Forget Hillary – Donna Brazille Has Unleashed Something Much More Important

The Deep State at work, once again. Like in 1963.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

29 Responses to Forget Hillary – Donna Brazille Has Unleashed Something Much More Important

  1. GW Smith says:

    I’m ready! But this woman seems to slither through everything.

  2. Kris Johanson says:

    Strictly speaking, we don’t need the term “Deep State”. This is just simply “Government”. This is what government does. This is why our Constitution and especially the Bill of Rights is important and worth defending. The concept of “limited” government – where the King must abide by the laws – is fragile to say the least

    • arn says:

      The term deep state is still needed to tell the
      difference between what a government is supposed to be (from the people
      for the people in demographical terms)
      and what it became(a powertool for a very small minority
      which helps them to rule however they want,to legalise criminal corpoate behaviour,to indoctrinate and
      and to missuse other minorities against the majority)

      or to quote the biggest mafia boss of the USA ever-Mayer Lansky said something like:
      “What Corporations legally do now was illegal when i did it.The corporations realised that it is much easier to make the laws instead of breaking them-so they removed all the obstacles within the they make the laws ”

      “Don’ t worry.Don’t worry.
      Look at the Astors and the Vanderbilts.
      All those big society people.They were the worst thieves-look at them now.Its just a matter of time”

      • menicholas says:

        Spend a few minutes reading about how Joseph Kennedy Sr. made his fortune, and how soon after that he was an ambassador.

  3. Tony says:

    Wow! Donna Brazille seems a little peeved. What’s coming next? Is this her process of putting distance between herself and Hillary? Is an investigation starting soon and is she anticipating major fallout?

    • Tony says:

      Hillary still fantasizes about running in the next presidential election. The DNC needs to cut her loose as she is taking the entire party down with her at present. While Hillary hogs the headlines, no one else in the DNC can get a look in. Is Donna Brazille doing the political equivalent of driving a stake into Clinton’s heart?

      • Latitude says:

        “The DNC needs to cut her loose”…are you crazy??? Give up the gift that keeps on giving??
        Dems just lost half their base….the Bernie people

      • Tony says:

        Good point Latitude, but while she stays in charge of the DNC, they’ll never get in power again, Elizabeth Warren will never get a look in and the Democrats . Clinton’s a liability. I don’t know why Donna Brazille has felt it necessary to release her commentary, but it’s not like one Democrat to pull down another without a strategy for an end game in mind.

    • Louis Hooffstetter says:

      “Is an investigation starting soon and is she anticipating major fallout?”

      Oh please, oh please, oh please…

      Hillary For Prison 2018!

  4. garyh845 says:

    Is this confirmed as an actual excerpt from Brazile’s book?

    “It must suck to hijack your party, steal a nomination, turn DNC into money laundromat, bury any evidence gainst you, finance fake dossier, swipe the debate questions, and promise free everything, yet still lose to someone you call incompetent.”

  5. Bob G says:

    The real problem is that we have 60 million people who will vote for these fools every four years, the fools being Obama, Hillary and Bernie, if he would have won the primary.
    Then we have 60 million other people who are fooled into voting for those who claim that they will shrink government and it never happens. Bottom line, we are still with Trump because he is our only chance to turn the ship around. God knows moderates
    like Bush 41 and 43 are fine with the status quo – they voted for Hillary. Unbelievable!!!

    • garyh845 says:

      A very large percentage of those 60 million, are made more foolish, because our national mainstream media is 1.) not reporting on the news that is damaging to their Democrat party, and 2.) on the other shoe, they are laser focused on destroying the other party. On # 1.), I noted this about the last one – Donna Brazile’s revelations:

      Well, we know what the national main stream media thinks about this. Scares them to death. That’s why this paper of record (LAT’s), has yet to put one word about it in their newspaper. And in the past few days, even though a few national media shows, have either had Brazile on their ‘news’ shows, they go like this: Clinton surrogate George Stephanopoulos lectured Brazile, “But do you think this helps for the book to come out?” Tom Brokaw slammed her for being “counter-productive.” Scares them – they do not want the broad electorate to find out what was going on. They always do this. With other notable Democrats like Chuck Schumer (he laughed it off saying he’d not heard about it – what a bold face lie), Elizabeth Warren, Barbara Lee,Tom Perez and Mark Warner, when asked about this, they all deflected – all started giving the same talking points (do they actually get a memo, or do they all just think the same) either about Trump or what the Democrats were focused on. Not one was pushed to actually express their opinion about the issue at hand.

