So has anyone gotten a response from Ms. Brazille in regards to

[dsc]

the accusation that she mixed up the two agreements in her book excerpt? I know a twitter thread was posted here last night but I can't see where there was any response (but I also don't do twitter much so could have easily missed one).

[comradebillyboy]

1. She seems to have dropped out of sight at the moment but

I expect to see her on Hannity's show soon.

[joshcryer]

2. I expect a quiet retraction and editing of her libel.

If the book ever gets published.

[dalton99a]

3. Any day now

I hope she makes millions from her book

[virtualobserver]

4. if her accusation was false, Hillary's team would have released the signed version proving her wrong

Donna Brazile doesn't have to respond to false accusations

[dsc]

7. actually she should have released the agreement

as she is making the accusation.

[virtualobserver]

8. it isn't an "accusation"

The former head of the DNC says that she read the agreement and this is what it said....

and the response is....prove it you liar!

[dsc]

16. It is a perfectly fair response

We now see the original agreement said nothing of the sort ACCORDING TO THE RUSSIAN PROVIDED EMAILS. So yea, she claims that there was a whole different agreement which she saw but won't release to us.

[virtualobserver]

18. Why do believe that the head of the DNC during the election is a liar?

[dsc]

22. because she says the agreement says x

we have a copy of the agreement which says not x. It is now incumbent upon her to show that there was a different agreement which says x.

[virtualobserver]

27. the agreement that Donna mentions is with the Hillary Victory Fund.....

which isn't even mentioned in the agreement from Podesta's email.

[dsc]

38. not according to her own excerpt

she says Robbie Mook made the deal and he was the campaign manager, hence according to her very own words the deal was with the campaign, the fund was an account, not an organization. That would be like saying my finance company has a deal with my bank account and not me.

[virtualobserver]

47. the Joint Fund-Raising Agreement between the DNC, the Hillary Victory Fund, and Hillary for America.

When I got back from a vacation in Martha’s Vineyard, I at last found the document that described it all: the Joint Fund-Raising Agreement between the DNC, the Hillary Victory Fund, and Hillary for America.

The agreement—signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook with a copy to Marc Elias—specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings.

[dsc]

56. and again the campaign is one of these parties

yet we have seen an agreement (the only one we have seen it should be noted) where none of these troubling parts appear and it is with the campaign. Now maybe there is such an agreement but it has been hours and hours since this first came up and she hasn't said a word, not one word. She made this accusation, she has offered no proof whatsoever other than her word, and the only proof out there, contradicts it.

[NCTraveler]

25. Im with you.

DWS and Brazile are above reproach. They should not be questioned on any claims they make. Doing so would require critical thinking and that just hurts.

[comradebillyboy]

40. ++++++++

[virtualobserver]

49. she's a little ol' liar

[NCTraveler]

58. They have never been wrong

I love absolutists.

[virtualobserver]

60. This is a damn big thing to be wrong about.....Donna Brazile would have to be an idiot.

[NCTraveler]

61. Its not that big.

The major points she made are old info and known. We were discussing the agreement over a year ago on DU. We weren’t aware of candle burning and such. That’s all it takes for Trump and his crew to act like it’s something new.

I don’t think she is an idiot. Unlike you, I don’t think DWS and Brazile are infallible. You literally promoted them both to deity status.

[virtualobserver]

62. It is big. It is the signature detail in the promotion of her book.

I am surprised, quite frankly, that you actually believe that she could mistaken about this.

[NCTraveler]

64. "It is big. It is the signature detail in the promotion of her book."

Love it.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

It's not just Trump.

Link to tweet

It's too funny watching the right trip all over themselves trying to blow this up.

[Demsrule86]

10. it was false. I saw the documents online...and I would not dignify her lies with a reply but

I would call my lawyer...hope Donna doesn't see a single penny...self-serving to say the least.

[virtualobserver]

12. you saw the signed documents?

If so, please give me the link.

[joshcryer]

15. It's been posted:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029790684

[virtualobserver]

20. the signed document has not been posted.

a document from Wikileaks from John Podesta's email has been posted.

