Debbie Wasserman Schultz And The DNC Favored Hillary Clinton Over Bernie Sanders. Where's The Outrage?

The DNC Favored Hillary Clinton Over Bernie Sanders. Where's The Outrage?
This post was published on the now-closed HuffPost Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and posted freely to our site. If you need to flag this entry as abusive, send us an email.

After the DNC WikiLeaks emails, The Nation’s Joshua Holland acknowledged the DNC “came to loathe Sanders’s campaign,” however “there’s no evidence that they rigged the primaries.” Nothing exemplifies the amnesia of Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s various claims of impartiality, or the relevance of such neutrality to the Democratic process, better than Holland’s sentiment. The facts show that the Democratic Primary was rigged against Bernie Sanders from the start, despite numerous promises from the DNC to remain impartial.

Schultz stated months before her resignation that “I have been from the beginning, neutral in the Presidential Democratic primary.” From the debates until her resignation, everyone (including Debbie Wasserman Schultz) knew that Democratic voters expected a level-playing field and a fair primary. Hundreds of millions of dollars were donated from voters who believed the system wasn’t biased against Bernie. However, where’s the outrage from progressives, and especially progressive media that Bernie Sanders was cheated?

Sadly, nobody imagines what might have happened if the DNC favored Bernie Sanders, and not Hillary Clinton. What if the four DNC officials forced to resign had contacted media to push pro-Bernie narratives?

No, the DNC didn’t work on Bernie’s behalf to prevent a New York Times reporter from writing a negative piece about Sanders.

What the apologists of Clinton’s alliance with the DNC never admit is that had the tables been reversed, Bernie Sanders could have won the Democratic nomination. The DNC planned the end of Bernie’s campaign in April, during a year-long FBI email investigation where Clinton risked indictments. Imagine the DNC’s behavior with Bernie facing possible indictments, or an FBI probe.

The FBI’s James Comey stated Clinton was “extremely careless” and “negligent” with classified intelligence and DNC officials has no way of knowing the outcome in April. Bernie would have easily become nominee had the FBI recommended indictments, despite Comey challenging the truthfulness of Clinton’s email defenses. Congress will receive notes of the FBI’s interview with Clinton in several days and I explain this development in my latest YouTube segment.

Therefore, let’s ask some questions ignored by “progressive” media. What if the DNC had attended joint Bernie Sanders fundraisers, or reviewed a POLITICO piece because of some type of agreement? What if DNC staffers pitched anti-Hillary narratives to communications director Luis Miranda? Imagine the outrage had DNC officials targeted Hillary’s belief in God, or asked a Sanders attorney to devise strategies against Clinton.

Furthermore, the enormous advantages of having the DNC on her side bolstered Clinton, and hurt Sanders in the same manner any challenger would be undermined by such favoritism. To ignore the effects of the DNC’s underhanded tactics on media coverage, and the media’s bias against Bernie as a result, is to condone the rigged primary against Bernie. Presidential campaigns are won and lost by media, and political parties rallying around a particular candidate. In Bernie’s case, his missteps were magnified, his chances were minimized, and the potential consequences of Clinton’s FBI criminal investigation were virtually ignored by mainstream media. For an explanation of how The New York Times has become Hillary Clinton’s PR firm, simply watch one of my recent YouTube segments.

The DNC WikiLeaks emails illustrate how this corrupt system—from Wasserman Schultz chastising Chuck Todd to the Hillary Victory Fund pocketing DNC money—favored Hillary Clinton.

Bernie Sanders never benefited from these advantages.

That’s called a rigged election, and the “smoking gun” euphemism is used to defend Clinton from every scandal, specifically because Hillary supporters hide behind semantics. Hillary used a private server for convenience (there was no intent to hide), Bill Clinton spoke to Loretta Lynch about golf, Debbie Wasserman Schultz was neutral, and the FBI was merely conducting a security review. Pro-Clinton pundits looking for a “smoking gun” won’t find this weapon; only a semantic jungle of deceit and questionable behavior.

Let’s not forget that the new talking point after Clinton Foundation donors were given preferential treatment is that Washington has always worked in this manner.

Rigged elections don’t need a “smoking gun” email with the words MAKE SURE HILLARY CLINTON WINS. The DNC knew that Bernie’s name recognition from the start was a weakness, and ensured that limited debates would bolster Clinton’s chances in early contests. There’s a reason Debbie Wasserman Schultz claimed “The DNC remains neutral in this primary based on our rules, but when I heard what happened at the Nevada state Democratic convention this weekend I was deeply disturbed.” Contrary to the propaganda, there was no violence in Nevada, although the DNC emails show Wasserman perpetrated the myth.

Most importantly, while Bernie funded his campaign without the help of Wasserman Schultz, the DNC helped raise money for Clinton. Hillary Clinton’s ultimate advantage over Bernie Sanders is highlighted in a POLITICO piece titled Clinton fundraising leaves little for state parties:

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 aconcert 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.

By contrast, the victory fund has transferred $15.4 million to Clinton’s campaign and $5.7 million to the DNC, which will work closely with Clinton’s campaign if and when she becomes the party’s nominee. And most of the $23.3 million spent directly by the victory fund has gone toward expenses that appear to have directly benefited Clinton’s campaign, including $2.8 million for “salary and overhead” and $8.6 million for web advertising that mostly looks indistinguishable from Clinton campaign ads and that has helped Clinton build a network of small donors who will be critical in a general election expected to cost each side well in excess of $1 billion.

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.

For the reasons listed above, there’s a WikiLeaks email where the DNC pushed to keep a New York Times reporter from writing about the Hillary Victory Fund. Clinton pockets all but 1% of the fundraising (over $60 million), the DNC receives more money than down ticket Democrats, and Bernie Sanders is left out of the equation. Vermont’s Senator was right to claim the DNC engaged in “serious apparent violations” of campaign finance laws.

If anything can be considered a “smoking gun” regarding these violations, it’s Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s new job. The former DNC chair’s new occupation is highlighted in a Fortune piece titled Wasserman Schultz to Have a New Role in Clinton Campaign:

Hillary Clinton is thanking her “longtime friend” Debbie Wasserman Schultz after the Florida congresswoman’s decision to step down as chair of the Democratic National Committee. Clinton says that Wasserman Schultz will serve as honorary chair of her campaign’s 50-state program to help elect Democrats around the country.

Facing a Congressional fight with Tim Canova this month, Schultz represents the epitome of establishment politics. The fact she was forced to resign from the DNC, and now works directly for Hillary’s campaign, speaks volumes. I explain in this YouTube segment why Debbie Wasserman Schultz needed to resign from the DNC.

There’s no question the Democratic Primary was rigged in favor of Hillary Clinton. If “rigged” is the wrong word, then let’s just say everything from fundraising to media attention was geared towards benefiting Hillary Clinton and hurting Bernie’s chances of winning. Had Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the DNC done this to Clinton, instead of Bernie, there would have been widespread outrage among establishment Democrats. Therefore, where’s the outrage among progressives that Bernie Sanders was cheated?

Go To Homepage

Before You Go

Popular in the Community