There is still some debate on the authenticity of this.

I read an article last night by a lawyer (uninvolved with the DNC) who openly questioned whether Donna Brazile was looking at the 2015 or the 2016 JFA. The reason she was asking, was that the 2016 JFA, of course, contains nothing but mentions of HRC because she was at that time the nominee, which is to be expected.

I don't know the answer to any of these questions, but it was a fascinating article. I spent about 5 minutes trying to find it right now, but I read it last night at home on my iPad, so I don't have the history handy to find the article again easily.

I'm not at all convinced of that (Clinton's political career being over).

It would be the sane response. And yet, clearly the DNC (and US politics in general) aren't reined in by trivialities like sanity. I think that unless the fickle public gets really riled up over this, the DNC would swing just as hard for Clinton or some other corporate-friendly type over anybody like Sanders or Warren in 2020.

Sanders being an Independent in the Senate was held against him hard by party bigwigs. Somewhat understandably. That being said, Sanders' brand of "Independent" was/is a fantastic guide to what the Democrat party should be working to become.

Politics is all bullshit, all the time. As a result, a huge percentage of voters are quite disenfranchised and don't really see any candidate as being on their side. Sanders turned that on its head. And old, rather-eccentric, Jewish dude got people excited (me too!). Massive gold-plated opportunity, with giant fucking neon signs pointing at it saying "pounce on this NOW", and the DNC took a big shit on it instead because they can't fathom a world without being 99.9% funded by massive corporations in return for congressmen, vetoes, and judges being bought and paid for.

I think that's what the guy is talking about with regards to "taking over the party". The "Justice Democrats" thing is about progressive candidates funded by actual goddamn people instead of laundered corporate money. I'm not real optimistic about their chances of really shaking up the status quo, but by god I sure hope they do.

All of this is awful, and it's nice to have confirmation finally, but didn't we know almost all of this during the primary? I certainly recall the money funneling being well documented and publicized.
Clinton's political career is over, I hope all Clintons...is this about putting a death nail in the DNC? I'm not sure how he expects to take over the party....or why one would want to, it sounds like they're deep in debt....financially and morally.

Even Donna Brazile finds proof that the DNC rigged the primary in HRC's favour, that HRC's campaign used the DNC to circumvent donation caps, and that HRC's campaign vacuumed-up funds meant for the state parties: Inside Hillary Clinton’s Secret Takeover of the DNC

Looks like an attempt at white-washing her own complacency in the rigging, but it's juicy info nonetheless.

It wouln't be funny even if you weren't working directly for Putin and against America, just sad that you would do his bidding for free.

Working with Russia in your official capacity as Secretary of State to create international treaties, even bad ones....that is not collusion, it's diplomacy.
Working with Russia to reform American policy before you're in office...that's subversive collusion, and admitted to by Trump's cabinet.

Who's colluding with Russia? Apparently at least Manafort while he ran the Trump campaign according to the indictment....oh, and Flynn who's eventually admitted (when his lies were proven false after the tapes surfaced) that he illegally made multiple policy change agreements in December with Russia contradicting the government's positions, like a promise to remove sanctions, which is a crime called subversion and could be/is treason.

Edit: Before you try to trot out the DNC partially paying for the 'Trump dossier' as some form of collusion, remember it was conceived and created by the RNC and only later sold to Clinton's camp after Trump took the nomination, and it's not even nearly as bad as what Jared thought he was going to buy directly from the Russian government in his meeting that he falsely claimed was about adoption until the email surfaced proving that was another lie.

pinko pinko pinko pinko pinko pinko pinko pinko pinko pinko pinko pinko pinko pinko pinko pinko pinko pinko pinko pinko pinko pinko pinko pinko pinko pinko pinko pinko pinko pinko pinko pinko ---------That's funny.

The Hillary /DNC/ Muller/ DOJ/ Urium Ship is sinking .. Whose colluding with Russia??? You are so on the wrong side of this ..

Precisely. They have those guns in their hands, and don't shoot people.



The only things that I ding Hillary on are :

- Being a part of installing missile launchers on Russia's eastern border, and giving the asinine explanation that it's "to defend against Iran". Antagonizing Russia is so unnecessary and so old. I swear some people are just thirsty for the cold war to return.

- Cheating with the DNC in the primaries and screwing Bernie out of a win... who by the way could have carried the general election against carrot head. I'd rather have the Bern than either a sellout or a clown.


One side sees the other as paranoid.
The other side sees the first as short sighted.

I don't expect to be in a crash, I still prefer to wear a seat belt. But by all means, I don't care if someone chooses not to.

-scheherazade

The DNC felt that Hillary was a land slide victory against Trump.
Heck all media pundits and polls echoed this bias.

The DNC just had to railroad Bernie out of the race.
Sanders truly did not have a chance to win the primary.

The DNC felt that a Trump victory was a lesser threat to their owners than a Sanders victory would have been. Problem solved.

That's why I didn't say "cheated him out of a win".
While I think he could have won the primary given a fair shot, there's no way to be sure...what we are sure of is the DNC broke it's own rules to ensure he didn't get that fair shot.
He was absolutely cheated out of his fair shot.

And actually, I think you're wrong about the numbers too. Even with all the underhandedness (after the fact rule changes, targeted voter purging, etc) Sanders still came really close, and there's little question that he would have done better against Trump. He wouldn't have energized Trump's base 1/4 as much as her nomination did.
Clinton may have had more ardent supporters where it mattered for the primary, in the DNC and primary voting booths, but she also had FAR more ardent detractors in the general public that translated into votes for Trump, and a criminal investigation it was certain would reemerge at the last minute....things they completely ignored, which is why she (and we all) lost.

Oh, come on. The DNC didn't "cheat Sanders out of a fair shot". As much as I would have liked to see him win, he never really had a chance.

The simple fact is that Hillary had more support.

Yeah, the DNC is corrupt, but they would immediately have a better shot at getting voters if they distanced themselves from Hillary.

That's a good start, but it's far from a full solution.
Remember, it was the DNC itself that cheated Sanders out of a fair shot.
It's hard to have hope things will change with the same mindset (and many of the same people) in charge.

Wait...what? So the DNC is now saying they are just black people telling white men what to do? ...and even the black people are sick of it? That sounds like a recipe for failure if I ever heard one.

I agree with most of his points, but from what I see, the left doesn't completely ignore antifa. I would hope that most of the left disavows these fascists against fascism at every opportunity. I would like the dnc to follow the republican party who, today, finally said they don't want the votes of Nazis and white supremacists...the dnc needs to say the same about antifa. These extremists on both sides threaten us all. They need marginalization.