Image 01 Image 03

Donna Brazile Throws Hillary Campaign Under the Bus

Donna Brazile Throws Hillary Campaign Under the Bus

Democrat Party still hasn’t learned from Hillary’s campaign mistakes.

While everyone concentrates on the White House, the Democrat Party continues to dive deeper into a civil war.

Former interim DNC chairwoman Donna Brazile has taken aim at failed Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Democratic strategist Stanley Greenerg is “still fuming about Hillary Clinton,” especially since Democrat candidates are still using her failed tactics.

Donna Brazile

Let’s first look at Donna Brazile’s scathing article at Politico about Hillary’s campaign and the moves she made before she even became a candidate. She took over the DNC after leaks of emails showed officials working against Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) in the primary. This led then-Chairwoman Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (R-FL) to resign right before the DNC convention.

Rigging a primary

Brazile, after she was named acting chairwoman, promised Sanders that she “would get to the bottom of whether Hillary Clinton’s team had rigged the nomination process, as a cache of emails stolen by Russian hackers and posted online had suggested.”

From Politico:

The Saturday morning after the convention in July, I called Gary Gensler, the chief financial officer of Hillary’s campaign. He wasted no words. He told me the Democratic Party was broke and $2 million in debt.

“What?” I screamed. “I am an officer of the party and they’ve been telling us everything is fine and they were raising money with no problems.”

That wasn’t true, he said. Officials from Hillary’s campaign had taken a look at the DNC’s books. Obama left the party $24 million in debt—$15 million in bank debt and more than $8 million owed to vendors after the 2012 campaign and had been paying that off very slowly. Obama’s campaign was not scheduled to pay it off until 2016. Hillary for America (the campaign) and the Hillary Victory Fund (its joint fundraising vehicle with the DNC) had taken care of 80 percent of the remaining debt in 2016, about $10 million, and had placed the party on an allowance.

Gensler then said that the DNC needed a $2 million loan and that Hillary’s campaign controlled the DNC:

The campaign had the DNC on life support, giving it money every month to meet its basic expenses, while the campaign was using the party as a fund-raising clearing house. Under FEC law, an individual can contribute a maximum of $2,700 directly to a presidential campaign. But the limits are much higher for contributions to state parties and a party’s national committee.

Individuals who had maxed out their $2,700 contribution limit to the campaign could write an additional check for $353,400 to the Hillary Victory Fund—that figure represented $10,000 to each of the thirty-two states’ parties who were part of the Victory Fund agreement—$320,000—and $33,400 to the DNC. The money would be deposited in the states first, and transferred to the DNC shortly after that. Money in the battleground states usually stayed in that state, but all the other states funneled that money directly to the DNC, which quickly transferred the money to Brooklyn.

“Wait,” I said. “That victory fund was supposed to be for whoever was the nominee, and the state party races. You’re telling me that Hillary has been controlling it since before she got the nomination?”

Gary said the campaign had to do it or the party would collapse.

“That was the deal that Robby struck with Debbie,” he explained, referring to campaign manager Robby Mook. “It was to sustain the DNC. We sent the party nearly $20 million from September until the convention, and more to prepare for the election.”

He told Brazile that the burn rate was between $3.5 million to $4 million a month. Brazile couldn’t believe this since the DNC usually shrunk its staff between presidential elections, but Wasserman Schultz did not do this.

Then a Politico story debuted in May 2016 about a fundraising mission Hillary started in 2015 when she vowed to overhaul “the party from the ground up … when our state parties are strong, we win. That’s what will happen.” However, the states only “kept 1 percent of the $82 million they had amassed from the extravagant fund-raisers Hillary’s campaign was holding.” Politico described this as money laundering. People within the DNC and Hillary’s campaign ignored Brazile’s request for documents about this agreement, but she eventually found it:

When I got back from a vacation in Martha’s Vineyard I at last found the document that described it all: the Joint Fund-Raising Agreement between the DNC, the Hillary Victory Fund, and Hillary for America.

