‘It Sure Looked Unethical’: Brazile Discloses Deal That Gave Hillary Clinton Control Over DNC Before Primary

by | Nov 3, 2017


The DNC and Clinton emails released by Wikileaks ultimately exposed a pattern of false statements by Democratic leaders particularly Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Schultz insisted that they were completely neutral in the primary despite every indication to the contrary. It was later revealed that Donna Brazile, who replaced Schultz, had first leaked questions for the debate with Sanders to Clinton and then lied about the incriminating emails later to the media (she suggested that they were fake).

Now Brazile is making a comeback and has been put back into a position of power at the DNC and ironically on the Rules Committee. She is also shopping a book. In the book, Brazile confirms that Hillary Clinton essentially bought the DNC by assuming responsibility for its crippling debt in exchange for control over the organization before the primary. In other words, as shown by the earlier emails and now by Brazile’s own account, the primary was indeed rigged against Bernie Sanders and anyone running against Clinton.

Brazile says that she discovered an August 2015 agreement between the national committee and Clinton’s campaign that gave Clinton “control (of) the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised.” She in return agreed to take care of the massive debt leftover from President Barack Obama’s 2012 campaign. Even Brazile (who was fired from CNN for unethical conduct) said that the deal was legal “but it sure looked unethical.” She further states that the deal gave one campaign (Clinton) “control of the party before the voters had decided which one they wanted to lead.” She now agrees that the Clinton deal “compromised the party’s integrity.”

What is obvious from this latest disclosure is the utter mismanagement of the DNC during the Obama Administration as well as misleading statements from a host of Democratic figures. That failure played into the hands of the Clintons who proceeded to take over control over the DNC to guarantee that no one but Hillary would be nominated. It was not just a dubious arrangement from an ethical standpoint but ultimately rigged the primary for what many view as the worst possible candidate for that election. From the earliest polling, it was widely understood that the election would an anti-establishment election. It was also clear that Clinton continue to carry extremely negative polls on her trustworthiness and honesty with many voters. Nevertheless, virtually every Democratic member of Congress and the DNC would work tirelessly to guarantee the most establishment figure in Democratic ranks would run in the most anti-establishment election in history. Indeed, many have commented that Clinton may have been the only leading candidate that could lose against Trump. They were both the most unpopular candidates to run respectively for their parties.

In the end, Clinton was largely campaigning on not being Trump. That was enough to great more votes but many experts believe that other candidates would likely have swept both the popular and electoral voters. Ironically, what many voters did not like about Clinton was her perceived dishonesty and inauthenticity. This allegation from Brazile only reinforces that image. When Clinton and Wasserman Schultz were denying any special arrangements, they both knew that Clinton was effectively handed the keys to the DNC before Sanders ever hit the campaign trail.

The deal was struck before Joe Biden was essentially pushed out of the race by Clinton allies. (Many experts believe that, even though himself an establishment figure, Biden would have won handily in both popular and electoral votes against Trump since he had fewer polling negatives on issues like trustworthiness). We discussed earlier the email sources suggesting that one of Biden’s closest aides, Ron Klain, reportedly admitted to working for Clinton behind the scenes to scuttle Biden’s chances.

If true, Clinton and her people left nothing to chance in first gaining control of critical parts of the DNC and working within the camps of potential challengers to undermine them. Sanders was all that remained in the end and he came close to dislodging Clinton (even with the concerted work of people like Debbie Wasserman Schultz and allies at the DNC).

In the end, the most damaged figure beyond Clinton herself is Schultz. She was previously booted for her biased and dishonest work as DNC head. This disclosure further shreds her reputation and her veracity.

Then there is the DNC itself. The DNC just kicked out Sanders supporters and brought back Clinton supporters in a controversial shakeup. It also never disclosed this deal to the public.

Moreover, some if not all of those powerful Democrats on the board presumably knew of the arrangement. Yet, they continued to express disbelief at the suggestion of any special arrangements with Clinton.

In other words, the public view of the election and the duplicity of key leaders was largely accurate.

Reprinted with permission from JonathanTurley.org.


  • Jonathan Turley

    Professor Jonathan Turley is a nationally recognized legal scholar who has written extensively in areas ranging from constitutional law to legal theory to tort law. He has written over three dozen academic articles that have appeared in a variety of leading law journals at Cornell, Duke, Georgetown, Harvard, Northwestern, University of Chicago, and other schools.

    View all posts