[joshcryer]

23. The proported "document" that Brazille is talking about doesn't exist.

You will find that document, signed, if anyone bothers to scan it and post it. The signature means nothing in this case.

There is no document giving Clinton control before she's the nominee.

[virtualobserver]

26. the document that Brazile talks about is an agreement with the "Hillary Victory Fund".......

which isn't mentioned in the document on Wikileaks.

[uponit7771]

75. wow ... so trust wikileaks now?!

[virtualobserver]

52. it isn't the signed agreement that includes the Hillary Victory Fund

[Demsrule86]

50. The documents are posted online...no I don't have the link...another poster does though...if

you look at the original thread. There were two agreements...one before the primary and one when the nominee was chosen.

[virtualobserver]

53. no, the signed agreement with the Hillary Victory Fund has definitely NOT been posted

[Demsrule86]

63. someone had a copy...

JOINT FUNDRAISING AGREEMENT
This Agreement is entered into on this ____ day of _________, 2015, by and between Hillary for America (the “Campaign”), the Democratic National Committee (“DNC”), [ADD STATE PARTIES] (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Committees”).
Whereas the Committees desire to conduct joint fundraising projects in compliance with the Federal Election Campaign Act (“FECA”), the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (“BCRA”) and applicable Federal Election Commission (“FEC”) regulations;
Now, therefore, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained, the Committees agree as follows:
1. Purpose of Joint Fundraising
The purpose of the joint fundraising activity is to receive contributions to fund the Committees’ activities, including the support of candidates seeking election to office.
2. Participants
The Committees are all “political committees” within the meaning of the FECA.
3. Fundraising Representative
The Committees will establish and register with the FEC a separate political committee, Hillary Victory Fund, (the “Victory Fund”) to act as fundraising representative. The Committees will amend their Statements of Organization and Candidacy, as necessary, to reflect the Victory Fund as an affiliated/authorized committee. The treasurer of the Victory Fund shall be Elizabeth Jones. Ms. Jones may not be replaced as Treasurer without the agreement of all parties to the Agreement.

4. Allocation Formula
The Committees agree that the allocation formula set forth in Exhibit A to this Agreement (the “Allocation Formula”) will be used to allocate the funds raised in connection with this joint fundraising activity.
5. Exceptions to Allocation Formula
Under the following circumstances, the Allocation Formula as set forth in Exhibit A will not be used:
a. When a contributor designates his or her contribution to the Committees according to a different allocation formula;
b. When a contributor designates his or her contribution to a single committee;
c. When a contribution allocated according to the Allocation Formula would cause a contributor to exceed applicable contribution limits to any of the Committees.
6. Depository
The Victory Fund will establish a depository account to be used solely for the receipt of contributions and for the making of disbursements in furtherance of this agreement as provided for by law and FEC regulations. The Committees will amend their Statements of Organization, as necessary, to reflect this account as an additional depository.

