So, Donna says she also gave debate questions to both Sanders and O'Malley

[boston bean]

So they "wouldn't be blindsided".

What are our thoughts on this???

here is the evidence of it, if you need to review"

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/11/08/brazile_on_giving_hillary_debate_question_you_never_saw_the_things_i_gave_to_sanders_or_omalley.html

[BeyondGeography]

1. She is an idiot

is our thoughts on this.

[grantcart]

74. +1

[FarPoint]

2. I say....

Go away Donna..we are done with you...You are no one...You took the money apparently, so go.

[lagomorph777]

28. Yup, buh-bye Donna.

Enough already.

[True Dough]

3. If true, she's revealing that her own ethics are completely shoddy

She was willing to cheat on multiple occasions. If it's fabricated, then she's willing to say anything.

I certainly won't be spending one cent on her book.

[bettyellen]

4. Shady that neither of those men admitted as much when HRC was being skewered over it....

If it's true.

[StevieM]

10. And it would have really helped her at that point. Sanders and O'Malley could have shut down

the narrative in the middle of the campaign. It would have helped a lot.

[ehrnst]

15. Sanders had the opportunity all through the campaign to clear that up.

He did not.

[MrsCoffee]

31. Exactly.

[Me.]

37. That's What I Was Thinking

Not a peep. What else has he remained mum on.

[LiberalFighter]

42. It is not within his character to do so.

[SirBrockington]

5. Bernie was silent when Hillary was getting lit up

As usual.

Same with the “rigging” when it was later found out they both signed the DNC document.

[NurseJackie]

8. We're gaining a lot of insight as to the nature of people's character, aren't we?

[LuvLoogie]

84. Our having to tolerate the undermining of Democratic solidarity is a virtue that is wearing thin.

We must finesse our protest while we are disparaged in the open.

[StevieM]

6. This should be a mega-story. It speaks volumes about how far we have fallen that the media will

not even report on this. It should be the lead story on the news, by all rights.

I put up a post of my own on this Wednesday night. It didn't get too much interest, but that might be my fault. I should have put "Donna says she helped Bernie and Marty" in the title.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029820118

[mercuryblues]

7. Wow.

Did she think our candidates were so stupid they couldn't figure out debate questions and prep? I hope she makes enough money off this book for her retirement. After her book tour is over she will be persona non grata in Democratic campaigns.

[Alice11111]

52. She's the Repubs darling now. They will make her wealthy.

[SirBrockington]

9. Bernie was silent when Hillary was getting lit up

As usual (IF that is true)

Same with the “rigging” when it was later found out they both signed the DNC document.

Also, instead of focusing on beating Trump, DB states she “vowed to Bernie she would get to the bottom of the “rigging”. So then I wonder who pushed to get DWS fired and DB installed.

[StevieM]

11. Yeah, but most Americans never heard the correction. Actually, that was how it worked with Comey

and the fake email scandal. The corrections to false explosive statements were never heard by a lot of people.

[ehrnst]

20. And many refused to believe any corrections to smears of Hillary

One would be called a "correct the record shill" if one tried to do so during the general election on many social media sources purporting to be progressive.

[ehrnst]

14. He was and is silent on many many things that didn't fit the narrative he presented. (nt)

[Me.]

38. Including His Tax Returns

[ehrnst]

55. Has he released the ones after 2014?

I think that will become an issue if he has any plans to run as a Democrat for president.

[Me.]

56. As If

Never will

[ehrnst]

12. That doesn't support what a lot of the anti-Hillary chatter says

So it's going to be challenged by those who believe that anything that "proves" corruption on the part of Hillary or her campaign is true.

Be it the Intercept, RT, Trump or FoxNews.

[hopeforchange2008]

13. I think she needs a full neurological work-up /eom

[NCTraveler]

16. Clinton truly did get ratfucked.

On top of all the other bullshit. Still got three million more votes. Every single day we learn more and more about how strong she is and how solid her efforts were.

[ehrnst]

21. Ratfucked by those who knew this and stayed silent when Hillary was being pilloried

for "cheating."

