"Inside Hillary Clinton’s Secret Takeover of the DNC"
Why am I being asked for evidence I have supplied multiple times? Stop attacking me and look in my last link--#1. The contract is pictured.
nan said:
Why am I being asked for evidence I have supplied multiple times? Stop attacking me and look in my last link--#1. The contract is pictured.
I’m not asking you produce anything. I’m simply asking you if the secret document you keep referring to is the joint fundraising agreement.
Are we talking about this contract?
Yes or no?
ridski,
The date is correct but those articles (which I have read before), describe the contract as a typical agreement that might be signed by the DNC and any perspective candidate--the same kind of document that was offered to Bernie. The actual document--which Donna Brazille had to hunt down, gave Clinton control over the DNC's finances, hiring and communication. They do not include the actual document in either of those articles. Part of it is depicted in my last link. I have also linked to the full contract previously.
nan said:
ridski,
The date is correct but those articles (which I have read before), describe the contract as a typical agreement that might be signed by the DNC and any perspective candidate--the same kind of document that was offered to Bernie. The actual document--which Donna Brazille had to hunt down, gave Clinton control over the DNC's finances, hiring and communication. They do not include the actual document in either of those articles. Part of it is depicted in my last link. I have also linked to the full contract previously.
So the answer is yes.
Thanks.
I watched Old Man Sessions today - and I'm thinking he's a lot less evil and a lot more senile than I had thought.
ridski said:
I feel like I’m grilling Jeff fricking Sessions here.
You're not "being asked for evidence". We're asking for one simple link.
You've got at least two people here, maybe more, who simply don't know what you're referring to when you say "secret agreement".
Don't you care if we know what you're talking about?
And you know, the simple fact that neither me nor ridski can figure out what this document is on our own, kind of points to how nebulous the whole issue is. Google is not that hard to use. I can't find the original text of the thing. Has it even been published?
You claim there is a secret agreement.
Have you actually seen it?
nan said:
Why am I being asked for evidence I have supplied multiple times? Stop attacking me and look in my last link--#1. The contract is pictured.
ridski said:
nan said:
ridski,
The date is correct but those articles (which I have read before), describe the contract as a typical agreement that might be signed by the DNC and any perspective candidate--the same kind of document that was offered to Bernie. The actual document--which Donna Brazille had to hunt down, gave Clinton control over the DNC's finances, hiring and communication. They do not include the actual document in either of those articles. Part of it is depicted in my last link. I have also linked to the full contract previously.
So the answer is yes.
Thanks.
Yes, the BIG SECRET, that was reported in the newspapers when the agreement was signed. I'm astounded at the secrecy.
Buy a mirror Nan. You will know whose posts aren't worth reading.
And go start your own party already. We want to rebuild ours with people who support Democrats. Thanks.
nan said:
I have to keep repeating myself because a bunch of you don't have a good grasp of the obvious.
drummerboy said:
Nan,
your posts aren't even worth reading anymore. They're just repetitive collections of far-left talking points with nothing to back them up. You presume that it's sufficient to toss out phrases like "secret document" and "chosen one" to make your arguments for you.
That may work for people whose faculty for critical reasoning has been erased, but it's not enough for the rest of us.
The thread has been an education though, because it's pointed out, at least to me, the breadth of the FoxNews-like disinformation network that lurks behind all of this nonsense.
oh,. wait. I found it. I think.
Read the full memo, obtained by NPR from a Democratic source:
"This Memorandum is intended to memorialize our agreement regarding the creation and operation of Hillary Victory Fund (Victory Fund), a joint fundraising committee of Hillary for America (HFA) and the Democratic National Committee (DNC).
"HFA is prepared to raise and invest funds into the DNC via the Victory. In return for this financial support, HFA requires the appropriate influence over the financial, strategic, and operational use of these JFA-raised funds.
