Some Damn Fine Reporting From A Local Florida Journalist On The DNC Lawsuit

Submitted by LoneStarMike on Sun, 05/14/2017 - 7:02pm

So here is some really good reporting on the DNC by Brook Hines who works for The Florida Squeeze. She already posted Parts 1 & 2 and but now some new information has come to light and I think if what she has found checks out, the sh*t will hit the fan when part 3 comes out. And you'll never ever guess where she found this new information.

But first - here are Parts 1 and 2.

DNC lawsuit: “you’re morons to believe us” — PART 1 of 3

Excerpt

In the matter of the DNC fraud lawsuit, the absolute worst outcome for the Democratic Party would be to win their argument for dismissal. And yet, if it isn’t dismissed Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the DNC will still be in a world of hurt.

Arguments for dismissal of the DNC fraud lawsuit were delivered Tuesday, April 25 in the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, before the Hon. William J. Zloch. After reading the complaint and the transcript for dismissal, it’s clear to me that the DNC has been caught in a catch-22. From a legal standpoint, the only hope the DNC has is to win dismissal. If they lose the argument for dismissal, the whole matter will go to trial. This means Democratic Party elites will be called to take the stand (and respond to discovery) under penalty of perjury. Donna Brazile and Debbie Wasserman Schultz will most certainly be called to testify—thus creating an existential crisis for the DNC.

Even if the DNC wins the legal matter and the judge grants dismissal, they will have “won” by breaking Democracy. This is because the DNC has employed a scorched-earth approach in presenting their arguments for dismissal which goes: Regardless of the Party’s public face, they retain the right to choose candidates in secret, thereby screwing their constituents out of any meaningful representation in the democratic process. And that, they argue, is just the way politics rolls—you’re a moron if you don’t it see it.

DNC lawsuit: DNC won’t answer court’s basic question about state primary deals — Part 2 of 3

Excerpt:

There’s a curious exchange in the DNC fraud lawsuit transcript of motion to dismiss. It’s between counsel for defense Bruce Spiva and Judge William Zloch. After opening statements, the judge asks DNC counsel an ostensibly simple question that can be summed up as, “Explain the DNC relationship with primaries at the state level.” I thought, ‘well this is going to be boilerplate,’ and started to skim ahead. But then I noticed the DNC’s attorney stumbles through nine re-phrasings of the original question without offering a straight answer.

This should have been the easiest question of the day: “How does your client do its job?” Ten times the judge asked Spiva to explain the working relationship with the DNC and the primary process in the states. Ten times Spiva gave vague and confusing answers.

[SNIP]

I thought for a moment that the DNC’s counsel came unprepared to discuss basic operations of his client. But Spiva is a partner at the Democrats’ powerhouse law firm, Perkins Coie, so it’s a safe bet he’s familiar with how the DNC works.

[SNIP]

Hillary’s Victory Fund is the name of the entity (also represented by Perkins Coie) responsible for raising “funding and the like” for DNC and state committees. They did this through joint fundraising agreements that were constructed more than a year prior to the nomination. This effectively made the DNC and state parties surrogates for the Clinton campaign.

Not only is HVF represented by that law firm, they're probably the law firm that helped the Clinton set it up. So how could an attorney working for that same firm not be able to answer those basic questions asked by the judge?

There's more to the article.

Now here's the interesting part. The reporter hasn't yet posted part 3,but I found an interview that she did back on Tuesday and part of it involves what will be in part 3.

The reporter was interviewed by Lauren Steiner. Lauren Steiner has a show called "The Robust Opposition" and she was a delegate for Bernie at the DNC convention in Philadelphia. (I believe Steiner lives in the Los Angeles area)

Unfortunately, the interview is only on Facebook. Stein interviews Brook Hines for about the first 32 minutes, then goes on to interview Niko House. (I only watched the Brook Hines part.)

Link to interview on Facebook

Most of the interview is about this reporter's background (including PR work she did for OWS) and a good discussion of Parts 1 and 2, but at about the 25:45 mark they get into what part 3 will be about.

Brook Hines

So after I did the piece on McCutcheon and fundraising (Part 2) some more information has come to light. Someone tweeted at me a fantastic Daily Kos Diary called - Anatomy of a Victory (Fund) or How to Buy a Superdelegate.

The diary is from April of 2016. I really recommend reading it and since I know we don't like to give TOP clicks, here's a link to an archived version

Brook Hines:

So in my second piece, I was looking at the Hillary Victory Fund in toto, and I wasn't so much looking at superdelegates and I think when we start looking at superdelegates - and I'm going to fact check some of the information in this Kos diary - but there's some amazing tidbits that - if true - are fairly earth shattering.

One that's absolutely true is that during the McCutcheon case in the Supreme Court, Justice Alito actually said that it was absolutely absurd that one single candidate in a presidential election would get all of the money.

And his [Alito's] quote was "how realistic is that? How realistic is it that all of the state party committees for example are going to get money and they're all going to send it to one single candidate? Alito then called that idea a wild hypothetical that certainly lacked any empirical support.

So what we see from The Hillary Victory Fund in 2016 is empirical evidence. So what they thought was just crazy hypothetical crazy talk when they were changing the law in 2014 - we have plenty of empirical evidence.

When Obama ran in 2012, he was running as an incumbent - unopposed - and so raising money during the primaries was a whole different proposition for a sitting president running unopposed raising money during the primaries to go to the state committees. That's different than in 2016 when you have a contested primary season and you've got three candidates O'Malley, Sanders and Clinton and Clinton was allowed to run the whole fundraising show.

The big thing that was different in 2016 that should not have been allowed to happen is that all these joint fundraising agreements were made prior to the primaries, were carried out during the primaries, and something that is alleged in this Daily Kos diary which is gob-smacking is that within the terms of the agreement of Hillary's Victory fund - which needs to be fact-checked - was the agreement that states would get disbursed money from this fundraising if and only if Hillary Clinton was the nominee.

So right there you have incredible incentive for superdelegates in states and all these entities within the Democratic Party to just line up and get behind Hillary Clinton.

I think a good example of what she's talking about is New Hampshire. Remember Bernie won in a landslide by 20 or so percentage points, yet when the superdelegates were added into the mix, each candidate had an equal number of delegates. And I noted in research thread I posted at WOTB the New Hampshire Democratic Party received $10,222,104 as transfers from affiliated committees (Mostly HVF) but only disbursed $2,000,745 back to affiliated committees, so it looks like NH got to keep around $8,000,000 - probably as a "reward" for many of their superdelegates supporting Clinton despite the fact that Bernie won in a landslide there.

See this comment in the thread

Brook Hines:

In July of 2015 in an article in Politico, the Clinton campaign staffers told politico just outright that they were essentially seeking to take over the national Democratic infrastructure.

