News & Politics

Sorry, Clinton Defenders, That HFA/DNC Agreement Cited by Donna Brazile Applied to Primaries Too

Hillary Clinton accompanied by Campaign Manager Robby Mook, left, and traveling press secretary Nick Merrill, right. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

The liberal establishment media has been working overtime to discredit former Democratic National Committee interim chair Donna Brazile as bombshells from her new tell-all book,  Hacks: The Inside Story of the Break-ins and Breakdowns that Put Donald Trump in the White House, detonate on the eve of two critical gubernatorial elections in Virginia and New Jersey.

Democrat operatives and Clinton loyalists in the media have been pushing back hard against her most damaging claim, published in an excerpt at Politico, that the DNC  “rigged” the 2016 primaries for Hillary Clinton through a joint fundraising agreement that gave Clinton control over key decisions at the DNC.

Brazile wrote: “The agreement–signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook with a copy to Marc Elias–specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings.”

NBC published an article “debunking” Brazile’s claims, arguing that the agreement between the DNC and “Hillary for America” applied only to “preparations for the general election” and had nothing to do with the primary season.

“Nothing in this agreement shall be construed to violate the DNC’s obligation of impartiality and neutrality through the Nominating process. All activities performed under this agreement will be focused exclusively on preparations for the General Election and not the Democratic Primary,” the memo states.

“Further we understand you may enter into similar agreements with other candidates,” it continues.

The liberal media have collectively embraced NBC’s defense of the Clintons, and proclaimed Brazile’s accusation effectively debunked.

On Monday, John Podesta, the chairman of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, repeated the same talking points to PJM’s Nicholas Ballasy, saying that the agreement between the DNC and the Clinton campaign was “for the general election, not for the primary race against Sen. Bernie Sanders.”

“Well, I haven’t read the book. I think the agreement that she referenced was for the general election, and the agreement makes that clear and as Rahm [Emanuel] said, given the fact that Donald Trump is president of the United States and doing what he’s doing, this is a complete distraction,” Podesta said Monday after a “Clinton 25: Georgetown Reflects On The Vision Of Bill Clinton” event at Georgetown University.

Well, case closed, right? John Podesta would never lie.

Unfortunately, the agreement itself tells a different story.

Campaign Legal Center’s Brendan Fischer took the time to read it, and documented what it actually says.

Indeed, that portion reads like a CYA clause thrown in there by lawyers.

The Intercept’s Glenn Greenwald noted that NBC eventually updated its article to include this serious walk-back:

The memo stipulates the DNC had to hire a communications director by September 11, 2015, months before the first nominating contests in early 2016.

However, the memo also made clear that the arrangement pertained to only the general election, not the primary season, and it left open the possibility that it would sign similar agreements with other candidates.

Still, it clearly allowed the Clinton campaign to influence DNC decisions made during an active primary, even if intended for preparations later.

The truth is, the agreement gave Clinton control of key primary decisions — and now complicit DNC/Clinton loyalists are spinning like tops to deny it.

Fox News’ Tucker Carlson reported Monday night that according to his highly informed sources,”top management at CNN  directed its employees to undermine Brazile’s credibility.”

“If you’ve been watching that channel, you may have noticed CNN’s anchors suggesting that Donna Brazile cannot be trusted precisely because she took part in efforts to rig the primaries for Clinton,” he said. “They’re so obviously talking points!”