Author Topic: The Clinton campaign and the DNC  (Read 1050 times)

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« on: November 02, 2017, 04:33:51 PM »
I just came across this article, which strikes me as being something that will be mostly ignored. I'm not even certain as to what exactly it all means, but it seems to confirm what a lot of people had been saying about the DNC 'rigging' the election for Hillary. It appears that it went far deeper than mere collusion. This article was just published by Donna Brazile, who seems to be blowing the whistle on some of what was going on with DNC finances from 2015-2016. She was interim chair of the party so I assume that means she speaks with authority.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774

Quote
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 32 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?”

Gary said the campaign had to do it or the party would collapse.

And one more quote:

Quote
The agreement—signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook with a copy to Marc Elias—specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings.

[...]

When the party chooses the nominee, the custom is that the candidate’s team starts to exercise more control over the party. If the party has an incumbent candidate, as was the case with Clinton in 1996 or Obama in 2012, this kind of arrangement is seamless because the party already is under the control of the president. When you have an open contest without an incumbent and competitive primaries, the party comes under the candidate’s control only after the nominee is certain. When I was manager of Al Gore’s campaign in 2000, we started inserting our people into the DNC in June. This victory fund agreement, however, had been signed in August 2015, just four months after Hillary announced her candidacy and nearly a year before she officially had the nomination.

Assuming all of Brazile's information is correct, it would appear that suggesting collusion between Hillary's campaign and the DNC would be something of an understatement. It might be more accurate to say that her campaign bought the DNC and henceforth was the DNC for all intents and purposes.

LetterRip

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« Reply #1 on: November 02, 2017, 06:45:52 PM »
Based on this Senator Warren believes it is a fair to say that the primary was rigged,

Quote
"If the fight had been fair, one campaign would not have control of the party before the voters had decided which one they wanted to lead," Brazile added. "This was not a criminal act, but as I saw it, it compromised the party's integrity."

Tapper, in his Thursday interview, asked Warren point-blank if she thought the primary was rigged.

"Yes," Warren said.

http://www.businessinsider.com/elizabeth-warren-dnc-rigged-2016-primary-clinton-sanders-2017-11

jasonr

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« Reply #2 on: November 03, 2017, 07:58:23 AM »
I think it's important to emphasize that the DNC is not just some private club or organization. It is part and parcel to the machinery of the Federal government in the two party system you have.  Its processes are the government's processes. It is defacto a branch of the Federal government and should be accountable in its processes to every citizen, regardless of party affiliation.

So when there's duplicity or corruption or the case that someone has managed to buy or co-opt the DNC, that is indistinguishable from buying or co-opting a part of the Federal government.

This is one of the reasons why I saw the DNC scandal as so far reaching in its implications. Russia is a foreign power. Putin doesn't answer to the American people and isn't accountable to them. But somehow his duplicity is a bigger threat to American democracy than the corruption of the DNC, which represents a vital piece of the machinery of the Federal government?

As Fenring noted, it seems like people have lost the plot. It's okay for our own government to manipulate and lie to us but if Russia does it then the sky is falling.

Wayward Son

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« Reply #3 on: November 03, 2017, 11:19:45 AM »
Quote
I think it's important to emphasize that the DNC is not just some private club or organization. It is part and parcel to the machinery of the Federal government in the two party system you have.  Its processes are the government's processes. It is defacto a branch of the Federal government and should be accountable in its processes to every citizen, regardless of party affiliation.

That's a pretty cool principle you state there, jasonr.  I think it will be very useful in American politics in the future.

I, for one, have a strong opinion about how the Republicans count primary votes, which allowed a candidate with a tiny plurality to get the overwhelming number of delegates.  This allowed a small, fringe faction of the Republican party to basically take over the party, and ultimately lead to the candidate being elected President.

Now I never thought I would be able to change this counting system, since I don't belong to the Republican party.  But once this principle has been established, I can, being an American citizen, demand that the Republican reform their system, in order to prevent another Donald Trump from being elected.

Of course, I don't think any Republicans will agree with me right now, but perhaps this incident will help persuade them to open up their party to the will of people like me. ;) :D

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« Reply #4 on: November 03, 2017, 12:25:45 PM »
Of course, I don't think any Republicans will agree with me right now, but perhaps this incident will help persuade them to open up their party to the will of people like me. ;) :D

Wayward you've got it backwards. You're making the mistake I basically alluded to my OP, which is that people will hand-wave this away and retreat into their partisan camps. And normally that's what's being encouraged: blame any bad results on the other side and call it a day without changing anything. What you describe may well be a problem that irks the Democrats, and perhaps even some Republicans. But what I posted about isn't something that should irk the Republicans. On the contrary, they benefited greatly from Bernie being sidelined as Hillary handed them the election. What I'm discussing isn't how bad the other side is; i.e. I'm not posting this as a Republican and pointing a finger at the DNC. Not at all! What I'm saying is that every Democrat in the country has been betrayed by a de facto privatization of their party, and if Hillary had won, of the Federal government to an extent. Your move now shouldn't be to point out how the RNC is also bad, or that 'they must be stopped first' before any change is made in your side. Such a position would be little more than entrenched fanaticism, and once that point has been reached any end goal towards the better has already been compromised beyond repair.