This interview was done on Tuesday. She was asked when part 3 would be posted. She said that she normally likes to get her articles up by Thursday or Friday morning at the latest. Well, it's Saturday and I just looked and it's still not up, so she must be having to do a lot of research to verify the claims in the Daily Kos Diary.

All I can say is: I can't WAIT to read part 3.

And wouldn't it be the ultimate slap in the face to GOS that a diary posted on their website led to the destruction of their Queen?

Tags:

#DNCLawsuit #Superdelegates

Vote

Comments

Submitted by OPOL on Sun, 05/14/2017 - 7:47pm

The plot sickens.

Thanks for the post, LSM. Smells like karma.

Submitted by dkmich on Sun, 05/14/2017 - 7:48pm

I hope they drag the Democrats thru the courts, and

Fox News has a camera up their keisters.

This is my favorite.

It should be the cover photo for his blog and facebook page.

—

"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon

Submitted by LoneStarMike on Sun, 05/14/2017 - 10:59pm

Or any of these

@dkmich

Submitted by Not Henry Kissinger on Sun, 05/14/2017 - 8:38pm

NH got lucky...

some states were able to keep less than 1% of the HVF cash

In the days before Hillary Clinton launched an unprecedented big-money fundraising vehicle with state parties last summer, she vowed “to rebuild our party from the ground up,” proclaiming “when our state parties are strong, we win. That’s what will happen."

But less than 1 percent of the $61 million raised by that effort has stayed in the state parties’ coffers, according to a POLITICO analysis of the latest Federal Election Commission filings.

The venture, the Hillary Victory Fund, is a so-called joint fundraising committee comprised of Clinton’s presidential campaign, the Democratic National Committee and 32 state party committees. The setup allows Clinton to solicit checks of $350,000 or more from her super-rich supporters at extravagant fundraisers including a dinner at George Clooney’s house and a concert at Radio City Music Hall featuring Katy Perry and Elton John.

The victory fund has transferred $3.8 million to the state parties, but almost all of that cash ($3.3 million, or 88 percent) was quickly transferred to the DNC, usually within a day or two, by the Clinton staffer who controls the committee, POLITICO’s analysis of the FEC records found.

The whole article is full of good info.

Basically, Hillary used the state parties as money laundering vehicles to get around campaign finance limits....

The arrangement has sparked concerns among campaign finance watchdogs and allies of Clinton’s Democratic rival Bernie Sanders. They see it as a circumvention of campaign contribution limits by a national party apparatus intent on doing whatever it takes to help Clinton defeat Sanders during the party’s primary, and then win the White House.

while hurting the state parties in the process.

Some fundraisers who work for state parties predict that the arrangement could actually hurt participating state parties. They worry that participating states that aren’t presidential battlegrounds and lack competitive Senate races could see very little return investment from the DNC or Clinton’s campaign, and are essentially acting as money laundering conduits for them.

And for party committees in contested states, there’s another risk: They might find themselves unable to accept cash from rich donors whose checks to the victory fund counted toward their $10,000 donation limit to the state party in question — even if that party never got to spend the cash because it was transferred to the DNC.

Of course, Hillary can always disburse money to her super delegate allies as she sees fit, but even if she doesn't, she still benefits from reducing her campaign limits exposure at the expense of those of the state parties she used and abused.

—

The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?

Submitted by LoneStarMike on Sun, 05/14/2017 - 11:37pm

I remember that Politico Story

@Not Henry Kissinger

And I went into the DNC Leaks and found the email chain where the DNC was furiously trying to come up with a response

(I had thought the name of the law firm was Perkins Cole, but apparently it's Perkins Coie)

These were the thoughts of Graham Wilson of Perkins Coie

Just a few thoughts here:

- I think that is really worthwhile to continue to push back on the Politico story's numbers being wrong. In the sub-headline that say that state parties only get to keep 1 percent of all the money being raised, but that is really incorrect and comparing apples and oranges. They reference the total amount of money that has been raised, but of that, many millions haven't yet been moved from HVF to state parties, but it also hasn't gone to the DNC or anywhere else. Because this is money for the general election, and coordinated campaigns are just now starting to be built at state parties, it is perfectly understandable that not all of the HVF money owed to state parties would have been distributed yet.

- I would lean so heavily on Hasen specifically in our on the record quote, as he could always come out and say something different. I think it is worth keeping that in the background materials, but given that others, when asked, also said there wasn't really anything to this, maybe we just keep the on the record quote more general? Something like The suggestion there's anything unusual about our joint victory funds has no basis in the law or reality, as recognized by numerous independent experts that have looked at this.

And here's a litle bit more on Perkins Coie

DNC Lawyers Now Implicated in Email Leaks as Giving ‘Pro-Hillary’ Advice

New emails discovered through the WikiLeaks dump show that attorneys from the law firm have given strategy advice to hurt Sanders, well before he dropped out. To add fuel to their claim, they’ve now discovered that attorneys from Perkins Coie are representing both the Democratic National Committee and Clinton’s campaign.

[SNIP]

Internal emails discovered through WikiLeaks show that Perkins Coie attorneys advised the DNC on how to fight allegations from Bernie Sanders. This spring, the Sanders campaign accused Hillary Clinton of ‘laundering’ money through the Clinton Victory Fund. Marc Elias, who serves as the Clinton campaign’s general counsel and also a partner at Perkins Coie, fired off an email to DNC staff stating:

My suggestion is that the DNC put out a statement saying that the accusations the Sanders campaign are not true. The fact that CNN notes that you aren’t getting between the two campaigns is the problem. Here, Sanders is attacking the DNC and its current practice, its past practice with the POTUS and with Sec Kerry. Just as the RNC pushes back directly on Trump over “rigged system”, the DNC should push back DIRECTLY at Sanders and say that what he is saying is false and harmful the Democratic party. [emphasis added]

some states were able to keep less than 1% of the HVF cash

In the days before Hillary Clinton launched an unprecedented big-money fundraising vehicle with state parties last summer, she vowed “to rebuild our party from the ground up,” proclaiming “when our state parties are strong, we win. That’s what will happen."

But less than 1 percent of the $61 million raised by that effort has stayed in the state parties’ coffers, according to a POLITICO analysis of the latest Federal Election Commission filings.

The venture, the Hillary Victory Fund, is a so-called joint fundraising committee comprised of Clinton’s presidential campaign, the Democratic National Committee and 32 state party committees. The setup allows Clinton to solicit checks of $350,000 or more from her super-rich supporters at extravagant fundraisers including a dinner at George Clooney’s house and a concert at Radio City Music Hall featuring Katy Perry and Elton John.

The victory fund has transferred $3.8 million to the state parties, but almost all of that cash ($3.3 million, or 88 percent) was quickly transferred to the DNC, usually within a day or two, by the Clinton staffer who controls the committee, POLITICO’s analysis of the FEC records found.

