Clinton Cozy Donna Brazile Had No Business As A CNN Commentator
Brian Stelter of CNN's "Reliable Sources" has done an excellent and rather unheard of vetting of his own network.
I've long been sort of amazed that Clintonite Donna Brazile had a job at CNN as a commentator. It's -- sorry for the hoar -- like hiring a fox as a commentator on the raids on the henhouse.
Here's what Stelter wrote:
CNN and TV One co-hosted a town hall with Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders back in March. CNN's Jake Tapper and TV One's Roland Martin moderated. How did Martin's question about the death penalty end up in the hands of the Clinton campaign ahead of time?That's the key question due to this email published by Wikileaks -- one of many emails stolen from John Podesta's personal account. Donna Brazile, who was both a DNC official and a CNN commentator at the time, told Clinton comms director Jennifer Palmieri that "from time to time I get the questions in advance," and then shared the text of a potential town hall Q, one day before the event. Martin read a similarly-worded question on the stage.
This revelation is disturbing for all the obvious reasons. As I wrote in this story, CNN flatly denied any coordination: "We have never, ever given a town hall question to anyone beforehand." Martin didn't issue any such denial. Instead, he told me that his Q's "were shared with my executive producer and several members of my TV One team." I followed up several times, and he never explicitly denied sharing information with Brazile...
-- More: When I reached Brazile, she told me that she was not choosing not to view any of the stolen emails. "This is exactly what the Russians intended to do. And they're doing it," she said...
For what it's worth...
Here's what I know from first hand experience: CNNers typically prepare for debates/town halls in what is informally known as the "cone of silence." Secrecy is prioritized and access is restricted during the prep sessions. What Fox's Megyn Kelly said Tuesday night was right: "I cannot imagine anyone at CNN ever leaking a question to anyone. It would be the height of unethical. I can't imagine it."Highlighting the curious role of "commentator"
Media critics like Erik Wemple immediately raised questions about Brazile's complicated relationships. NYT reporter Nick Confessore tweeted that the email exchange is a "good argument against having campaign surrogates on staff at your network..."
From the link at the top of the posted stuff:
Brazile became the interim chair of the DNC in July after Debbie Wasserman Schultz resigned. At that point, her commentator deals with CNN and ABC were suspended.She now leads both the organization's response to cyberattacks and its campaign efforts.
via @ericwemple
You're "amazed" Donna Brazile had a job at CNN?
Really Amy?
Obligatory Captain Renault from Casablanca "shocked" about gambling.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjbPi00k_ME
JFP at October 12, 2016 6:27 AM
Try this, from few years ago: CBS News president David Rhodes has a brother named Ben who is Obama's deputy national security adviser for strategic communication, especially concerning the Middle East. Ben Rhodes wrote Obama's infamous Cairo speech. His brother is the CBS News president. It speaks for itself. Now we know that Ben Rhodes was a key player in revising the Benghazi talking points last September. So does it make perfect sense that his brother would carry the agenda of his brother? His brother at CBS News?
If your brother's writing Obama's speeches, if your brother is moderating, monitoring and altering the talking points, and you're at CBS News, what you are gonna do, you gonna expose the talking points as fraudulent? No way.
Try this. The president of ABC News's sister also works for Obama. Ben Sherwood, ABC News president, sister Elizabeth Sherwood Randall, special assistant to Barack Obama. She's also a specialist on the Middle East. CNN's deputy bureau chief, Virginia Moseley, is married to Hillary Clinton's former deputy Tom Nides. Tom Nides was Hillary's deputy secretary of state for management and resources. So it's no wonder that Benghazi, along with every other Obama scandal has been soft peddled by CBS, ABC, and CNN. And of course Obama's close relationship with NBC goes without saying.
Dana Bash, CNN, her ex-husband worked for Jane Harman. You would be stunned to learn of all of the spouses of news people who work for the administration or members of Congress or the Senate. You would be blown away. David Gregory, Meet the Press. His wife is one of the chief lawyers, or was, over at Fannie Mae. Do you think they're gonna get honest reporting at NBC about the subprime mortgage scandal? Nothing that's gonna hurt his wife is gonna be reported there, I guarantee it. I mean, it's just human nature. That town is incestuous.
Jay Carney, his wife is Claire Shipman, formerly of CNN, now of ABC. Jay Carney used to work at TIME Magazine. Actually, he worked for Biden. He left TIME Magazine to work for Biden, got bored there, or worked so well there he got promoted to the White House when Gibbs left.
Stinky the Clown at October 12, 2016 6:37 AM
The problem is not whose sister or brother works for whom. It's that Washington, DC is essentially a small town with only one purpose. Everyone knows and is interconnected with each other. If Trump wins, several people in his administration will have connections to Fox News and Democrats will see conspiracy in that. If Clinton wins, the connections between ABC and the DNC will continue. Several people in her administration will have connections to MSNBC and Republicans will cry "conspiracy."
If you're not part of the fraternity, you will have a hard time getting in. If you are part of the fraternity, your children and other relatives will have an "in" to Washington or Washington-related jobs. And they will use that in.
We need a center of power in this country that is dedicated to other things, too. Washington exists only as a government town. It does not have a manufacturing base or a financial services base or a technology base. It has government and only government. And like all centers of power, it has become incestuous over time.
The scions of power brokers in Washington do not join their friends in start-ups, they join the family business. Look at how many Bushes are in politics. Chelsea will not start a bio-technology firm centered on Washington. She'll follow Mom and Dad into politics and power brokerage.
The media covering Washington have the same incestuous relationship with Washington.