[NCTraveler]

23. +1 nt

[ismnotwasm]

82. Yes

Many of them won’t back down. They think they are anointed.

[Lee-Lee]

17. So, Donna, why wait until now to say this?

Instead of saying so as soon as the story came out.

You know, when the impression you cheated only for her hurt our candidate. Kind of an important moment to say this instead of when you want to sell books.

You know, when it could have helped.

If she had said then “Yes, I did this. I did it for all the candidates in the primary. It was a stupid thing and I regret it, but I didn’t favor any one candidate.” That all would have been off the news cycle in 48 hours.

In fact when you look back where she denied it ever happened and claimed she was being “persecuted”, and the whole way she handled it at the time did nothing to help make things better an if anything she made Hillary looks worse by making all her responses in a way that made things just look shady to people who knew she was dodging and being evasive.

[TheBlackAdder]

89. That's the $64,000 question. She had multiple speaking engagements and stayed silent? Why?

.

The other question is, How many people have lost their independent critical thinking skills?

.

[Demsrule86]

18. Holy cow...she admitted it? Who turned her in I wonder.

[Lee-Lee]

27. Its time to sell books

That seems to matter more to her than things like, I don’t know, winning a Presidential election against the worst monster to ever run for the office.

[Demsrule86]

19. I called the DNC and told them ...'get rid of Brazille' she is a lying backstabber. And if this is

true, why didn't Sanders or O'Malley come forward at the time?

[ehrnst]

22. It gave the impression that Hillary was cheating them. Why come forward? (nt)

[Demsrule86]

24. It is disgraceful...I would not support either Sanders or O'Malley.

If they don't say differently, than it is probably true.

[delisen]

26. Silence can also be Fake News.

[ehrnst]

29. The lie of omission. Like Wikileaks selective release of only that which could be used to

push the narrative that Hillary was "corrupt."

No leaks of GOP or Sanders or Stein emails.

[delisen]

25. H Clinton-most abused politician of our times.

One woman-such a threat to the status quo.

What has she done?

Fought for healthcare for Americans.

Fought for equality for all Americans

Fought for democracy in other countries.

Kept fighting over decades through smears, lies, phony investigations, and threats of jailing by the anti-democracy brigades. Refusing to be "put away" or go away.

Angered corporate big business interests, billionaires, and Republicans by criticizing inequality in Russia and fighting for sanctions against Russia. Standing against Big Oil and for democracy in Russia.

Angered Religious Right by being, as a woman, her own person in the public space.

Annoyed those minority of democrats and independent voters who want "presidential" to be defined as being male, and who define equal rights for woman as "women issues" rather than human rights.

Annoying those who don't understand that past is prologue to the future and that appeasing the bully is to step backward toward injustice , not move forward toward equality.

[ehrnst]

33. And if you fact checked the smears against her, you were simply an "establishment shill"

or voting for her because she was a woman, because you think that "it's enough that she's a woman" and "if you must vote for a woman, vote for a REAL woman, Jill Stein."

Like with Obama, legions of people with bigotry they denied in themselves, took one look and decided there was something sinister about that person with the "arrogance" to think they were qualified, and were corrupt and pulling one over on everyone.

[delisen]

34. I see Clinton as Revolutionary-haven't always

but 2016 caused me to look deeper and I have been a bit surprised at what I've found.

[ehrnst]

35. Like Margaret Sanger and Katherine Hepburn's mother.

Kate Hepburn's mother was a high visibility suffragette, who warned other women to only have conversations with legislators out in the hallway, never in the office, because they would be immediately smeared as immoral. She was also, with her physician husband, a proponent of contraception.

Sanger worked with legislators - and even a president - who were gung ho eugenicists, because that was the common wisdom at the time. She, however was pilloried because she was the only one among them who said that the decision whether or not to bear children must be left with the woman, and not her husband, and not the government.

Women who are true revolutionaries are made to pay a deep price for it, and are usually reviled in their own time.

History will be much, much more open eyed about and appreciative of Hillary than so many - even many "progressives" - are currently.