The whole article is full of good info.

Basically, Hillary used the state parties as money laundering vehicles to get around campaign finance limits....

The arrangement has sparked concerns among campaign finance watchdogs and allies of Clinton’s Democratic rival Bernie Sanders. They see it as a circumvention of campaign contribution limits by a national party apparatus intent on doing whatever it takes to help Clinton defeat Sanders during the party’s primary, and then win the White House.

while hurting the state parties in the process.

Some fundraisers who work for state parties predict that the arrangement could actually hurt participating state parties. They worry that participating states that aren’t presidential battlegrounds and lack competitive Senate races could see very little return investment from the DNC or Clinton’s campaign, and are essentially acting as money laundering conduits for them.

And for party committees in contested states, there’s another risk: They might find themselves unable to accept cash from rich donors whose checks to the victory fund counted toward their $10,000 donation limit to the state party in question — even if that party never got to spend the cash because it was transferred to the DNC.

Of course, Hillary can always disburse money to her super delegate allies as she sees fit, but even if she doesn't, she still benefits from reducing her campaign limits exposure at the expense of those of the state parties she used and abused.

Submitted by Not Henry Kissinger on Mon, 05/15/2017 - 8:31am

PC is definitely conflicted here.

@LoneStarMike

However, attorneys for Bernie Sanders supporters contend that the federal court rules bar Perkins Coie lawyers from representing the DNC as defense counsel in the case. They say that the Perkins Coie attorneys may become “potential material witnesses” or “defendants” in the case and should be disqualified. They plan to file an official motion in court.

And if you think about it, just the fact that they have represented both Hillary and the DNC throughout the process so far is itself evidence of ongoing collusion between the clients, absent a showing of Chinese Wall measures to mitigate potential conflicts. Those wikileaks emails show that whatever mitigation measures may have been taken on paper, they clearly haven't been followed in practice.

Then again, even of PC is not barred from representing the DNC, its continuing conflicted status is likely to help the plaintiffs here. Case in point: the reason for the PC lawyer's hemming and hawing at the hearing about the relationship between the state parties and the DNC may be that the lawyer was unwilling to get into the specifics of just what his firm advised the DNC about what that relationship should be.

Basically PC created the legal relationship between the DNC and the state parties, so any illegal activity under that relationship redounds back on the firm.

No wonder the PC partner didn't want to answer the judge's questions.

#3

And I went into the DNC Leaks and found the email chain where the DNC was furiously trying to come up with a response

(I had thought the name of the law firm was Perkins Cole, but apparently it's Perkins Coie)

These were the thoughts of Graham Wilson of Perkins Coie

Just a few thoughts here:

- I think that is really worthwhile to continue to push back on the Politico story's numbers being wrong. In the sub-headline that say that state parties only get to keep 1 percent of all the money being raised, but that is really incorrect and comparing apples and oranges. They reference the total amount of money that has been raised, but of that, many millions haven't yet been moved from HVF to state parties, but it also hasn't gone to the DNC or anywhere else. Because this is money for the general election, and coordinated campaigns are just now starting to be built at state parties, it is perfectly understandable that not all of the HVF money owed to state parties would have been distributed yet.

- I would lean so heavily on Hasen specifically in our on the record quote, as he could always come out and say something different. I think it is worth keeping that in the background materials, but given that others, when asked, also said there wasn't really anything to this, maybe we just keep the on the record quote more general? Something like The suggestion there's anything unusual about our joint victory funds has no basis in the law or reality, as recognized by numerous independent experts that have looked at this.

And here's a litle bit more on Perkins Coie

DNC Lawyers Now Implicated in Email Leaks as Giving ‘Pro-Hillary’ Advice

New emails discovered through the WikiLeaks dump show that attorneys from the law firm have given strategy advice to hurt Sanders, well before he dropped out. To add fuel to their claim, they’ve now discovered that attorneys from Perkins Coie are representing both the Democratic National Committee and Clinton’s campaign.

[SNIP]

Internal emails discovered through WikiLeaks show that Perkins Coie attorneys advised the DNC on how to fight allegations from Bernie Sanders. This spring, the Sanders campaign accused Hillary Clinton of ‘laundering’ money through the Clinton Victory Fund. Marc Elias, who serves as the Clinton campaign’s general counsel and also a partner at Perkins Coie, fired off an email to DNC staff stating:

My suggestion is that the DNC put out a statement saying that the accusations the Sanders campaign are not true. The fact that CNN notes that you aren’t getting between the two campaigns is the problem. Here, Sanders is attacking the DNC and its current practice, its past practice with the POTUS and with Sec Kerry. Just as the RNC pushes back directly on Trump over “rigged system”, the DNC should push back DIRECTLY at Sanders and say that what he is saying is false and harmful the Democratic party. [emphasis added]

—

Submitted by LoneStarMike on Mon, 05/15/2017 - 11:34am

Guess who else Perkins Coie represents?

@Not Henry Kissinger

And if you think about it, just the fact that they have represented both Hillary and the DNC throughout the process so far is itself evidence of ongoing collusion between the clients, absent a showing of Chinese Wall measures to mitigate potential conflicts.

This is an article from August of last year:

Death of Shawn Lucas Brings Attention to DNC Role of Prestigious Law Firm

According to Perkins Coie’s web site, law partner Marc Elias is “currently general counsel to Hillary for America,” the main fundraising vehicle for Hillary Clinton’s political campaign. Adding to questions about his impartiality, Elias simultaneously served as one of a team of lawyers from Perkins Coie providing legal advice to the DNC. (Elias also provides legal advice to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and Democratic Governors Associations, according to the Perkins Coie web site.)

Filings made to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) show that Perkins Coie has received at least $970,000 from the Hillary for America committee since 2015 for legal work while simultaneously receiving more than $500,000 from the DNC, not including reimbursement of its expenses for things like postage, catering and printing. Perkins Coie is also representing a Super Pac that is supporting Hillary Clinton called “Correct the Record.” FEC records show Correct the Record paid Perkins Coie $15,000 for legal services on April 26, 2016.

Submitted by Not Henry Kissinger on Mon, 05/15/2017 - 12:28pm

In the Democratic Party Universe...

@LoneStarMike

it's conflicts all the way down.

—

Submitted by gulfgal98 on Mon, 05/15/2017 - 2:47pm

It's

@Not Henry Kissinger standard operating procedure for both the Clintons and the Democratic party. Hard to distinguish which is which at times since they are one in the same.

—

Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy

Submitted by HenryAWallace on Mon, 05/15/2017 - 3:10pm

That was my thought: they may not be able to

@LoneStarMike

represent the DNC wholeheartedly and represent Hillary wholeheartedly, too. There is certainly at least the potential for conflict. It seems something like a law firm not being able to represent both the mother and father of an abused child. They have to have separate counsel because one of the defenses might be that the other parent is the abuser.