The same people that were in power under GHW Bush were in power under GW Bush. And many of them dated from the RWR administration. The same people who were in power under WJC will be in power under HRC (and many of them were also in power under BHO). Plus ça change.
This single point of view of Washington residents also becomes apparent when you consider what work your DC neighbor will be in. In San Francisco, your neighbor is likely to be in technology, finance, law, medicine, manufacturing, government, or any of a myriad of industries and activities that can be found in the Bay Area. In Washington, your neighbor will invariably be connected with the government (military, government contracting, etc.).
Conan the Grammarian at October 12, 2016 7:22 AM
You are aware that CNN stands for Clinton News Network?
I R A Darth Aggie at October 12, 2016 7:44 AM
" When I reached Brazile, she told me that she was not choosing not to view any of the stolen emails. "This is exactly what the Russians intended to do. And they're doing it," she said..."
The sticking fingers in their ears approach only works when you know media will have your back and cover it up for you.
Saying Trump has insiders in the press too and is corrupt too is disingenuous, I'm sure he does. But it's also a matter of scale, Trump probably has 20 insiders in the press, Clinton has 20,000.
Has anyone actually denied any of the things in the hacks/ wiki leaks, or just going with the I'm not going to look so I can't comment, like they did with the abortion video?
I can't keep track of all the scandals being ignored.
The ones I've heard of so far are:
(Bernie related)
1. DNC manipulated things to make sure he didn't win. Changing rules and manipulating delegates to do it.
2. Threatened his wife so he would play nice when leaving.
3. Bernie supporters are basement dwelling trolls/ useful idiots.
(press connections)
4. Giving the questions to her before hand.
5. Giving the DNC and Clinton editing ability on news articles before they are run.
6. Collaboration in promoting and burying stories.
7. Advice on how best to spin.
($$)
8. Clinton foundation. Foreign donations.
9. Wall street talks, stating lying to public to give wall street every advantage.
(general embarrassing)
10. Deliberately keeping voters uneducated and uninformed so they'll vote for her.
Joe J at October 12, 2016 9:00 AM
There's a Democrat-media revolving door. Another example is George Stephanopoulus, a former Democrat campaign consultant who was a major player in Bill Clinton's campaigns. He's now the chief of political reporting at ABC News.
There's evidence appearing in Wikileaks that coverage of the Hillary email scandal was coordinated between her campaign, the White House, the Justice Department, the FBI, the Clinton Foundation, and the media. And that this started in early 2015, before very much of the public had heard about it. If you recall, NBC News, to name one, refused to run any kind of story about it at all for months after the Internet news sites began uncovering the details. They only admitted the story's existence when it became a serious enough situation that the campaign needed them to provide cover.
There's even evidence that the Democrats stage-managed the GOP nominating process to ensure that Trump or an equally weak candidate would win. The GOP establishment, who aren't any less crooked (just less ambitious) went along with it because they see this as their opportunity to crush the Tea Party and the libertarians once and for all, with a sweeping defeat of an "alternative" candidate, so they can point at it and say "told you so". As for their own nominating process, it was clear before the primary season started that the Democrats had rigged the process to ensure a Hillary victory, with with the arcane delegate rules and the super-delegates hand picked by the party leadership. It was supposed to be a coronation. Bernie Sanders must have pissed them off hugely.
Absolutely everything at the national level is now stage-managed by the Washington establishment: news stories, political coverage, campaigns, rules and regulations, investigations, court decisions, protests, riots, everything. They have an unimaginable amount of resources available to them, and they leave no stone unturned. The only thing they've not been able to control is Wikileaks. And I can guarantee you that they are trying to game that, or failing to do so, to take out some of the people involved with either character assassination, or the other kind.
Cousin Dave at October 12, 2016 10:40 AM
There's one wild card here: who is really behind Wikileaks? I'm starting to disbelieve it's the Russians, or at least not the parts of the Russian establishment controlled by Putin. Why? Because Hillary should be their preferred candidate. Yet Wikileaks is just about the only thing that remains standing between Hillary and a landslide victory. The conventional-wisdom explanation for this is that the Russians are just prepping the battlespace, ensuring that Hillary enters office as a weak and damaged President who will do Putin's bidding.
But, if that's what it is, they may have over-played their hand; I'm now seeing Gary Johnson polling at over 10% in a few states and that snowball might be picking up speed a bit. There's the risk for the Russians that Johnson might actually carry enough states to throw the election into the House, where Trump might win. Putin fears Trump as an unknown-unknown, someone that is impossible to plan for. His clan is tactically smart and they wouldn't run that risk, especially since it now appears that Putin is on the verge of getting everything that he wants.
Which is why I think it might not be Putin. Who else could it be? Maybe reformist elements in Russia who see a President Trump as a possible way to contain Putin from the outside. It could be coming from right-wing parties in Europe, who appear to be gaining strength. It could be a League of Gentlemen thing in the U.S., funded by wealthy people and entities who appear to be non-political, or even Hillary backers. Maybe China, who would have the same motivation as Putin, but I don't think they understand American politics as well and don't grasp the electoral system consequences if Johnson carries some states.
Cousin Dave at October 12, 2016 10:58 AM
It's much easier if you think of reporters as "Democrats with by-lines".
As for the Russian connection, I think this is Putin reminding Clinton that what is bought stays bought.
I R A Darth Aggie at October 12, 2016 1:20 PM
You're complaining aboiut Donna Brazile working as a commentator at CNN while Trump's ex-campaign manager and still sometime consultant Corey Lewandowski is not only on-air at CNN but being paid a million dollars by them while he's still being paid by Trump? Get real!
Maryelle Wilcox at October 12, 2016 1:32 PM
Leave a comment