Ethics Dunce: Donna Brazile, But Not For The All The Obvious Reasons…

“Now, it’s my understanding that as a CNN contributor, you won’t make me follow any of that ethics crap, right, Jake?”

In her new book, “Hacks: The Insider Story of the Break-ins and Breakdowns That Put Donald Trump in the White House,” Suddenly Ethical Donna Brazile takes a moment  to slam Jake Tapper because he harshly criticized her after a leak reveealed that she had used her CNN position to procure debate question and pass them along under the table to Hillary. (Of course, if Clinton had any integrity, she would have refused—what am I SAYING?).

She wrote,

“The next day, even Jake Tapper took a swing at me, calling me unethical and ‘journalistically horrifying’ during a radio interview with WMAL even though I worked for CNN as a commentator not a journalist.When I called him on this, he did not apologize. His attack on me was really about him. He wrote in an email, ‘I don’t know what happened here except it undermines the integrity of my work and CNN … you have to know how betrayed we all feel.”

OH! Donna was a contributor, not a journalist! That changes everything! So as an individual who was contributing to a journalism product, as well as paid to do so, and being relied upon by journalists in a journalism-supplying entity to inform their audience honestly regarding what journalism covers by definition, Brazile as a paid contributor should not have been expected  not required to tell the truth, be fair, maintain standards of integrity, state her biases and conflicts up front, or indeed engage in ethical conduct at all!

Is that the new definition of what “contributor” means? Boy, I think CNN needs to clarify this; I always assumed that if a network employed a “contributor,” that individual was being presented as someone who would be held to the same standards of professionalism as other on-screen employees.

I gather Donna is also saying that her employer, CNN, should not have been assumed she wouldn’t surreptitiously use her position to take proprietary information and undermine the integrity of a televised Presidential candidate debate on CNN that the network represented as fair and transparent. I’m curious: did her contributor status also justify her lying her head off and denying that she had done what she did when the story came out?

What is Brazile’s definition of “contributor,” then? Spy? Liar? Slimebag?

Contributing lying, spying, slimebag?

For Donna Brazile to be criticizing the Clinton campaign and the DNC on their ethics has to be make her a fast track candidate for the Pot and Kettle Hall of Infamy. This woman wouldn’t know an ethical principle if it was nailed to her chin.

23 thoughts on “Ethics Dunce: Donna Brazile, But Not For The All The Obvious Reasons…

  1. Jack wrote, “This woman wouldn’t know an ethical principle if it was nailed to her chin.”

    That would put her at the top of the heap for being a Presidential candidate in 2020 for the New and Improved Democratic Party. 😉

      • Zoltar, are you kidding? It’s old news. It’ been responded to. No one cares about Donna Brazile (a Howard Dean line). Time to move on and get back to doing the hard work the American people expect the Democrats to do for hard working families. Blah, blah, blah.

        • By the way, I continue to believe HRC will be the Democratic nominee for President in 2020. It’s already been a year so there’s only a year or so before people start launching campaigns and there’s absolutely NO ONE who looks like they could put a campaign together because the Clintonistas are still taking up all the space. They’re all still there spinning the same stories and taking all the oxygen out of the political space.

          • Oh, I’ll take THAT bet too.

            Even if she wasn’t deader than Franco, the fact is the nobody nominates losing candidates any more. The last one was Nixon, admittedly Hillary’s closest comp, but Nixon is not a good precedent. The thing is, since Jackson, the repeat nominees always lose: Bryan, Dewey, Stevenson…and they were ALL better than Hillary.

            I think the odds are better that Hillary will be committed before 2020 than her getting another nomination. Of course, she may just keep trying until she drops, like Harold Staasen. I wouldn’t bet against that.

          • Personally I think that if the Democrats don’t elevate someone to the DNC nomination that’s perceived as an moderate Liberal , an outsider with political experience that has shown they know how to get things done, an anti-status quo, and politician openly speaks their mind in a more “Presidential” way than Trump, then they’re a bunch of political fools.

            I know of no one that fits that mold.

            • Second try…

              Zoltar, the criteria you mention are why I keep beating the Mark Cuban drum: relatively young, seemingly unmistakably liberal (from TEXAS!), wealthy like Trump, combative like Trump and probably a tad more savvy about his outspokenness (at least, perceived to be more savvy, since he would surely be more palatable and tolerable, just for being a Democrat – and viewed by intolerant leftists as more tolerant than Trump). Compared to Trump, Cuban is equally inexperienced at elective office and campaigns for such, but similar to Trump, he is heavily experienced and successful as a business executive. It’s just me, but I suspect we are still in a “mini-era” of enhanced voter excitement about candidates with NO elective experience – Mr. Smith types going to Washington. (I only wish that excitement was ever expanding and self-sustaining.)

              Similar to you, I think that the Democrats, if they remain too conservative (yes, I meant to use that word, “conservative” ), and don’t nominate Cuban the outsider, who would be virtually a perfect yang to Trump’s yin, they’ll be blowing their best opportunity to win the White House in 2020.

              Of course, Cuban has to want to be elected President. Hlary has to want to be his running mate. The two have to want to plot so that Cuban resigns after being elected, so that Hlary can ascend to the throne, like she damned well SHOULD have done in 2016, as we all ought to know (and ought to have known, since last November)…

              Most of the rest of the country won’t be interested in a two-woman ticket, so forget Harris-Gillibrand (or vice-versa) – especially not while Hlary is still alive to be “The First,” the stinkless-shitted great white queen who has paid her dues (and Jeeeeeez! does she ever thirst for payback!). As long as she is alive, Hlary is THE ONE to be nominated and elected 1st female POTUS.

          • I heard a bunch of people talking about how the next one would be Chelsea Clinton, not Hilary. I don’t know if they’re to be believed, however.

          • “I continue to believe HRC will be the Democratic nominee for President in 2020.” Me too, Other Bill. Maybe with a Mark Cuban twist – but, yes. She might also be the first female equivalent of William Henry Harrison: healthy enough to hold the office for about 30 days, then disappear (if not die), and go latter-Woodrow Wilson-ish. With some sneaky little shit of a girlfriend running the show for her.

  2. Condoleezza Rice on a Republican ticket anyone – Democrats would be in a flat spin knowing how to bag her out apart from the Bush connection!

  3. Oh ye of little faith!

    You’re ALL wrong, while speaking with Tucker Carlson, the talented Ms. Brazile (allegedly) slipped HRC the questions out of an altruistic concern for THE catch-all/end-all: diversity and inclusion.

    (bolds & caps mine throughout)
    (cue lilting violin music and soft-lit videos of kittens/puppies playing together)
    “I wanted to make sure that we had diverse voices, and we covered issues that had not been discussed (inclusion) in previous debates,

    “No, give me one more second, I know it’s your show, I’m not trying to take over. What–Tucker, I know you too well. What I sought to do Tucker was to ensure that we had these issues on the table, and I wanted to make sure OUR candidates, I didn’t want THEM blindsided.”

    Seems Brazile’s definition of diversity and inclusion requires some partisan limits.

  4. (Of course, if Clinton had any integrity, she would have refused—what am I SAYING?).

    I’m not doubting she’d accept it, but was it ever confirmed that she did? I read someone say the other day that there was no proof she accepted it, but I don’t know what they were basing this on.

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 )

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.