Submitted by LoneStarMike on Thu, 05/18/2017 - 6:09am

Looked for Correct The Record's disbursements to

@LoneStarMike

Perkins Coie and this is what I've found so far.

2015 Mid Year Report
(Covers July 1 through December 31, 2015)

12/31/2015 - payment for $15,015.75 (Page 108)
09/11/205 - payment for $15,000 (Page 261)
12/30/2016 - payment for $30,000 (Page 279)

April Quarterly Report
(Covers Jan 1 through March 31, 2016)

02/12/2016 - payment for $15,000 (Page 12)
03/22/2106 - payment for $15,000 (Page 168)

July Quarterly Report
(Covers April 1 through June 30, 2016)

04/26/2016 - payment for $15,000 (Page 13)

At the end of that Quarter, Correct the Record showed that they still had a balance due to Perkins Coie of $30,102.23 (Page 273)

October Quarterly Report (Amended)
(Covers July 1 through September 30, 2016)

08/01/2016 - payment for $15,000 (Page 171)
08/02/2016 - payment for $15,102.23 (Page 138)
08/15/2016 - payment for $15,000 (Page 171)
09/26/2016 - payment for $30,034.43 (Page 163)

So the first two payments add up to what was owed Perkins Coie at the end of Q3, and then you have two additional payments totaling $45,034.43. But if you scroll down to Page 282 It shows that at the beginning of the Quarter, $30,102.23 was owed. Then it shows Amount Incurred This Period - $0.00. And then it shows Outstanding Balance at Close of This Period - $0.00.

Shouldn't the Amount Incurred This Period be $45,034.43?

Year End Report (Amended)
(Covers October 1 through December 31, 2016)

12/16/2016 - payment for $15,060.48 (Page 11)
12/021/2016 - payment for $15,018.64 (Page 15)

Submitted by Alligator Ed on Tue, 05/16/2017 - 3:45am

Considering the PC response, orchestrated by Miranda

@LoneStarMike

Similar agreements were set up with both the Clinton campaign and the Sanders campaign early in the cycle, precisely because of the urgency to build a strong national infrastructure now that will help elect Democrats up and down the ballot in November. The Sanders campaign has not used theirs.

Why would Bernie use a funding system by which all super delegates were already co-opted by Clinton super delegates? He knew what was going on. It is to Bernie's discredit that he did not publicise the latent fraud in fundraising, just as he did not complain about the election fraud during the primary.

#3

And I went into the DNC Leaks and found the email chain where the DNC was furiously trying to come up with a response

(I had thought the name of the law firm was Perkins Cole, but apparently it's Perkins Coie)

These were the thoughts of Graham Wilson of Perkins Coie

Just a few thoughts here:

- I think that is really worthwhile to continue to push back on the Politico story's numbers being wrong. In the sub-headline that say that state parties only get to keep 1 percent of all the money being raised, but that is really incorrect and comparing apples and oranges. They reference the total amount of money that has been raised, but of that, many millions haven't yet been moved from HVF to state parties, but it also hasn't gone to the DNC or anywhere else. Because this is money for the general election, and coordinated campaigns are just now starting to be built at state parties, it is perfectly understandable that not all of the HVF money owed to state parties would have been distributed yet.

- I would lean so heavily on Hasen specifically in our on the record quote, as he could always come out and say something different. I think it is worth keeping that in the background materials, but given that others, when asked, also said there wasn't really anything to this, maybe we just keep the on the record quote more general? Something like The suggestion there's anything unusual about our joint victory funds has no basis in the law or reality, as recognized by numerous independent experts that have looked at this.

And here's a litle bit more on Perkins Coie

DNC Lawyers Now Implicated in Email Leaks as Giving ‘Pro-Hillary’ Advice

New emails discovered through the WikiLeaks dump show that attorneys from the law firm have given strategy advice to hurt Sanders, well before he dropped out. To add fuel to their claim, they’ve now discovered that attorneys from Perkins Coie are representing both the Democratic National Committee and Clinton’s campaign.

[SNIP]

Internal emails discovered through WikiLeaks show that Perkins Coie attorneys advised the DNC on how to fight allegations from Bernie Sanders. This spring, the Sanders campaign accused Hillary Clinton of ‘laundering’ money through the Clinton Victory Fund. Marc Elias, who serves as the Clinton campaign’s general counsel and also a partner at Perkins Coie, fired off an email to DNC staff stating:

My suggestion is that the DNC put out a statement saying that the accusations the Sanders campaign are not true. The fact that CNN notes that you aren’t getting between the two campaigns is the problem. Here, Sanders is attacking the DNC and its current practice, its past practice with the POTUS and with Sec Kerry. Just as the RNC pushes back directly on Trump over “rigged system”, the DNC should push back DIRECTLY at Sanders and say that what he is saying is false and harmful the Democratic party. [emphasis added]

Submitted by HenryAWallace on Mon, 05/15/2017 - 3:13pm

The NH primary is the first. Had the NH state party been

@Not Henry Kissinger
been screwed, the other state parties might not have fallen in line.

some states were able to keep less than 1% of the HVF cash

In the days before Hillary Clinton launched an unprecedented big-money fundraising vehicle with state parties last summer, she vowed “to rebuild our party from the ground up,” proclaiming “when our state parties are strong, we win. That’s what will happen."

But less than 1 percent of the $61 million raised by that effort has stayed in the state parties’ coffers, according to a POLITICO analysis of the latest Federal Election Commission filings.

The venture, the Hillary Victory Fund, is a so-called joint fundraising committee comprised of Clinton’s presidential campaign, the Democratic National Committee and 32 state party committees. The setup allows Clinton to solicit checks of $350,000 or more from her super-rich supporters at extravagant fundraisers including a dinner at George Clooney’s house and a concert at Radio City Music Hall featuring Katy Perry and Elton John.

The victory fund has transferred $3.8 million to the state parties, but almost all of that cash ($3.3 million, or 88 percent) was quickly transferred to the DNC, usually within a day or two, by the Clinton staffer who controls the committee, POLITICO’s analysis of the FEC records found.

The whole article is full of good info.

Basically, Hillary used the state parties as money laundering vehicles to get around campaign finance limits....

The arrangement has sparked concerns among campaign finance watchdogs and allies of Clinton’s Democratic rival Bernie Sanders. They see it as a circumvention of campaign contribution limits by a national party apparatus intent on doing whatever it takes to help Clinton defeat Sanders during the party’s primary, and then win the White House.

while hurting the state parties in the process.

Some fundraisers who work for state parties predict that the arrangement could actually hurt participating state parties. They worry that participating states that aren’t presidential battlegrounds and lack competitive Senate races could see very little return investment from the DNC or Clinton’s campaign, and are essentially acting as money laundering conduits for them.