[Alice11111]

53. She threatens the hell out of dishonest or ignorant Repubs.

[mcar]

30. But it's only a scandal with Hillary, of course

Because....well, them's the rules or something.

Seriously, this infuriates me. All the trash heaped on HRC because of that "scandal" and Brazil's gave questions to the other candidates too?

[LexVegas]

32. Donna has paid her dues...nt

[Fresh_Start]

36. Doesn't matter if she paid her dues

she also enabled the election of Trump.

[moriah]

39. She does have a point. Everything released in the hack was anti-HRC.

If Sanders and O'Malley confirm, it just means she was equal opportunity in her journalistic integrity issues at least.

And it does answer a question I had. I didn't understand how someone could go from "helping HRC cheat" to feeling the need to "find the cancer" and put on Gospel to tell Bernie about a JFA that didn't bother him and she didn't understand fully.

I honestly suspected that she likely did feed debate questions to all three. Doesn't make it much better of form, because she shouldn't have done it at all -- I want to see candidates think on their feet -- but I can believe this.

[Beaverhausen]

40. Anyone with a working brain could have figured out what would be asked at the debate

Were there any surprise, trick questions?

Come on this whole thing is stupid.

[LisaL]

43. Exactly. I don't understand why Donna would feel the need to give those questions to anyone.

[yardwork]

78. Stay with that line of thinking and see where it leads.

I've always wondered why Donna Brazile would do such a pointless and stupid thing as to "leak" questions to Clinton. The questions were obvious and debates aren't won and lost that way in any case. And to email them? Stupid. Or deliberate?

What if Brazile set Clinton up? The likelihood of that possibility is greater considering Brazile's recent behavior.

So now I wonder if Brazile was out to get Clinton from the beginning of her campaign.

[tammywammy]

86. Right like it was shocking they'd get questions about lead in water in fucking Flint.

Seriously. And if Donna's "tips" were needed then the candidates were shit at prep.

[SandyZ]

41. Sanders has ran on integrity for 3 decades. Integrity would be standing up when Clinton was attacked

[Jim Lane]

85. You mean like standing up against the attacks on her "damn emails"?

Yup, he did that.

There was grumbling about it from some of his supporters. There was a viewpoint that he should have really lit into her on the email issue. It's probably true that he would have picked up some votes that way.

But Bernie thought it was bogus, so he not only didn't take that course, he expressly denounced it on national television. I saw that debate. Hillary smiled and spontaneously reached over and shook his hand, a classy act on her part.

[SandyZ]

87. I think it is clear what "I mean". I do not play your games.

[LiberalFighter]

44. Don't forget that the media was just as responsible.

Especially the likes of Chris Matthews and Andrea Mitchell.

[RandiFan1290]

45. She was probably involved with Bush sending the debate tape to Gore. nt

[melman]

46. So now she's credible all of a sudden

After a week of her being the lyingest liar that ever lied...now she's believable.


This thread is too much. It's really just too much.

[boston bean]

47. If you are looking for hypocrisy you are looking in the wrong direction.

[ehrnst]

50. Like when Elizabeth Warren was a Hero for confirming that the primary was "rigged"

then a pariah when she backpedaled with praise for HRC's campaign and the Democratic Party?

Too, much. It's really just too much.

Donna is now a hero to those who called her an "establishment shill" until a week ago...

[Squinch]

80. Lol! (points) You really said that!

[ehrnst]

54. If they weren't aware before the debate, they were after. (nt)

[LisaM]

58. It wasn't clear whether Hillary actually even saw the questions, anyway.

Brazile claims to have fed them to the campaign, not the candidate. This could be true for all of them.

[Jim Lane]

66. It's pretty clear that she did NOT slip questions to Sanders and O'Malley.

The most obvious refutation is that, at the time of the incident, O'Malley was no longer campaigning. He wasn't even a participant in the CNN event.

Note that Brazile doesn't say she gave Sanders any information about the CNN event. I went into detail on this in #49.

[Jim Lane]

49. Her statement is ambiguous and Carlson didn't get the facts

From the linked transcript, here's the relevant passage:

WikiLeaks sought to divide us. These were active measures where you got to see the things I gave to Hillary, you never got a chance to see the things I gave to Bernie or Martin O'Malley.

