More On The DNC E-Mail Scandal: Proposition Proved! An Unethical Organization, Seeking To Respond To The Revelation Of Corrupt Practices, Will Only Further Demonstrate The Depth Of Its Unethical Nature [Part 2]

"Fair and square," eh Donna?

“Fair and square,” eh Donna?

[Items 1-5 are covered in the previous post, More On The DNC E-Mail Scandal: Proposition Proved! An Unethical Organization, Seeking To Respond To The Revelation Of Corrupt Practices, Will Only Further Demonstrate The Depth Of Its Unethical Nature,Part I]

6. Donald Trump remains, and will remain, the riskiest option for President in 2016, simply because he has no qualities and no experience that qualify him for high office, and many, many traits and habits that disqualify him absolutely. Nonetheless, not since Richard Nixon has a presidential candidate been more likely, if elected, to get enmeshed in scandals involving abuse of power and the violation of laws than Hillary Clinton. Democrats and anyone else who votes for her must understand this. Clinton’s lauditory statement about Wasserman Schultz is proof of it, as was her State Department e-mail scheme. She will encourage and support dishonest, undemocratic schemes in pursuit of her agenda. Nothing could be more certain.

7. The key question is this: How can Clinton herself, and not just the ex-DNC chair, not be held accountable for the nomination fix? Are Democrats satisfied with that result: she coordinates the rigging of the system, and completely benefits from the plot, achieving everything she sought, and the only one punished is an official who should have been fired long ago? Poignantly asks New York Times columnist Charles Blow, as reliable a Democratic Party apologist as walks the earth,

“What are those Democratic voters supposed to do who don’t trust the candidate, the party or the process, even if they view The Donald as the Devil?”

8. The Democratic Party, meanwhile, continued to show its ethics abyss even as it claimed to be addressing  the scandal. What paragon of virtue did it choose to replace “disgraced” Wasserman Schultz as the convention chair? Why, Rep. Marcia Fudge (D-Ohio), who is one of the most prominent and vocal race-baiters in the Congress. In 2012, for example, she accused critics of Susan Rice—you know, all that lying about how there was no reason to think the Benghazi attack was prompted by anything more than a YouTube video?—of being racist and sexist. In 2011 Fudge introduced a resolution backed by 19 other Black Caucus members, calling for a prohibition on the release of most investigative reports prepared by the Office of Congressional Ethics, and for preventing the office from initiating its own inquiries. Fudge argued that the prohibition was necessary  because the O.C.E. had taken up “frivolous investigations” that  “unfairly damaged the reputation of House members.”  Congressional watch-dog groups  pointed out at the time that this was a transparent effort to shield some of the crooks in  Congressional Black Caucus members, like Charlie Rangel, who had serious and substantive charges against them. The release of the O.C.E.’s investigation reports typically demonstrate that charges were not frivolous, and in most cases, the O.C.E. is overly generous with its presumption of innocent intent.

Fudge is a perfect replacement for Debbie.

9. Then alleged Republican Michael Bloomberg chose the aftermath of these revelations to endorse Hillary. He says he is dismayed by Trump, but not dismayed by his new party’s willingness to obstruct the will of the people and rig the democratic process.

Noted.

10. And, though perhaps it is unnecessary to say,  the mainstream news media continues to do all it can to cover-up for the Democrats, make us think none of this is important, or let Clinton get away with the usual Clinton deceit. The “60 Minutes” interview with Clinton and Kaine on Sunday as the scandal was unfolding originally included vague questions to and evasive answers by Clinton regarding the scandal. Hmmm…was she saying that she didn’t know anything about the DNC’s efforts to sabotage Sanders on her behalf, or was she saying that she didn’t know about the e-mails themselves? Scott Pelley, the CBS interviewer, never made her clarify. Clinton also refused to say whether there was anything wrong with the DNC favoring her for the nomination. Never mind though…the exchange about the big story of the moment never made it into the broadcast!

Huh.

Just an honest oversight, I’m sure.

11. One of the leaked e-mails showed us what the current news media calls “fair and objective” political coverage. In an April 29 email thread, DNC national press secretary Mark Paustenbach shared detailed questions from a Politico reporter with others working to coordinate a response to the reporter’s  unflattering story about Clinton fundraising efforts, in an article by Politico’s Ken Vogel and Isaac Arnsdorf titled  “Clinton fundraising leaves little for state parties.” Paustenbach  spoke to the Clinton campaign that day in preparing the DNC’s rebuttal, according to the emails. On April 30, two days before the story was posted, Paustenbach told DNC Communications Director Luis Miranda that he was sent the story in advance. “Vogel gave me his story ahead of time/before it goes to his editors as long as I didn’t share it,” he wrote. “Let me know if you see anything that’s missing and I’ll push back.”

Nice.

Politico has admitted its collusion with the Clinton campaign and says it is sorry…because they were caught.

