Team Bernie Chimes In: "DNC Corruption Is Bigger Than One Primary"

Former interim DNC Chairwoman Donna Brazile confirmed what many widely suspected in an essay published in Politico today where she called out former DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for unfairly rigging the 2016 primary against Bernie Sanders.

In her expose, Brazile described how the Clinton campaign siphoned money from state party chapters, and asserted her control over the DNC by making it financially reliant on her fundraising abilities, even describing the campaign’s actions as “essentially money laundering.”

The agreement—signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook with a copy to 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. Her 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.

Brazile’s revelations have revived conversations about whether the party has an obligation to ensure a fair primary (one judge who dismissed a lawsuit against the DNC suggested the organization is actually under no obligation to do so, even confirming that it showed a “palpable bias” toward Clinton).

Offering their two cents on the issue, a group of former Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign staffers chimed in on the debate, claiming that “corruption has plagued” the DNC for years and that the problem stretches far beyond the 2016 campaign, according to the Washington Free Beacon.

Saikat Chakrabarti, who was director of organizing strategy for the Sanders campaign and now runs a group aiming to change the Democratic Party, said he wasn't surprised to hear the admission from Brazile.

 

"We all knew that the primary was rigged," Chakrabarti said on behalf of Justice Democrats, a group he founded. "But the corruption that plagues the Democratic Party is bigger than one primary—it's become a rot set at the very root of a party [that] claims to be for working people."

 

Chakrabarti added that the Democratic Party is currently "devoid of message, devoid of money, and devoid of a winning strategy."

 

"The people want a party that works for the people and wins," he said. "We are sick and tired of wasting money on helping a party that wastes it through incompetence and corrupt negligence."

 

Justice Democrats says it has seen an uptick in donations—$2,500 an hour—since Brazile's admission broke on Thursday morning. The group currently has a slate of candidates running for office in 2018, many of them challenging Democratic incumbents.

Of course, despite Brazile’s sanctimonious posturing and her claims that she was ignorant of the control Clinton exerted over the party before taking over as interim chair last summer (Tom Perez has since been named permanent chair), leaked DNC emails revealed that she played a role in tilting the primary in Clinton’s favor by leaking debate questions and town hall topics to her one-time political ally.

Recent polling shows Bernie Sanders is presently the most popular politician in the country, and he’s an independent candidate. That’s hardly a coincidence. We didn’t need Brazile to tell us how Clinton effectively ran the DNC - the public has widely believed this for years.

The question now is: Will anything change?
 

Comments

PT Mustafa Kemal Fri, 11/03/2017 - 05:33 Permalink

Has?  Had.  He would still have integrity if he never endorsed Clinton.  He was happy to lose to the cheat.  "Lesser of two evils" mentality, I guess.  Still, he made his decision.  People saw his decision. He took the risk.  Now he has to live with it.  Imagine how much stronger he would have looked now if he had walked away as soon as the rigging was exposed.  The chance he never took.

In reply to by Mustafa Kemal

Big Creek Rising thunderchief Fri, 11/03/2017 - 11:27 Permalink

True: he knew all about the financial rigging and supported the marked Beast after he lost. That is because he never wanted to win.IF he wanted to win Bernie would not have dismissed the email scandal at the outset;  rather, if Bernie really wanted to win he would have pummelled the Cunt with her history of corruption and started every stump speech with a demand that she come clean on her emails, home brew server, and lesbian proclivities. Being an otherwise nice man, he would also have broken it to her gently that her cabbage smell really was strong enough for people to notice.

In reply to by thunderchief

NoDebt Thu, 11/02/2017 - 22:17 Permalink

The next candidate the Ds put up for president will be a Sanders/Warren-type avowed socialist.  The Ds have nowhere else to go from here.  And they will do FAR better on that platform than anybody believes.  Mark my words.  This is the future of the Democrat party.  

Bryan NoDebt Thu, 11/02/2017 - 22:36 Permalink

Agreed.  Bernie would have beat Trump easily.  I don't really see much hope for the America we once knew any more.  The wheels are in motion and the leftists and libs will not stop trying for sure.  And the conservatives and libertarians don't have the guts to do what it takes to stomp them into the ground.  The default, easiest route to take is liberal of course, because it requires no action, just virtue signaling, symbolic ribbons, being the member of a victim group, etc.  There's nothing required as far as reason, logic or intelligence.  And hey, you get free stuff out of the deal; who can refuse?

In reply to by NoDebt

11b40 Bryan Fri, 11/03/2017 - 08:04 Permalink

Trump would have beaten Sanders worse than he beat Clinton, by a wide margin.  Bernie only has strength in the major cities and liberal strongholds.  For every youthful vote he got, there would have been 2 moderate Dems who either stayed homeon election day, or voted for Trump.  Traditional, more moderate Dems were already tired of Obama.  Bernie would have sent them into the arms of Republicans.

In reply to by Bryan

edotabin NoDebt Fri, 11/03/2017 - 01:30 Permalink

Yes, they will. 50% of young people like socialism. They have had the "fight" bred out of them. They are now malleable pushovers waiting to accept any handout the great .gov gives them.I know none of them are here to read this but i'll write it anyway: .gov sugarcoats everything but the pill in the center is so very bitter. I know from personal experience. I grew up with it, saw it and lived it. It's a complete catastrophe.

In reply to by NoDebt

Memedada edotabin Fri, 11/03/2017 - 03:10 Permalink

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Tabel - Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0cm;
mso-para-margin-right:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0cm;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
Who cares what ideology a US-pleb support? The US population (very apparent on this site) is totally clueless about ideologies. You might be right that 50% support socialism but close to 0% can define socialism (or communism, anarchism, libertarianism [both the real sort and the US-fake version], syndicalism, conservatism, capitalism, liberalism [both classic and social] etc.). For instance, in US “social liberalism” is equated with “communism” or “socialism”. The power and effectiveness of indoctrination is especially seen in the language (or lack hereof). Orwell was right: step one in totalitarian societies is to control language. That step was taken long ago in US and the results are apparent = a corporate controlled empty language of misnomers, self-contradicting terms, half-truths and full lies. It is impossible to discuss politics with a US-indoctrinated mind without first (re)defining all terms used (there’s not a shared language across the pond anymore).

In reply to by edotabin

Bopper09 Thu, 11/02/2017 - 22:19 Permalink

Corruption has plagued both parties for years, and the entire federal justice department, and numerous government agencies, leading with the CIA and FBI.  It's what Trump meant by draining the swamp, whether he's done much of that yet or not.  It's the idea that will have to carry through the '18 senate elections.

Nobodys Home Thu, 11/02/2017 - 22:25 Permalink

You're a fvcking socialist Bernie. That means basically that you're a communist. The millenials are all ready to embrace communism as that's what the indoctrinated professors profess. The New School. The Franklin School. Communist indoctrination of our children in public schools for decades and you, A Jewish American that went to Isreal and spent time in Kibbutzes still can't get enough votes. That's the 1 thing I thank Killery for. She would have sucked but you Bernie would have sucked MOAR! I'm not liking what I see of EVERY SOCIALIST COUNTRY! They suck! They are failing! It's not like we are not failing. We are! But not so bad as what you, Bernie, would have led us towards!