Pointing fingers at the other side simply reads as corrupt doublespeak when your own side is doing ridiculous things of its own. I'm not calling out anyone here under those terms, but rather referring to how people from the other side will read a lack of reaction to something like this.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« Reply #5 on: November 03, 2017, 01:11:09 PM »
Quote
It's okay for our own government to manipulate and lie to us but if Russia does it then the sky is falling.

It's okay for our own government to gerrymander districts, but...
It's okay for our own government to buy campaign ads on TV, but...
It's okay for our own government to X, but...

Of course it is always a very different thing when a foreign government does something to us that ours does to us. As I've stated before, Republicans, Democrats, and Russians should all be reviled for their actions. Minimizing the important difference of Russians doing this is foolish.

Everyone is colluding with everyone. It's enough to make you want to join Antifa, at least they hate everyone equally.

If you don't want collusion, start voting Libertarian, Green, Socialist. Anything but the two majors. Stop donating to them. Stop going to their rallies. Stop buying their books.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« Reply #6 on: November 03, 2017, 02:12:18 PM »
If you don't want collusion, start voting Libertarian, Green, Socialist. Anything but the two majors. Stop donating to them. Stop going to their rallies. Stop buying their books.

Especially since, if Brazile is to be believed, the DNC was borderline bankrupt as it was during the primary race. If they are that close to the margin even with the tacit support of their base imagine how much fur would fly if their base began to withdraw from them. That is how you get reform: threaten to shut them down.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« Reply #7 on: November 03, 2017, 02:14:05 PM »
Hahaha. Onion.

Quote
Saying that the new organization would be aimed at upholding the political party’s standard of conduct and ideals, the Democratic National Committee unveiled Thursday the Clinton Institute For Campaign Ethics Reform in response to recent allegations of election rigging during the 2016 primary. “The DNC is taking these claims of misconduct very seriously, which is why we have founded, with the help of a generous $40 million donation from an anonymous benefactor, this new institute whose main focus will be to look into corruption claims like these,” said chairman Tom Perez, adding that a committee has been formed to review the party’s practices and will be led by former DNC chair and current democratic Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who eagerly volunteered her services and intimate knowledge of the 2016 election. “The institute’s initial funding will go toward hiring numerous consultants, lawyers, and policy experts whose experience and advice will be essential in retooling the DNC to align with our value system as democrats and Americans.” At press time, the DNC announced plans to maintain the Clinton Institute’s independence by raising capital with several $30,000-per-plate fundraising dinners.

jasonr

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« Reply #8 on: November 03, 2017, 03:39:50 PM »
Quote
I think it's important to emphasize that the DNC is not just some private club or organization. It is part and parcel to the machinery of the Federal government in the two party system you have.  Its processes are the government's processes. It is defacto a branch of the Federal government and should be accountable in its processes to every citizen, regardless of party affiliation.

That's a pretty cool principle you state there, jasonr.  I think it will be very useful in American politics in the future.

I, for one, have a strong opinion about how the Republicans count primary votes, which allowed a candidate with a tiny plurality to get the overwhelming number of delegates.  This allowed a small, fringe faction of the Republican party to basically take over the party, and ultimately lead to the candidate being elected President.

Now I never thought I would be able to change this counting system, since I don't belong to the Republican party.  But once this principle has been established, I can, being an American citizen, demand that the Republican reform their system, in order to prevent another Donald Trump from being elected.

Of course, I don't think any Republicans will agree with me right now, but perhaps this incident will help persuade them to open up their party to the will of people like me. ;) :D

Wayward it's depressing that you immediately presume I'm going to take the bait and defend the Republican party as some kind of RNC cheerleader.

I meant what I said: you as a citizen have every bit as much interest in how the Republican Party is run as anyone else. I am not talking about its policies or ideology, but in the integrity of its primary process, which is an integral mechanism of the Federal Government and iys executive branch.

The RNC runs the country in one form or another pretty much always - it is an arm of the Federal Government.

No idea if your complaint is valid mind you.

jasonr

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« Reply #9 on: November 03, 2017, 03:47:52 PM »
Quote
It's okay for our own government to manipulate and lie to us but if Russia does it then the sky is falling.

It's okay for our own government to gerrymander districts, but...
It's okay for our own government to buy campaign ads on TV, but...
It's okay for our own government to X, but...

Of course it is always a very different thing when a foreign government does something to us that ours does to us. As I've stated before, Republicans, Democrats, and Russians should all be reviled for their actions. Minimizing the important difference of Russians doing this is foolish.

Everyone is colluding with everyone. It's enough to make you want to join Antifa, at least they hate everyone equally.

If you don't want collusion, start voting Libertarian, Green, Socialist. Anything but the two majors. Stop donating to them. Stop going to their rallies. Stop buying their books.

TheDrake I'm not merely mentioning the DNC in this context as a deflection against Russian meddling allegations, as if the two things had nothing to do with one another.