"Commencing on September 1, 2015 HFA agrees to raise funds for the Victory Fund sufficient to fund the DNC's data, technology, analytics, research, and communications operations. Specifically, HFA will agree to raise and to instruct the Victory Fund Treasurer, Beth Jones (who is employed by HFA) to transfer from the Victory Fund a minimum of one million and two hundred thousand dollars ($1,200,000.00) to the DNC from its share of the net proceeds under the allocation formula on the first day of every month (beginning October 1, 2015) for these activities (the "Base Amount"). In the event that the Victory Fund is not in possession of adequate net proceeds allocable to the DNC on the first of the month to make such transfer, it shall make the required transfer as soon as adequate funds are available.
"HFA's obligations under this agreement, and the release of the Base Amounts each month are conditioned on the following:
- With respect to the hiring of a DNC Communications Director, the DNC agrees that no later than September 11, 2015 it will hire one of two candidates previously identified as acceptable to HFA.
- With respect to the hiring of future DNC senior staff in the communications, technology, and research departments, in the case of vacancy, the DNC will maintain the authority to make the final decision as between candidates acceptable to HFA.
- Agreement by the DNC that HFA personnel will be consulted and have joint authority over strategic decisions over the staffing, budget, expenditures, and general election related communications, data, technology, analytics, and research. The DNC will provide HFA advance opportunity to review on-line or mass email, communications that features a particular Democratic primary candidate. This does not include any communications related to primary debates – which will be exclusively controlled by the DNC. The DNC will alert HFA in advance of mailing any direct mail communications that features a particular Democratic primary candidate or his or her signature.
- If asked by a State Party, the DNC will encourage the State Party to become a participant in the Victory Fund.
"Once HFA has raised the first $1,200,000 and it has been distributed to the DNC, HFA will be granted complete and seamless access to all research work product and tools (not including any research or tracking the DNC may engage in relating to other Democratic candidates).
"The parties also agree that they will enter into an agreed upon voter file licensing agreement. As consideration for that agreement, HFA will raise an additional $250,000 into the Victory Fund that will be distributed to the DNC no later than March 31, 2016.
"In addition, HFA will also raise funds for the Victory Fund that will distributed to the DNC in excess of the $1,200,000 monthly base amount (Excess Amount). The Excess Amount raised by HFA that is distributed to the DNC will be spent on the DNC's data, technology, analytics, research, and communications operations as directed by HFA (Special Projects). Although the DNC will remain responsible for the day to day execution of those Special Projects, HFA will determine (in consultation with the DNC) the Special Project's scope, strategy, staffing, budget, and manner of execution.
"Finally, HFA agrees that on a monthly basis the Victory Fund will provide the DNC a list of receipts and disbursements from the Victory Fund. The DNC agrees to provide monthly financial reports to HFA as it relates to the use of the funds distributed by the Victory Fund to the DNC.
"In the event that there is a disagreement in the operation of this agreement or the use of the Base Amount, the DNC department head and their HFA counterpart will meet and confer to resolve the matter. If that fails to resolve the disagreement, then you and I will resolve it. If there is still no resolution the DNC Chair and the HFA Chair will resolve.
"Nothing in this agreement shall be construed to violate the DNC's obligation of impartiality and neutrality through the Nominating process. All activities performed under this agreement will be focused exclusively on preparations for the General Election and not the Democratic Primary. Further we understand you may enter into similar agreements with other candidates.
"The attached Joint Fundraising Agreement will be entered into by HFA and the DNC (as well as by State Parties).
"This agreement will be reviewed on March 31, 2016 and either party may terminate any prospective obligation at that time.
"If this memorandum correctly summarizes our agreement, please reply by email with the text – 'Agreed by DNC'."
drummerboy said:
oh,. wait. I found it. I think.
https://www.npr.org/2017/11/03/561976645/clinton-campaign-had-additional-signed-agreement-with-dnc-in-2015
Sigh.
If you paid attention you would have noticed that the memo you just posted and possibly spent some time looking for is the same one I posted previously and the one Ridski referred to as the Joint Funding Agreement.
sbenois said:
Buy a mirror Nan. You will know whose posts aren't worth reading.
And go start your own party already. We want to rebuild ours with people who support Democrats. Thanks.
Not as much fun as being the spoiler for Trump & Co.
Where is the rebuilding? There are zero changes at the DNC. Are you hoping to buy the nomination in 2020?
sbenois said:
Buy a mirror Nan. You will know whose posts aren't worth reading.