12. Finally, the latest Clinton scandal was countered by a classic blame-shifting and distraction tactic devised by the Clinton War Room. Clinton’s campaign manager, Robby Mook, argued on ABC’s “This Week” that the emails were leaked “by the Russians for the purpose of helping Donald Trump.”  How interesting, and so what? Does this in anyway mitigate the DNC’s dishonest collusion to undermine Sanders? No. Does it change the undemocratic conduct of the party and its anointed nominee? No. Is it designed to muddy the water and distract from the real issue: Clinton corruption?

Of course!

13. At no time has the party or the Clinton campaign publicly apologized to Democrats, Sanders and Sanders supporters, or the American public. At no time have Clinton or any official acknowledged wrongdoing or the travesty of democracy authored by the DNC, undoubtedly with Clinton’s knowledge and assent.

Donna Brazile, named interim DNC Chair—you know, that objective political commentator who both CNN and ABC put on roundtables to give her candid, non-partisan, unbiased and trustworthy analysis of political developments? That Donna Brazile?—carried on the strategy of changing the subject and pretending that there is “nothing to see here.” She actually said Debbie Wasserman Schultz”deserves” to be part of the party’s convention this week. So much for “disgraced.” We all know you did nothing wrong, Debbie!

Brazile apologized on ABC for the email controversy, but not what the e-mail controversy was about—her party and the Clinton campaign cheating in order to ensure Clinton’s victory. She said on “This Week,”

“I went over yesterday to see the Sanders campaign [and] I apologized. I think, the allegations, the e-mails, the insensitivity, the stupidity needs to be addressed.”

What classic spin and fog! These aren’t “allegations,” they are hard proof of collusion. It isn’t the e-mails themselves that need to be apologized for, but the rotten process they expose. “Insensitivity” isn’t the issue; deception, bias and manipulation are the issues.  As for “stupidity,” this is the Democratic reflex response to every scandal. It’s stupid. It’s a “nothing-burger.”  It’s blown out of proportion. What’s stupid, Donna? The controversy? The staff for leaving an e-mail trail? Sanders supporters for being furious? The conservative news media for treating it as news?

She repeated the party line, or perhaps party lie: “[Hillary Clinton’s] campaign and her message this week is that we’re stronger together, we can solve our problems, we can begin to project a better country with a better future for everybody and tonight we begin that conversation.” Finally, she also endorsed and ratified the party’s conduct, saying  “Hillary Clinton won fair and square.”

The e-mails say otherwise.

30 thoughts on “More On The DNC E-Mail Scandal: Proposition Proved! An Unethical Organization, Seeking To Respond To The Revelation Of Corrupt Practices, Will Only Further Demonstrate The Depth Of Its Unethical Nature [Part 2]

  1. “[Hillary Clinton’s] campaign and her message this week is that we’re stronger together….”

    The word “fascism,” per Wikipedia: “The Italian term fascismo is derived from fascio meaning a bundle of rods, ultimately from the Latin word fasces….The symbolism of the fasces suggested strength through unity: a single rod is easily broken, while the bundle is difficult to break.”

    To this I’ll add that a single rod, once bundled, loses all ability to move independently of the others in the bundle.

  2. I have a strong suspicion that Hillary’s ship is sinking. Sacrificing Deborah Wassermann Schultz just won’t appease the gods. When I see Bernie’s supporters saying on FOX that they will vote for Trump, the queen seems likely to lose her crown. Good riddance!

  3. She really said Hillary won “fair and square”?
    Isn’t that the whole point of the entire scandal?
    That she did not win fair and square?
    If she won fair and square, there is no scandal.
    How that statement did not get a Jumbo or a Ka-Boom is beyond me.
    -Jut

    • After the lies Debbie told, I don’t think Jack is capable of being shocked by the DNC lying about anything so i wouldn’t expect a kaboom. I think that statement qualifies as a Jumbo, but a separate post about it would be redundant.

      • Thanks, I was just going to write exactly this. Nothing involving the Hillary corruption or corrupted is liable to nake my head blow any more. Donna’s “fair and square” lie is indeed a jumbo, but I encountered it while writing the post.

  4. I think it highly likely that the Russians did indeed give the DNC’s emails to Wikileaks, based on sources like this one: http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2016/07/how-putin-weaponized-wikileaks-influence-election-american-president/130163/

    But before we get into what this tells us about the Russians, we need to consider what this tells us about the Americans.

    1. Our communications are very insecure, as are all our computer systems. There have been some rather large hacks in recent history (like Sony and OPM). We have the technical means to prevent or mitigate such attacks, but we don’t use these means. Why not? One reason why not is that our own intelligence community is working to make all our computers and communications less secure, so that they can spy on us more easily. Unfortunately, when you make these systems less secure, you make it easier for everyone to spy on us, especially savvy folks like Russian spies. Until our own spies finally wise up, expect a lot more leaks like this.

