Ask yourself a simple question: How come in 2020 there are 20 people running for president in the Democratic party, yet in 2016, there were only 2 candidates?
How come there are 10 times more candidates now?
In 2016 it was only Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. Now there’s 24 of ’em and if you can name more than half, you’re a better man than I.
Consider the possibility nobody ran against Hillary (except for Crazy Uncle Bernie) because they all knew the campaign was rigged ahead of time. Yep.
Hindsight’s 2020, ain’t it?
by O Society August 14, 2019
Bernie Sanders’ 2016 presidential nomination was stolen by Hillary Clinton and the DNC she bought. When he said this out loud in public, no one listened.
Here is an example in the Atlantic of where he said it out loud:
At the heart of the matter is a claim the fundraising effort may be improperly subsidizing the Clinton campaign. A letter sent by Brad Deutsch, the Sanders campaign attorney, to DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, suggests money spent by the fund has benefited the Clinton campaign in a way that could constitute “an impermissible in-kind contribution from the DNC and the participating state party committees.” The fund “appears to operate in a way that skirts legal limits on federal campaign donations and primarily benefits the Clinton presidential campaign,” a press release sent out by the Sanders campaign warned.
People pretended like it didn’t happen.
Tulsi Gabbard resigned from her position with the DNC over their rigging of the Democratic primary:
By mid-2016, Gabbard committed the ultimate party heresy: She very publicly resigned from her position as Democratic National Committee vice chair at the peak of the primary battle to endorse Sen. Bernie Sanders after months of internally accusing DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz of corruptly violating the DNC’s duty of neutrality by favoring Hillary Clinton.
Her accusation was later vindicated through emails published by WikiLeaks, Wasserman Schultz’s resignation, Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s own “rigging” accusation, and current DNC Chair Donna Brazile’s book, which caused Gabbard to publicly repeat her allegations of the DNC’s “unethical rigging” of the primary in favor of Clinton.
People pretended like it didn’t happen
Elizabeth Warren said it out loud:
Please don’t expect me or anyone else to forget this is how Hillary Clinton rigged the primary election, which caused me and everyone else with a soul left to lose to decide there is no way in hell I can now or ever vote for Hillary Clinton because she rigged the election whether she’s running against Donald Trump, Mickey Mouse, or Beelzebub himself.
It makes no difference to me how many times Trump did or did not talk to Valdimir Putin. Hillary Clinton rigged the primary election and her campaign staff decided to blame it all on the Russians when she lost the general to Trump. It’s right here in this book called Shattered. Here it is for free. Read it:
It was in the New York Times, didn’t you get the memo?
So much for the “they’re FoxNews haters” explanation. The New York Times review says the authors of the book – Allen and Parnes – are sympathetic to Hillary Clinton and wrote another book about her earlier demonstrating this:
Allen and Parnes are the authors of a 2014 book, “H R C,” a largely sympathetic portrait of Clinton’s years as secretary of state, and this book reflects their access to longtime residents of Clinton’s circle. They interviewed more than a hundred sources on background — with the promise none of the material they gathered would appear before the election — and while it’s clear that some of these people are spinning blame retroactively, many are surprisingly candid about the frustrations they experienced during the campaign.
If you don’t want to read the book, no worries. This money quote tells you what you need to know.
“She’s not being particularly self -reflective,” said one longtime ally who was on calls with her shortly after the election. Instead, Hillary kept pointing her finger at Comey and Russia. “She wants to make sure all these narratives get spun the right way,” this person said.
Soon after Clinton’s defeat, top strategists decided where to place the blame. “Within 24 hours of her concession speech,” the authors report, campaign manager Robby Mook and campaign chair John Podesta “assembled her communications team at the Brooklyn headquarters to engineer the case the election wasn’t entirely on the up-and-up. For a couple of hours, with Shake Shack containers littering the room, they went over the script they would pitch to the press and the public. Already, Russian hacking was the centerpiece of the argument.”
Hillary Clinton lost the election because she is dishonest and cheated our democratic system out in the open. That’s why I didn’t vote for her and it’s why millions of other Americans just like me – who are *not* Donald Trump supporters – refused to vote for her as well.
The Russians have nothing to do with Hillary Clinton’s graft and credibility problems. Hillary has everything to do with Hillary Clinton’s graft and corruption problems.
It was in the Root, “the black guy with the PhD” Michael Harriot… didn’t you get the memo?
When Hillary Clinton took the stage as the party’s nominee at the Democratic National Convention, it was already a foregone conclusion. She had long tied up the nomination process by securing the number of delegates needed for a victory. But in an explosive article, former interim Democratic National Committee Chair Donna Brazile says Hillary Clinton rigged the race in her favor long before a single vote was counted, and she has proof.
Brazile was selected to run the Democratic Party after Debbie Wasserman Shultz was ousted as chairperson when leaked emails revealed Shultz was essentially a Hillary operative running the party. Brazile says she promised Clinton’s opponent, Sen. Bernie Sanders, that if she ever discovered the presidential nomination process was unfair or unethical, she’d let him know.
Well, she’s let Sanders know.
Brazile penned an in-depth article for Politico that exposes how Hillary Clinton finagled a secret agreement to put her in control of the DNC’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised by the party in exchange for resolving its debt.
The Democratic National Committee is the national party. Until a presidential candidate is nominated, it is supposed to work as an unbiased umbrella organization for all of the presidential candidates. Contributions are limited to $33,400.
