EXPOSED: Leaked Emails Show DNC Colluded with Media to Push Clinton Nomination

[Uncle Joe]

Despite claims of neutrality, recently leaked emails show the Democratic National Committee was putting its thumb on the scale for Hillary Clinton for over a year.

When it was revealed that “Guccifer 2.0” (named after Romanian hacker Guccifer, who confessed to hacking into Hillary Clinton’s private email server multiple times) hacked the DNC’s servers, the main story was about leaked opposition research on Donald Trump. But on the same site Guccifer published the Trump research, “2016 GOP presidential candidates,” there were also DNC talking points suggesting the party’s central organization had been working since May of 2015 to make Hillary Clinton the nominee.

The DNC was diligently cleaning up Clinton’s record, using “specific hits to muddy the waters around ethics, transparency, and campaign finance attacks on HRC.”

(snip)

The email also suggested collusion with media networks to push Hillary Clinton as the party’s eventual nominee, and anchors for national cable news networks may have broadcasted DNC talking points spoon-fed to them by Democratic Party operatives.

In the “Reporter Outreach” section, the document suggested “off-the-record conversations and oppo pitches to help pitch stories with no fingerprints and utilize reporters to drive a message.” This would seemingly vindicate Bernie Sanders’ supporters who have claimed networks like CNN have had a consistent pro-Clinton, anti-Sanders bias:

http://usuncut.com/politics/dnc-media-rigged-primary-clinton/

Copies of the emails are on the link, but I couldn't get them to post here.

[senz]

1. The system is worse than rigged: it's completely corrupt.

What the DNC, the Clinton campaign, and the media were doing is undermining democracy, dis-empowering the American people.

[Uncle Joe]

2. I agree, senz.

[Hortensis]

21. The DNC's PR pros trying to work with individuals

in the media to encourage favorable coverage of their strongest candidate is not "collusion" with media. This is what political parties are supposed to do, and most MSM weren't particularly cooperative anyway.

It was the GOP that had made sure a week never went by after 2008 without negative coverage of Hillary Clinton (this with the collusion of much of the MSM) -- because they believed she was going to run and were afraid she was going to be too strong to beat.

You would not have a problem at all if Bernie Sanders had won the "invisible primary" by demonstrating himself to be the DNC's best chance for keeping the White House. But Bernie was very unpopular with his colleagues and knew he would be rejected, so he didn't even try to compete early on to be the choice the DNC would put most of its backing behind. And as we know he did remarkably well anyway, surprising himself too, so no doubt new books on this are being written right now.

Very good article from 538 about how the picking process works, for those who like to understand.

Before any votes are cast, presidential candidates compete for the support of influential members of their party, especially elected officials like U.S. representatives, senators and governors. During the period known as the “invisible primary,” these “party elites” seek to coalesce around the candidates they find most acceptable as their party’s nominee. Over the past few decades, when these elites have reached a consensus on the best candidate, rank-and-file voters have usually followed.

In the book “The Party Decides” (2008), the most comprehensive study of the invisible primary, the political scientists Marty Cohen, David Karol, Hans Noel and John Zaller evaluated data on endorsements made in presidential nomination contests between 1980 and 2004 and found that “early endorsements in the invisible primary are the most important cause of candidate success in the state primaries and caucuses.”

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-endorsement-primary/

[Dustlawyer]

26. Had this collusion not existed Bernie would be our nominee.

He fought this tremendous media headwind the whole way and you think this is Democracy? Somehow I doubt you would think it fair had it been the other way around. You say she was "The strongest candidate" when the campaign first got started and Bernie's campaign was only 3 weeks old. Might as well not have a Primary then, huh? That is in effect what you are saying.

Enjoy your echo chamber!

[emulatorloo]

28. Had Jeff Weaver worked to broaden Bernie's coalition, Bernie would be our nominee.

Instead Weaver fed us red meat and didn't do his job.