Giving them "things" might refer to giving them questions, as is suggested by her reference to candidates being "blindsided", but it might also refer to giving them advice or referrals to good pollsters or anything else.

What she leaked to the Clinton campaign was inside information (obtained through her position at CNN) about a question at the next day's March 6, 2016 debate (sometimes referred to as a town hall), to be aired on CNN. Did she also give any such information about the March 6 event to Sanders and O'Malley? Clearly not, because O'Malley had suspended his campaign on February 1, more than a month before Brazile's leak. He didn't participate in the CNN event. Therefore, in her comment quoted above, "things" must, at least in O'Malley's case and quite probably in Sanders's case, refer to something other than advance information about the debate. If she had done the exact same thing for both still-existing campaigns, she would have said so when the incident came to light.

Instead, here's what she actually said (on March 17, 2017) about her communication to the Clinton campaign:

Then in 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. I had been working behind the scenes to add more town hall events and debates to the primary calendar, and I helped ensure those events included diverse moderators and addressed topics vital to minority communities. My job was to make all our Democratic candidates look good, and I worked closely with both campaigns to make that happen. But sending those emails was a mistake I will forever regret. [emphasis added]

So she gave information to the Clinton campaign, but when it came to light, and in her latest interview with Carlson, she tried to spin it as helping all the candidates. That doesn't mean that she gave specifically information, as opposed to unspecified "things", to all the candidates.

The most plausible interpretation is that, contrary to all the Bernie-bashing in this thread, Sanders and O'Malley didn't sit silently by and fail to disclose a parallel leak to their campaigns, because there was no such leak. Brazile is doing classic spin where you don't outright lie, but instead make truthful statements that are couched in a way to leave the impression you want. Specifically, she's admitted that she gave CNN information to one campaign, she's never expressly said that she gave CNN information to any other campaign, but, both in article several months ago and in this latest interview, she's trying to gloss over the favoritism and talk about her support for "all our Democratic candidates".

My takeaway:
* O'Malley and Sanders are not guilty of the accusations against them in this thread. They did not sit silently by and conceal relevant information while Clinton was being criticized, because they had no such information.
* Carlson is guilty of inept journalism. Brazile left him an opening a mile wide when she said, "you never got a chance to see the things I gave to Bernie or Martin O'Malley." It's a pretty obvious follow-up to ask, "OK, what were those 'things'?" Instead, he let her off the hook with, "I’m totally happy, you bring those and I will put them on the show anytime." My guess is that "anytime" will mean "never".

[R B Garr]

62. LOL @ the tortured JPR attempts to always malign Hillary. What Donna is saying is that Wikileaks

targeted Hillary, which we all know; therefore, you didn't see the things she gave Bernie because he wasn't targeted.

It's your wall of words trying desperately to sweep the WikiLeaks connection under the rug as if it's not relevant, when it's really the most relevant connection here. It's also just sad that so much time is spent spreading these kinds of bizarre distortions about our general election candidate when it's been proven that this kind of Russian propaganda got us Trump. Enough with working against Democrats.

[Jim Lane]

63. If you're against maligning Democrats, stop maligning Donna Brazile

I'm not maligning Hillary. It's been known for quite some time that Brazile gave the Clinton campaign information, but there was not then and is not now any indication that the Clinton campaign solicited it, or asked Brazile to do anything of the sort. Someone at the Clinton campaign got an email from Donna Brazile, so they opened it and read it. I'm not faulting them for that. I would've done the same thing.

As best I can decipher your post, you're apparently insinuating that, although WikiLeaks released an email by which Brazile gave information to the Clinton campaign, there was maybe possibly who knows some email by which Brazile gave similar information to the O'Malley campaign and the Sanders campaign. I'm pointing out the improbability of this speculation. If there had been such an email, Brazile would have disclosed it, to dispel the charge of favoritism. Therefore, the WikiLeaks connection is totally irrelevant.

