Gee, I Wonder Why Republican Voters Might Worry About The Election Being “Rigged”? It’s A Mystery!


It began with this story: A Wikileaks leaked email, from Donna Brazile to the Clinton campaign, started with the subject line “From time to time I get the questions in advance.” Brazile, then vice chair of the DNC and a CNN and ABC contributor, included a question that was later asked of Hillary Clinton at a subsequent CNN “town hall,” word for word.

CNN anchor Jake Tapper, probably the closest thing to a fair and ethical journalist that exists in the current broadcast media, told an interviewer regarding the episode in part,

It’s a very, very troubling… look, I have tremendous regard for Donna Brazile. She’s a good person and a nice person and I like her a lot but whatever took place here… and I know I had nothing to do with it… and I know CNN, we were so closely guarding our documents… they weren’t emailed around….It’s horrifying.  Journalistically it’s horrifying and I’m sure it will have an impact on partnering with this organization in the future and I’m sure it will have an effect on… Donna Brazile is no longer with CNN because she’s with the DNC right now, but I’m sure it will have some impact on Donna Brazille.,,People at CNN take this very, very seriously and to have somebody who does not take it seriously and to have us partner with that person and then they do something completely unethical and share it with Donna Brazile who then shares it with the Clinton campaign… it’s horrifying and very, very upsetting and I can’t condemn it any more than… I condemn it in no uncertain terms, it’s awful.

Democratic operatives using their chummy, insider relationships with alleged legitimate news organizations to assist their candidates with undisclosed, under the table, tips? Who wouldn’t call that awful? Well, interestingly, most of the rest of the mainstream, Hillary-recruited media, which has mostly left this story to  Fox, the Daily Caller, and “conservative media” while suggesting that the e-mail from Wikileaks was somehow fake.

Enter Megyn Kelly on Fox, who was persistent in trying get Brazile to give an explanation in an interview. What she got instead was incredibly guilty-sounding evasion and Authentic Frontier Gibberish:

 KELLY: You were accused —  that you were accused of receiving a debate question before CNN town hall where they partnered with TV One and that —  that you had this question on, on March 12th, that — that verbatim, verbatim was provided by Roland Martin to CNN the next day. How did you get that question, Donna?

BRAZILE: Well, Kelly, since I play straight up and I play straight up with you, I did not receive any questions from CNN. Let’s just be very clear.

KELLY: Where did you get it? Where did you get it?

BRAZILE: First of all, what information are you providing to me that will allow me to see what, what you’re talking about? Everybody — 

KELLY: You’ve got the WikiLeaks released a March 12 Podesta e-mail showing you messaging the Clinton campaign with the exact wording of a question asked at the March 13th CNN TV One Town Hall debate.

BRAZILE: Kelly— Kelly— 

KELLY: Where did you get it?

BRAZILE: You know, as a Christian woman, I understand persecution but I will not sit here and be persecuted because your information is totally false. What you’re — what you’re telling the American people.

KELLY: I’m getting it from Podesta e-mail.

BRAZILE: What —  what you’re —  what well, Podesta’s e- mails were stolen. So, you’re so interested in talking about stolen material.

KELLY: So, you deny it?

BRAZILE: You’re like — you’re like thief that want to bring into the night the things that you found that was in the gutter. I’m not —  let me just say what I say since day one .

KELLY: Donna, CNN’s Jake Tapper. 

BRAZILE: Kelly. 

KELLY: — came out and said this was unethical. Somebody was unethically helping the Clinton campaign. He said, “I love Donna Brazile, but this is very, very upsetting.”

BRAZILE: And I love CNN and I love Jake.  

KELLY: “My understanding is that the e-mail to Donna Brazile–” This is Jake Tapper. “My understanding is that the e- mail to Donna Brazile came from either Roland Martin or someone around Roland Martin.” He said, this is very upsetting and very troubling.” That’s your own colleague at CNN. It’s not Megyn Kelly. Who gave you that question?

BRAZILE: Megyn, once, again, I’ve said it and I’ve said on the record and I’ll say on the record and I keep saying it on a record, I am not going to try to validate falsified information. I have my documents. I have my files. Thank God I have not had my personal e-mails ripped off from me and stolen and given to some criminals to come back altered. I have my records. I have my files. And as I said repeatedly, CNN in the 14 years I was associate with CNN, I have never received anything. If I had a blank piece of paper that — that would basically be the end of this conversation. I never get documents from CNN.