I will admit to having a lot of bitterness about Weaver's strategic blunders - Bernie had a real shot at this, and IMHO weaver fucked this up.

He is a great friend to Bernie but had 0% experience running a national campaign.

I have seen the Guccifer 2 stuff and I find the doc questionable, IMHO this article is nothing but spin.

[Hortensis]

33. You're right, but blame Bernie--only don't do that either.

Bernie didn't know himself how big the support was out there. No one did, not the Democratic Party, not the electorate, not the media, not the professions and industries that exist to analyze such things.

If he had any idea he could actually win, I'm sure he would have done things very differently. He might even have snuggled up to some of his colleagues to get enough endorsements to look...not rejected, and he certainly would have hired as professional a staff as would agree to work for such an unlikely candidate. His strategy of course would have changed too. As it was, his strategy had to continually re-evolve to meet the new realities his success created again and again.

You're bitter? How about him?

Btw, I still believe the Right's lies and attacks would have turned him into something most resembling a bloody pile of ground meat. You'll never have to watch and find out how extremely vulnerable he is to them, never have to listen to outraged conservatives demanding his arrest and prosecution on trumped-up lies. ONLY Trump could have saved his candidacy. Maybe.

[emulatorloo]

40. Thanks for your thoughtful reply. Yes I agree they were taken by surprise.

And agree that they needed to continually re-evolve. At this point I guess I just wish Devine would have had more say in the strategy and re-evolution.

Woulda shoulda coulda, I know. Easy to be a Monday morning Quarterback, lol.

[Hortensis]

49. Yes. And agree about Devine.

Probably also somewhat bitter at what could have been.

[Dustlawyer]

72. I am still behind the political revolution that has already started morphing to elect

House members. A President Bernie could have speeded up our timetable and help tremendously to grow awareness and the movement, but he will still be a leader and a huge draw.

There has been and will be election fraud, not just against Bernie. The Bush/Rove IT guy was linked to rigging Ohio against Kerry from a TN., company. He died days before his deposition in his flying in his small plane. Yes he really died in a small plane crash right before his deposition! TPTB want certainty on their candidates. If people are willing to pay billions to elect a slate of candidates, a couple of million is nothing (Google Spoonamore and electronic voting).

I like Bernie and his policies. Part of his appeal is he is genuine. He wants to equal the playing field and help prepare us for the big changes we need to make to avoid a really devastating climate in our kids and grandkids future. This cannot happen with the legalized bribery of our "so called, elected officials!"

As for his being able to handle their lies, he already has a lot of experience in that department. He also has no ongoing scandals.

[Hortensis]

30. You didn't read my post, so why are you "answering?"

[deathrind]

63. / this

[choie]

35. Wrong - The press is supposed to

hold leaders accountable - not cover their campaigns and publish articles that read like Valentine's Day cards. That's why freedom of the press is written into the constitution. The press is vital to a Democracy and shouldn't be used as a mouthpiece forcthe DNC, RNC or any group.

[Hortensis]

47. "Supposed to", Choie? What's that to do with anything?

Anyway, the media can only publish truths they know, which is a big part of the job of PR people -- getting the "truth" as they see it to the media.

A lot of times when the MSM wasn't reporting on Bernie it was because they just weren't listening to him and his media people weren't successful in dragging their attention away from Trump and Hillary. They are required to submit publishable stories that "sell," and their editors didn't think people would want to read very much about Bernie. Changing that was Bernie's job--he came late to it because he was supposed to have gotten them interested in covering him before he announced he was running.

Going back to the OP, though, note that Bernie was not corrupt and attempting to "collude" because he hired people to call reporters and tell them how important his message was and how big the crowds coming to listen were.

[choie]

50. "Truths they know?"

Like all the chairs that were thrown in Nevada? That's just disingenuous...

[randome]

51. But...but that's...different. It just is!

Sanders doesn't talk to the press, the press talks to him! Or...something.