      A few years back when Mimi Alford, 19 yr old WH intern) came out about her long affair with JFK (including many horrid and disgusting items) . . yes, she was allowed a few interviews by journalists – TV and print – they spent most of their time asking her about why (funny, they don’t ask that about Harvey Weinstein) she do this. And by time JFK’s 100th B-day came around – it was all about special programs, long segments and featured articles about remembering ‘Camelot.’ Note, JFK stole her virginity on her 3rd day in the WH, on Jackie’s bed in her private WH bedroom. Camelot? It wasn’t rape, as she allowed him to force himself on her, but she went crying and running away.

      A year ago (in the heat of the campaign), a former Arkansas reporter, came out with a shocking story of repeated sexual assaults by Bill Clinton, during the course of her being a reporter. Move over Harvey Weinstein. This newspaper – never mentioned it. The rest of the national media? A couple allowed a brief bit, but on-line only, and you’d have to be searching for it in order to locate the story. MSM had a job to do, put their candidate (and her sexual attacking husband) in the WH, and they were holding onto a story about Trump bragging about something horrible (no evidence that he actually ever did it) and they were planning to use that – not something about Clinton. That’s Leslie Milwee, search for her and Politico and at The Hill. A very credible story, thus the MSM did not challenge her and try to destroy her, as they often do; rather, they just kept it out of the news – no exposure.

  6. RAH says:

    Brazile? Donna Brazile that never ran a successful election for anyone campaign EVER but who was considered an expert who’s opinion was very valuable by the leftist press despite that?
    Now the same press that adored her and valued her opinion so much are trashing her because she reveals at little bit of the dirt on the Clintons and she’s afraid for her life.

    • RickS says:

      No “anything” for Brazile, she is just as guilty as the entire leftist movement (Has anyone ever really figured out just what “Left” we are talking about and what it really is, Standing to the Left as opposed to seated on the “Right”) !

      Ma-“Donna” knew all of this long ago and then waited (She “never” would have said [ ANYTHING ] had Hellory won the election, it’s called “evil-to-the-core”) till “after” tbe election believing Clinton would win, SHE IS SCUM LIKE ALL OF HER PITTED FRIENDS !!!

      Shave their “foreheads” and lets see just what is written there ???

      ****** ****** ******

  7. Anon says:

    I guess this is the Cherry on Top to all of that:

    How the Hillary Clinton campaign deliberately “elevated” Donald Trump with its “pied piper” strategy
    An email released by WikiLeaks shows how the Democratic Party purposefully “elevated” Trump to “leader of the pack”

    The memo, which was addressed to the Democratic National Committee, outlined “the strategy and goals a potential Hillary Clinton presidential campaign would have regarding the 2016 Republican presidential field.”

    The document stated, “Clearly most of what is contained in this memo is work the DNC is already doing. This exercise is intended to put those ideas to paper.”

    “We need to be elevating the Pied Piper candidates so that they are leaders of the pack and tell the press to them seriously,” the Clinton campaign concluded.

    Other messages published by the whistleblowing organization show how, while the Clinton camp was facilitating the rise of Trump, it was systematically undermining the campaign of Sen. Bernie Sanders, Clinton’s left-wing opponent.

    These guys failed at rigging an election – ie predicting the results of their efforts, so it makes me think they will fail at Climate Change also – ie the consequences of globalization will spectacularly backfire on them also.

    • Sean says:

      Climate change has got to be one of the biggest drags on the Democratic party. In essence, its an effective way to disenfranchise working class voters, particularly in “fly-over” country. Remember in 2010 the house passed Waxman-Markey and then got creamed in the mid-terms. Obama ran on an all of the above energy strategy but governed to strangle coal. Dems lost both houses of Congress and the executive branch in 2016. His win will also keep a conservative majority at the Supreme Court. Also remember, both McCain and Romney, both competent administrators, lost pandering to the environmental establishment. Trump called BS and won in spite of misgivings on how he would govern. I hope the RNC has learned that lesson.
      HRC likely felt that the golden rule of business would apply to politics, the one with the most gold rules. It didn’t turn out that way and until the Democrats realize that, working class people will continue to abandon them for populist insurgents.

  8. gnome says:

    On the subject of books, Clinton wrote one called “What Happened” and sold it as non-fiction.
    There is enough evidence now, that she committed fraud in doing so. Even publishing it as opinion would make it illegal to cover up what really happened.