And go start your own party already. We want to rebuild ours with people who support Democrats. Thanks.
nan said:
I have to keep repeating myself because a bunch of you don't have a good grasp of the obvious.
drummerboy said:
Nan,
your posts aren't even worth reading anymore. They're just repetitive collections of far-left talking points with nothing to back them up. You presume that it's sufficient to toss out phrases like "secret document" and "chosen one" to make your arguments for you.
That may work for people whose faculty for critical reasoning has been erased, but it's not enough for the rest of us.
The thread has been an education though, because it's pointed out, at least to me, the breadth of the FoxNews-like disinformation network that lurks behind all of this nonsense.
BG9 said:
drummerboy said:
oh,. wait. I found it. I think.
https://www.npr.org/2017/11/03/561976645/clinton-campaign-had-additional-signed-agreement-with-dnc-in-2015
Sigh.
If you paid attention you would have noticed that the memo you just posted and possibly spent some time looking for is the same one I posted previously and the one Ridski referred to as the Joint Funding Agreement.
And the one I've posted at least twice and the one I've excerpted multiple times too, including in my last link.
BG9 said:
ridski said:
nan said:
ridski,
The date is correct but those articles (which I have read before), describe the contract as a typical agreement that might be signed by the DNC and any perspective candidate--the same kind of document that was offered to Bernie. The actual document--which Donna Brazille had to hunt down, gave Clinton control over the DNC's finances, hiring and communication. They do not include the actual document in either of those articles. Part of it is depicted in my last link. I have also linked to the full contract previously.
So the answer is yes.
Thanks.
Yes, the BIG SECRET, that was reported in the newspapers when the agreement was signed. I'm astounded at the secrecy.
The content of the agreement was not public--so that's what we call secret. It was not known about until Donna Brazille's book.
nan said:
The content of the agreement was not public--so that's what we call secret. It was not known about until Donna Brazille's book.
Yet, it was reported, just not the internal details. Which is usual in any effective concern.
For example, as a wholesaler I negotiate a contract with a factory and that may be known in my industry. But that does not mean I want the contract details publicly spelled out. To do so could possibly disadvantage me with my competitors or in future contract talks.
Political parties often retain some confidentiality to impede the oppositions ability to build effective counter strategies.
BG9 said:
nan said:
The content of the agreement was not public--so that's what we call secret. It was not known about until Donna Brazille's book.
Yet, it was reported, just not the internal details. Which is usual in any effective concern.
For example, as a wholesaler I negotiate a contract with a factory and that may be known in my industry. But that does not mean I want the contract details publicly spelled out. To do so could possibly disadvantage me with my competitors or in future contract talks.
Political parties often retain some confidentiality to impede the oppositions ability to build effective counter strategies.
This was a contract related to electing the most powerful person in the world. It's a bit more critical than what wholesellers sign. The DNC is supposed to run a neutral campaign--not favoring any candidate. The fact that they have superdelegates is already outrageous (especially since they can also be lobbyists). Anyway, if there was no problem with this contract then why did they lie about it? They repeatedly said they were neutral. Why did Hillary not mentiion it in her book, "What Happened?" Cause it was wrong and undemocratic and a really bad thing that caused us to end up with Trump. And now they are trying to cover by blaming Russia (x10) and Bernie and everyone but themselves. And they are not doing a thing different going forward so there is no reason to beleive they won't do the same thing in 2020.
drummerboy said:
have you noticed that mere repetition doesn't work for most of us? We need supporting evidence to prove that the things you think are bad, are actually as bad as you claim.
This is hilarious.
good! we're all on the same page.
But I don't think what I posted is the JFA, based on this line at the end of the posted doc:
"The attached Joint Fundraising Agreement will be entered into by HFA and the DNC (as well as by State Parties).
The doc I posted seems to be in addition to the JFA, and admittedly grants the Hillary campaign certain oversight over the DNC. The doc also contradicts itself - it mentions near the beginning that it would do something regarding the primaries, while further in the doc it explicitly states that this document only pertains to the general.
Not sure how that was ever resolved in practice, but the tin-hat crowd seize on this discrepancy as proof that "something" untoward must have happened due to this.