[Hortensis]

54. If the press was worthy they would have known

a great leader at first glance. Instead, they were busy looking for...stray chairs, or something.

Bernie would have purged the corrupt press and replaced them with new, young pressers who reported each truth as it spilled from his mouth.

If only...

[randome]

57. Remember, never trust anyone over 45.

[Hortensis]

59. Oh, that jogs a memory! So 45 is the new 35?

Well, if 65 is the new 50... Of course.

[randome]

60. Exactly, except I think it was 30 in the 60s.

I was thinking of Charlton Heston in Planet of the Apes when he told the young rebellious chimp (Gaius?), "Remember, never trust anyone over 30."

[Hortensis]

61. Ohmygosh. I'm getting old.

But in the end I know I'll never really forget "never trust anyone over 30." Like "bra burning," the media loved it and it became a mantra for an era.

Never trust trust anyone over 30
Never trust trust anyone over 30
Never trust trust anyone over 30
Om berkeley, berkeley, berkeley...

[Uncle Joe]

64. 1. The DNC is supposed to remain neutral in regards to the primaries.

2. For the past six months or more, polls have consistently shown Bernie to be the strongest general election candidate in head to head match ups against Republicans, particularly Trump.

[Hortensis]

65. No. It's supposed to try to help all

candidates who step up that it can and to keep the door open for them, but the purpose of political parties is to elect as many of their people to office as possible. That doesn't allow sabotaging their best chances to bring up weaker candidates. Political parties are part of the democratic process of a party system, but they are not democracy.

It is the candidates' job to make themselves winners the party can support, not the party's. By the time the "primary season" starts, the competition has actually already been on for a long time and some have already pulled out ahead, in Hillary's case waaay out ahead because she worked so long and hard and smart to make that happen, and others are already behind. This helps the party identify who have the best chances for election.

[Uncle Joe]

66. The DNC had their finger on the scale from the start, it became quite apparent last summer when they

refused to expand the number of primary debates, scheduled them for ridiculous times when they would least likely be viewed, waited until after the deadline for switching parties in New York had passed before even allowing the first debate to take place.

They did this solely in deference to protecting Hillary's larger national name recognition for so long as possible, keeping the other candidates in the shadows and this had nothing to do with maximizing the strength of potential Democratic Candidates and turning out the vote in a general election.

There is no competition prior to the primaries except insofar as quid pro quo, living in the entropy bubble is concerned to secure commitments from so many non-elected super delegates to stack the deck and then have the corporate media conglomerates use that glorified poll as brainwashing propaganda against the American People.

You're correct about one thing this has nothing to do with democracy, so perhaps the politicians of the political parties should never proclaim they're sending Americans abroad to risk life and limb in war to "promote democracy," that's nothing but a sick joke.

[MaeScott]

6. Completely corrupted. Don't know if Dem party v1.5 will be viable much longer

Folks are leaving in droves after the convention

[leftofcool]

12. Yea, they will leave in droves over fake documents.

[randome]

13. Reading comprehension for some stops at the subject line. No introspection is needed.

[Fumesucker]

14. Actually that's true for virtually everyone

Only with different posts.

[randome]

19. But in this case, you realize you're dealing with a WordPress document with portions omitted.

Why was the 'From' line removed? How does this prove collusion since the document is to the DNC, not from them?

How is publishing a donor list -which is already public information- supposed to make anyone sit up and take notice?

To paraphrase Bill O'Reilly: "Documents go into WordPress, documents get viewed. You can't explain that."

[Fumesucker]

22. I haven't expressed an opinion regarding the OP

I still remember how Dan Rather got hung out to dry, release true information in a form that makes it look unbelievable.

Fool me once, etc...

[NWCorona]

34. I actually agree with you that these docs should be taken with a grain of salt

For exactly the reasons you mentioned. My only issue is that the DNC hasn't to my knowledge issued a statement saying that they are fake.