Hillary for America was the Clinton campaign. Contributions to the campaign are capped at $2,700, but Clinton can do whatever she wants with the money.
The Hillary Victory Fund was the joint fundraising arm of the DNC and the Clinton campaign. It raises money for each individual state campaign and shares it with the DNC. Because of federal election laws, a person can contribute up to $10,000 to each of these state campaigns.
Since HFA was in 32 states, essentially, Clinton’s big-money donors could write a check for $353,400 ($10,000 for each state, plus $33,400 to the DNC), but the money was theoretically supposed to stay in each state, and the rest with the DNC.
Brazile explains when she took over, she was surprised to find out the DNC was millions of dollars in financial debt (partly because Shultz managed the committee so poorly). So the Democratic Party went to Clinton, who was raking in huge amounts of money through fundraising with big-money donors, and asked for a loan.
Clinton agreed, but only on one condition. Brazile discovered Hillary for America, the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Victory Fund signed an agreement that gave the DNC $2 million in exchange for control of the party’s finances, strategy, and fundraising.
Remember all those dollar amounts we talked about earlier? Here’s why you had to read that bullshit:
Hillary Clinton’s big-money donors donated $82 million. Well, Clinton funneled all of that money to the DNC because she controlled it! In fact, less than half of 1 percent went to the state campaigns. While this is not technically illegal, Politico described it as “essentially money-laundering” for the Clinton campaign.
Why is this important? Because the Clinton campaign controlled the strategy, which means:
- In states where Sanders was favored in the primary, Clinton could control the purse strings of the DNC’s “get out the vote effort.”
- Even if Sanders raised the maximum amount possible, he couldn’t compete with Clinton’s fundraising because she also had the secret, supposedly unbiased DNC bank account in her back pocket.
Election primaries are not controlled by the government. They are determined by the parties, which means that Clinton had control over every contest she competed with Sanders. It’s like playing a basketball game with your mom and dad as the referees.
And your cousin is the scorekeeper.
And your brother is the other team’s coach.
Donna Brazile said she cried, and I got a little misty-eyed reading this, too. Hillary Clinton is running around the country hawking books, talking about how Donald Trump rigged the election, while she is the one doing it. I told you that wrinkled old fainting lady was evil. It is undeniable. She is a crook and a liar.
None of this means that Trump isn’t a terrible president, but always remember: The lesser of two evils is still evil.
But your vote still counts …
Man, I don’t even know anymore.
Read more at Politico.
The work details former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s presidential loss to billionaire Donald Trump. Allen, who was and is a correspondent for Bloomberg News, also writes extensively about Congress, national politics, and works as a political analyst on national television news programs.
Wikileaks uploaded a picture from a page of Allen’s book, which destroys the Russian hacking narrative immediately:
The page uploaded by Wikileaks explains how the Clinton spin machine was set in motion in the minutes following her loss to Trump. Apparently, John Podesta (Clinton’s campaign manager), collaborated with Robby Mook (fellow member of the Clinton campaign) to make the argument the election was rigged by the Russians — an argument put forward when it was revealed in early 2016 the Democratic National Committee’s emails were released to the public.
Building on this narrative, the Clinton camp reportedly put out the notion to members of the media the election was anything but fair. The suggestion made “Russian hacking the centerpiece of the argument.”
It was in the Huffington Post… didn’t you get the memos?
The motivations for doing so are speculative at best. Was Clinton’s team preparing a comeback in 2020? Was the effort done to cast the shadow of doubt over a Trump presidency? Or was the plan to implicate the Russians a way to rile up voters in an effort to somehow win the presidency when the official electoral votes were cast for the newly elected Trump?
Allen seemed to know, and his sources seemed to indicate the Clinton camp was not at all willing to concede without first doing damage to a Trump presidency. Immediately following the election, riots took place in the streets of several metropolitan areas, including Washington, D.C.
Our very own Claire Bernish took to the streets to document the uprising. With Allen’s revelations and Wikileaks’ charge, those same riots and school walkouts now appear to be a direct result of the Clinton campaign’s spin tactics.
To this date, we’ve still yet to see a single shred of evidence Russia hacked the US elections. In fact, the US is trying so hard to prove this nonexistent hacking they allegedly bribed a Russian man — offering him cash, citizenship, and an apartment — if he confessed to hacking Clinton’s emails on behalf of Donald Trump. He refused.
The effects of those tactics, as well as the reportedly invented story of Russian meddling, lead to the firing of FBI Director James Comey. His firing took place just as investigations into Russian election meddling were ramping up.
It remains to be seen when the wildfire of controversy will quell, now sparked by what appears to be one candidate’s incessant desire to paint her opponent as nothing more than a pawn of the Russians, and painting herself as a hapless victim.
While there are plenty of reasons to stand against Donald Trump — war, flip-flopping on promises, increasing the police state, etc. — Russian hacking is not one of them.
Clinton still blames the Russians among other things. According to the Associated Press, Clinton blamed misogyny (hatred of women), James Comey and the FBI, Russian meddling in the election, and even herself for her loss. Now, it seems in reality, there’s one less group to blame; The Russians.
If Allen is to be believed, it is all an apparent invention from her campaign team in an effort to control the narrative, and in some ways, control the man who beat her. The real question is who is behind these “Deep State” movements?
Continuing the train of thought on what is Russia-gate supposed to distract us from?
The answer is it is projection.
Just how big does the smoking gun need to be?