And for party committees in contested states, there’s another risk: They might find themselves unable to accept cash from rich donors whose checks to the victory fund counted toward their $10,000 donation limit to the state party in question — even if that party never got to spend the cash because it was transferred to the DNC.

Of course, Hillary can always disburse money to her super delegate allies as she sees fit, but even if she doesn't, she still benefits from reducing her campaign limits exposure at the expense of those of the state parties she used and abused.

Submitted by LEFTYFRIZZLE on Mon, 05/15/2017 - 12:01am

Great jobTEXAS TRUBADOR MIKE!

Old Ernie would be proud of a son of the lone star state that speaks such truth.I havent read a more interesting and informational article ever on this site.The level of corruption that was pulled off in the primarys by the Clintons and the DNC is astounding!Bernie NEVER had a snowballs chance in hell of winning with such cheating!I hope FOX news picks this up and wears it out!This makes my choice to DEMEXIT the night she was crowned queen at the convention all the more correct.Keep it coming lonestar

—

Submitted by snoopydawg on Mon, 05/15/2017 - 1:24am

This video goes along with this essay

I saw this on the progressivewing's website. DWS is shown saying that neither she or the DNC were rigging the primary election for Hillary. The video is close to 1-1/2 hours.

It details how Democratic Party DNC Political Strategists influenced, planned and eventually set-up the election of the Orange One. I learned a lot of new stuff watching it. It’s a citizen journalism documentary film showing the terrible corruption that comes when big money lobbyists hijack a political party.

When she and the DNC were picking super delegates she was giving paid speeches which is against the election laws.
The diary from DK brought back pleasant memories of the pie fights and was written 1 month before the ides of March decree that Hillary Will be the candidate and if you don't think that you can get behind her then there's the door.

And isn't interesting that no one talks about Israel interfering with our elections, not only for congress and the presidency, but also for deciding on who is going to be the head of the DNC? Saim Haben (?) said that if Perez wasn't the head of the DNC then he wouldn't donate any money to the DNC. Keith Ellison just like Bernie has a special place in the DNC that had to be created for him.

Submitted by LoneStarMike on Mon, 05/15/2017 - 2:37am

I watched that whole thing 2 nights ago! It was great

@snoopydawg

When she and the DNC were picking super delegates she was giving paid speeches which is against the election laws.

There was also this:

'Impartial' DNC finance chief helps Hillary -- Fundraising assistance in Texas flouts presidential primary neutrality rules.

In an apparent violation of party rules requiring Democratic National Committee officers to remain neutral in presidential primaries, the DNC’s finance chairman has been raising money for Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

Henry R. Muñoz III, a former fundraiser for President Barack Obama who became DNC finance chairman in 2013, is helping organize a Wednesday fundraising event for Clinton in San Antonio, Texas, according to longtime Democratic operative Gilberto Ocañas and Bexar County Democratic Party Chairman Manuel Medina.

“I know he’s made a few calls to raise money,” Medina said of Muñoz on Tuesday. “He’s certainly taking it upon himself to make tomorrow’s fundraiser a success.” Muñoz was also present at a Clinton campaign kickoff breakfast in San Antonio last month at which local supporters met the campaign’s national political director, Amanda Renteria, and other staff, according to Ocañas.

Submitted by lotlizard on Mon, 05/15/2017 - 3:08am

Haim Saban — he owns Univision and “The Onion” too

@snoopydawg https://infogalactic.com/info/Haim_Saban

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=haim+saban&t=ffsb&ia=web

Hillary Clinton’s top financial supporter now controls The Onion

Submitted by HenryAWallace on Mon, 05/15/2017 - 9:06am

No one hacked our election. Someone may or may not

@snoopydawg

have hacked a computer, but no one hacked an election. At most, someone tried to influence an election in the same way that a good journalist does, namely, by making truthful information about a candidate available to the voting public. Characterizing that as hacking an election is a Big Lie that is part of the wars on Russia, wikileaks and the First Amendment. https://caucus99percent.com/content/big-lie-russia-interfered-us-preside...

Submitted by FuturePassed on Mon, 05/15/2017 - 5:37pm

Maybe no one hacked the election,

@HenryAWallace
but someone hacked the primary. Statistically significant differences between officially announced results and professionally collected opinion data on voter choice as people left the polls were reported in a number of states. Amazingly enough the difference was invariably in Hillary's favor.

Submitted by LoneStarMike on Mon, 05/15/2017 - 11:57am

Keith Ellison's special place in the DNC

@snoopydawg

Check out this tweet:

https://twitter.com/JaredBeck/status/863218353527300098

Apparently Keith Ellison is blocking anyone who has asked questions about the lawsuit from his twitter acct and he's also blocked our attorney in the case, Jared. Beck.

(I used to know how to embed tweets here, but every time I try to do it I see them in the preview, but then when I "send" I get this message that the website had an unexpected error and to try again.)

Submitted by Mark from Queens on Mon, 05/15/2017 - 1:05pm

re: embedding tweets

@LoneStarMike
happened enough with me that I've finally got the hang (thanks to JtC).

It won't embed if there's an icon in the tweet. So if there is (as in this case), look for the icon when you cut and paste it here, then just delete the icon in the body. The tweet should appear then...

I'm one of those he blocked! https://t.co/FBif4qF25h

— Jared Beck (@JaredBeck) May 13, 2017

Excellent piece, Mike. Thanks again, and good to see you.

Did a supplementary piece to yours, on the lack of support for the #DNCFraudLawsuit, last weekend. It's here:

Where Is the Support in the Left Media for the #DNCFraudLawsuit? Say It Ain't So - Both Thomas Frank and TYT Panel Shirk From Standing With DNC Collusion and Fraud Issues. Where Are Our Allies?

—

"If I should ever die, God forbid, let this be my epitaph:

THE ONLY PROOF HE NEEDED
FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
WAS MUSIC"

- Kurt Vonnegut

Submitted by LoneStarMike on Mon, 05/15/2017 - 1:27pm

Thanks for the tip

@Mark from Queens

and I did read you essay. It was great. (I had scanned all the essays back through May 4th to make sure no one had posted the articles I had)

I really hope the judge denies the DNC's motion to dismiss simply because I want there to be a trial and I don't want to see it settled out of court.

If it's settled out of court, there won't be a verdict and there will be no court transcript (because no trial) I want all this out in open so people can see what went on behind the scenes.

Submitted by gulfgal98 on Mon, 05/15/2017 - 3:31pm

Embedding tweets is VERY easy

@Mark from Queens There is a drop down button on the upper right of every tweet. Click on it and then click on embed. The embed code will pop up and all you have to do is copy the code and then paste it as your text here.

—

Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy

Submitted by Azazello on Mon, 05/15/2017 - 4:31pm

Testing 1, 2 ...

