At Politico Democratic Party apparatchik Donna Brazile recounts the corruption, malfeasance, misfeasance, and nonfeasance she saw at the DNC:
On the phone Gary told me the DNC had needed a $2 million loan, which the campaign had arranged.
“No! That can’t be true!†I said. “The party cannot take out a loan without the unanimous agreement of all of the officers.â€
“Gary, how did they do this without me knowing?†I asked. “I don’t know how Debbie relates to the officers,†Gary said. He described the party as fully under the control of Hillary’s campaign, which seemed to confirm the suspicions of the Bernie camp. 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?â€
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.â€
Read the whole thing.
Perhaps I’m being unkind but there’s something about Ms. Brazile’s op-ed that reminds me of the media accounts I’ve read retelling stories of horrific sexual abuse and assault. Why didn’t she mention something while all of this was going on? Presumably, for the same reason the actresses didn’t: she didn’t want to hurt her career. What has changed?
I’m dubious of this. After all, we were just informed last week that Hillary and John Podesta were clueless about finances. You know, like to law firms or Fusion GPS.
The only Dem I’ve seen who thinks it preposterous HillJohn didn’t know was Doug Shoen. And what would he know?
Blockbuster.
For Democrats, liberals, and leftists, it looks like your elites are as corrupt as the Republicans, conservatives, and rightwingers. Sen. Sanders is the Sen. Cruz. of the left. He is part of the problem.
I would suggest the left find its Donald Trump, and that person will not be part of the political establishment. I would suggest Ralph Nader or somebody like him. He is a leftist who has not hewed the party line.
Burn, baby, burn.
It doesn’t mention Obama much, but it was my understanding that Obama directed fundraising away from the DNC towards his own campaign and 501(c)(3) organization because he still thought it was a Clinton-backing organization from his initial Presidential campaign.
Obama’s organizations never accomplished anything for any Democrats but Obama, and its future is probably as a diversionary fundraising-sink. Meanwhile the sun is sinking on the Clintonistas with no apparent heirs and barely withheld contempt for Hilary’s poor performance. I don’t doubt the RNC has similar problems with outside 501(c)(3) groups absorbing more funding. The parties are not popular and seem to be as weak as they’ve ever been.
I suspect Brazile thought Hillary would win, so she kept quiet. No future for her if she breaks this and then Hillary loses. (I thought this was old news. Didn’t we already know that Clinton controlled the DNC and the money?)
Steve
One of the more interesting things I’ve read about Brazile’s book is her claim that state-level fundraising went to the Clinton campaign instead of the state parties. If true, this would be a factor in how poorly Democrats have done recently at the state and local level.
Its 11 o’clock. Do you know where your campaign stealer is?
I can explain it, sort of, or at least conceive a plausible account:
From HRC’s viewpoint, the nomination was sure to be hers, and the primary campaign just a triumphant procession, like a circus parade to impress the onlookers and get them into The Big Tent. So of course the thing to do was to boost her vote count by spending every dollar possible on the (meaningless) primaries, because that would lead to a really big election win, and her big win would automatically pull in Democratic candidates all over the nation because that’s how elections work! So she wasn’t hurting anyone by taking all those contributions, it was for The Good Of The Party.
And this was Hillary, in some ways as set in her course as Donald Trump, so nobody tried to argue the point. And then that damned Bernie Sanders got into the act and … complicated … things. He wasn’t even a real Democrat! He wasn’t going to last, nobody but children were paying him attention, and …
But still, Hillary was certain to win the nomination and then the November election, so it would all work out in the end, and …
Not quite criminal behavior all around, since I don’t think there’s much Federal law relating to what the party organizations do. But it certainly wasn’t professional behavior, or particularly law-abiding and ethical. Even worse, it didn’t work.
The parties can conduct their nomination process however they want but I don’t understand how this kind of financial fraud can be legal. I would assume it’s not, but I just googled and learned that the lawsuit against DNC was dismissed.
@CStanley, I share Althouse’s impression of campaign finance laws, things that are legal vs. illegal are not intuitive.
. . . and Althouse’s point was that Brazile probably doesn’t know whether this was legal or not.
What’s surprising is that it was Brazile who decided to come clean, from an inside perspective, exposng how ruthlessly self-serving the Clinton’s really are. Over the years there have been an abundance of stories about their contemptible behavior. Such a narrative encompasses slimmy financial deals,, their supposed global charity funneling resources into their own pockets, putting the strong arm on their adversaries (including their sudden death) etc. Nonetheless, the Clinton’s seem to either escape or wiggle out of the dirt, brush it off, continuing to smile their way as the politcal heads of the Democrat party.
Brazile, for all her faults, though, is a religious woman. Between, having no support from Clinton, following Brazile’s disgraceful debate intervention, perhaps her conscience just became too heavy to remain quiet, on behalf of the Clinton’s. My only advice for Brazile is to watch her back in order not to have exercise barbells accidently crush her neck (what happened to someone about to testify against the Clinton’s regarding improprieties with S Korea), or the 50 year old healthy Haitian, set to testfy how Clinton’s fleeced the chariable aid going to Haiti, died unexpectedly from a heart attack. With such Clinton patterns in mind, I think Brazile might have jeopardized her longevity.
But, let”s get back to Trump and Russia……..
@PD I agree and recognize that my reaction is based on intuition and not knowledge. I guess what surprises me isn’t that Brazile seems pretty careless about potentially putting herself into legal jeopardy by disclosing what she knew (and what she failed to know- wouldn’t she have had some fiduciary responsibility as a DNC member, even before she assumed the role of chair? And even more so afterward, since she didn’t say raise these concerns at the time?) If she is really ignorant of the law then wouldn’t she have checked with lawyers before exposing this? Or is it really that the oversight of these committees is so lax that they can do direct contributions anywhere they want, even if they were misrepresenting it to the donors?
So, it turns out that Donna Brazile is a racist, misogynist, and probably a Russian stooge as well.
It is interesting that OTB has a comment on every one of President Trump’s farts, but they have somehow missed this.
As @jan has suggested:
To be clear, Senators Sanders and Warren and all the other Democrat elites are correctly called ‘enablers’. The only difference between Hollywood and Washington is which coast they are located.
The Democrat establishment is as corrupt as their Republican counterparts. If these are the people you are counting on to restore the country, you need to have your head examined. Now, could somebody explain to me why President Trump is contemptible?
Burn, baby, burn.