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.

When the party chooses the nominee, the custom is that the candidate’s team starts to exercise more control over the party. If the party has an incumbent candidate, as was the case with Clinton in 1996 or Obama in 2012, this kind of arrangement is seamless because the party already is under the control of the president. When you have an open contest without an incumbent and competitive primaries, the party comes under the candidate’s control only after the nominee is certain. When I was manager of Gore’s campaign in 2000, we started inserting our people into the DNC in June. This victory fund agreement, however, had been signed in August 2015, just four months after Hillary announced her candidacy and nearly a year before she officially had the nomination.

It’s interesting, though…Brazile admitted that they could not trust the polls that showed Hillary in the lead, which led her to push Bernie to do as much as he could to campaign for her.

Brazile had a hand in rigging the primary against Sanders

I find Brazile’s sob story funny, though. The Wikileaks dump showed an email from Brazile to Hillary’s campaign chairman John Podesta when she worked as a CNN political commentator that included a question from the upcoming CNN town hall during the primaries:

A followup dump showed that Brazile sent even MORE questions to Hillary’s campaign during the primaries.

In March, Fox News reported that Brazile confessed to her actions:

Former interim Democratic National Committee Chair Donna Brazile admitted Friday that she forwarded Democratic primary debate questions to members of Hillary Clinton’s campaign – something she had previously denied.

“[I]n October, a subsequent release of emails revealed that among the many things I did in my role as a Democratic operative and D.N.C. Vice Chair prior to assuming the interim D.N.C. Chair position was to share potential town hall topics with the Clinton campaign,” she wrote.

Plus, is anyone shocked Brazile is now speaking up? She knows Hillary is done and doesn’t have the power to ruin her.

Not Learning From Hillary

On Wednesday, The New Yorker published an article about the civil war within the Democratic Party because no one has learned the lessons from Hillary’s horrible campaign. Veteran Democratic strategist Stanley Greenberg, who helped Bill Clinton win the White House in the 1990s, lashed out at the Democrats to Susan B. Glasser:

“The Democratic Party today is divided over whether it wants to focus on the economy or identity,” Greenberg said when we talked. That is, as he pointed out, just what the Clinton campaign was fighting about a year ago. Greenberg and others who came out of the Bill Clinton era—like the former President himself—had never really let go of the economy-first mantra that got them to the White House in a different time, and they felt that there was a generational conflict with the Obama operatives who held sway over Hillary Clinton’s 2016 strategy. It was a fight that dogged the Clinton campaign all the way until its final days, when Greenberg and his allies inside the campaign pushed unsuccessfully to close with a focus on her plans for the economy.

Greenberg critiqued numerous speeches for Hillary and even pushed her to pay more attention “to the economic struggles of the white working class.” Campaign chairman John Podesta sought out Greenberg after campaign manager Robby Mook insisted the campaign needed to concentrate on persuading Obama voters to vote for Hillary instead of voters in the Rust Belt:

Clinton was guilty of “malpractice” in how she conducted her 2016 Presidential campaign, Greenberg told me. Even worse, he said, Democrats were repeating the same political mistakes a year later. “Look at Virginia right now,” Greenberg said, as soon as we sat down in his second-floor office. “We have a candidate”—Ralph Northam, the Democratic gubernatorial nominee—“running as Hillary Clinton. He is running on the same kind of issues, and has the same kind of view of the world. It’s the Republicans who talk about the economy, not the Democrats.” This was the approach that doomed Clinton against Trump. The electorate was angry in 2016 and remains angry now, Greenberg said, and Northam, a Norfolk doctor, didn’t get it. Neither did Clinton and the team of Obama veterans who staffed her Brooklyn headquarters. “If you live in the metro areas with the élites, you don’t wake up angry about what’s happening in people’s lives,” Greenberg said.

