Warren, Brazile cofirm DNC rigged for Hillary

[Vlad]

DemocRATS.

Does this not warrant a criminal investigation?
Where has the resident attorney Fred been?

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/warren-agrees-dnc-was-rigged-in-clintons-favor/ar-AAunArH?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=UE13DHP

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774

[Nebuchadnezzar]

The DNC made their own rules and nothing criminal was done.

What I do find interesting though is that the DNC should be off the hook for their part in that dossier thing since Hillary was more or less running the show. The author of the book protected the brand and has left Hillary holding the bag.

[6andcounting]

WTF is going to happen or be revealed in the next 72 hours that those two have already begun making Hilary the scapegoat?

[Stewy]

(11-03-2017, 05:02 AM)6andcounting Wrote: WTF is going to happen or be revealed in the next 72 hours that those two have already begun making Hilary the scapegoat?

Who cares?  The more politicians makes asses of themselves, the closer we get to citizens waking up and maybe MAYBE electing public servants instead of politicians.

[SunsetBengal]

..

[Belsnickel]

http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-Brazile-Clinton-funded-ran-DNC-months-before-primary

[Devils Advocate]

Hilary already told everyone this some time before the primaries, when she let everyone know she already had the nomination locked up.

[StLucieBengal]

How shocking..... corruption inside the democrat party.

And even more shocking .... involving a Clinton. Lol

[Goalpost]

Not surprising. As soon as DWS was canned at the convention, Hillary was right there to hire her.

[StLucieBengal]

And yet leftists actually believe the democrats will win in 2018 and 2020.

[JustWinBaby]

There's another interesting tidbit here that's not getting much attention: Obama left the DNC flat broke and in debt.

Why? It's not like he wasn't out there fundraising, it's just that apparently he was doing it for his own foundation and not the DNC!

[StLucieBengal]

(11-03-2017, 05:35 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: There's another interesting tidbit here that's not getting much attention: Obama left the DNC flat broke and in debt.

Why? It's not like he wasn't out there fundraising, it's just that apparently he was doing it for his own foundation and not the DNC!

They are following the Clinton road. Soon his foundation will be up on charges

[JustWinBaby]

(11-03-2017, 07:53 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: They are following the Clinton road.   Soon his foundation will be up on charges

Well, the Clintons have been teflon, so probably not.

But I remember reading that Obama took the unusual [unprecedented?] step of not rolling his 2012 campaign, particularly his outreach database and analytics [project Narwhal], into the DNC.  I'm not sure to what degree he aided or supported the Hillary campaign efforts in that regard, but it would appear to have been very little given Hillary's obviously failures in several areas of voter outreach.

The tinfoil-hat crowd believes this is because Obama wants to be a sort of king-maker, continuing to pull strings behind the scene and pick the winners and losers in the Democratic party.  You could take this a step further to say, with the Dems in disarray and Hillary persona-non-grata, Obama has the opportunity to re-shape and re-build the Democratic party that HE wants.

On the other hand, none of this makes much sense despite whatever issues there were between the Obamas and Clintons.  Why would Obama risk his legacy by not doing everything he could to help Hillary win? But it doesn't look like he helped her much, does it?

edit: it seems Obama DID turn over his email list of donors to the DNC, but not until 2015. Also, he has no legal affiliation any more with OFA (but that's probably trivial).

[Nebuchadnezzar]

(11-03-2017, 08:03 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Well, the Clintons have been teflon, so probably not.

But I remember reading that Obama took the unusual [unprecedented?] step of not rolling his 2012 campaign, particularly his outreach database and analytics [project Narwhal], into the DNC.  I'm not sure to what degree he aided or supported the Hillary campaign efforts in that regard, but it would appear to have been very little given Hillary's obviously failures in several areas of voter outreach.

The tinfoil-hat crowd believes this is because Obama wants to be a sort of king-maker, continuing to pull strings behind the scene and pick the winners and losers in the Democratic party.  You could take this a step further to say, with the Dems in disarray and Hillary persona-non-grata, Obama has the opportunity to re-shape and re-build the Democratic party that HE wants.

On the other hand, none of this makes much sense despite whatever issues there were between the Obamas and Clintons.  Why would Obama risk his legacy by not doing everything he could to help Hillary win?  But it doesn't look like he helped her much, does it?

edit: it seems Obama DID turn over his email list of donors to the DNC, but not until 2015.  Also, he has no legal affiliation any more with OFA (but that's probably trivial).

I actually think Obama is/was being childish, more or less saying "I'm taking my ball and going home" since Democrats are skeptical about moving further left than the Obamas, Sanders and Warrens want. That why the Democrats were in the bag for Hillary.

Now Democrats have to move further left, go all in for whatever candidate is nominated in the hopes that they can beat Trump in 2020. Only problem is that the further left they go, the more it freaks people out.

What I think the Democrats will do after the 2018 Mid Terms is go full on whack-o left, lose big time to the whack-o Trump and say, "SEE?!!!" then get back to business and nominate someone that can get elected in 2024. Stay left of center or revert back to the JFK's or the LBJ's without the racism and destroy the far right whack-o's the Republicans will field.

The pendulum will swing back and forth for about 50 years and then we'll be invaded by Norway, defeated and America will be no more.

[GMDino]

I'm going to leave this here.  Maybe someone can check the site and see how accurate the numbers are and how misleading the book might be.










https://www.opensecrets.org/jfc/summary.php?id=C00586537

[JustWinBaby]

^^^^So the left is now calling out the left for fake news?

Glorious

[GMDino]

(11-03-2017, 10:08 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: ^^^^So the left is now calling out the left for fake news?

Glorious

Or they are willing to correct bad information.

Like I said...someone can check the numbers and the deal.  If the above is correct than the book is a load of rubbish.  If it isn't than there should be a determination of a crime or not.

Luckily the right will try and limit this to sound bits and one sentence descriptions to keep it dumbed down.

[StLucieBengal]

(11-03-2017, 10:08 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: ^^^^So the left is now calling out the left for fake news?

Glorious

Trump has their head spinning lol. So funny

[BmorePat87]

Whoa, a political party worked more with an established member rather than an independent who refused to be a part of their party's agreed upon vision?

And more members picked that person?

[Vlad]

First, federal law sets strict limits on campaign contributions. Financial records must now be subpoenaed to determine whether these laws were broken. Given Clinton’s past record of shady transactions such as the Whitewater land deal and her sale of cattle futures, there is a strong chance that a document trail will lead investigators to multiple violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act.

Second, if Brazile’s account of Clinton’s artifice is true, it is likely that campaign finance reporting laws were broken under the same Act. Hiding campaign money through false or misleading campaign reports is illegal. In egregious cases it is a crime, not just a civil penalty.

Finally, the funneling of campaign funds from one source to another smacks of money laundering. Any transaction that seeks to conceal or disguise proceeds of illegal activity constitutes money laundering. So, if it can be shown that Clinton violated campaign contribution limits or reporting requirements, then the channeling of the proceeds from one source to another would be the “laundering” of it.

Clinton and her campaign are already suspected of playing a pivotal role in violating federal law by paying a substantial amount of money to a British spy and Russian government sources in order to obtain the infamous and discredited Trump “dossier”. Talking to a Russian in a campaign is not a crime, but paying money to one as part of a political campaign is a crime.

There is also evidence Clinton used her public office to confer a benefit to the Russian government in exchange for millions of dollars in donations to her foundation and cash to her husband. If the Clintons were enriched at the very time Hillary presided over a governing body which unanimously approved the sale of one-fifth of America’s uranium supply to Russia, it would amount to a violation of seven criminal statutes, including racketeering.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/...-criminal.html