Makes you wonder what deal has been cooked up for Brazile for her to throw Hillary under the bus now.

Brazile writes:

//Right around the time of the convention, the leaked emails revealed Hillary’s campaign was grabbing money from the state parties for its own purposes, leaving the states with very little to support down-ballot races. A Politico story published on May 2, 2016, described the big fund-raising vehicle she had launched through the states the summer before, quoting a vow she had made to rebuild “the party from the ground up … when our state parties are strong, we win. That’s what will happen.”

Yet the states kept less than half of 1 percent of the $82 million they had amassed from the extravagant fund-raisers Hillary’s campaign was holding, just as Gary had described to me when he and I talked in August. When the Politico story described this arrangement as “essentially … money laundering” for the Clinton campaign, Hillary’s people were outraged at being accused of doing something shady. Bernie’s people were angry for their own reasons, saying this was part of a calculated strategy to throw the nomination to Hillary.

I wanted to believe Hillary, who made campaign finance reform part of her platform, but I had made this pledge to Bernie and did not want to disappoint him. I kept asking the party lawyers and the DNC staff to show me the agreements that the party had made for sharing the money they raised, but there was a lot of shuffling of feet and looking the other way.

When I got back from a vacation in Martha’s Vineyard, I at last found the document that described it all: the Joint Fund-Raising Agreement between the DNC, the Hillary Victory Fund, and Hillary for America.

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.

I had been wondering why it was that I couldn’t write a press release without passing it by Brooklyn. Well, here was the answer.

When the party chooses the nominee, the custom is that the candidate’s team starts to exercise more control over the party. If the party has an incumbent candidate, as was the case with Clinton in 1996 or Obama in 2012, this kind of arrangement is seamless because the party already is under the control of the president. When you have an open contest without an incumbent and competitive primaries, the party comes under the candidate’s control only after the nominee is certain. When I was manager of Gore’s campaign in 2000, we started inserting our people into the DNC in June. This victory fund agreement, however, had been signed in August 2015, just four months after Hillary announced her candidacy and nearly a year before she officially had the nomination.//

Wasn't Brazile feeding Hillary information about the questions in her debates with Bernie?

Comey's Announcement Remains a Puzzle.

The FBI confirms that Comey wrote his memo exonerating Hillary months before he had his infamous presser laying out the case against her but then exonerating her.

If he was going to help the cover-up, why didn't he go all in and simply cherry-pick the investigation or just lie and say there was nothing there.

Perhaps Comey was just a prisoner of his own self-image of being an honest man. He knew he was going to participate in a corrupt deal but he wanted enough wiggle room to be able to look at his critics and say that he told the truth.

As far as I know, no one has ever explained that bizarre press conference adequately.

Comey certainly lacks the Clinton talent to "die with the lie."

The Clinton Crime Family ...

...coming to the White House.

//"Long-secret emails just caught Team Hillary in another blatant lie — namely, the claim that Clinton Foundation donors got no special treatment from Clinton’s State Department. In fact, ABC’s “case study” of the 2010 Haiti-relief feeding frenzy may be the most damning foundation scoop yet.
And the foundation isn’t even denying it.

ABC News got the emails via a Freedom of Information lawsuit. They show that, after the devastating 2010 Haiti earthquake, a top Hillary aide repeatedly gave special attention to “Friends of Bill” looking to cash in.

Indeed, the aide, Caitlin Klevorick, kept asking foundation official Amitabh Desai “to flag when people are friends of WJC” — William Jefferson Clinton. Anyone without a special tag (FOB, WJC-VIP) got rebuffed by State and referred to a federal website.

State was besieged with requests to get in on $10 billion in aid contracts, described in one government cable as “a gold rush.”

One FOB, a major foundation donor who’d served as Bill’s Texas chair, used his pull on behalf of a firm he admitted “wanted to get some of the business” and had him use the Clinton Foundation as “a facilitator.”

Klevorick told ABC the special attention was about learning who had a history in Haiti so as “to get the necessary resources to the right places as soon as possible to save lives.”

One problem: She never asked if anyone had experience in Haiti or even with aid relief. Her only question: “Is this a FOB?” And her only instruction to the foundation was that all FOBs be “flagged.”

Which is why the Haiti analyst for the nonpartisan Center for Economic and Policy says, “The line was pretty faint between” the foundation and the State Department."//