Jake Sullivan, Hillary’s top policy advisor, told The New Yorker that the campaign knew it had a “huge working-class, non-college white issue.” The campaign couldn’t agree on how to tackle it: “How do you add up to victory? Do you attack it head-on or by compensating elsewhere?”

Well, I’m no campaign expert, but something tells me that when you ignore a HUGE portion of the voter bloc, you won’t win. But it seems the Democrats still don’t know how to address the issue.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


The Obama/Hellary front has done more damage to the Deemocrat party than any conservative could ever dream of doing.

Allllllll good from a partisan view. Simply awful from a American civics POV.

    regulus arcturus in reply to Ragspierre. | November 2, 2017 at 11:03 am

    You forgot irreparable damage to the legal system and multiple government agencies as well.

    Allowing such criminality to go unpunished signals the end of rule of law, and beginning of arbitrary rule of man, and unaccountable administrative state.

      Well, I didn’t “forget” it, because I don’t see it as “irreparable harm”.

      Historically, we’ve had waves of political corruption and lawlessness in high places. They didn’t prove “irreparable”. I have hopes we can recover. Perhaps you don’t.

      But, yeah, I didn’t intend to write a tome. I was just making an observation about the sorry state of our body politic.

        regulus arcturus in reply to Ragspierre. | November 2, 2017 at 11:24 am

        I do not believe we will recover from this; perhaps my sense of history is better than yours.

        The amount of damage done not only by Brazile & friends, but to institutional credibility of FBI and DOJ, the MSM (which was already eroding), and now likely the other intelligence agencies by Comey, Lynch, Holder, Clapper, Brennan, Rice/Powers/Rhodes et al., is absolutely staggering and unprecedented.

        The corruption and weaponization of major institutions against specific individuals and groups by the government is unbelievably dangerous and catastrophic to individual and economic liberty.

          The demographic changes to our once-great population have reduced the percentage of Americans who even recognize, much less care about, the destruction of our institutions.
          This makes positive change, or reversal of direction, much more difficult.

        It may be the fact that I didn’t live through any of the prior waves of extreme government corruption, but this feels different to me for a couple of reasons.

        First, we’ve allowed the state to develop very powerful means to monitor everything we do and say. Now we’re seeing law enforcement and other government agencies being corrupted and leveraging that surveillance capability for political ends.

        Second, technology, social-media in particular, has developed to the point that certain actors have an unprecedented ability to influence thought and discussion. We’re seeing an unholy alliance between the progressive movement and the companies that control most of these platforms; the result puts Pravda to shame.

        maxmillion in reply to Ragspierre. | November 2, 2017 at 11:59 am

        It’s telling that the raghead even wants them to recover. Mobies gotta moby.

Why is there an “R” after DWS name in the opening paragraphs of this story?

Donna Brazille is a proven liar. A woman who was fired from her job at CNN for feeding debate questions to the Hillary campaign. Also, the outlet she peddled this dreck to, Politico, was exposed as a den of Democrat sycophants by the WikiLeaks/Podesta emails.

Nothing she says in this piece can be taken at face value.

    JPL17 in reply to Matt_SE. | November 2, 2017 at 11:01 am

    “Nothing she says in this piece can be taken at face value.”

    Probably correct, but the piece doesn’t seem to be about “face value”. I.e., given how this piece quickly follows the campaign to destroy close Clinton ally Harvey Weinstein (which was started by the Leftist NYT), I think it’s just part of a concerted effort by establishment Democrats to make sure Hillary Clinton never, ever runs for office again.

    Which means they’re paving the way for … who, exactly? Don’t know. But it’s pretty clear the person who emerges will be … an unhinged Leftist.

      4th armored div in reply to JPL17. | November 2, 2017 at 12:01 pm

      Chelsea is being groomed to continue the Klintoon Crime Family Dynasty.

      to be honest, Chelsea seems the most honest of the (D) lot.

      Bill. at least had a sense of fun and humor. Can’t understand what possessed him to hook up with the Hillary prig (she seems like a classic Marxist).

        healthguyfsu in reply to 4th armored div. | November 2, 2017 at 12:37 pm

        Saying Chelsea is relatively honest is like saying she’s the most ethical rapist.