KELLY: Your e-mail to the Clinton camp said “Sometimes, I received the questions in advance.”

BRAZILE: Ma’am, you know —  you know what .

KELLY: And CNN is saying Roland Martin gave them to you or someone at TV One and they were provided to Hillary before that town hall. 

BRAZILE: Anybody — well — well, anybody who knows me and — and there are a number of your colleagues as well. They know me very well. I know how I play it. I know what I do before every debate. I know what I do before every show, even a show. I do my homework. I communicate, I talk .

KELLY: I understand.

BRAZILE: But I can just once again let you know that as far as I know, that CNN has never provided me with questions, absolutely ever. Nada. Sorry.

KELLY: But when you said — when you said that” from time to time I get the questions in advance,” what we’re you referring to? Because in that —  in that e-mail, you offered the exact question that one of the moderators, Roland Martin, then proposed the next day.

BRAZILE: So, so, my —  my —  my reference back to you, ma’am, with all respect and I respect you greatly .

KELLY: And I respect you, too.

BRAZILE: The validity of those e-mails, if I can only tell you one thing because as you know this whole episode is under criminal investigation. But I could just tell you one thing. A lot of those e-mails, I would not give them the time of the day. I’ve seen so many doctored e- mails.


BRAZILE: I’ve seen things that come me.

KELLY: Fair enough.

Is it possible to sound more guilty or dishonest?

Brazile is now chief of the Democratic Party, a position she took over after previous leaked e-mails showed that her predecessor was effectively acting as an ally of the Clinton campaign during the nomination process, doing what she could to undermine the Sanders campaign. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz denied it, yet coincidentally joined the Clinton campaign staff the second she was sacked.

The party rigged its own nomination process. Its current head used her position at CNN to give the party’s candidate advance notice so she could pretend to give a spontaneous answer during a televised forum, thus misleading viewers and voters. Caught doing this red-handed, the Democratic official resorts to word games— “CNN has never provided me with questions,” instead of “I never passed a question on to Sec. Clinton,” which is the real issue—incoherent outraged deflection, and the most obvious guilty nonsense since Ralph Kramden stuttered, “Huminahuminahumina” to Alice on “The Honeymooners.”

The Democrats cheat, and have no compunction about cheating. Hillary Clinton cheats, and has no compunction about cheating. The Obama administration is run by and in turn enables and supports the Democrats and their candidate Hillary Clinton.

Boy, what unpatriotic, paranoid, untrusting fool any citizen would be  who thinks the Democrats would be capable of trying to rig the election!



11 thoughts on “Gee, I Wonder Why Republican Voters Might Worry About The Election Being “Rigged”? It’s A Mystery!

  1. Yeah, it sounds like she did get the questions in advance, but not from CNN, or anyone at CNN. Maybe from Roland Martin, or someone over on that side of things that she is trying to avoid implicating?

    I think it is deceitful behavior, and indicates bias (which, duh, Brazile is the former/now present DNC chairwoman, of course she is biased), but connecting that to election rigging is a stretch. The media can definitely slant an election, but there is a difference between propaganda and outright stealing of an election, in my mind. One is about influence, the other is actually changing the results. For many reasons, it is pretty difficult to outright rig an election in America.

    • It’s a stretch, but its not much of a stretch, and that’s the point. I don’t see how you can read the e-mail and say Brazile wasn’t the courier, and the town hall was held by CNN, and she was being paid by CNN. Thus CNN knowingly involves operatives in its newscasting, and that’s part of the fix too.

      Sure its hard to fix an election. Hard to fix a nomination, too—after all, its a democracy, right? It was hard to fix a World Series, and the GSA database and the internet was supposed to be secure, remember, and the IRS wouldn’t try to use its power for partisan purposes, and Donald Trump couldn’t possibly win the GOP nomination, and the news media would never try to choose the President. All unlikely.

      And as I mentioned before, the party under suspicion told the public since 2000 that an election WAS stolen.

      Trust in US institutions is under 20%. The Democrats watch their Chair look and sound like a kid caught stealing cookies, and doesn’t care about appearances enough to fire her to show they CARE about trust and integrity.


      • I wonder how many Democratic voters were outraged over these revelations, in addition to those outraged by the DNC rigging the primaries. How many rank-and-file Democratic voters feel alienated by their leadership?