There's the additional point that, at the relevant time period, when you speculate she might have helped the O'Malley campaign and the Sanders campaign, there was no O'Malley campaign. In my simple-minded way I consider that fact to be relevant.

[R B Garr]

67. What a total sham, lol, I wasn't maligning Donna. Your analogies are tortured

and obvious distortions.

YOU are the one calling Donna a liar in your post. You are calling her a liar when she says she cheated for Bernie. What a bizarre pivot to say that you know what Donna would have done. You don't get to fabricate someone's intentions or actions. If she's a liar about Bernie, then she is a liar about Clinton. It doesn't take 4 paragraphs to come out and say that. What we do know for a fact is that WikiLeaks targeted Hillary and they didn't target Bernie. You are one calling Donna a liar.

And by your tortured logic, if Bernie has not presented evidence that Donna never cheated for him, then it happened. It is incumbent upon Bernie to prove her false or it is true. LOL.

[Jim Lane]

68. As is so often the case, you respond to what I did not say.

What I actually wrote:

Brazile is doing classic spin where you don't outright lie, but instead make truthful statements that are couched in a way to leave the impression you want.

Your warped version of it: "YOU are the one calling Donna a liar in your post."

When I say expressly that she didn't lie, and you then say that I'm calling her a liar, I really can't add anything. You and I are just not on the same planet.

You also assert that "she says she cheated for Bernie." No, she doesn't say that.

Sorry about the "wall of words" that gives you trouble. My style is to explain nuances, supported by links where applicable. I admit that the popular style of "pulling wild assertions out of the air and just going with them because they support a preconceived narrative" does produce shorter posts. If you value terseness over truth, you should put me on Ignore.

[R B Garr]

72. No, you're just copying me now from when I said your writings reference what

is not said instead of what is said, and that was in response to your byzantine writings that twisted what a JUDGE's actual words were to make it seem like he was encouraging the failed Bernie supporter plaintiffs to resubmit their case*. This is not the first time you've posted, so there is a pattern to the wall of words.
*(Florida judge dismisses fraud lawsuit against DNC)

Admit it, the only reason you are bothering with Donna Brazile at all is because she said that the DNC "rigged" the primaries. That supports your notions about Democrats, so you take no issue with it. Her comments that she cheated for Bernie don't support your notions, so you are calling her an artful liar. There are a million ways to call someone a liar, so your backpedaling isn't surprising.

And you don't "explain nuances", you ascribe actions and intentions that are simply not there or are such tortured leaps of logic, like the example about interpreting some hidden meaning into what a judge didn't say. You don't know what Donna would have done, and you don't get to fabricate actions or intentions.

You also don't get to decide for me what is truth just because you write something really really long. LOL.

[Jim Lane]

75. Things I didn't say

I didn't say that the Florida judge "was encouraging the failed Bernie supporter plaintiffs to resubmit their case" (he wasn't).

I didn't say that Brazile "said that the DNC 'rigged' the primaries" (she didn't).

[R B Garr]

76. You were "explaining nuances", and that's what you said. Based on what the

judge didn't say, you took that as encouragement for the plaintiff's to resubmit their case. All of this goes to a quest to legitimize anything Bernie related and it's just a way to create a false universe/reality.

Donna is by all accounts an "establishment" Democrat, so the sudden interest in her truthfulness is only in proportion to what she says to support the notion that the primary was rigged against Bernie. I haven't seen the Bernie people so enamored of a DNC democrat like they are currently with Donna and her book. So it sticks out like a sore thumb that you would now call into question her truthfulness when she says she also helped Bernie.

You don't get to recreate reality that we've all lived the past couple years. It's very divisive.

[stevenleser]

65. Yup. Tortured is a good way to put it. nt

[chowder66]

69. Thanks. I deleted my post to minimize confusion. nt

[obamanut2012]

70. lol at your pretzeled apologist post

[questionseverything]

77. thanks jim for being resonable

[Alice11111]

51. She has so much credibility...a mini Trump.

Get out of the Dem party, Ms Brazile.

[elleng]

57. and afterwards, Governor O'Malley said (as a reminder,) 2016 Is 'Not a Slam Dunk.'

