Actual Memo Clinton signed Between her and the DNC

EvilEyeFleegle

Dogpatch USA
Gold Supporting Member
Nov 2, 2017
15,747
8,847
1,280
Twin Falls Idaho
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/TODAY/z_Creative/DNCMemo (002).pdf

Memo reveals details of Hillary Clinton-DNC deal

"The Democratic National Committee struck a deal with Hillary Clinton in 2015 that gave her campaign input on some party hiring and spending decisions, but related only to preparations for the general election, according to a memo obtained by NBC News. It also left the door open for other candidates to make similar arrangements.

The document provides more context to the explosive claims made by former DNC Interim Chair Donna Brazile in a forthcoming book, an excerpt of which was published this week.


The August 26, 2015, memorandum of understanding from Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook to DNC CEO Amy Dacey details the relationship between Clinton's campaign and the DNC long before she won her party's nomination."

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.


"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 Clinton campaign agreed to make an initial payment of $1.2 million to DNC, which was crippled by debt at the time, as well as providing a monthly allowance and other funds. The agreement appears intended to give the campaign oversight over how its money was spent.

 
More disgusting than the Clintons and their associates are their supporters. It's obviously no longer the Democrat Party. It's the Clinton party.
 
More disgusting than the Clintons and their associates are their supporters. It's obviously no longer the Democrat Party. It's the Clinton party.
Not any more..now it's the 'We don't have a clue who we support' or The 'Who's going to save us' party. I can't think of one dedicated Dem I'd vote for. Not one. If they don't find a fresh face..untouched by scandal--they're through. They need a moderate candidate who can win a primary without the extreme left-wing's approval. Not sure that's even possible.

Or a populist candidate who is not a buffoon..and who can bridge the gap between moderates of both parties..again..not something I'd bet on.
 
More disgusting than the Clintons and their associates are their supporters. It's obviously no longer the Democrat Party. It's the Clinton party.
Not any more..now it's the 'We don't have a clue who we support' or The 'Who's going to save us' party. I can't think of one dedicated Dem I'd vote for. Not one. If they don't find a fresh face..untouched by scandal--they're through. They need a moderate candidate who can win a primary without the extreme left-wing's approval. Not sure that's even possible.

Or a populist candidate who is not a buffoon..and who can bridge the gap between moderates of both parties..again..not something I'd bet on.

Believe it or not, I'm with you all the way.

Yes there are days I've been known to push opponents buttons on the boards on another D defeat :) but I'm truly worried about the D party because I believe strongly that to have a government that works for the people one has to have a strong leader and an even stronger opposition for the checks and balances to work.

And looking at the landscape right now, sheesh if I was back in Tennessee I'd be freaking out that the nightly news is consumed by a party representative like Maxine Waters who only stands for "against Trump". There are no positive messages coming out of the party.

It's freaking nuts.
 
More disgusting than the Clintons and their associates are their supporters. It's obviously no longer the Democrat Party. It's the Clinton party.
Not any more..now it's the 'We don't have a clue who we support' or The 'Who's going to save us' party. I can't think of one dedicated Dem I'd vote for. Not one. If they don't find a fresh face..untouched by scandal--they're through. They need a moderate candidate who can win a primary without the extreme left-wing's approval. Not sure that's even possible.

Or a populist candidate who is not a buffoon..and who can bridge the gap between moderates of both parties..again..not something I'd bet on.

Believe it or not, I'm with you all the way.

Yes there are days I've been known to push opponents buttons on the boards on another D defeat :) but I'm truly worried about the D party because I believe strongly that to have a government that works for the people one has to have a strong leader and an even stronger opposition for the checks and balances to work.

And looking at the landscape right now, sheesh if I was back in Tennessee I'd be freaking out that the nightly news is consumed by a party representative like Maxine Waters who only stands for "against Trump". There are no positive messages coming out of the party.

It's freaking nuts.
A lift from one of my other posts...

"But the important point is that dysfunction isn't zero-sum. Right now, the best argument Republicans have is "we're not Democrats," and the best argument Democrats have is "we're not Republicans." Like two punch-drunk pugilists leaning on each other in the 12th round, if one falls, the other may well fall too.
Everywhere else in America today, disrupters -- Uber, Amazon, etc. -- are dismantling established institutions. Perhaps both political parties are the next institutions to crumble under creative destruction. Or maybe not. But if it happens, no one can say they didn't have it coming."
 
More disgusting than the Clintons and their associates are their supporters. It's obviously no longer the Democrat Party. It's the Clinton party.
Not any more..now it's the 'We don't have a clue who we support' or The 'Who's going to save us' party. I can't think of one dedicated Dem I'd vote for. Not one. If they don't find a fresh face..untouched by scandal--they're through. They need a moderate candidate who can win a primary without the extreme left-wing's approval. Not sure that's even possible.