The most serious allegation re Russian meddling was that it hacked DNC servers and leaked internal emails to the public.

Rather than outrage over the true things the emails revealed about how tge DNC conspired to rig the primary process for ine candidate, we're told the real problem is Russia because if our leaders lie to us well that's cool but God forbid a foreign nation expose their duplicity fir self serving reasons!

To use a legal analogy, it's the difference between YOUR lawyer lying to me and MY lawyer lying to me. Neither is great but I know which of the two is the real scandal.

DonaldD

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« Reply #10 on: November 03, 2017, 04:32:28 PM »
Quote
The most serious allegation re Russian meddling was that it hacked DNC servers and leaked internal emails to the public.
Not really.  The most serious allegation is that Russia implemented a broad spectrum attack on the US election, sure, including hacks of basically everything that it could, including DNC servers but as well as election equipment and social hacking of electoral processes, but also dis-information programs and attempts to instigate and exacerbate social divisions in the country.  The social media attacks on the country were probably worse, in that the effects were not just limited to the election results.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« Reply #11 on: November 03, 2017, 04:50:26 PM »
Quote
The most serious allegation re Russian meddling was that it hacked DNC servers and leaked internal emails to the public.
Not really.  The most serious allegation is that Russia implemented a broad spectrum attack on the US election, sure, including hacks of basically everything that it could, including DNC servers but as well as election equipment and social hacking of electoral processes, but also dis-information programs and attempts to instigate and exacerbate social divisions in the country.  The social media attacks on the country were probably worse, in that the effects were not just limited to the election results.

I think you've gotten into the habit here of conflating many things and using the simple word "attack" for them all. A hacking operation could qualify as an 'attack', I'd agree with that. To what extent Russia actually hacked into systems is a question. Based on what we can reasonably know I'm fairly confident they did not hack into the DNC systems as it's far more likely that was an inside job. Whether they hacked into election equipment I'm not quite sure, however I've posted before on expert testimony on how easy it would be (or is) to manipulate voting equipment. I would still agree that a foreign power doing so is an attack, but that doesn't mean the state of things as it is can be written off as "it was ok until they hacked us". This is an internal matter that would need to be addressed separately.

I don't, however, see how you can reasonably call competing in the social media sphere as an 'attack' unless anyone (literally anyone) who posts things that cause disturbances in the U.S. should be referred to as attacking America. Interfering with? Maybe. Trolling Americans? Ok. But an attack doesn't just mean they use civil and legal methods (i.e. communication channels) to influence how people think. That actually *should* be viable for various parties to do in a free country, and it's precisely one of the 'weaknesses' of allowing free discourse, is that you accept discourse by parties whose interest doesn't align with yours. It's not even a question of the bill of rights, it's a question of leaving the marketplace of ideas open, even to bad things. Defence against bad/wrong/misleading ideas should include education, civic discourse, government informing its citizens, and so forth. It should not include labeling subversive ideas as being an attack. From this standpoint I believe I stand squarely on the other side of the issue as you. These sorts of things - whatever they are that Russia did - are not an attack even though they served Russian interests. You act as though Russia should have no influence on American affairs. Even putting aside the "but we do it too" argument - why not? Why should they not have an effect on America? Are you contemplating a Trump-style firewall where no outside ideas are permitted in? No outside voices messing us up?

If Russia attacks American infrastructure that should be defended against fully. If they 'attack' American ideas, civility, mores, and any other areas that ought to be open to challenge by whomever feels like it, for better or worse. The answer is to become better, not to shut down those who can profit by exploiting how we're worse.

Wayward Son

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« Reply #12 on: November 03, 2017, 05:37:56 PM »
Quote
I think it's important to emphasize that the DNC is not just some private club or organization. It is part and parcel to the machinery of the Federal government in the two party system you have.  Its processes are the government's processes. It is defacto a branch of the Federal government and should be accountable in its processes to every citizen, regardless of party affiliation.

That's a pretty cool principle you state there, jasonr.  I think it will be very useful in American politics in the future.

I, for one, have a strong opinion about how the Republicans count primary votes, which allowed a candidate with a tiny plurality to get the overwhelming number of delegates.  This allowed a small, fringe faction of the Republican party to basically take over the party, and ultimately lead to the candidate being elected President.

Now I never thought I would be able to change this counting system, since I don't belong to the Republican party.  But once this principle has been established, I can, being an American citizen, demand that the Republican reform their system, in order to prevent another Donald Trump from being elected.

Of course, I don't think any Republicans will agree with me right now, but perhaps this incident will help persuade them to open up their party to the will of people like me. ;) :D

Wayward it's depressing that you immediately presume I'm going to take the bait and defend the Republican party as some kind of RNC cheerleader.

I meant what I said: you as a citizen have every bit as much interest in how the Republican Party is run as anyone else. I am not talking about its policies or ideology, but in the integrity of its primary process, which is an integral mechanism of the Federal Government and iys executive branch.

The RNC runs the country in one form or another pretty much always - it is an arm of the Federal Government.