7. Receipts and Disbursements
a. All contributions and other donations received by the Victory Fund will be placed in the depository account within 10 days of receipt as required by 11 C.F.R. § 103.3. All disbursements for expenses will be made from this account.
b. Each contribution comprising the gross proceeds of the fundraising activity will be allocated between the Committees according to the Allocation Formula. However, if such allocation would result in a violation of the contribution limits under FECA and BCRA, the Victory Fund will reallocate the contribution between the Committees. In order to ensure proper reallocation of such contributions, each of the Committees agrees to furnish the fundraising representative with a current list of its contributor records and related data for the election cycle.
c. Expenses will be allocated among the Committees according to the Allocation Formula. However, if a reallocation of contributions is required that results in a change in the Allocation Formula, expenses will be reallocated as well.
d. Subject to 11 C.F.R. § 102.17(b)(3), the Committees may agree to advance to the fundraising representative sufficient funds to defray start-up expenses for joint activities. Such advances will be repaid in full prior to any distribution of proceeds.
8. Distribution of Proceeds
From time to time and in compliance with FECA, after expenses have been deducted from the gross proceeds, the Victory Fund will transfer the net proceeds to the Committees according to the Allocation Formula, as modified by any reallocation required. The Victory Fund will arrive at the net proceeds figure by subtracting each Committee’s share of the expenses from the gross proceeds. Nothing in this Paragraph 8 shall preclude the transfer of any portion of the net proceeds to the Committees before all expenses have been paid. Nothing in Paragraph 8 shall require the Victory Fund to distribute net proceeds on any particular schedule, nor to each Committee at the same time. The timing of distributions of net proceeds under this agreement will be made at the sole discretion of the Treasurer.
9. Accounting to the Committees
The Committees will establish procedures to cross reference donor limits to ensure compliance with the Allocation Formula and campaign finance law. The treasurer of the Victory Fund shall provide to each party to this Agreement periodic accountings which shall contain the following information:
a. a list of all contributions to the Victory Fund which includes the name, address, occupation and employer of each contributor, the amount of the contribution, and the date of receipt of the contribution;
b. a list of all disbursements, to whom they were made, the purpose, and amount;
c. a list of any outstanding debts of the Victory Fund; and
d. the current funds balance.
10. Reporting
a. The Victory Fund will report all funds received and all disbursements made during each reporting period according to the requirements of the FECA, BCRA and FEC Regulations. All reporting schedules used to report the activity of the Victory Fund will be clearly marked as joint fundraising activity.
b. The Committees will report receipt of the proceeds in accordance with the requirements of the FECA, BCRA and FEC Regulations.
11. Recordkeeping
a. The Victory Fund shall collect and retain contributor information with regard to gross proceeds as required by 11 C.F.R. § 102.8 and shall forward such information to the Committees.
b. The Victory Fund, or a designated agent, will maintain a copy of this Agreement and the records required under 11 C.F.R. § 102.9 regarding fundraising receipts and disbursements for three (3) years from the date of execution, receipt or disbursement, as the case may be. The Agreement shall be made available to the FEC on request.
12. Miscellaneous
a. All solicitations of contributions will be conducted in accordance with the notice provision of 11 C.F.R. § 102.17(c)(2).
b. Any changes to the provisions of this Agreement must be made in writing and signed by all parties to the Agreement.
c. This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. For purposes hereof, a facsimile copy of this Agreement, including the signature page hereto, shall be deemed to be an original and will have the same force and effect as an original document with original signatures.
[Signature Pages Follow Immediately.]

Know what sounds like the 2015 Agreement you described, Donna? June 2016 JFA between DNC and Hillary, post-primary http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/08/politics/hillary-clinton-fundraising-dnc-democratic-national-convention/index.html
Link Here
Donna, just admit that you confused June 2016 agreement for the August 2015 JFA. Here's how CNN described June 2016 http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/16/politics/hillary-clinton-campaign-dnc/index.html

https://tttthreads.com/thread/926195470824640512

The primary was not 'rigged'...there was a legitimate winner...and let's move on because it seriously does not matter.

[delisen]

55. Better for others to ignore this romance novel

and not get entangled in this distraction.

[virtualobserver]

59. disproving this with a simple release of a document would be easy

.....unless Donna is telling the truth......

[delisen]

68. Nor does anyone else.

[ismnotwasm]

5. She tweeted this this am

Link to tweet

[virtualobserver]

9. Donna said that the "primary PROCESS" was rigged.....

in her article.....which is a broader expression.

[Demsrule86]

11. Her article and her book are pure shit.

Votes are votes...nothing was rigged.

[ismnotwasm]

13. The process of the system?

Her except was poorly written and not that subtle.

I’m not getting this. I’m sure more will be revealed.

[virtualobserver]

14. months before the primary, DWS was threatening to exclude any candidate from "sanctioned debates"...

...if they participated in any "unsanctioned" debates.

Debates are part of the "process" that has nothing to do with voting procedures of the states.

She also refused to add any debates when Bernie and Martin O'Malley asked.

Martin O'Malley accused the DNC of 'rigging' primary process in Clinton's favor iat that point.


Then when Bernie started gaining traction, and Hillary wanted more debates.....suddenly it was perfectly fine.

But everyone knows all of this.

