- The DNC was supposed to be neutral in the primary between Clinton and the Vermont senator.
But the e-mails confirm the party establishment was in the tank for Clinton long before the primaries were decided.
And top DNC officials were not happy when they were called out for taking sides.
Okay, so I don't know how sensationalist this is but that other site is going full tinfoil. To what degree does the DNC have power over the media?
So... In one message dated May 5, 2016, with the subject line “No s–t,” the chief financial officer of the Democratic National Committee, Brad Marshall, plotted how to portray Sanders, who was raised Jewish in Brooklyn, as an atheist. One need only watch the DNC through the early misadventures of the race to pick up on a less-than-subtle lean towards the establishment candidate. A dispassionate observer might even consider this bias to be understandable, considering the alternative candidate has been a Democrat for less than a year. Kinda funny that Hillary is the one they call "carpetbagger" but I digress... THAT SAID if the worst dirt they can dig up 19,000 emails is "maybe we should remind people he doesn't go to church" then maybe there isn't that much of a conspiracy after all. I mean... supervillain shit this ain't.The suggestion of going after Sanders based on religion was included in one of 19,252 e-mails.
Wasserman Schultz asked DNC finance director Allen Zachary if he could snag seven tickets to “Hamilton,” the sold-out Broadway show, so she could celebrate a 50th birthday party with her college roommates.
Couple things wrong here. First, these aren't "leaked" emails. They're hacked emails from a Putin sponsored organization. Assange is a big enough piece if shit that he doesn't mind being Russia's mouthpiece in the name of "openness." Two, the GOP proved this year that the "establishment" is worthless in the era of open primaries, so all these conspiracy theorist are grasping at straws, because they can't process the fact that their guy lost. Just like with Clinton's emails, there's no "there" there.
Was Assange a piece of shit before this leak, or because of it? And while the efficacy of an establishment behind your campaign is under review, what do you think of Clinton declaring her "honorary chair" of her 50-state campaign? It feels completely tone-deaf... But it could also be a way of minimizing scandal and projecting party unity.
Will add it to the list! Can't say I know if I'll finish it. Thanks
to the surprise of no one? I mean, the parties are private organizations, they can really do anything they want. They really don't even have to put it to a vote, if they don't want to. The party brass could just get together and decide. Your whole system is about congealing and disenfranchising the vote of the singular person. CGP Grey's video on this is pretty good: addendum:
Sensationalist? The only sources here were the second-hand information through the intercept and a reference to an article within the Post about a Facebook post of a selfie. Plus, the Intercept themselves ran this update: So, sensationalist is definitely on the table. Granted, it could be the usual, "I have no ideas what you're talking about...." Running through the links, here is the database referenced. Running the word "Jew" doesn't really come up with much on the topic.[UPDATE at 1:03 p.m. ET: Marshall emails to say “I do not recall this. I can say it would not have been Sanders. It would probably be about a surrogate.” We have asked him who that surrogate could possibly be.]
I haven't bothered to read the New York Post story linked, but I'm assuming that the source you are trying to find is: https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/11508 Edit Fuck it. I clicked on the link. Here are the emails for the rest of the post. Chuck Todd email: https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/10945 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/3861 Craigslist: https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/13313 Donuts: https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/14963 Roy Black: https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/2077 Hamilton: https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/14321 Edit Edit (On a personal note) Hey, neat, they're aware my pension is fucked!
Hm. Looks like I didn't specify my comment was centered around Sanders, and explicitly state some bits. I'll have to include those in the future. Thanks for the check. On a note of the emails you brought up, I'm like to think along the lines of sp00ns. Surprised much of this was news to people. There's a reason congressional approval ratings are so low. The fact that they explicitly state this much info in their emails only adds to the bit. And on a complete side, not really one to care for the whole Clinton email debacle. This gives me pause to that notion. Not likely to take up arms as it were, but if this is the content of the system tasked with anointing a presidential candidate, then what would be in those emails of the candidate to be?