No idea if your complaint is valid mind you.

It is a pity that you didn't take the bait, because it would have made immediately clear my point.

Republicans will never allow a Democrat like me to dictate how their primaries are run, or anything else about their party.

Which would lead to the converse: Democrats will not allow Republicans to dictate how their party is run.

The reason is obvious--Democrats would change things to make them better for themselves and their ideology, not necessarily better for Republicans.  And vice versa.

So while I agree that the nation has some stake in seeing both parties run virtuously, there is more than enough suspicion and distrust of the other side (even back during better times!) that neither party would trust such oversight.

(This is also the reason why Russian interference with our elections is more galling than our own: because we know that they will work to make things better for themselves and not necessarily better for our country.)

There also seems to be quite a bit of crocodile tears in these charges.

The only two groups that seem to be upset with Bernie Sanders being treated unfairly are the Republicans and the Sanders supporters.

But you have to remember, Sanders is not a Democrat.  He has never been a Democrat.  He was an Independent competing for the Democratic nomination.  He may have been a Democrat during the primaries, but he bolted the second they were over.

Yet people are outraged that the Democratic Party gave more support to the Democratic contender than to the outsider.  ???  Seriously, what did you expect??

Now I will admit that, for this particular charge, I have no idea how serious it is.  The precise rules for the use of these funds eludes me, and how egregious this breaking of them is obscure.  But it still seems to me to be an issue for the Democratic Party itself, because ultimately it is the Party that gets to decide its own rules, and it is the Party that will suffer if they are broken.

But saying that outsiders should be able to define and enforce the rules of a political party strikes me as a great overreach that would have far worse implications in the future, especially if an opposing party gets control of the rule-and-enforcement agency.  So while I understand your concern, I think it in the long term it would be a bad idea.

jasonr

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« Reply #13 on: November 03, 2017, 05:53:37 PM »
Quote
But you have to remember, Sanders is not a Democrat.  He has never been a Democrat.  He was an Independent competing for the Democratic nomination.  He may have been a Democrat during the primaries, but he bolted the second they were over.

Yet people are outraged that the Democratic Party gave more support to the Democratic contender than to the outsider.  ???  Seriously, what did you expect??

This is the fallacy that I object to: the implication that the DNC is some kind of private club that ought to be able to just do whatever it wants, break its own rules, rig its own system. But I reject this characterizaton, just as I would with the RNC.

The DNC and RNC are an oligopoly that directly control the machinery of government. They are the government. They have this control at the suffrance of the electorate, which presumes it can choose a leader through a fair vote.


TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« Reply #14 on: November 03, 2017, 06:14:32 PM »
A political party is beholden to its own rules, and curtailed by any overriding law. Very similar to a corporation or a non-profit. The shareholders vote on the rules, in this case the shareholders are the party members.

Unless there is a law that stipulates something, they should have free reign. They can choose their candidate by a feat of strength or a bocce tournament. As long as the party membership votes to make that change to their bylaws. They can have superdelegates, winner take all, caucuses, closed primaries, open primaries, town halls, or a limbo contest.

The rank and file party members can vote with dollars, votes, and effort if they think their party is being devious or otherwise not living up to their principles.

Like this guy:

Quote
Bob Heghmann, a 70-year-old attorney from Virginia Beach, is suing the G.O.P. for racketeering and fraud, claiming that the party made false claims when it solicited millions of dollars in campaign donations with the promise of repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act. According to the suit, filed in a U.S. District Court, the Virginia G.O.P. alone raised $20 million from 2009 to 2016, most of it based on the repeal promise.

Sanders supporters have also sued the DNC over their collusion:

Quote
Jared Beck, a Harvard Law graduate and one of the several attorneys who filed the suit against the DNC and its former chairperson Debbie Wasserman Schultz, wants retribution for donations made by supporters to the Vermont senator's campaign, citing six legal claims of the DNC’s deceptive conduct, negligent misrepresentation and fraud. The DNC violated Article 5, Section 4 of its own charter by working with a single campaign to effectively choose who would win the Democratic ballot, the attorneys stated in the suit.

That's one of the things that makes the Russian government interference more insidious. There's no mechanism to hold them accountable as a citizen of the US. The DNC/RNC have mechanisms by which they can be influenced by their membership.

jasonr

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« Reply #15 on: November 04, 2017, 03:07:02 PM »
Quote
That's one of the things that makes the Russian government interference more insidious. There's no mechanism to hold them accountable as a citizen of the US. The DNC/RNC have mechanisms by which they can be influenced by their membership.

Well getting back to my lawyer example, of course my lawyer is more accountable to me than your lawyer; I can fire him and get a new lawyer, whereas I can't fire your lawyer. Yet, the fact remains, my lawyer owes me a duty that yours doesn't. I take it as being far more of a problem when my own representative betrays me than some foreigner.

Yes, Putin doesn't answer to the US electorate and isn't accountable to them. That falls into the DUH category.

We'll have to agree to disagree on whether your own representatives deceiving you is less big a deal than Putin deceiving you.