    2. As our host pointed out, the DNC is hopelessly corrupt. If they had been more honest and ethical, this leak would not be nearly so damaging (everyone’s got something to hide, but honest and ethical people have less to hide than everyone else, and less to fear if they’re exposed). Instead, the DNC put themselves in a position where a carefully timed reveal of the simple truth could ruin them. We shall see if they learn the right lesson from this painful experience.

    We should be worrying about Russia’s motives in leaking this intel, but we should also be thanking Russia for sharing such vital info with us all.

  5. You know, it seems to me, as an outsider looking in, that Republicans might be ideologues, or idiots, or hypocrites… But they’re generally honest. They’ll wear their bigotry on their sleeve, if they have it, for better or worse. And there’s something refreshing about that.

    Juxtapose that with the democrats… I think if I had to boil it all down to a single word it would be “Dishonest”, their dishonesty doesn’t surprise me anymore. It’s what they do; fish gotta swim, ‘crats gonna lie.

    • I whole-heartedly agree with that sentiment, HT. I wish it weren’t just Canadians who see this. Are you related to Margaret Wente? I really enjoy her columns on things U.S.

        • If I understand aright, Other Bill, your “are you related to” was meant as a compliment to HT, since Wente is known on the North American continent and elsewhere in the English-reading world (I learned about her from a game chat with a South African) for her perspicacity, balance and I would say, on taking a look just now at some of her recent columns, her ethics. I don’t think there are many other foreign — after all, Canada is a foreign country ay? — journalists working for newspapers outside the United States who have a better conservative, moderately deep, take on American politics and culture.

          [take a look for yourself, HT: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/authors/margaret-wente%5D … If you’d known Jim from Vancouver, you would have known about Margaret — he reads the Toronto Globe and Mail regularly, I’ll bet.

  6. Two notes:
    1. You have two number 12s. Are you triskaidekaphobic?

    2. Number six makes NO GODDAMN sense. We have just seen that Hillary will engage in all sorts of abuse. We see the DNC will aid and abet it – in fact, their levers of power were used to rig this latest primary.

    Hillary’s abuses – like those of the Obama Administration – will all be done in the name of some “greater good” (social justice? ending gun violence? for the children? ensuring we remain “better than Trump” in her mind?) that will not be challenged by many big media outlets. Furthermore, consider this: Hillary’s abuses and violations of the law will probably target the very conservative journalists, blogs and websites that are willing to expose her pattern of abuses and law-violating as well as the individuals and foundations which would be inclined to support them financially?

    When you are saying, “She will encourage and support dishonest, undemocratic schemes in pursuit of her agenda. Nothing could be more certain,” I believe you negate the argument that Trump is somehow the riskier choice.

    If anything, he’s the least risky choice. The media, the Democratic Party, and even the #neverTrump conservtives will work to restrain his excesses and hold him accountable.

    Who can hold Hillary accountable?

    Best to ensure she doesn’t enter the White House, except as a tourist or invited guest, Jack.

    • 1. I was testing you. (fixed)
      2. It not only makes sense, it is undeniable. Trump is capable of the worst in Hillary’s repertoire, and worse. She, on the other hand, has relevant experience, is a lawyer, which means, unlike Trump, that she knows the law, is never uncivil, isn’t a misogynist and will never, ever, do this…

      … in a Presidential address.

  7. The DNC has scheduled the following speakers for its convention:

    1. Stephanie Rawlings-Blake opened the convention.
    2. Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren will speak Monday night, and Rep. Joe Kennedy III is expected to introduce her.
    3. The theme of the day, though, will be driven by the “Mothers of the Movement”. Guess who is on that list: the mothers of Eric Garner, Michael Brown, Sandra Bland, and Trayvon Martin’s mother (if using the mother of a foreign officer who died in Benghazi is unethical, then the DNC has doubled or tripled down in the ethics department, no?).
    4. Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who will denounce Trump and make his case for Clinton.

    This ought be fun to watch.

    jvb

  8. Jack,
    Parts 1 and 2 of this post are some of the best to come out of Ethics Alarms in a long time. As I’ve mentioned before, I tend to get tired of the constant HRC bashing you engage in so often (not because I disagree, but only because it no longer surprises me), but this was a concise and poignant attack on the kind of corruption she involves herself in and a perfect reflection of how it infects those around her. The Clintons are a disease.

    Keep up the great work!

    -Neil

    PS: DId you post part 4 of the Supreme Court rulings and I missed it?

  9. Jack,
    How does your article on photojournalism ethics (another good one) relate to Trump? I ask because of the picture you posted above (among others that you’ve posted); although, in fairness — that’s by NO MEANS taken out of context.

    • THAT photo isn’t a smear, it’s Trump smearing. I wouldn’t use it in a generic Trump piece, but one about his boorish conduct? Sure. It’s not a split-second unflattering photo. He chose to look like that. I guarantee Hillary never thought about her expressions when those photos of her were taken.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.