        The only ways she is honest are the ways in which she is dumb and the cracks in the facade show. It’s the same way all Clintons are honest…she’s just got more cracks than the masters.

          If chelsea clinton had a ounce of character – or a was intelligent beyond her dumbass mother – she would have refused funding of her goddam wedding from a charity money scammed by her mother. It would have bought her a lot of credibility.

          In any event, she’s a dumbbell, and has no more character than either of her parents. Even less charisma.

American Human | November 2, 2017 at 10:30 am

I read the Brazille Politico article and I have to admit, it was very self serving. She is a practiced political hack through and through. She just couldn’t seem to find any evidence of corruption from the Clinton campaign? Really?
With access to all of the files, she couldn’t find evidence of corruption concerning the world’s most corrupt politician?
Hillary’s campaign controlled the DNC for an entire year prior to her getting the nomination and there was not a single shred of evidence of corruption?

Brazille mentioned the seemingly “unethical” behavior of the Clinton campaign as though she believed it to be a bad thing, refused to blow any whistles (to Bernie, the FEC, or the media), and then funnels debate questions to Hillary. I recall Inego Montoya’s famous, “You keep using that word, but I don’t think it means what you think it means.”

Brazille and clinton are both lying scum. But clinton has committed treason as secretary of state.

Our nation and every one of its institutions das neen corrupted, including the GOP.

Solution: the ballot box and. voting with your pocketbook

No more GOPe anything: they are the weinsteins of the Gop.

No more patronage of hollywood leftist crap, film or tv.

No more patronage of corrupt news, local or otherwise.

No more donations to the GOP. Donate to individual candidate only.

No more silence in the face of our nation being destroyed from within.

buckeyeminuteman | November 2, 2017 at 11:34 am

Is anyone really surprised that the DNC is that corrupt from the top all the way down?

What this mea culpa from Brazille tells me is that the DNC would like for hillary to shut up and go away. This means that they have APPROVED this book to aid in doing that. Brazille has zero credibility with the public and the only thing she is useful for is to help rid the Demorat party of the cancer called hillary. The only thing to take away from this book is that the Demorats are totally corrupt and have no ethics. Win at all/any costs is their motto.

Brazile still has to get even with Hillary for comparing her to a brain-dead buffalo.

The first red link, to a New Yorker article, is broken, so here it is.

The Democratic Civil War Is Getting Nasty, Even if No One Is Paying Attention

By Susan B. Glasser1:16 P.M.

Ms. Brazile is engaged in “CYA” however she also throws Pres. Obama, Rep. Wasserman-Schultz, Mr. Elias, Mr. Mook and Sen. / Sec. Clinton all under a huge (er, YUGE) bus. No matter how you slice it this is a big (er, BIGLY) win for Republicans.

I’ve been reading a little of the New Yorker recently: it has no commitment to accuracy, and is virulently partisan. Nevertheless, there are bits and pieces of fact woven into this article, as well as Donna Brazile’s heavily self-serving article in Politico.

Both are soft-pedaling the core mistake of the Clinton campaign, which was to run a campaign of character assassination in the face of both a candidate and general public interested in the policy issues.

According to Wikileaks, Hillary and Bill made this decision, and at least the New York Times knew it, accepted it, and ran with it.

The Democratic Party can either clean house, or stay out in the wilderness.

I’m a bit confused by the timeline here. In March of 2016, Donna Brazile in her role as CNN contributor (and DNC vice chair) leaks the upcoming debate questions to the Hillary POTUS campaign. In late July of 2016, DWS resigns just before the convention amid scandal and Brazile steps up to become chairwoman of the DNC. At this point, she asks about the monthly burn rate and she’s told it’s the super high rate of $3-$5 million per month. That’s fine.