        Barack Obama was supposed to be the anti-Clinton, to get us away from the days when the Dem leadership made flimsy excuses for egregious misconduct just so that their guy can stay in office. As for how successful his second term is..well, why are all those football players refusing to stand for the national anthem? Would they do that if Obama did an excellent job?

    • Deery part of it is if they are willing to go this far why wouldn’t they go as far as actually trying to fix the election? I really don’t think there is a line that the democrats won’t cross. That isn’t to say there are no good honorable people in the party but they obviously aren’t the ones with power and influenceat to stop it.

      This didn’t just happen, it has been going on for a long time and people just ignored it or thought it would self correct, it hasn’t and I think Donald Trumps rise is the reaction to it, he isn’t an insider and he has become the middle finger to the democrats and political insiders.

      A significant part of the republican party wasn’t interested in nominating a politician and Carson just didn’t have energy they were looking for. To add to those republicans look at those states with open primaries, democrats were heavily voting for trump, I don’t know if it was to poison the well or because they were feeling the same as those republicans but it is interesting.

      • I included the article at the end of my post for a reason, Steve. It basically talks about the mechanics of voting, and why vote rigging, as such, is virtually impossible, unless all parties and everyday citizens, thousands of them, across America, are all in collusion. Such a conspiracy would be impossible to maintain.

        I definitely think the media is capable of propaganda, on both sides. But actual vote rigging is an entirely different animal. I don’t think the two should be conflated.

        • Bull. Vote rigging is a time honored institution, and any opinion to the contrary is at best misinformed of our country’s history, and at worst a deliberate lie.

          Paper ballot, vote machine tally, or show of hands: all results are dependent on the integrity of those counting the vote. Any student of history can find any number of incidents, from the dead rising to vote (for LBJ and others), to entire districts voting identically (2008, 2012 presidential elections), to easily (by design) hacked voting machines. ( (

          The proof is out there that this HAS and CAN BE done. We don’t prosecute it very often (I wonder why?) but it is rampant.

          I remember voting in South Texas once, and listening to the ‘snow birds’ (retirees from northern states who summer in warmer climates) openly talking about voting in federal elections at home and here. Why not? The chance of being caught is nil, and of being prosecuted for it less than nil.

          Don’t care what party does it, this undermines our very existence as a country, and is wrong from every ethical point of view.

          It is worse to say it does not happen at all, when it is easily demonstrable that it DOES.

  2. When these things become public, I – for a moment – think the US might be better with Trump than Clinton. I say this from the perspective that on the last presidential election in Mexico the choice was between an openly dishonest and corrupt candidate (just like Hillary) and a Bernie clone with no charisma. I voted independent, but many people I respect went with the corrupt cheater, and he won. Over the past couple of years we’ve seen him receive mansions (supposedly “payment” to her semi-famous actress wife), dozens of high level officials being outed for working with drug dealers and even him cynically inviting Trump for an official visit a few months ago. All of this because he has no shame and will do whatever is needed for more money and power. I can see Clinton selling out the country a few years down the road for a few million dollars. At least Trump as a narcissist will be somewhat harder to corrupt.

    • Trump would be almost impossible to blackmail.

      What bugs me is that Gary Johnson is not polling above 30%. I mean, this election is the perfect opportunity for an outright third party victory, let alone merely denying a majority of electoral votes to the two main nominees. Why are they unable to tap into that resource of disillusioned voters?

  3. Since we haven’t seen any real leaks from conservative sources, it’s hard to say it’s a fix without knowing if this is pervasive throughout the entire political process. Does it happen even more on the Democratic side? Does it happen on the Republican side? Right now, we’re only getting an incomplete picture of what is truly happening, since the leaks (coincidentally or not) are coming from just one side of things. (Would be interesting to see Gary Johnson leaks though, to see what causes some of his responses to things *grin*)

    My guess is, it happens all the time. There are always people who are chummy, buddy/buddy, looking to get/give favors on some level. I would say it’s much more likely in a democratic leaning organization to give to them, and a republican leaning organization to give to that side.

  4. ” Well, Kelly, since I play straight up and I play straight up with you, I did not receive any questions from CNN. Let’s just be very clear.”

    Anyone who starts out a defense by feeling the need to say he or she plays straight up and he or she is playing straight up with YOU…is probably lying. They are more likely “playing” you.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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.