  9. Norilsk says:

    You Americans need another Ronald Reagan. I just found this 1964 speech today. I’ve never heard anything like it. “You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, “There is a price we will not pay.” There is a point beyond which they must not advance.”

  10. Norilsk says:

    Hillary Clinton would have taken America to war with Russia for the fake hacking scheme.

  11. gallopingcamel says:

    Donna Brasile is not acting alone. She has big money backers who are protecting her from Clinton retaliation. Even though the Clintons have hundreds of millions of dollars they failed in their attempt to take over the USA.

    So who will replace the Clintons? I can’t even make an intelligent guess but Donna Brazile works for them. Stay tuned.

  12. Douglas Hoyt says:

    Hillary had nearly all the super-delegates committed to her. Even if she lost a large number of primaries, she would still have gotten the nomination. That is how she rigged the process.

    The DNC is still full of Hillary supporters, so I think she will run in 2020.

    • neal s says:

      While I would not be surprised if the hildebeast would like to run in 2020, I sincerely hope she will be in prison by then, and also hope many others will be there as well.

      I also realize that it may take some time before we can get to that point. If attempts to prosecute are made too soon, there is the chance that a corrupt judicial system might allow initial attempts at this to fail.

    • richard verney says:

      I am from the other side of the pond, and hence my knowledge of US politics is not strong, but I would have thought it highly unlikely that she will run again.

      She has had her day, she is far too old and far too toxic to be adopted by the DNC. The US does not like losers, and she is a loser big time. Her post election reaction has not done her any favours either.

  13. Mark Fife says:

    Just my humble opinion based upon what I saw before the election, but Hillary was never going to win. Period. Anywhere you looked in the part of America not on the east or west coasts and not in and around the big cities there was nairy a Hillary sign or bumper sticker to be found. There were more than a few Trump signs and stickers, but admittedly not many. But when it became clear he would win the nomination those signs and stickers began sprouting. I drove all over my home state of Georgia, parts of Alabama, Tennessee, and South Carolina and did not see one Hillary sign and blessed few around Atlanta. I did see the occasional feel the Bern sign.

    Perhaps Hillary’s deplorables comment and her comments on killing coal galvanized the opposition. They probably brought out voters to vote against her that otherwise would have stayed home.

    I am of the opinion Hillary’s coronation was in actuality a bubble ball fiction existing only in her mind and in the main stream media’s collecting mind. The MSM media laboring under the thankfully false impression they could make that fiction real by convincing everyone it was real.

    Secondarily, I have a theory the media fiction was produced in part by the assumption no one can win the presidency without winning the black and Hispanic vote. That idea is so firmly planted they perhaps unconsciously bias their polling by hitting areas where those populations are concentrated. They are also so convinced they treated any black or Hispanic Trump supporters as aberrations and immediately discounted them as a non factor. Which, if you think about it, is a pretty racist attitude. That is discounting what people think and what their opinions are purely based upon the color of their skin. That is just wrong.

    • richard verney says:

      President Trump won by his appeal to the minorities, particularly in the swing states. Whilst the percentages might have been small they were critical.

      Compared with Romney, Trump secured 8% of the black vote, up from 1%, and 29% of the Hispanic vote, up from 19%.

      This was a huge shift in his favour and the numbers really added up in the critical states that swung the election his way. To put that in perspective, President Trump only secured an additional 1% of white working class males than did Romney in 2012.

      The MSM likes to portray the Trump victory as a white working man vote from the rust bucket states, as it fits in with their uneducated deplorable meme, but this is not so, as the New York Times showed in their post election analysis. Somewhere on Youtube there is a very good video of the New York Times analysis.

      • Mark Fife says:

        I read that analysis. It was very good. One thing a lot of people missed was the dramatic swing from Obama’s first election to Trump’s election in the percentage of voters won in the lowest income bracket. In that demographic the Obama presidency has been a disaster on a percentage basis. Trump won a higher percentage of votes than GWB did. Obama in his first election made large gains in every income bracket. However, in the 2016 race the democrats wound up worse off with low income families. The only gains they really held onto were in the highest income bracket.

        Isn’t that strange? After 8 years of Obama and the passage of Obamacare to give discounted insurance coverage and expanded Medicaid to low income Americans?

        It would be interesting to see those things mapped out and related to factors such as urban vs rural.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.