LetterRip

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« Reply #16 on: November 04, 2017, 07:42:28 PM »
For those interested, here is the 'memorandum of understanding' between the Clinton campaign and the DNC.

Quote
"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'."


http://www.npr.org/2017/11/03/561976645/clinton-campaign-had-additional-signed-agreement-with-dnc-in-2015

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« Reply #17 on: November 05, 2017, 02:28:44 PM »
]
We'll have to agree to disagree on whether your own representatives deceiving you is less big a deal than Putin deceiving you.

Maybe I just see my representatives as a hostile power who don't represent me as well. :)

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« Reply #18 on: November 06, 2017, 11:31:31 AM »
The bigger problem to me with the DNC structure is the whole concept of the super delegate, each of which wields more power individually than 10's of thousands of DNC voters, and collectively are equal to the voters in about 1/3 the country.  For a party that thinks the electoral college is unfair and we should have a straight majority vote, it's seems awfully fishy that their internal process is tied to a permanent group of super-electoral college members.

The Russian issue is concerning, but it's media generated hype that makes you think it's anywhere close to level of the DNC problem.  In fact, Russia's not the only country that pushes propaganda into our country and election process, why is it the only one the media cares about?  Oh, yeah, it fits the hurt Trump agenda.

Wayward Son

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« Reply #19 on: November 06, 2017, 11:52:20 AM »
Quote
In fact, Russia's not the only country that pushes propaganda into our country and election process...

I haven't heard about this, Seriati.  What other countries have pushed propaganda into the U.S., and how?

DonaldD

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« Reply #20 on: November 06, 2017, 04:21:13 PM »
Russia is also pushing propaganda into France, England, Spain, Greece... possibly others; strangely, Trump is not a factor in any of those countries.  And no, no other country has invested nearly as much in destabilizing western democratic processes. 

I get the feeling though that the assumption that concern about Russian interference is linked to anti-Trump sentiments is what is driving reticence about investigating Russian aggression in this sphere, in much the same way as concern about the political implications of climate science creates a backlash against the science of climate change.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« Reply #21 on: November 06, 2017, 04:26:35 PM »
I get the feeling though that the assumption that concern about Russian interference is linked to anti-Trump sentiments is what is driving reticence about investigating Russian aggression in this sphere

Your feeling is right, and that's because the people pushing the Russia-hack narrative are only doing so to take down Trump. Whatever legitimacy such claims may have had if brought up objectively, as it stands they exist only as a political weapon. I do not believe there is much of any goodwill attached to the anti-Russia narratives, and I'll add that the parties pushing this narrative are the same ones that have been rabidly pushing an anti-Russia narrative for the past five years on every front possible. The matter of this particular election is by no means the start of their desire to inflame passions against Russia; it's just another step in their program. Overall I see this program as being very destructive and dangerous, with sabre rattling running the risk of escalation at some point. 99.99% of people won't want that, and the only people who would enjoy it are *not* people you want to be allying yourself with.

DonaldD

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« Reply #22 on: November 06, 2017, 04:46:22 PM »
Quote
the people pushing the Russia-hack narrative are only doing so to take down Trump
No, I'm really, really not.

I've explained over and over why Russian activities internationally have destabilized a number of democratic elections - but your US-centric blinders seemingly preclude you from understanding. Although I am beginning to wonder whether you are, in fact, Russian...




Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« Reply #23 on: November 06, 2017, 05:15:11 PM »
Quote
the people pushing the Russia-hack narrative are only doing so to take down Trump
No, I'm really, really not.

I've explained over and over why Russian activities internationally have destabilized a number of democratic elections - but your US-centric blinders seemingly preclude you from understanding. Although I am beginning to wonder whether you are, in fact, Russian...

No, not you, by "the people" I meant the power players who push the narrative 24/7. People who post and have opinions about it aren't who I'm referring to.

DonaldD

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« Reply #24 on: November 06, 2017, 05:34:53 PM »
In which case I would suggest you stop biting off your nose to spite your face.  Russia doesn't become less of a bad actor just because some US partisans want to take advantage of the domestic political opportunities.

jasonr

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« Reply #25 on: November 07, 2017, 02:01:45 PM »
In which case I would suggest you stop biting off your nose to spite your face.  Russia doesn't become less of a bad actor just because some US partisans want to take advantage of the domestic political opportunities.

Your position would have more credibility if the alarm bells rang before Trump was elected since the essential facts of these allegations were already known. Indeed I distinctly remember many in the Clinton camp expressing outrage and horror at Trump's imprudent claim that the election was "rigged" only to radically change tunes when Clinton lost.

Of course they didn't expect her to lose at that time so I imagine they didn't care.

The time to decry Russian interference was before the election night. It may not be purely motivated by anti Trump sentiment but there's more than a whiff of self serving hypocrisy.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« Reply #26 on: November 07, 2017, 02:08:20 PM »
While that criticism makes sense jasonr, we need to answer a few questions first.

Did the democrat / anti-trump crowd know it WAS rigged at the time (in either direction)?

