Civil War: DNC

[Cow Poke]

The DNC made a judgement that Sanders was too extreme to win. I think there was a good basis for that, though in light of today's politics, I think they might well have been wrong. Still, they were trying to come up with the best candidate.

And they settled on HILLARY!?!?!

[Cow Poke]

I never defended her, nor have I, if I remember correctly. That she lost to trump is a huge embarrassment. This election more than most seemed to be voting against the other guy.

I think that's a pretty fair assessment - I most CERTAINLY was voting against the other guy.

[hedrick]

And they settled on HILLARY!?!?!

I think Hillary would be an OK president. However she was a lousy candidate and I agree that there was reason to know that in advance.

[Cow Poke]

I think Hillary would be an OK president. However she was a lousy candidate and I agree that there was reason to know that in advance.

She may end up indicted after all over campaign law violations.

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.

[Mountain Man]

Donna Brazile's book sounds like big hoot!

Brazile paints a scathing portrait of Clinton as a well-intentioned, historic candidate...

Savage!

"Well-intentioned"? I can't think of a less accurate way to describe Hillary. She and her campaign were entitled and nasty from the start.

[T-Shirt Ninja]

The Democratic party should really be ashamed of itself after this nonsense. I think the Republicans are in much worse trouble, but Democrats have their own disastrous nonsense to deal with here.

[Mountain Man]

I think Hillary would be an OK president.

Obama took America to the edge of a cliff. Hillary would have pushed us over.

[Cow Poke]

Obama took America to the edge of a cliff. Hillary would have pushed us over.

Obama left the DNC in horrible financial position - $24 MILLION in debt, but Donna Brazille claims this was hidden even from her...

To be fair to the DNC, it didn't enter this agreement simply because it thought Clinton a preferable candidate, although that was part of it. No, the committee was bust. It had no money for the campaign. It was on the brink of collapse. So it was vulnerable to a hostile takeover. Clinton could make it an offer it couldn't refuse.

For this, the party can thank former President Barack Obama. Brazile writes, “Obama’s neglect had left the party in significant debt” to the tune of $24 million. Gensler told Brazile, “The campaign had to do it or the party would collapse.” It's worth noting, therefore, that Obama not only wrecked the party across the country by helping it lose about 1,000 legislative seats at the state level but also left it financially crippled.

Almost no one knew about the debt, not even senior officers of the party, Brazile included. When she found out, she 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.” The whole thing was a big lie, which makes it entirely predictable that it was presided over by Clinton, who lies even when she says "but" and "and," as the saying goes.

[Darth Executor]

the only reason why the rnc is in more trouble than the dnc is because the dnc base is servile and weak, none of this will lead to any discernible change and their elites will continue to play their subhuman IQ base for the retards that they are.

[Jedidiah]

She may end up indicted after all over campaign law violations.

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.

She will never face any legal repercussions (my expectation). She has too many supporters and those who oppose her very strongly tend to . . . disappear.

[rogue06]

One thing I’m not sure on- I thought it was pretty clear that Russia meddled in so much as they ran a ‘fake news’ campaign on social media, thus convincing a not insignificant number of the population that factually incorrect items were true, thus influencing their vote. The argument being how much- if any- of a hand Trumps team had in this, thus the collusion.

However I get the impression the argument on here was where or not that social media campaign is true to begin with?

They spent the equivalent of what a local restaurant in a large city might spend and FWIU a significant portion of it appears to have been after the election. As for how many people believed what they said ... I would like to see evidence that it influenced many votes.

[rogue06]

The DNC made a judgement that Sanders was too extreme to win. I think there was a good basis for that, though in light of today's politics, I think they might well have been wrong. Still, they were trying to come up with the best candidate.

So they put their money on someone who was too crooked to win

[rogue06]

She may end up indicted after all over campaign law violations.

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.

This analysis sounds eerily similar

And don't forget the financial arrangement she made with the DNC that appears to violate multiple laws.

The DNC was deep in debt to the tune of $20 million. Hillary, with her deep pockets resulting from all the money foreign entities were pouring into the Clinton Foundation in hopes of getting special treatment under a Clinton Administration (boy has that flow dried up!), offered to pay off that debt in exchange for gaining control over their finances, having the final say-so on decisions on their staffing decisions as well as the DNC was now being required to consult with her about budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings.

In effect Hillary bought out the DNC and turned it into an arm of her campaign.

So now Hillary and the DNC go out on joint fundraisers during the campaign and raise something like $100 million dollars, and here’s where it gets really interesting. The states take their share but then they immediately kick it back to the DNC, which in turns kicks their share and the states’ share over to Hillary for her use -- which is in violation of campaign contribution limits, the finance reporting laws, and most importantly, is money laundering.

But the MSM isn't interested. To them it's old news and everyone knew about it.

[Terraceth]

The DNC made a judgement that Sanders was too extreme to win. I think there was a good basis for that, though in light of today's politics, I think they might well have been wrong. Still, they were trying to come up with the best candidate.

Sanders had support from people who normally aren't interested in the Democratic Party, had one of the highest approval ratings of any notable political figure in the country, didn't have any real scandals, and was non-establishment in an election where voters were clearly showing they were tired of the establishment (meanwhile, I can't think of anyone who's more establishment than Hillary).

Sure, this is with the benefit of hindsight. But I think Sanders would probably have won had he been the one to go up against Trump.

[demi-conservative]

But I think Sanders would probably have won had he been the one to go up against Trump.

I want to see Sanders vs Hillary vs Trump in 2020!!