Or a populist candidate who is not a buffoon..and who can bridge the gap between moderates of both parties..again..not something I'd bet on.


So which aspect of that agreement do you think is illegal, or the DNC didn't have legal authority to agree to?
 
About this DNC "thing" with Hillary I have only the same type of comment/thought I had re: the RNC when there was talk of rule changes and whatnot to prevent Trump from getting the nomination.

The RNC and the DNC are private entities. They can conduct their affairs whatever way they want. One's being a Republican or Democrat has nothing to do with the RNC or DNC, but rather with what box one ticks when one registers to vote. Individuals who don't like "whatever" about how either party organization operates have a few choices:
  • Get over it.
  • Leave the party and become an independent.
  • Leave the party and join a different one.
  • Start one's own party.
  • Contribute enough to the party to be materially influential in how it conducts its affairs.
I mean, really. What other private organization allows anyone outside the "C-level" to stipulate how it conducts its affairs, provided no law is broken? I'll tell you now. None. States are democracies. Private organizations are not democracies, and they have no onus to be so.
 
More disgusting than the Clintons and their associates are their supporters. It's obviously no longer the Democrat Party. It's the Clinton party.
Not any more..now it's the 'We don't have a clue who we support' or The 'Who's going to save us' party. I can't think of one dedicated Dem I'd vote for. Not one. If they don't find a fresh face..untouched by scandal--they're through. They need a moderate candidate who can win a primary without the extreme left-wing's approval. Not sure that's even possible.

Or a populist candidate who is not a buffoon..and who can bridge the gap between moderates of both parties..again..not something I'd bet on.
The d party has built itself on extremism. Hopefully it's their fate.
 
Clinton was dirty, she played dirty, but nothing criminal occurred.

Trump, on the other hand, well . . . that's in Mueller's hands.
 
More disgusting than the Clintons and their associates are their supporters. It's obviously no longer the Democrat Party. It's the Clinton party.
Not any more..now it's the 'We don't have a clue who we support' or The 'Who's going to save us' party. I can't think of one dedicated Dem I'd vote for. Not one. If they don't find a fresh face..untouched by scandal--they're through. They need a moderate candidate who can win a primary without the extreme left-wing's approval. Not sure that's even possible.

Or a populist candidate who is not a buffoon..and who can bridge the gap between moderates of both parties..again..not something I'd bet on.


So which aspect of that agreement do you think is illegal, or the DNC didn't have legal authority to agree to?
Who, me? I don't think Clinton did anything illegal..unethical? Well...I guess that's subjective..and AFAIK..the norm in politics.
 
More disgusting than the Clintons and their associates are their supporters. It's obviously no longer the Democrat Party. It's the Clinton party.
Not any more..now it's the 'We don't have a clue who we support' or The 'Who's going to save us' party. I can't think of one dedicated Dem I'd vote for. Not one. If they don't find a fresh face..untouched by scandal--they're through. They need a moderate candidate who can win a primary without the extreme left-wing's approval. Not sure that's even possible.

Or a populist candidate who is not a buffoon..and who can bridge the gap between moderates of both parties..again..not something I'd bet on.
The d party has built itself on extremism. Hopefully it's their fate.
Uhh..not to point out obvious fact..but the R..are in Power now..only because of extremism.
 
Clinton was dirty, she played dirty, but nothing criminal occurred.

Trump, on the other hand, well . . . that's in Mueller's hands.
OT:
You know what I observe about this DNC "thing?" I notice that "higher ups" in the Democratic party have no compunction about calling to the carpet their own luminaries. Put another way, they have the integrity to call a spade a spade, cry foul, etc. when they see their people behaving (or having behaved) badly. I don't see that among the GOP, at least not the current iteration of it. That I don't is one of the biggest issues I have with the current GOP and it's high ranking members. From the GOP, what I see is bob, weave, duck, cover, deny and deflect.
 
More disgusting than the Clintons and their associates are their supporters. It's obviously no longer the Democrat Party. It's the Clinton party.
Not any more..now it's the 'We don't have a clue who we support' or The 'Who's going to save us' party. I can't think of one dedicated Dem I'd vote for. Not one. If they don't find a fresh face..untouched by scandal--they're through. They need a moderate candidate who can win a primary without the extreme left-wing's approval. Not sure that's even possible.

Or a populist candidate who is not a buffoon..and who can bridge the gap between moderates of both parties..again..not something I'd bet on.
The d party has built itself on extremism. Hopefully it's their fate.
Uhh..not to point out obvious fact..but the R..are in Power now..only because of extremism.

I['ll tell you where this so called extremism is coming from.

Keep going.
 

Forum List

Back
Top