Is their any proof, even today, that the election was "rigged" against Trump?  I think we can all agree that his claim, was meant to suggest "rigged against him". 

While your point holds in hindsight, and removed from context, I think you had to warp history or reality a bit to make it.

jasonr

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« Reply #27 on: November 07, 2017, 02:56:44 PM »
The point of the criticism against Trump was not merely that his claims were unsubstantiated but that it was irresponsible to make them because it undermined faith in the integrity of the system.

I also note that *immediately* after the election the narrative coming from the Clinton side did a 180 degree turn even though the only fact that had changed in the interim was that Trump won and Clinton lost.

Even if it is true that Russia "rigged" the election it is evident that no one cared until 5 minutes after Clinton lost the election.

So you can forgive some for wondering if the Russian story is less about the integrity of the election process and more about who won and who didn't.

DonaldD

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« Reply #28 on: November 07, 2017, 03:24:46 PM »
Quote
Your position would have more credibility if the alarm bells rang before Trump was elected since the essential facts of these allegations were already known.

<snip>

The time to decry Russian interference was before the election night.
You seem to have forgotten that Clinton was decrying Russian interference months before election night, as was the Obama administration.  Could Obama have provided more clarity and evidence?  Probably, but that would have led to charges of him getting the intelligence apparatus of the federal government involved in the election, and given that he probably expected Clinton to win anyway, I expect that also factored into how the release of information was limited.

I expect your memory has been compromised by listening to Trump's misdirections for the past year.  You do realize he doesn't feel himself bound by the truth, right?

Here are just a few instances of exactly what you seem to have forgotten, all pre-dating election night.  There are probably a dozen more where those came from.

Obama administration: October 19 2016: http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/19/politics/election-day-russia-hacking-explained/index.html
Obama administration: October 8, 2016: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/07/us-russia-dnc-hack-interfering-presidential-election
US Defense Secretary: September 7, 2016: http://www.newsweek.com/ash-carter-russia-hacks-putin-elections-trump-clinton-warns-496459
Hillary Clinton: October 19 2016: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/19/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-blames-russia-putin-wikileaks-rele/



Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« Reply #29 on: November 07, 2017, 03:51:49 PM »
Did the democrat / anti-trump crowd know it WAS rigged at the time (in either direction)?

I'm not sure this is responding to the point being made. The idea of the Russians rigging the election via propaganda would be one thing, because we obviously knew for a long time (i.e. since the 50's) they were spreading information around America in various forms. Nothing there is new so cannot be grounds for suggesting the illegitimacy of an election. The only claim that could have relevance is that they physically hacked machines or the voting process, and that by definition isn't something the Dems could have known about previously. The big incident that I think is being trumpeted falsely is the DNC leak, which has never been proven or demonstrated in any acceptable way to be Russian hacking, and yet this incident is, to whit, ground zero for the claim that Russia rigged the election. And that's exactly why the protests beginning one minute after Hillary lost are mealy mouthed, because it's plain as day that the DNC was upset at their dirty laundry being aired more so than by the fact of Russia doing what they always do. They finally got caught with their pants down and have been screaming about it ever since. Is it any surprise they'll blame everyone but themselves? This is really the worst part of it, that no responsibility has ever been taken and no move towards change made. They have no regrets except that they were caught, and that's why their protests against Russia ring as hollow, even thought as Donald points out that doesn't exactly exonerate Russia from anything.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« Reply #30 on: November 07, 2017, 04:07:17 PM »
As someone who has serious doubts about the party I've consistently voted for in every election, I hear you. 

I will say that I was unaware at the attempts by Russia to influence us (in this way) prior to this election; so the, "nothing new here" strikes me as very odd.

Is a lot of this outrage just distraction over having *censored* the bed quite so stunningly as a party when faced with... non consensual transparency?  Ya, I'd agree.  But that doesn't mean there aren't those out their genuinely concerned, or that they don't have good reason to be.

And to be honest, I think "the worst part of this" is indeed that Donald Trump is our president right now.  But I can compartmentalize.  :P

DonaldD

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« Reply #31 on: November 07, 2017, 04:09:04 PM »
Quote
The big incident that I think is being trumpeted falsely is the DNC leak, which has never been proven or demonstrated in any acceptable way to be Russian hacking
My personal position is that the DNC hack was only one of many facets of the Russian attack, and likely not the most consequential, and not as important as the overall attack, regardless.

That being said, your use of "trumpeted falsely" and never having been "demonstrated in any acceptable way" clearly puts proof to your inability to process evidence in any kind of unbiased way.

One might have doubts about the trustworthiness of any particular US intelligence agency, but to disregard the statements of all of them that actually analyzed the Russian campaign of hacking of the DNC is further evidence of your blind partisanship - or an irrational belief in a widespread conspiracy theory that rises to the level of moon-landing craziness.

DonaldD

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« Reply #32 on: November 07, 2017, 04:13:49 PM »
Quote
I will say that I was unaware at the attempts by Russia to influence us (in this way) prior to this election; so the, "nothing new here" strikes me as very odd.
Clearly, the information about the extent of the Russian attacks has evolved over the past 18 months - as one would expect, since investigations rarely wrap up in a single day.  Just consider how long it took for Facebook to even acknowledge there might have been abuse of their systems, never mind how long it took them to actually analyze and then provide the information.

