…and that would be the dangerous alliance between the party controlling in the White House and the organizations and individuals trusted by the public to fairly and objectively inform it sufficiently to make a responsible choice.
I’ll be covering the astounding wave of disinformation, distortions and unethical conduct by those who should know better in the ongoing effort to crucify James Comey in a bit. Meanwhile, another Wikileaks hack provides some more perspective on the perils to democracy posed by the Democratic Party’s and the Clinton organization’s belief that cheating is an acceptable way to obtain and keep power.
As Ethics Alarms pointed out, DNC Chair Donna Brazile melted into sputtering protests, denials and gibberish when confronted with the clear evidence, via a Wikileaks hacked e-mail, that she unethically used her position at CNN to pass along a question to Hillary Clinton in advance of a CNN town meeting, so Clinton could prepare an answer in advance (and pretend that she had no prior knowledge of the question. This kind of lie, and it is a lie, never makes it onto the lists when Hillary enablers claim that Trump lies more than she does.) She would never do that!, Donna postured.
Another e-mail, from the same source, shows that this too was a lie.
In the latest revelation, Brazile, still working for CNN and bound by journalism ethics, told Hillary what question was on the way, and identified the questioner:
This is evidence of news media collusion, campaign cheating, lying, and, per Brazile’s indignant denials, a cover-up, and a pretty inept one at that. If there was nothing wrong with it, Brazile and the campaign would admit she did it. CNN and the Democratic Party would apologize for it. An ethical candidate—wait, wait-—I’m sorry, the fact that I am raising the hypothetical existence of an ethical Clinton candidacy nearly made me break out in a hebephrenic fit—an ethical candidate would have told Brazile, “Don’t do this! I’m not going to cheat; I can answer any questions without getting crib sheets from you! Cut it out!”
But no. Brazile now is the official leader of the Democratic Party’s national campaign and spokesperson for the party itself. This means, by definition, that the party endorses this conduct—secretly using the news media to give Clinton an unfair advantage, misleading the public, lying, and cheating. The current talking point being handed out to all Democratic surrogates, meanwhile is this: “We can’t let the Russians interfere with the election [ see previous post on this deflection here] , and—I’m going to start giggling again—“the e-mails haven’t been authenticated.”
Recall that Brazile was moved into her current position after other e-mail leaks showed that the DNC staff was actively “rigging” the nomination for Hillary Clinton. When this was discovered, Rep. Debby Wasserman Schultz was forced to resign…and was hired by Hillary Clinton within hours.
It wasn’t that the cheating by Wasserman Schultz was considered wrong or corrosive to basic democratic values that got her dismissed. It was that she didn’t get away with it.
And again I have to ask, because I’m very interested in know how deep Hillary Clinton’s corruption of her party and the public goes:
Are there no Democrats who see what’s wrong with this, or who perceive the threat it poses to democracy? Are there no progressives who are embarrassed to have their banner carried by such unethical people? Are there no liberals who see the danger in a “press,” now extending to electronic and broadcast media, which sees its role as an ally of power rather than a constant check on it?
Or is this whole side of the American ideological spectrum fully committed and comfortable with “the ends justify the means” as its ethical standard? Is this what we will be voting for, if we conclude that Donald Trump must not become President?
I really want to know.
UPDATED: CNN has announced that it has severed ties with Donna Brazile. Every other news organization should as well. We shall see.