@gulfgal98
Take the DeRay challenge.

ne·o-lib·er·al·ism
noun
a modified form of liberalism tending to favor free-market capitalism.

Synonyms: Deray pic.twitter.com/Wk0xRWyklZ

— Ella Septima-Hamer (@Jbrous14) April 20, 2017

Can you believe this guy ? Since he doesn't understand the term he thinks nobody else does.
Here's mine: Neoliberalism: A political ideology based on free-market economics. Neoliberals favor deregulation, privatization and austerity. Examples are school privatization (DeRay, TFA) and repeal of Glass- Stegall (Clinton, Rubin)

Thanks for showing me how to embed twits.

—

We wanted decent healthcare, a living wage and free college.
The Democrats gave us Biden and war instead.

Submitted by gulfgal98 on Mon, 05/15/2017 - 5:55pm

Your defintion is

@Azazello right on as far as I am concerned. I cannot remember who taught me how to embed tweets, but it cannot be any easier. Glad to pass it on. Also, I am so LOL'ing because I am very technologically deficient. So when I can share something I learned, it makes me feel proud of my little ole Luddite self!

—

Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy

Submitted by gulfgal98 on Mon, 05/15/2017 - 5:59am

Excellent essay

The more I read and hear about the DNC lawsuit, the more optimistic I am about its success. These articles that you reference are also an example of real journalism. It is heartening to know that some reporters still believe in researching and reporting the truth. I can hardly wait to read part 3 of her series. Thank you for calling this to our attention.

—

Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy

Submitted by Phoebe Loosinhouse on Mon, 05/15/2017 - 7:13am

THe attitude of the DNC towards the rank and file

can be summarized as "Isn't that cute? They think they're voting."

The contempt for actual Democratic values is beyond belief. If anyone had any lingering doubts about the thorough, through and through corruption that pervades the Party, they should be put to rest by the details now emerging. In order to save this village, it would have to be burned down and rebuilt. I personally don't even believe there is any name value remaining.

—

" “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR "

Submitted by LoneStarMike on Mon, 05/15/2017 - 8:03am

Re: "Isn't that cute? They think they're voting."

@Phoebe Loosinhouse

Yes - they get the voters to think that the primary election is about the voters choosing the candidate with the most appealing policies whom we want to represent us.

In reality, it's an election within the DNC where they choose the candidate that can raise the most money (from their corporate donors) and in turn, they *the politicians) will represent them (the corporate donors.

Then, in the general election, we're all just supposed to fall in line.

DNC to voters:

Submitted by OLinda on Mon, 05/15/2017 - 7:31am

Hey, LSM,

Good to see you! Thank you for this report!

Submitted by Snode on Mon, 05/15/2017 - 7:58am

Thanks for this

nothing hurts worse than a betrayal by someone you trusted. If this was written about another country, say Iran, the news would be pointing out how undemocratic their politics are.The geriatric bunch (I'm up there too) have been at this so long this is just one aspect of decades of power consolidation. It's time for a wholesale change of leadership. We have a "ghost generation" who will be hobbled economically for a great part of their lives, and they won't have the stamina to fight when every day they're hanging on by their finger nails.

Submitted by lotlizard on Mon, 05/15/2017 - 8:49am

That “ghost generation” needs to get together and leverage their

@Snode yuuge lead over all the other generations when it comes to knowing — having grown up exploring — what all a person or group can do with resources like the Web, iPhones or iPads, drones and robots, social media, etc.

Both in the U.S. and Germany, I hear that the military and the spy agencies are having to rethink their drug-testing policies. Why? Because they’re now trying to enlist young gamers and hackers who have “skillz” they badly want and need — from a subculture where recreational use of “soft” drugs is not unusual.

Come to think of it, I wonder how much of a factor something like this plays is in the German ruling coalition’s recent, sudden move to legalize medical marijuana.

Submitted by SparkyGump on Mon, 05/15/2017 - 8:17am

Hell Yea!

It's nice to see some of those condescending jerks twist in the wind over their overt collusion. How can you call yourself a democrat when you subvert the democratic process?

—

The real SparkyGump has passed. It was an honor being your human.

Submitted by Ellen North on Mon, 05/15/2017 - 11:39pm

@SparkyGump

@SparkyGump @SparkyGump

... How can you call yourself a democrat when you subvert the democratic process?

It's all part of honing their skills at Orwellian labeling, would be my guess. Worked for them, once upon a time, until everybody noticed.

Edited because I cleverly failed to notice before pressing 'post' that the block-quoting didn't 'take'...

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

Submitted by detroitmechworks on Mon, 05/15/2017 - 8:21am

Democrats are praying...

that somebody bombs something.

Doesn't matter who, but a nice bombing will take the heat and attention off long enough for the judgement to slip through under the radar.

—

I do not pretend I know what I do not know.

Submitted by Ellen North on Mon, 05/15/2017 - 11:42pm

@detroitmechworks

@detroitmechworks

Yeah, I hear they keep running out. Too many bombable civilians in smaller/impoverished but oil-related countries, and too few profits accumulating so far for the big-name arms dealers.

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

Submitted by HenryAWallace on Mon, 05/15/2017 - 9:34am

Thanks for this useful and informative essay.

Democratic politicians have long stood for very little but lip service.

I hope some of the lawsuits come to results that expose the corruption of some of the state Democratic Parties.

A couple of quibbles:

I don't understand this statement:

Donna Brazile and Debbie Wasserman Schultz will most certainly be called to testify—thus creating an existential crisis for the DNC.

Even assuming that the testify truthfully--which I do not assume, based upon the past conduct of both these individuals--why would simply the act of testifying cause an existential crisis for anyone? People testify every day. Executives of organizations testify every day. Even Presidents of the US have testified. All without causing an existential crisis to their respective organizations.

I understand this statement even less.

Even if the DNC wins the legal matter and the judge grants dismissal, they will have “won” by breaking Democracy.

(Full disclosure: Using the word "democracy" indiscriminately is a personal bête noire.

Democracy is a form of government. It is all but non-existent in the US as it is. https://caucus99percent.com/content/sleights-santa-and-republic If the DNC loses this lawsuit, the DNC's violating its own charter will be exposed, but our form of government will be unaffected. If anything, we might get reforms that improve the primary process.

Submitted by gendjinn on Mon, 05/15/2017 - 10:18am

Clinton campaign dispatched saboteurs to Sanders campaign

Aisha Dew the Sanders primary campaign state director being the prime example - William Barbor & the Moral March on Raleigh last year?

I would not rule out members of the Clinton campaign going to jail for fraud & sabotage during the primary. Remember, it was one of Trump's promises along with killing the TPP.