BG9 said:
drummerboy said:
oh,. wait. I found it. I think.
https://www.npr.org/2017/11/03/561976645/clinton-campaign-had-additional-signed-agreement-with-dnc-in-2015
Sigh.
If you paid attention you would have noticed that the memo you just posted and possibly spent some time looking for is the same one I posted previously and the one Ridski referred to as the Joint Funding Agreement.
yes, I would imagine, to you.
seeing as you think there has been no evidence produced regarding Russian meddling, your view of "evidence" is not mine.
paulsurovell said:
drummerboy said:
have you noticed that mere repetition doesn't work for most of us? We need supporting evidence to prove that the things you think are bad, are actually as bad as you claim.
This is hilarious.
You do know that Donna Brazille was the HEAD OF THE DNC, right? The head of an organization is usually a good source for what is going on there. Do you think she is making this stuff up?
drummerboy said:
good! we're all on the same page.
But I don't think what I posted is the JFA, based on this line at the end of the posted doc:
"The attached Joint Fundraising Agreement will be entered into by HFA and the DNC (as well as by State Parties).
The doc I posted seems to be in addition to the JFA, and admittedly grants the Hillary campaign certain oversight over the DNC. The doc also contradicts itself - it mentions near the beginning that it would do something regarding the primaries, while further in the doc it explicitly states that this document only pertains to the general.
Not sure how that was ever resolved in practice, but the tin-hat crowd seize on this discrepancy as proof that "something" untoward must have happened due to this.
BG9 said:
W
drummerboy said:
oh,. wait. I found it. I think.
https://www.npr.org/2017/11/03/561976645/clinton-campaign-had-additional-signed-agreement-with-dnc-in-2015
Sigh.
If you paid attention you would have noticed that the memo you just posted and possibly spent some time looking for is the same one I posted previously and the one Ridski referred to as the Joint Funding Agreement.
Donna Brazile keeps saying the primary wasn't rigged. So everyone can agree to that and move on.
nan said:
You do know that Donna Brazille was the HEAD OF THE DNC, right? The head of an organization is usually a good source for what is going on there. Do you think she is making this stuff up?
drummerboy said:
good! we're all on the same page.
But I don't think what I posted is the JFA, based on this line at the end of the posted doc:
"The attached Joint Fundraising Agreement will be entered into by HFA and the DNC (as well as by State Parties).
The doc I posted seems to be in addition to the JFA, and admittedly grants the Hillary campaign certain oversight over the DNC. The doc also contradicts itself - it mentions near the beginning that it would do something regarding the primaries, while further in the doc it explicitly states that this document only pertains to the general.
Not sure how that was ever resolved in practice, but the tin-hat crowd seize on this discrepancy as proof that "something" untoward must have happened due to this.
BG9 said:
W
drummerboy said:
oh,. wait. I found it. I think.
https://www.npr.org/2017/11/03/561976645/clinton-campaign-had-additional-signed-agreement-with-dnc-in-2015
Sigh.
If you paid attention you would have noticed that the memo you just posted and possibly spent some time looking for is the same one I posted previously and the one Ridski referred to as the Joint Funding Agreement.
Donna Brazille describes an election that was rigged. She is doing damage control now, as she probably lost most of her friends and has been accused of being a Russian bot. She was very brave.
All I know is she said it wasn't rigged. You said she should be believed, since she was the party chair. I agree with the others who don't see the connection between the agreement and Hillary Clinton winding up with more votes for the nomination.
nan said:
Donna Brazille describes an election that was rigged. She is doing damage control now, as she probably lost most of her friends and has been accused of being a Russian bot. She was very brave.
she was head of the dnc for about 5 minutes, and 0 minutes during the primaries, so what would she know about anything? That freaking agreement was probably dead and forgotten and meaningless by the time she came on board.
By the way, one of your complaints is that Hillary had control over all DNC appointments. Can you list ONE appointment that was clearly an attempt to put in her own person AND show us what that person did to sway the primaries.