There seems to be an argument that, since one particular claim was not made prior to the election, then adding that claim to the knowledge of the Russian attack is somehow moving the goal posts - whereas really, all it means is that our understanding of the methods of the attacks has improved.

Wayward Son

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« Reply #33 on: November 07, 2017, 04:15:10 PM »
Quote
The big incident that I think is being trumpeted falsely is the DNC leak, which has never been proven or demonstrated in any acceptable way to be Russian hacking, and yet this incident is, to whit, ground zero for the claim that Russia rigged the election.

Per this article from Mother Jones, both U.S. intelligence agencies and AP have concluded that the Russian government was behind the email hacks.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« Reply #34 on: November 07, 2017, 04:17:17 PM »
Quote
I will say that I was unaware at the attempts by Russia to influence us (in this way) prior to this election; so the, "nothing new here" strikes me as very odd.
Clearly, the information about the extent of the Russian attacks has evolved over the past 18 months - as one would expect, since investigations rarely wrap up in a single day.  Just consider how long it took for Facebook to even acknowledge there might have been abuse of their systems, never mind how long it took them to actually analyze and then provide the information.

There seems to be an argument that, since one particular claim was not made prior to the election, then adding that claim to the knowledge of the Russian attack is somehow moving the goal posts - whereas really, all it means is that our understanding of the methods of the attacks has improved.

I meant, in previous election cycles.  Responding to "since the '50's".

DonaldD

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« Reply #35 on: November 07, 2017, 04:27:07 PM »
Gotcha D.W. - I didn't get that reference at first.

So I just noticed this
Quote
Nothing there is new so cannot be grounds for suggesting the illegitimacy of an election.
I know this wasn't a response to me, but you really do seem to be focused so exclusively on how the Russian investigation might affect your team winning (or even just how it might reflect on the legitimacy of your team winning) that you have become constitutionally incapable of even thinking about defending your country against external threats, if doing so might seem to be reinforcing the perception of illegitimacy.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« Reply #36 on: November 07, 2017, 04:29:14 PM »
D.W., I think what's changed is the ability to troll with more tools, so while Russia's behavior may be consistent over many years what is new is the fact of Twitter and Facebook being crucial elements of public discourse now. From that standpoint Russia's meddling may be more influential/successful than it used to be, but that to me speak to the nature of these media rather than to Russia suddenly being a bad guy out of the blue. I think there's a lot problematic about social media, over and above the fact that bad parties can abuse it as well. This part of the recent election is new to everyone and it's probably only the second national election where social media had a significant impact on the proceedings.

Donald, I'm sorry but I don't take the claims about the DNC hack coming from Russia very seriously. I've seen intelligence agency claims before in the past few years which I've had reason to believe were full of it, and while I personally can't vet the technical merit to their arguments in this particular case there are several conflicts of interest in play here which bring the credibility of their statements into question to me. There is also the fact that Assange (i.e. the guy who received the hacked files) has all but said that it was an inside job rather than a hack job, and has even intimated - without ever saying so - that Seth Rich was the leaker. Now, we're getting into X-Files territory here in terms of who to believe, and sure it's possible that Assange is a liar or else is a Russian agent in his own right, but in my view it's far from 'clear' that the Russians hacked the DNC. Maybe they did, maybe not.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« Reply #37 on: November 07, 2017, 04:31:04 PM »
you really do seem to be focused so exclusively on how the Russian investigation might affect your team winning (or even just how it might reflect on the legitimacy of your team winning) that you have become constitutionally incapable of even thinking about defending your country against external threats, if doing so might seem to be reinforcing the perception of illegitimacy.

This is an interesting claim. If you knew me better you'd know automatically that it doesn't apply to me, but suffice it to say that if I can be said to have a team then that team can be called "honesty", and neither the RNC or the DNC is on the roster.

DonaldD

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« Reply #38 on: November 07, 2017, 04:33:19 PM »
I know that's what you like to present, but your actual words and unintentional slips tend to disprove that.

Wayward Son

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« Reply #39 on: November 07, 2017, 04:36:27 PM »
Quote
There is also the fact that Assange (i.e. the guy who received the hacked files) has all but said that it was an inside job rather than a hack job, and has even intimated - without ever saying so - that Seth Rich was the leaker.

That is precisely what they want you to believe. :)

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« Reply #40 on: November 07, 2017, 04:44:52 PM »
I know that's what you like to present, but your actual words and unintentional slips tend to disprove that.

So...you think I'm a closet Republican supporter? :)

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« Reply #41 on: November 07, 2017, 04:46:44 PM »
Quote
There is also the fact that Assange (i.e. the guy who received the hacked files) has all but said that it was an inside job rather than a hack job, and has even intimated - without ever saying so - that Seth Rich was the leaker.

