It’s described in this Washington Post article, and also by the NY Times.
Apparently, Brazile has neither confirmed nor denied that she did this; Hillary’s campaign has refused comment.
Sounds sleazy on the part of both supplier and receiver. To what extent does this lend credence to claims that elections are rigged?
What is your definition of “rigged”? To me, “rigged” implies the outcome of an election has been altered from the one proceeding from the legal process. Getting questions in advance may give an unfair advantage in the debate, but it is not “rigging” an election.
It does sound sleazy, and if it’s true, it sucks. Clinton would have been more articulate and detailed than Trump in the first place, without any help.
None.
Primary debate, not general election.
oops
In the words of Trump, “That makes her smart”.
I don’t give one single solitary fuck about this story. If this is true, which its still unconfirmed, then good. If Trump can brag about sexually assaulting women because he’s a star, dodging taxes because its legal, or bankrupting businesses and putting people out of a job, or buying cheap Chinese steel, then Clinton can and should take advantage of any connections she has with members of the media to get favorable coverage.
Let’s be honest here, if this was Trump doing it, he would defend himself exactly that way by saying he was smart, and his supporters would drink that shit down while begging for more. It makes him a maverick, you see, a smart outsider, one who is willing to buck the typical political trends to get what he wants. An alpha male who sees something he likes and takes it. They are only mad because Clinton did it instead of him. Because she’s much, much smarter than him, and much more well liked
So thank you, Donna Brazile, for adding another nail on the alt-right Trump coffin! I hope other members of the media do the same, especially in light of our traitorous FBI director trying to personally skew the election results
It may be unethical, but it has nothing to do with elections being rigged.
Donna Brazile is a long-time Democratic party insider who was signed to a short-term deal with CNN. Her contract with them (and ABC) was suspended when she became an actual party official in July. If she leaked questions to the Clinton campaign for a debate during the primary season, then boo on her. But that’s a long way from “rigging.”
In 1980 the Republicans stole Jimmy Carter’s debate briefing book. That ranks about as high on the “dirty tricks” list as you can get, but it still falls short of rigging the election.
This story is about putting a nail in Bernie Sanders’ coffin.
So… the black woman with ties to the Clinton campaign gets canned.
Meanwhile, the white guy, Corey Lewandowski, is still on the Trump payroll… and gets to keep his job.
What a (non) surprise.
CNN isn’t even a real news network anyway, so I’m not interested in its faux outrage. If they cared about journalistic integrity maybe they could just, you know, do without all of the talking heads and have thoughtful discourse about the issues. CNN invented the modern “horse race” media. They invented the Crossfire “debate” and discussion format for news programming. As JohnT said they are loaded with hacks, including Lewandowsky who still consults with the Trump campaign. How do we know he didn’t tip off Trump? For all we know he did just that and Trump probably disregarded the overture as he tends not to prepare for these things anyway.
This is Hillary vs. Bernie, not Hillary vs. Trump.
And if your view is that a candidate who gets illicit help is just being “smart,” well then athletes who use steroids, students who peek at answers, the hit job against Nancy Kerrigan, sports teams that bribe officials are just clever aren’t they?
Another way to look at it would be the one who got exposed leaking questions got fired and the other guy didn’t. That’s even less of a surprise, wouldn’t you say?
The Democrats are the ones getting their emails hacked, so that’s the only ones we’re seeing. I have no doubt there are plenty of scandals in the emails of the Republicans, but those aren’t the ones being posed on Wikileaks.
So? Are you saying CNN should assume Lewandowski leaked questions and fire him too or that CNN should let it slide on Brazile because it’s no fair that her email got released?
I’m not saying either of those things. Just wanted to make sure people didn’t think it was just the Democrats who did bad things in politics. I’m pretty sure Lewandoski is feeding any CNN info he gets or overhears to the Trump camp even if we haven’t seen his emails. I’d be shocked if he didn’t. It’s how things are done. To not feed info would be to put your candidate at a disadvantage.
It probably would be a good idea for CNN and other news outlets to realize there is a huge temptation for this type of behavior when they hire people with strong ties to political parties. This kind of stuff is going to happen unless they make a serious effort to prevent it.
Yogosouth is just demonstrating that Democrats are pretty much done with even the pretense of reform. I’ve never seen a party and its supporters openly embrace politics as usual like this before, nor read about any such thing in the history books.
Seriously? Ok, thanks for the reminder. This is a thread about a Democratic party official getting fired from her CNN gig over leaking questions related to the Democratic primary debates but is important to note that Republicans probably do the same thing. :rolleyes:
It looks like the use of an unethical, underhanded process aimed at unfairly boosting one candidate over another. And thus fairly close to rigging.
It would be interesting to hear Hillary’s views on this: How did she feel about accepting and using this information? Will any of her staff face consequences for helping arrange this? Or is she happy to participate in debates that are presented to the public as fair, but which actually favor the side that does better “research”?
My mistake then, but I consider Hillary Clinton’s win over Bernie Sanders to have been part of that. I’m still not sure how well Sanders would have done against Trump, at one point, I was convinced Trump would have won handily, but now I’m not so sure with all the sex stuff that’s come out against him. However, there is still a significant amount of Americans who would never vote for a self-identified Socialist, so I am glad we’re not finding out just now how badly Sanders would be polling with them.
Clinton winning during the primary is the only way I would have been assured of a Dem victory in November.
My mistake, but the point still stands. And my post was only half-serious, its mostly to make the pissy Trump supporters feel bad because they excuse his behaviors with anything they can pull out of their ass, so what I AM actually done with, adaher, is pretending to support the false handicap the Democrats put on themselves by being the more moral, intelligent, and honorable party by playing within the rules while the GOP takes a shit on our laws and standards. You wanna see another party be so unethical? Take a look at your Republicans