Just one.
nan said:
Donna Brazille describes an election that was rigged. She is doing damage control now, as she probably lost most of her friends and has been accused of being a Russian bot. She was very brave.
drummerboy said:
By the way, one of your complaints is that Hillary had control over all DNC appointments. Can you list ONE appointment that was clearly an attempt to put in her own person AND show us what that person did to sway the primaries.
Every single one of them.
drummerboy said:
good! we're all on the same page.
But I don't think what I posted is the JFA, based on this line at the end of the posted doc:
"The attached Joint Fundraising Agreement will be entered into by HFA and the DNC (as well as by State Parties).
The doc I posted seems to be in addition to the JFA, and admittedly grants the Hillary campaign certain oversight over the DNC. The doc also contradicts itself - it mentions near the beginning that it would do something regarding the primaries, while further in the doc it explicitly states that this document only pertains to the general.
Not sure how that was ever resolved in practice, but the tin-hat crowd seize on this discrepancy as proof that "something" untoward must have happened due to this.
BG9 said:
drummerboy said:
oh,. wait. I found it. I think.
https://www.npr.org/2017/11/03/561976645/clinton-campaign-had-additional-signed-agreement-with-dnc-in-2015
Sigh.
If you paid attention you would have noticed that the memo you just posted and possibly spent some time looking for is the same one I posted previously and the one Ridski referred to as the Joint Funding Agreement.
Well I'd like to thank DB for posting the text of the Memo. I guess I had not noticed the prior links.
As I read it the DNC wanted the Hillary campaign's help in raising $. There were express caveats concerning The DNC's neutrality with respect to the Primaries.
drummerboy said:
oh,. wait. I found it. I think.
https://www.npr.org/2017/11/03/561976645/clinton-campaign-had-additional-signed-agreement-with-dnc-in-2015
"Nothing in this agreement shall be construed to violate the DNC's obligation of impartiality and neutrality through the Nominating process. All activities performed under this agreement will be focused exclusively on preparations for the General Election and not the Democratic Primary. Further we understand you may enter into similar agreements with other candidates.
"The attached Joint Fundraising Agreement will be entered into by HFA and the DNC (as well as by State Parties).
"This agreement will be reviewed on March 31, 2016 and either party may terminate any prospective obligation at that time.
"If this memorandum correctly summarizes our agreement, please reply by email with the text – 'Agreed by DNC'."
Was Bernie's campaign offered the same deal? Were they told about it?
I am not sure That the words "The attached" are accurate. The Memo seems pretty extensive and specific. The paragraph above it reads "this agreement". It is not worded perfectly but if Bernie was offered the same thing or if he was made aware of this agreement I do not see anything nefarious.
I do not believe my request to Nan for evidence of fraud at the Polls has been answered.
nan said:nohero said:You ignore so much to make these claims. Hillary signed a secret document to run the DNC. She should not have been the "chosen one." There were many other better candidates, but she had the cash. Why do you give her a pass for rigging the election? This included controlling much of the media (Wikileaks shows how this was done). Lies about Bernie supporters throwing chairs helped produce a "Manufactured Consent." Hillary had debate questions ahead of time, etc. There is also evidence of election fraud at the poles. And there was the super delegate system and how independents were prevented from voting. Hillary is not responsible for those, but since the DNC is not changing these things, where is your outrage? As usual, you beat up on voters, instead of the party that allowed a unelectable candidate to buy the nomination.
Nobody has ever explained how the thing used to claim "rigging" made all those people vote for Hillary in the primaries, and more of those voters picked her. In any event, if Donald Trump getting elected is "concrete evidence of harm", that was obvious before the election. That's why I criticize people like the guy Ms. Nan keeps citing, who claimed before the election that it was better if Hillary lost.
nan said:
There is concrete evidence of harm: Donald Trump got elected. Had the primary not been rigged, no doubt we would have had a different outcome.
I know the response to me has the same litany of generalities, but what the heck, I'll give it a shot, but will have to break it down.