But in the excerpt from her book, she says this is too high because they normally downsize in between elections. But it’s the middle of the election at this point. They just had their convention and they have a handful of months before election day. Why the weird excuse for spending like a drunken sailor?

Also, how is it that she’s looking for evidence that the DNC is throwing the election towards Hillary in July when she sent the debate questions to Hillary’s campaign (and not Bernie’s) in March?

SO, Al Capone (aka HRC), having taken over the mob, is about to become the mayor of Chicago when, against all odds, Elliot Ness upsets the plan.

No wonder they’re so angry she lost.

No a single prosecution. Not one.

What a bad and frightening joke our government has become.

    Prosecution for what?

    As weird as it seems, I doubt any of this is actually illegal. The political parties are well within their rights to conduct their primaries as they see fit. If the Dems want to put their insider party member fingers on the scales and tilt the primary towards their favorite candidate, they can do so. That’s why the Dems have the “superdelegate” system in the first place – it lets the old farts have their outsized say in the process. It’s not terribly different than my rod & gun club pushing their favorite yes-man into the treasurer spot.

    It’s not terribly ethical, but I doubt it’s illegal.

The only thing worse than a politician is a politician who won’t stay bought.

Explain how your lies about what I DID say are different in either intent or substance than the lies told by Vassar students about Prof. Bill.

You’re just another Stalinist goon.

When you think about how the RNC was fighting Trump throughout the primaries and doing everything it could to stop him, and contrast that with how Hillary Clinton literally owned the DNC and was calling all the shots there before she had even declared her candidacy, it makes Trump’s win in the general all the more impressive.

“…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.”

Now, why isn’t this taking over a Super PAC (DNC) to directly fund your campaign?

Just a couple of things.

First, the DNC and the Democrat party did just what it intended to do, nominate Hillary Clinton. There was NO WAY that the Establishment controlled Democrat Party was going to nominate Bernie Sanders. The DNC, unlike the RNC [which attempts to appear fair and honest], controls the party super delegates who actually control the nomination. Every Democrat Presidential Nomination is rigged from the get-go. So, Hillary was always the Democrat Party nominee.

Second, traditionally, the Presidential candidate’s campaign always controls the party apparatus, during the general campaign. It decided how to run the campaign and how to spend the money it is given or raises. The Party is nothing more than a support mechanism during this phase of the election. So, if a party supports a candidate to the fullest extent possible, then that candidate’s loss rides squarely upon the candidate’s shoulders, not the party. In Hillary’s case, she is responsible for the loss to Trump, not the DNC.

Finally, what happened here is that Hillary Clinton bought the Democrat Party. It was so terribly mismanaged that it needed the Clinton funding or it would have had to close its doors. Thaty the Clinton campaign required the Democrat party to do certain things in exchange for the money is just normal everyday business in the DC community; ask any congressman. So, the DNC has no ground for complaint.

This is all an attempt to divorce the DNC from the Clintons and, at the same time, improve the appearance of the Democrat party.

This one short article needs a detailed Fisking. In places, I believe there are in excess of three lies per line.

“By September 7, the day I called Bernie, I had found my proof and it broke my heart”.

Is any of her book truthful? She participated in getting hildabeast the questions for the Flint debate against benardo. Was her heart breaking because she ate some Taco Bell or something?

in effect, hillary literally BOUGHT the DNC almost two years ago, so every since then hillary and the DNC have been one and the same, which means that when one says “the DNC and the Hillary campaign” paid Fusion GPS to compile the fake Trump dossier, that’s exactly the same thing as saying “hillary funded Fusion GPS to compile the fake Trump dossier”.

I view this as Donna saving Donna’s butt and padding her bank account as she has lost her meal ticket.

It’s important that Pres. Trump’s foreign business dealings are known in a public and transparent way. I hope we can depend on Mr. Mueller for that task. But after these revelations are known, Congress should act on this knowledge only when there is a clear and present danger threatened to the interests of the United States, like selling Uranium to the Russians.

Hillary Clinton: America’s Herman Goering.