"DONNA BRAZILE EXPLICITLY MADE FALSE AND GROSSLY IRRESPONSIBLE CHARGES"

[emulatorloo]

Ok I really suck at doing 4 paragraph excerpts.

Article is a pretty thoughtful analysis of Braziles' mistakes and missteps in the book ending up in false charges. I enjoy this guy's blog, good writer.

Also pushes back on intellectually dishonest Brazile defenders like Glenn Greenwald.

Sorry about the uselessness of my except. Article is thorough but not to long to read .


http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2017/11/donna-brazile-explicitly-made-false-grossly-irresponsible-charges

DONNA BRAZILE EXPLICITLY MADE FALSE AND GROSSLY IRRESPONSIBLE CHARGES
BY SCOTT LEMIEUX / ON NOVEMBER 10, 2017 / AT 3:01 PM / IN GENERAL 1565 VIEWS

http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2017/11/donna-brazile-explicitly-made-false-grossly-irresponsible-charges

As Donna Brazile continues her tour of pandering to wingnuts and professional 2016 primary re-litigators, multiple people have claimed that she’s being treated unfairly by critics who fall outside these categories, because she never said that the primaries were rigged.

This defense, however, completely fails. Not only was the reaction of people like Greenwald inevitable, it was an accurate reading of the Politico excerpt. I don’t know what Brazile intended to argue, and having seen her performance from when she was on the Ineffective Democratic Talking Heads Circuit, it’s entirely possible that her assertion that the 2016 primary was rigged was the product of bad writing and foggy thinking. But it is what she asserted. Let’s go to the text:

<snip, quotation from Politico excerpt>

Brazile clearly and unambiguously states that the DNC hacks provided credible evidence that the primaries were rigged. The DNC hacks, of course, show no such thing. The closest the hacks came to providing “evidence” that the primaries were rigged are some random DNC nobody suggesting a stupid smear of Sanders, being immediately brushed off, and nobody doing anything. There’s nothing there.

For Brazile to lend credence to the claims that the DNC leaks “suggested” that the primaries was rigged is disgusting in itself. And, in addition, it renders one defense of Brazile — “after saying that she had found proof that the primaries were rigged, she goes on to discuss a bunch of DNC-related stuff that isn’t primary rigging” — entirely inoperative. Since there’s not only no evidence that the primaries were rigged but nobody could explain the mechanism by which the DNC could rig the primaries even if it wanted to, by definition the “evidence” that the primaries were rigged consists of non-sequiturs. While it’s not evidence of primary rigging, the stuff Brazile goes on to discuss 1)is considered evidence of primary rigging by the idiots and hacks who assert that the primaries were rigged, and 2)Brazile explicitly says that she finds their arguments credible. So the fact that Brazile’s subsequent discussion is objectively not evidence of primary rigging is neither here not there absent language making it clear that Brazile doesn’t consider it evidence of primary rigging, language which AFICT is absent in the text.

MUCH MORE AT LINK