Former DNC Chairwoman Says Hillary Clinton Had Full Control Over The Party Nearly A YEAR Before She Became The Democratic Nominee!

no title

Hillary Clinton may not have done everything she could to win the presidential election (what’s Wisconsin?), but she definitely gave it her all to ensure a victory in the primary race.

According to Donna Brazile, former interim chairwoman for the Democratic National Committee, Clinton had full control over the DNC almost a year before she officially became the party’s official nominee.

Yes, to the pleasure of Donald Trump supporters and alt-right conspiracy theorists everywhere, Brazile says she found proof that Clinton had “rigged the nomination process.”

Video: Hillary Says Trump ‘Doesn’t Have Any Empathy’

In an op-ed for Politico, the former chairwoman recalled investigating the matter for Bernie Sanders during the 2016 election season, and was shocked when she found out that Clinton’s campaign had been paying off the DNC’s debts for the past several months.

Brazile found that her predecessor, Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, had allowed Clinton’s headquarters in Brooklyn take care of the party’s massive debt — which she claimed was up to $24 million after Barack Obama‘s 2012 campaign — and the other officers were kept in the dark about it.

After more digging, Brazile learned that Hillary for America and the Hillary Victory Fund had taken care of 80 percent of the remaining debt in 2016 (about $10 million) and had placed the party on an allowance.

And like all things in politics, Clinton’s camp allegedly expected something in return — full control of the party’s operations!

Related: Trump’s Responses To NYC Attacker Vs. Las Vegas Shooter

Brazile uncovered a joint-fundraising agreement between the party and the campaign funds, which stipulated that Hillary would control the “party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised” in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC.

The former chairwoman maintained that the agreement was not illegal, but “sure looked unethical” and “compromised the party’s integrity.”

Ethically speaking, Brazile noted, one campaign should not have control of the party before the voters decided on a nominee. But the agreement was apparently signed in August 2015, almost a year before Clinton clinched the nomination.

Now we have to ask, what’s worse: buying your state party or colluding with a foreign government to sabotage your opponent? They’re both super corrupt and we’re all suckers for putting up with it?

Does this make you feel any differently about Hillary, Perezious Clinton supporters? Head over to Politico to read Brazile’s bombshell report.

[Image via C-SPAN.]

Nov 2, 2017 1:25pm PDT

Related Posts

More Like This