O'Malley Warns Dems: 2016 Is 'Not a Slam Dunk.'

'In his first public appearance since suspending his presidential campaign last month, former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley warned that the general election is not a "slam-dunk" for Democrats even in the face of Donald Trump's polarizing candidacy and possible nomination by Republicans.

"I believe the level of anger in our country is such that, yes, this is not a slam dunk," O'Malley said at a forum hosted by the Georgetown Institute of Politics.

"There's a certain smugness inside the beltway in Washington. So I think we have our work cut out for us. This could be a very, very defining moment in the life of our republic."

O'Malley said that Democrats "have our work cut out for us, both in calling out [Trump's] fascism with clarity, without being shrill, without being angry ourselves," but also in offering a positive vision for the country.

"Just as importantly, we have to tell the larger story of how these decisions we make together will affect your lives and your kids lives," he said.

While he was sounding the alarm on Trump's potential strength in the general electrion, O'Malley also targeted the Democratic Party as partly to blame for the GOP frontrunner's rise. The erstwhile Democratic underdog sharply criticized Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, though not by name, for, he said, unilaterally deciding to delay the start of the Democratic debates until the late fall.

"It was a great disservice to the republic, actually, that we let that immigrant-bashing carnival barker, fascist demagogue Donald Trump have full run" of the media coverage of the election through the summer, O'Malley said.

Trump, he added, "grew into a phenomenon over those summer months, while we heard nothing from the Democratic Party," and when the Democratic candidates did debate, the events were scheduled at inconvenient times when Americans were unlikely to watch. That schedule did indeed draw criticism not just from O'Malley but also from Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders' campaign, both of which charged that Wasserman Schultz and the Democratic establishment were trying to inappropriately protect Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton by effectively hiding the debates.'>>>

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/o-malley-warns-dems-2016-not-slam-dunk-n544276

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10027708899

[LisaM]

59. Enough with this hiding the debates thing. I live on the West Coast.

The only ones I could watch in their entirety were the weekend ones.

[elleng]

60. Sorry about that,

doubly sorry the debate schedule was skewed as it was. Governor O'Malley certainly felt it, and everyone should be reminded about this.

[LisaM]

61. Most people are home Sunday nights. That's by far the best time.

Maybe someone could have considered that the NFL might have re-scheduled a pre-season game?

It was highly aggravating to get home from work and either have the debates over, or only about a third left.

They had high viewership anyway, IIRC. Just because the Republicans had what? 16 candidates? - and a bajillion events, not all of which were debates, doesn't mean that we, with three candidates, needed to do the same. There's also such a thing as debate fatigue.

[questionseverything]

79. we must never again give the repubs a 3 month headstart debating

never again

debates are free airtime

you get fatigued, don't watch

I am assuming you are gonna vote d anyways

but the low info voter needs to be exposed to democratic ideas

[Jim Lane]

83. I completely agree, and I'll add that it goes beyond the free airtime

A lot of people who don't watch a debate will nevertheless get some information about it from the next day's newspaper or a quick blurb on TV or, these days, from something about the debate that a friend posts on Facebook. The debates provide exposure to Democratic ideas beyond just the millions of people who watch them.

[questionseverything]

88. agreed

last year as the repub debates were going on I actually had friends ask...are no democrats running this time?

the average person is busy keeping their head above water, they don't watch this stuff as closely as most here do

so they need that reminder, hey time to pick a president

trump said a lot of populous stuff ,i don't mean the bigoted stuff but like telling peops he would always defend medicare & Medicaid

that we all would have great healthcare

ra ra

when no opposing views were presented by the Democratic party lot of low info voters took the bait

and once people make up their minds it is hard to get them to open up again

[joshcryer]

64. Jesus Christ.

[Nevernose]

71. So Hillary DID rig the primaries

Maybe. I think. Because yesterday everybody here said Donna Brazile was a liar and that she was lying about Clinton. But now she’s telling the truth?

Or will she say whatever she needs to to increase book sales?

Flippancy aside: why would any of us believe anything from her at this point?

[seaglass]

73. This must be why Tad Devine defended Brazile. n/t