[ismnotwasm]

19. What does any of that have to do with the excerpt?

[virtualobserver]

24. that was the part of the primary process that was rigged

To quote Donna....

" I at last found the document that described it all: the Joint Fund-Raising Agreement between the DNC, the Hillary Victory Fund, and Hillary for America.

The agreement—signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook with a copy to Marc Elias—specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings.

I had been wondering why it was that I couldn’t write a press release without passing it by Brooklyn. Well, here was the answer."


The STRATEGY was for Hillary to win the nomination.

[ismnotwasm]

29. You still arent making total sense to me

The operative word being “rigged”, NOT stategy Donna says now, it wasn’t “rigged”. I think, like others, I will wait for the proper documentation to appear because none of this adds up. —perhaps she has a screen shot of the agreement in her book or something

[virtualobserver]

32. keeping debates from happening is part of the process

Brazile only said that the VOTING process wasn't rigged.

[ismnotwasm]

34. Who kept debates from happening?

[virtualobserver]

36. Debbie Wasserman Schultz----DNC Chair

But you know that.

[ismnotwasm]

37. How did she do that?

[ismnotwasm]

44. Who wanted to change the process?

And also, is this refighting the primaries? Because I don’t think we should do that.

[virtualobserver]

46. by calling Donna Brazile a liar, you force this discussion

this is not about refighting the primary, this is about defending the truthfulness of the former DNC chair

[ismnotwasm]

51. Whoa cowboy!

When and in What universe did I call Donna Brazile a liar? I did say she writes like HA Goodman, and as an aside, I noted that the JPR crowd are nutjobs...I digress.

[virtualobserver]

54. So you think that she is telling the truth, then?

[ismnotwasm]

57. I think shes telling the truth as she sees it.

I also think she said the primaries weren’t rigged, after she strongly inferred they were. So, one again I have to say, I’m confused by this whole episode. I kinda like Donna Brazile.

[moriah]

67. This entire conversation is. But it's better to get it the fuck out of the way.

Otherwise we're suppressing both dissent and an opportunity to express the facts to people who don't actually understand there's significant questions about the difference between the joint fundraising documents both candidates signed and agreements signed after the nom was clinched even if Superdelegates were completely removed.

Signed,

Juror.

[ismnotwasm]

71. Hmm

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029792077

[moriah]

79. Exactly. This entire discussion is about allegations about the primary.

There were likely agreements signed after the primary was over.

Perhaps Brazile is thinking of those, she certainly wasn't DNC chair when those agreements were signed. Perhaps the person locked out of the thread doesn't actually understand that Brazile was either being deliberately misleading in her article or genuinely confused, and either way no agreements were signed that gave HRC control over the DNC debates. And the turnaround from admitting to cheating to help Hillary to an "expose" on the entire DNC helping Hillary is fishy beyond belief.

Alerts in these threads, about a current accusation regarding the primary, for refighting the primary, are ridiculous.

Let's go ahead and just get this shit out of the way, debunked, let her sell her book -- she can't do anything else after breaking her integrity by telling debate questions in advance.

Get the distraction over, dealt with, done, dead, and move back on.

[NastyRiffraff]

74. Quoting Donna, to prove her "right"?

Oooookay. Nice try, though!

[pnwmom]

28. Hillary didn't WANT more debates. She compromised on the number of debates.

The whole issue was nuts because ALL the debates were nationally televised and after half a dozen they started to become very repetitive.

[virtualobserver]

30. no, after Bernie won New Hampshire....suddenly Hillary wanted more debates

[pnwmom]

31. She reacted to the demand of the other candidates for more debates, and compromised. She knew

she would trounce Bernie in the southern primaries, which were coming up. She wasn't worried about that.

[virtualobserver]

35. sigh....

Suddenly, after losing New Hampshire.....she generously reacted to the "Demand" of the other candidates.

[pnwmom]

41. Yup. The party had overdosed on 24 debates during the 2008 election and had decided

to scale back to a number closer to the historical average of a handful. The debates cost money and there is a diminishing return, especially with only three candidates. (The GOP was fielding 15).

