[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.
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!
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.”
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?
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.