Submitted by Lily O Lady on Mon, 05/15/2017 - 1:20pm

I don't know. I heard that Trump is going after

@gendjinn

that mythical bete noire " voter fraud." I don't think election fraud is on his radar. He'll be out searching for those non-exsistant bus loads of illegal voters, I fear.

—

"The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"

Submitted by gendjinn on Tue, 05/16/2017 - 11:52am

The way Fox News is ignoring the DNC Law Suit would

@Lily O Lady lead me to believe you are right.

If the story ever breaks through that may change. Trump likes to glom onto success.

Submitted by cybrestrike on Mon, 05/15/2017 - 10:30am

It's all summed up in one quote...

...that I heard from Avedon Carol a few years ago: "Neoliberals do not believe in democracy." They'd rather come up with elaborate ruses to fool the populace into thinking they have a choice. In the end they're cutting deals in dark corners and telling everyone it's for their own good because they can't be trusted to take care of themselves. It's a rather insidiously frightening form of authoritarianism.

Submitted by lotlizard on Mon, 05/15/2017 - 11:22am

This is exactly the problem with the E.U. in its present form

@cybrestrike The elite and its favored clientele confers in Brussels and Strasbourg in cushy luxury with all the comforts such as chauffeurs and padded expense accounts, makes decisions over the heads of the ordinary folks at home, and then considers how best to induce in the public a sense of passive resignation to the supposedly inevitable belt-tightening that results from their decrees.

Submitted by Alligator Ed on Tue, 05/16/2017 - 4:29am

Neoliberalism IS authoritarianism as you note

@cybrestrike The Market is God. Amen
No one can know the will of the Market. Amen
We are powerless to affect the Market. Amen
Our obedience to the Market must be unconditional. Amen
The Market is perfect. Amen
Those opting out of the Market are doomed to poverty. Amen
People are meaningless; only the Market has value. Amen
In the name of the Market, let us pray.

Submitted by Ellen North on Tue, 05/16/2017 - 1:17pm

@Alligator Ed

@Alligator Ed

Loved the list, but:

'... In the name of the Market, let us ~~pray'~~prey.

There, fixed that for you!

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

Submitted by Mark from Queens on Mon, 05/15/2017 - 10:32am

"DNC host committee gives out nearly $1 million in bonus checks"

http://www.post-gazette.com/news/politics-state/2017/05/12/DNC-conventio...

The Philadelphia 2016 Host Committee used some of the leftover money it raised for the Democratic National Convention to pay nearly $1 million bonuses to staff and volunteers, prompting the Republican head of the state Senate to call for an audit.

The rewards, which ranged from $500 for interns and volunteers to $310,000 for executive director Kevin Washo, were paid in November, four months after the convention. The amounts were listed in a year-end report filed with the Federal Election Commission on Jan. 31.

Former Gov. Ed Rendell, who served as chairman of the host committee, said that when he hired committee staff in 2015, he told them that in return for what he saw as low pay, he would take care of them at the end.

Can this be seen any other way than the grease that keeps the Revolving Door of DC spinning smoothly to perfection?

It's all Pay To Play, hush money, sloshing around to keep the minions selling their souls with hopes of joining their masters in the Big Club one sunny day when they grow up. There is no desire to really be a public servant; it is solely about getting rich. And one does that by keeping one's mouth shut, quietly depositing the blood money, speaking in the fraudulent, market-tested jargon of Neoliberal "Green Living™" and support for socially liberal slogans, and doing as little as possible to ruffle any of the status quo's feathers.

Meanwhile, many Bernie delegates had to raise money for trip fare to Philly, find lodging, etc. and then suffer the ultimate indignation by the $hills thugs running the I'mWithHer™ Disney Ride Production, who withheld credentials and refused to admit them. Not to mention the endless stories of henchmen running around inside to thwart perceived-disruptors/ripping up their signs/enforcing ridiculous arbitrary rules on them concerning exiting and entering, and then the DNC placing an ad on Craigslist to fill up the abandoned seats once Bernie supporters/delegates caught full wind of what exactly had been going on.

This all needs to see the light of day. The idea of free and fair elections and Democracy™ is a complete sham in America. It's time for its citizens, who still have fealty to it, to have the wool pulled from their eyes.

—

"If I should ever die, God forbid, let this be my epitaph:

THE ONLY PROOF HE NEEDED
FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
WAS MUSIC"

- Kurt Vonnegut

Submitted by cybrestrike on Mon, 05/15/2017 - 10:39am

Great post.

Lots of dodgy things going on, it looks like. I really wish this story would get some real legs outside of the blogosphere. Might have to wait for a judgment, which either way is bad for senior DNC folks around during the primary.

Read that archive TOP diary as well. The comments...wow. I forgot how deliberately obtuse Adam B was over there.

Submitted by gulfgal98 on Mon, 05/15/2017 - 10:49am

Good to see you, cybrestrike

@cybrestrike @cybrestrike @cybrestrike I also read the archived diary from dkos. It served to remind me why AdamB was my least favorite honcho over there outside of Markos himself.

The comments...wow. I forgot how deliberately obtuse Adam B was over there.

I wonder who Salty1 was. It was not a name I recognized and by the time that diary was published, I spent very little time there. But that diary hit the nail squarely on the head. I wonder if Salty1 was a campaign insider.

—

Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy

Submitted by Phoebe Loosinhouse on Mon, 05/15/2017 - 11:01am

I wondered the same thing

@gulfgal98

Not a name I was familiar with either, but it was a barn burner of a diary! I would bet campaign insider as well, who didn't want to be constrained by the "play nice" agreement after witnessing all the dirty tricks. They probably wrote it at a public library computer wearing a wig and a fake nose.

—

" “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR "

Submitted by Alligator Ed on Tue, 05/16/2017 - 4:33am

Why? To avoid the Seth Rich treatment?

@Phoebe Loosinhouse

Submitted by gulfgal98 on Mon, 05/15/2017 - 2:51pm

journalist Brook Hines tweeted to us

Honored! Thanks @caucus99! https://t.co/FX7gS2ZzYm

— Brook Hines (@nashville_brook) May 15, 2017

—

Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy

Submitted by Phoebe Loosinhouse on Mon, 05/15/2017 - 5:27pm

Wow! I wondered if Brook Hines was nashville_brook

@gulfgal98

She's been a great blogger and commenter for a long time. I remember her from years ago at DU. She was always a great writer so no surprise that she is an actual journalist. That really makes my day. Kudos to you, Brook Hines if you check into this thread.

—

" “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR "

Submitted by LoneStarMike on Mon, 05/15/2017 - 5:48pm

Wow that's awesome

@gulfgal98

When we posted her part 1 & 2 articles over at WOTB, she created an account and interacted with us a bit.

I'm going to post part of an exchange we had with her over there because some of you might figure out a way to do what she suggested as a way of finding an answer to one of our users' questions.