When Hillary realized that people wanted more than the 6, she agreed to 10. She wasn't suddenly afraid of Bernie because of a vote in Vermont's neighboring state, where the results were completely predictable. She knew she was about to sweep the South (where 96% of black women voted for her, by the way.)

[LisaM]

77. There were way too many debates as it was....at one point there seemed to be one or two a week.

What bothered me was that a certain faction acted as if there was something wrong with having weekend debates. Hell to the no on that one. I live on the West Coast and work till 6:30 p.m. and the weekend ones were the only ones I got to see all the way through.

[pnwmom]

78. I know, wasn't that crazy? God forbid a debate should be scheduled on some night

that had a GAME. Any game. It was obviously Hillary conspiring with the DNC or they would never schedule a debate on GAME NIGHT.

[LisaM]

83. Right? As if the West Coast didn't exist

and there was this huge, huge overlap between people watching the NFL pre-season (at least a couple of the games were pre-season) and inveterate debate watchers.

That got my blood boiling so bad!!! Sure, everyone west of Denver can just miss the whole thing.

[Wwcd]

33. That is not true. HRC didn't want the debates. Bernie pushed for them

Bernie got everything he came for.
His own words.
"Money & Media"

The rest is bs.

[questionseverything]

82. i truely believe the reason trump is in the wh is the rnc

started their debates nearly 3 months before the dnc "allowed" them

it was a huge mistake....

trump picked up many low info voters that should of identified with dems

if you remember how trump campaigned it was like he was a populist and people fell for it simply because the dnc was not showing the voters the alternative (debating)

debates=free airtime

[OilemFirchen]

80. Yeah, well, except...

This does not include any communications related to primary debates – which will be exclusively controlled by the DNC .

From the Memorandum.

[jalan48]

6. Has there been any response from Clinton and Sanders on this issue?

[comradebillyboy]

42. Sanders called it a distraction and denounced Trump

[Pugster]

17. Her response doesn't matter. The damage cannot be reversed

Neither the MSM nor the right-wing trolls nor the Russians have any interest in making any Brazile clarification attempt go viral.

[leftynyc]

21. Neither do some

of the more obvious posters here.

[Wwcd]

39. Talk about itching to "refight the primary"

Its gotten as viscious as reading the RU troll crap on twitter!
Those tweeters a insane, they stick their fingers in their ears and keep repeating some false half-assed Kremlin created tweet that began somplace near the Russian border.
Twitter is plain freaky.

[leftynyc]

48. I'm very particular about

those I follow on twitter Mostly news sites, some bloggers and cute animals. I don't have time to wade through thousands of tweets about nonsense.

[Wwcd]

66. Yup. I have a few I read through. Venturing off into some accts are too much.

I'm not cut out for some of those kind of fights.

[fmdaddio]

45. TPM

Josh has a well thought out take on this.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/donna-brazile-needs-to-back-up-her-self-serving-claims

[GaryCnf]

65. Has anyone asked the DNC

to produce these "two agreements" or is Julian Assange's ratfucking good enough when it comes to slandering Brazille?

[dsc]

69. If he was able to predict in June of 2016

that this would come up and decided to plant a fake agreement that would make Hillary look good and then did it well go ahead and believe that. And on edit, both forms of the agreement were covered by the press in real time. In Aug of 2015 the press covered a standard joint fundraising agreement which both candidates signed, then in July of 2016 the one giving Hillary control was covered in the press.

[GaryCnf]

70. So there aren't two agreements

I'm shocked.

[dsc]

72. yes there are

there was one agreement in AUGUST OF 2015, WHICH WAS A STANDARD FUNDRAISING AGREEMENT AND WAS OFFERED TO EVERY SINGLE OTHER CANDIDATE IN THE RACE. There was a second agreement in July of 2016 WHICH GAVE OUR NOMINEE CONTROL OF THE PARTY. BOTH WERE COVERED IN REAL TIME.

[GaryCnf]

73. Excellent

So we will be seeing signed copies of both soon.

[leftofcool]

76. They have been posted all over twitter

[GaryCnf]

81. Thanks

I guess I've just been expecting to see them in the msm as big as this story has been. I appreciate the info!