[randome]

39. Probably because they can't stop laughing.

Why would the DNC feel the need to respond to something posted on WordPress?

It doesn't even matter if they're fake! It's a memo to the DNC, probably from one of her super-PACS, talking about working with the DNC. What is wrong with that? Do you think the Sanders campaign works with the DNC, too? Of course they do!

And the donor list? It's already publicly available!

[NWCorona]

46. If that was true they would deny more than just the donor info was safe.

I doubt they are laughing that hackers were in their servers for over a year.

[deathrind]

3. The debate schedule...

...alone shows DWS and the DNC was tipping the scales towards one candidate. Which is sad because for the first time in my half century of life the Dems actually had a candidate who campaigned on and spoke to the core issues the Democratic Party had as their platform for decades. Instead they put their support behind a candidate who is about as far right as one can go and still be a member of the Democratic Party.

[Uncle Joe]

4. This only confirmed what I already knew, the debate schedule combined with

the corporate media conglomerates continuous promotion 24/7 of Trump whether he had anything of substance to state or not.

While they blacked out coverage of Bernie for most all of last year in an attempt to protect Hillary's larger national name recognition for as long as they could.

It became quite apparent to me, they were elevating Trump in the Republican race under the belief that 1. his faux populism and phony proclamations against campaign/political corruption would pull voters from the real deal; that being Bernie on the Democratic side and 2. when Hillary was nominated it would be easy for her to define Trump as looney tunes.

Hillary's dismal approval ratings on trust or integrity would be less of a liability against an unstable Trump.

This was corporate media conglomerate dumbing down of the American People at its finest or worst however you want to view it and I'm not surprised in the least to see Schultz's DNC fingerprints on it.

[Surya Gayatri]

5. Much doubt as to the authenticity of said e-mails:

Frank Starling · Indiana State University

The recipient is just "The Democratic National Committee" and the sender was intentionally cut off... Literally anyone could fake this document and the origional source is a free wordpress blog that was created today. Such a hoax, yet you clowns still gobble it up.
Like · Reply · 73 · Jun 16, 2016 3:20pm · Edited

Jerry Blackburn

Matthew Joseph Hahn You really think it is that hard to use Microsoft word and Adobe photoshop?
Like · Reply · 4 · Jun 16, 2016 11:37am

Frank Starling · Indiana State University

Matthew Joseph Hahn wait, you're telling me that this must be true because the source is a free Wordpress blog that was created today??? That settles it!...not.
Like · Reply · 3 · Jun 16, 2016 11:44am

Jerry Blackburn

Todd Hoyt No actually, they didn't admit "this information" was hacked. The information presented on the "guccifer" blog linked above clearly shows something other than "this information". But if anyone has shown that BS beliebers will beliebe anything, it's SourceFed's recent "google hiding negative information about hillary" trap. BS supporters fell for that so hard, it showed that anyone, even a caveman could do it.
Like · Reply · 2 · Jun 16, 2016 11:44am

[MaeScott]

7. Guccifer 2.0 just released a new batch of hacked documents with more donir to lists

[randome]

9. Donor lists are public information, you know. This topic is an enormous bucket of FAIL.

[NWCorona]

36. I haven't seen anywhere in the public that said that Morgan Freeman gave Hillary a million dollars.

[randome]

44. Well, some have pointed out that this donor list appears to be of Obama's donors, not Clinton's.

So that document, too, is probably not what it's purported to be.

Guccifer 2.0? Really? A new incarnation of the Indictment Fairy?

[NWCorona]

53. Appears and is are two different things tho

Also hackers have no say on whether an indictment will be coming.

[Blue Meany]

48. I believe he gave that to Priorities USA

a SuperPac that supports Hillary, wihich is one reason I have been wondering if these are DNC documents.

[NWCorona]

52. Yeah there's no way he would have been able to give that much to Hillary directly

So I figured it was a Pac of some sort for Hillary.