That is precisely what they want you to believe. :)

My point is that there is a sort of binary choice: you have to either claim that Assange is a liar (probably due to being a Russian agent) or that Assange knows his source and other agencies have made up a story knowing he won't publish his source. There's sort of no middle ground on this one, and I don't have the data to outright choose one versus the other. I just find it strange that other people think they do.

Wayward Son

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« Reply #42 on: November 07, 2017, 05:28:14 PM »
Quote
...you have to either claim that Assange is a liar (probably due to being a Russian agent) or that Assange knows his source and other agencies have made up a story knowing he won't publish his source.

Assange could be mistaken about who is source was because he was misinformed or purposefully deceived.

He could also be protecting the Russians simply because he wants more information from them, which may or may not be considered being an "agent."

But if it comes down to trusting our intelligence agencies vs. Assange, I'd say the good money is on our intelligence agencies (especially after AP's confirmation).  Not that I couldn't be wrong...

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« Reply #43 on: November 07, 2017, 06:06:16 PM »
You're right, Wayward, those are potential explanations too. However, I can say that Wikileaks (unlike the rest of the press) seems to operate with trustworthiness as its currency, since I've never heard of a fraudulent release by them. That doesn't mean Assange is incapable of a lie, but it does mean that if he were to do so it would risk the integrity of his organization, and so while I agree he might be inclined to refuse to ever say where he got it, that's different from deliberately insinuating he got it somewhere else. Maybe he did lie, but it would be the first time I know of. Risky move if he did and it was found out. But you're right, it's possible.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« Reply #44 on: November 07, 2017, 07:22:51 PM »
If you want to get into the whole, is Assange trustworthy or not thing, it's worth considering that he may have a motive to lie on this one.  Not like he was a fan of the U.S. government about the time this was breaking.

Not suggesting I believe that's what happened, but I'd hardly consider him an unbiased reporter / information host.

LetterRip

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« Reply #45 on: November 08, 2017, 12:02:44 AM »
Also Wikileaks doesn't actually do anything in such a way that they are likely to know the identity of leakers.

Quote
We provide an innovative, secure and anonymous way for sources to leak information to our journalists (our electronic drop box).

[...]

We accept leaked material in person and via postal drops as alternative methods, although we recommend the anonymous electronic drop box as the preferred method of submitting any material.

https://wikileaks.org/About.html

So, how would Assange know who did the leak?  "We uploaded the data via anonymous dropbox, but we totally aren't Russian Hackers, pinky swear promise."


Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« Reply #46 on: November 08, 2017, 12:43:13 AM »
As is mentioned, sometimes it's done in person, no doubt as a very exciting 'shady handoff' like in the movies. Whatever the case may be, I don't see how I could conclude either way which it was for the DNC hack. Even if we have some kind of metrics like "95% of Wikileaks material comes from uploads" it doesn't follow that we could then conclude that the DNC hack material was probably uploaded. It either was or wasn't, it's a completed event. You have to go into macro-quantum mechanics to begin assessing the probability of an event in the past. In other words, the statistics don't particularly matter, and if Assange says he knows who gave them this data they either do or he's lying.

LetterRip

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« Reply #47 on: November 08, 2017, 01:53:45 AM »
Quote
if Assange says he knows who gave them this data they either do or he's lying.

He wasn't involved at all, he was halfway around the globe in essentially complete isolation.  So rather than lying or telling the truth, he could simply be misinformed.  Now why Russian spys might lie about who they are when doing espionage, I've no idea - personally I thought all spys were totally forthright with exactly who they are and why they are doing things.

Seriously, it is utterly ridiculous to think that it wasn't Russia.  They've made it quite clear it was them. They made overtures to the Trump campaign members about the nature of what they had months before it was even known that the hack had occurred.

We also have file contents (access times, file system information) that strongly suggests it was Russia.

jasonr

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« Reply #48 on: November 08, 2017, 07:14:21 AM »
I've said this before but between Assange and American intelligence agencies I believe Assange and I don't believe them. They are proven liars. Being a proven liar has consequences to your credibility. Or when James Clapper perjured himself to Congress and got away with it with 0 repercussiom do I just believe him and those around him and take them at their word.

I suppose as Letterip suggests he could be mistaken or deluded. But either way I see the issue as far from settled.

Getting to the point, I'll tell you my most vivid memory on this issue: a post election interview of William Brooks of the NAACP by Wolf Blitzer. After going off on all the ways in which Trump stole the election Blitzer puts it to the man: so you're saying the election was rigged?

And you see the cogs turning in the man's head and the sound of the machinery screaching. And then the man evades and evades again - he won't answer the question. Why? Because he knows it's a trap - and a great one. Kudos to Blitzer for exposing the hypocrisy.

And by the way Donald by that time I had practically tuned Trump out - so no there is 0 chance that Trump convinced me with his shining rhetoric.

jasonr

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: The Clinton campaign and the DNC
« Reply #49 on: November 08, 2017, 07:16:29 AM »
I know that's what you like to present, but your actual words and unintentional slips tend to disprove that.

Go back to the old forum search and enter keywords Bush and Fenring. You're barking up the wrong tree friend.