did this uncontrollable behavior go? What happened the night of the data breach? How did all those 200,000 voters mysteriously get purged in Brooklyn alone? How’d they know which voters to purge? Why did we never see angry Clinton voters complaining that their registrations were purged?
The entire DNC looks so dirty at this point that telling a few tales out of school just ain’t going to fix anything. Sure, Donna Brazile confirmed some things we all suspected. As the old saying goes: A broken clock is right twice a day.
But no one tells you the rest of the saying is “time for a new clock.”