I wonder the same and if these docs were indeed lifted from the DNC server that might be even more troubling.

[Ash_F]

69. The memos seem too sophisticated for Guccifer to fabricate

From the interviews I have seen, he does not seem to have the language skills, nor the knowledge of American politics to make up something like this.

[AtomicKitten]

8. "...muddy the waters on ethics, transparency, and campaign finance"

Jeezus.

k/r.

[randome]

10. Thread #6 -or is it 7?- on this bogus topic.

You know, if you add up the numbers from the donor list and divide by 7.3, you get the coordinates for this:



Coincidence? I THINK NOT!

Seriously, why do you keep pushing these bogus documents on us?

[JoePhilly]

27. Ancient Alien Theorists will be along shortly to confirm this!!!

[leftofcool]

11. Imagine that! Democrats pushing Democrats to get Democrats elected.

[TheBlackAdder]

16. Someone should have told MoM that he was just pissing in the wind, since the fix was in.

[NWCorona]

38. Exactly! The naysayers on this forgot about MoM.

[JoePhilly]

31. The artcile repeatedly says the emails only "suggest" the possibility.

And yet we're treated to another round of teeth-gnashing from the combustible hair club.

[NWCorona]

37. No the DNC pushing to get Hillary elected.

There was another deeply rooted Dem running named O'Malley. Did he get a fair shake in this? Remember how he was screaming that the DNC was in the tank for Hillary and that he wasn't being treated fair? Well now we know that he was right.

[treestar]

15. The Mafia?

Now a connection with the Mafia is deemed necessary to smear Hillary? The fictional Hillary you started with is not bad enough? We have to add the Mafia?

[randome]

29. Next think we know, you'll be telling us that Lincoln was NOT a vampire hunter!

THAT MOVIE WAS TRUTH AND YOU REFUSE TO SEE IT!!!!

[votesparks]

17. No DNC Denial Yet

[Dr Hobbitstein]

23. I remember a guy who used that tactic.

I've got this phone right here. All they have to do is call me and deny it. But they're not, because it's true.




Some people will believe anything.

[NWCorona]

42. If the DNC was silent on this I'd agree with you but they haven't

The only think the DNC has denied is that no donor information was compromised. Even that statement seems dubious now. We also should remember that it was the DNC vendor that first broke the news of the hack.

[JTFrog]

62. Bingo. n/t

[NurseJackie]

18. BREAKING: Anonymous source claims Hillary is an alien. It must be true. No denial from DNC!

[randome]

20. There you go.

[JoePhilly]

32. + 1

[votesparks]

24. Jordan Chariton

Isn't making any such claims. He's only saying that there is no official denial. All that would be necessary is a press release, denying.

His reporting on this campaign has been excellent.

https://www.youtube.com/tytpolitics

[Octafish]

25. Must be a coincidence, calling in all those favors.

Can't have a socialist asking corporations to pay their fair share now, can we?

Great OP, Uncle Joe! Seems to be a sensitive subject.

[7wo7rees]

41. Painful. nt

[betsuni]

43. OMG THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING!!!!!1111!!!!

[randome]

45. DONATE $27 TO BERNIE RIGHT FUCKING NOW!!!

[stonecutter357]

55. what really happened in Roswell...

[RazBerryBeret]

56. Confirmation

to what most of us suspected. call it what you want, but I don't want the media to choose my President... I'm pretty sure their views on most issues are not the same as mine.

[TDale313]

58. Hardly a surprise. This was clear from the start. n/t

[bigtree]

67. I think it was the illuminati

[AzDar]

68. They Lie, Cheat And Steal...

and then ask for your support...

[felix_numinous]

70. They are sure if they get in under the wire

this exonerates them of everything done before being selected. But we aren't going away and this assumed presidency WILL be fraught with investigations and exposed corruption, if they succeed.

[wyldwolf]

71. BREAKING! Anonymous sources confirm DNC chooses respected Democrat over non-Democrat.