WOTB User: - A great many of the Superdelegates were holding public office in 2015/2016, and a lot of them had re-election campaign funds. How much money did the Superdelegates in that category receive from Hillary Clinton et al during and right before the primaries? And was there a correlation between amounts and endorsement?

Brook Hines: - Whoa, that's a good question. Finding an answer would basically be impossible. If anyone has a better idea, let me know, but I think to get an answer, you'd need to pull the finance reports from all the superdelegates, and compare their contributions from state committees to similar finance reports from non-superdelegates who also ran in the state. Could also do a comparo of non-superdelegates who were also vocal Bernie supporters. But there's no specific way to draw a line from state committees to Hillary's Victory Fund. Once HVF disburses the joint money to state committees, they allocate it according to their strategy (which usually aligns with DNC/DCCC).

WOTB User: - But there should be a difference between the 33 or so States that were affiliated and the ones that were not. Of course, it may not have been from the HVF. The Clinton carrot-and-stick is far reaching, but still may have left traces, because "who's ever going to go looking for such things?"

Brook Hines - You're right -- you could focusing just on those states, maybe sampling superdelegate performance/funding from the 33 vs superdelegates performance/funding from non-HVF states. that would actually make much less work.

WOTB User: - Another angle to check: How much of the HVF funds for each State was actually spent by the State parties? And how much was just "shell game"ed through them? And from there it can be checked to see if there was any quid-pro-quo-now-that-I-got-my-quo-I'll-just-take-my-quid-back-now.

Brook Hines: - This goes to whether they kept those buckets of money separate. Sounds like, in the Wikileaks email that the Perkins Coie atty regards the money as one big pile. He says, "we have millions in the account," not "there's X-amount earmarked for states at this time." I'm trying to get an interview with Jared Beck to see if he can speak to any of these issues.

There's a research thread over at WOTB that might be helpful to some of you. It's got the name of the 33 state parties and their FEC ID#'s, as well as many transactions I found between the state partites, the DC, and Hillary Victory Fund.

Research we might be able to do regarding DNC lawsut -- Hillary Victory Fund States and politicians who may have had re-election campaign funds in those dates who were superdelegates

And here is the link to the FEC Candidates and Committee Viewer where you can type those umbersd in and look at their filings.

If anyone has other ideas - speak up.

Submitted by gulfgal98 on Mon, 05/15/2017 - 6:04pm

I hope

@LoneStarMike she will create an account here too. Even if she does interact with us, perhaps she will take some things that we post here and incorporate them into her articles. Of course, I would prefer to read what she thinks here too.

#17

When we posted her part 1 & 2 articles over at WOTB, she created an account and interacted with us a bit.

I'm going to post part of an exchange we had with her over there because some of you might figure out a way to do what she suggested as a way of finding an answer to one of our users' questions.

WOTB User: - A great many of the Superdelegates were holding public office in 2015/2016, and a lot of them had re-election campaign funds. How much money did the Superdelegates in that category receive from Hillary Clinton et al during and right before the primaries? And was there a correlation between amounts and endorsement?

Brook Hines: - Whoa, that's a good question. Finding an answer would basically be impossible. If anyone has a better idea, let me know, but I think to get an answer, you'd need to pull the finance reports from all the superdelegates, and compare their contributions from state committees to similar finance reports from non-superdelegates who also ran in the state. Could also do a comparo of non-superdelegates who were also vocal Bernie supporters. But there's no specific way to draw a line from state committees to Hillary's Victory Fund. Once HVF disburses the joint money to state committees, they allocate it according to their strategy (which usually aligns with DNC/DCCC).

WOTB User: - But there should be a difference between the 33 or so States that were affiliated and the ones that were not. Of course, it may not have been from the HVF. The Clinton carrot-and-stick is far reaching, but still may have left traces, because "who's ever going to go looking for such things?"

Brook Hines - You're right -- you could focusing just on those states, maybe sampling superdelegate performance/funding from the 33 vs superdelegates performance/funding from non-HVF states. that would actually make much less work.

WOTB User: - Another angle to check: How much of the HVF funds for each State was actually spent by the State parties? And how much was just "shell game"ed through them? And from there it can be checked to see if there was any quid-pro-quo-now-that-I-got-my-quo-I'll-just-take-my-quid-back-now.

Brook Hines: - This goes to whether they kept those buckets of money separate. Sounds like, in the Wikileaks email that the Perkins Coie atty regards the money as one big pile. He says, "we have millions in the account," not "there's X-amount earmarked for states at this time." I'm trying to get an interview with Jared Beck to see if he can speak to any of these issues.

There's a research thread over at WOTB that might be helpful to some of you. It's got the name of the 33 state parties and their FEC ID#'s, as well as many transactions I found between the state partites, the DC, and Hillary Victory Fund.

Research we might be able to do regarding DNC lawsut -- Hillary Victory Fund States and politicians who may have had re-election campaign funds in those dates who were superdelegates

And here is the link to the FEC Candidates and Committee Viewer where you can type those umbersd in and look at their filings.

If anyone has other ideas - speak up.

—

Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy

Submitted by LoneStarMike on Tue, 05/16/2017 - 2:27pm

Small update

@gulfgal98

Over at WOTB I had posted that research thread (which is in the body of this essay) and "paged" her. I just saw where she responded and is looking into it.

Submitted by Arrow on Mon, 05/15/2017 - 3:22pm

So the plan was...

Hillary is a shoo in...DNC and party elite get buckets of money.
Everyone is bribed to 'play ball'.
And what did they think would happen?

—

I want a Pony!

Submitted by Alligator Ed on Tue, 05/16/2017 - 4:51am

The transcript of the DNC's motion to dismiss Beck's lawsuit

If any of you are stalwart enough to read through this (I did), you may be amused (angered?) by DNC's lawyer, Spewing Spiva, who asserted many things:

We could have done this deal in smoke-filled rooms.
Our promises don't mean anything about fairness.
What's a Democrat? They don't exist (in reference to one of the three classes in the DNC lawsuit).
People who paid money (i.e., donations) to Bernie and/or DNC had no business relying on the truth, silly them.

I have a hunch how this motion to dismiss is going to be decided. It's the very last sentence in the transcript, from the Judge Zloch:

Democracy demands the truth so people can make intelligent decisions.

This is the pdf link:

http://jampac.us/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/042517cw2.pdf

Submitted by irishking on Tue, 05/16/2017 - 7:13am

"Democracy demands the truth..."

@Alligator Ed

that is real catchy. Judge Zloch could be an undercover mensch!

remember "Maximum John" Sirica? uhoh.

Submitted by Ellen North on Tue, 05/16/2017 - 3:40pm

@irishking

@irishking

Lol, they'll discover that he's Rushin' off to work every morning with a Red face, denounce him as a traitor and demand a judge of their own choosing. And me with no popcorn...

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.