You ignore so much to make these claims. Hillary signed a secret document to run the DNC. She should not have been the "chosen one." There were many other better candidates, but she had the cash. - I don't ignore anything, I look at the facts and claims. There is a lot of claiming about rigging, but nobody has explained how the claim became the nomination, as in, more voters choosing Clinton. The "secret document" is talked about as if using that term proves some kind of point. The facts show that "run the DNC" didn't have the type of power in practice that is claimed. Of course I know she had the cash, she was working on this project for a long time. The "secret agreement" didn't make other potential candidates decide that she was too well-financed and had lined up too much support to make it worth running against her. That's politics.
Why do you give her a pass for rigging the election? This included controlling much of the media (Wikileaks shows how this was done). Lies about Bernie supporters throwing chairs helped produce a "Manufactured Consent." Hillary had debate questions ahead of time, etc. There is also evidence of election fraud at the poles. And there was the super delegate system and how independents were prevented from voting. Hillary is not responsible for those, but since the DNC is not changing these things, where is your outrage? - You give a list of things that, if you look at the facts, are arguably not true. I can't "give her a pass" or not "give her a pass" for "rigging the election" until someone explains to me how it was rigged. So far, the Joint Agreement doesn't do that, it doesn't explain how the "rigging" happened. As for the "lies about Bernie supporters throwing chairs", I vaguely recall there was a story about one caucus, but again that's not something that decided the primaries. As an aside, lies about the emails were A LOT more important. As for debate questions, she had a heads-up on one question, as I recall, about water quality at the Flint debate. That would not be a surprise. Also, Ms. Brazile has said that she spoke with all candidates, but only her communications with Hillary and her people were "leaked". As for "super delegates", they aren't why Hillary won, since she won among the delegates selected in primaries and caucuses. "Independents prevented from voting" varies according to pre-existing state rules (in NJ, you can declare your party the day of the primary, to vote in that primary; I know that other states may have different rules). But for the sake of argument, the rules on how independents voted were NOT put in place just to help Hillary. It was a party primary process, and if they want the voters to be Democrats (however that takes place under state voter registration rules), that wasn't the first time that was the case. So not going up to "outrage" based on that list.
As usual, you beat up on voters, instead of the party that allowed a unelectable candidate to buy the nomination. -I'm not blaming voters, I'm noting what the voters did. More voters chose Hillary in the primary. You "blame" them, obviously.
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:
Mr. Surovell has again taken a statement out of context. What I wrote was about "the chanting Bernie Bros at the convention " who "protested her nomination". Since that was going on from Day One of the convention, the meaning should have been obvious -
Almost as soon as the gavel echoed, ardent supporters of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders hijacked the opening moments of the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia Monday, repeatedly booing mentions of Hillary Clinton, chanting Sanders’ name and turning what was supposed to be a celebration of party unity into an ugly family feud.
It was a disastrous start to a four-day televised event that was supposed to showcase Democratic unity. Inside the arena, Sanders supporters repeatedly disrupted the proceedings on stage, drowning out a series of black elected officials at the podium. Outside the arena, some Sanders supporters tried to block buses carrying delegates from entering the secured complex.
From the opening prayer, in which Rev. Dr. Cynthia Hale invoked Clinton’s name, almost every reference of the presumptive Democratic nominee’s drew boos from hundreds of vocal Sanders delegates and supporters. Some delegates borrowed a chant from last week’s Republican convention in Cleveland, shouting, “Lock her up!”
...
So Sanders’ supporters booed and jeered Clinton, while Democratic officials watched as any patina of party unity seemed to go by the wayside. If Democrats are to defeat Republican Donald Trump, they will need to muster far greater cooperation than was on display as the activists and insiders began their every-four-years summit.
They chanted "Lock her up" throughout the convention. They even booed the prayer.
I have no respect for the Sanders supporters who did that, and no respect for any excuses for their actions to turn the convention into a commercial for Donald Trump.
What is your evidence that Bernie supporters chanted "Lock her up?"
The evidence is in contemporaneous news accounts, one of which I cited in my post to which you responded "What is your evidence that Bernie supporters changed 'Lock her up?' "
My turn. Where is your evidence that they didn't chant "Lock her up"?
Rentals
Featured Events
-
Stephen Whitty Presents - Hometown Movie Stars: The Celebrated Actors Of CHS
May 6, 2024 at 7:00pm
Advertisement
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/25/lock-her-up-sanders-trump-clinton-chant