CNN Cuts Ties with DNC Chair Donna Brazile After Wikileaks Email Shows She was Aiding Clinton campaign with Debate Questions … CNN says it is “completely uncomfortable
CNN CUTS TIES WITH DONNA BRAZILE AS SECOND WIKILEAKS EMAILS ARISES THAT SHE TIPPED OFF TEAM HILLARY WITH DEBATE QUESTION.
CNN has cut ties, PC for fired, Donna Brazile after it became known that a second Wikileaks email showed that the CNN contributor and co-DNC chair had provided debate question to Hillary Clinton’s team prior to the debate. The lengths of the collusion and corruption between the media and the Democrat party is simply amazing. The DNC, who is supposed to be impartial during the primaries, was aiding Hillary Clinton. Bernie Sanders and his supported should be furious! During the Democrat primary Sander stated on many occasions that the system was rigged. Guess what, it was.
I asked this question after the first Email from Donna Brazile was made public by Wikileaks and I will say it again … HOW HAS DONNA BRAZILE NOT BEEN FIRED BY THE DNC? The media and the Democrat party act like this isn’t a big story. America, this is cheating at the highest levels!!!
WHY ISN’T CNN TRYING TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THIS? MY PERSONAL OPINION IS THEY SHOULD BE BANNED FROM DEBATES IN THE FUTURE.
CNN says it is “completely uncomfortable” with hacked emails showing that former contributor and interim Democratic National Committee chairwoman Donna Brazile shared questions with the Clinton campaign before a debate and a town hall during the Democratic primary, and has accepted her resignation.
Hacked emails posted by WikiLeaks show Brazile, whose CNN contract was suspended when she became interim DNC chair over the summer, sharing with the Clinton campaign a question that would be posed to Hillary Clinton before the March CNN Democratic debate in Flint, as well as a possible question prior to a CNN town hall, also in March.
In a statement, CNN spokeswoman Lauren Pratapas said that on Oct. 14, the network accepted Brazile’s resignation.
“On October 14th, CNN accepted Donna Brazile’s resignation as a CNN contributor. [Her deal had previously been suspended in July when she became the interim head of the DNC.] CNN never gave Brazile access to any questions, prep material, attendee list, background information or meetings in advance of a town hall or debate. We are completely uncomfortable with what we have learned about her interactions with the Clinton campaign while she was a CNN contributor,” Pratapas said.
In a tweet, Brazile thanked CNN and her now former colleagues there.
“Thank you @CNN. Honored to be a Democratic Strategist and commentator on the network. Godspeed to all my former colleagues,” she wrote.
A CNN employee, speaking on background, suggested Brazile may have met the woman who was supposed to pose the question about lead poisoning during a service event planned the day before the debate.
OH MY … DONNA BRAZILE GETS DESTROYED BY MEGYN KELLY!!!
Megyn Kelly was confronted with Wilileaks emails where Donna Brazile was given a debate question. Brazile could not answer the question and was more concerned that her email was stolen than answering the question. game, set match!!! DONNA BRAZILE LOOKED TERRIBLE AND SOUNDED WORSE. Former head of the DNC, Debbie Wasserman Schultz was fired for the exact same thing. How does Donna Brazile still have a job?
A new email obtained by POLITICO is shedding more light on the mystery of whether and how interim DNC chair Donna Brazile might have obtained the text of a proposed question from a town hall between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders in advance, and possibly shared it with the Clinton campaign.
And now CNN, which co-hosted the town hall with cable network TV One, is pointing the finger at its media partner for what appears to be a breach of the traditional secrecy surrounding the questions for such events.
The email obtained by POLITICO was written by town hall co-moderator Roland Martin on the day of the town hall to CNN producers. But it shows him using word for word the language of a question that Brazile appeared to have sent to the Clinton campaign a day earlier.
Third Presidential Debate Discuss Abortion … OMG Hillary Clinton Wants to Kill Babies in the 9th Month … Isn’t that Infanticide?
WAKE UP CATHOLICS AND EVANGELICALS … HILLARY IS FOR LATE TERM ABORTION AND WANTS TO KILL BABIES IN THE 9TH MONTH.
It’s too bad that the unborn can’t vote … maybe they would have a chance that way with Hillary as she could pander for their vote. Since they can’t, she could care less.
During tonight’s third presidential debate, the candidate were asked about Roe v. Wade and justices to the SCOTUS they would nominate. From Hillary, chilling, simply chilling. Hillary is not just pro-choice, she is for late term abortion in the 7th, 8th and 9th month. Are you kidding? What kind of sick bastard supports that? This is what is called infanticide. Thank you Donald Trump for standing up for the unborn tonight. Okay “Never Trumpers” are you going to allow that heinous individual in the White House? Hillary stated something rather interesting when she was supporting killing a viable baby at 8 and 9 months, “I can tell you the government has no business in the decisions that women make with their families in accordance with their faith, with medical advice”.
Why is it that Hillary thinks the government has no business telling a women what to do but she certainly has no problem having the government interfering in our lives. Why just women Hillary? Note to Hillary … The government has no business interfering in “We the People’s” lives!!!
Wallace: I’m going to give you a chance to respond, but I want to ask you, Secretary Clinton, how far you believe the right to abortion goes. You have been quoted as saying that the fetus has no constitutional rights. You also voted against a ban on late-term partial-birth abortions. Why?
Clinton: Because Roe v. Wade very clearly sets out that there can be regulations on abortion so long as the life and the health of the mother are taken into account. And when I voted as a senator, I did not think that that was the case. The kinds of cases that fall at the end of pregnancy are often the most heartbreaking, painful decisions for families to make. I have met with women who toward the end of their pregnancy get the worst news one could get, that their health is in jeopardy if they continue to carry to term or that something terrible has happened or just been discovered about the pregnancy. I do not think the United States government should be stepping in and making those most personal of decisions. So you can regulate if you are doing so with the life and the health of the mother taken into account.
Wallace: Mr. Trump, your reaction, and particularly on this issue of late-term partial birth abortion.
Trump: I think it’s terrible if you go with what Hillary is saying in the ninth month you can take the baby and rip the baby out of the womb of the mother just prior to the birth of the baby.
Now, you can say that that’s okay, and Hillary can say that that’s okay, but it’s not okay with me. Because based on what she’s saying and based on where she’s going and where she’s been, you can take the baby and rip the baby out of the womb in the ninth month, only the final day. And that’s not acceptable.
Clinton: Well, that is not what happens in these cases. And using that kind of scare rhetoric is just terribly unfortunate. You should meet with some of the women that I’ve met with. Women I’ve known over the course of my life.
This is one of the worst possible choices that any woman and her family has to make. I do not believe the government should be making it. I’ve been to countries where governments forced women to have abortions like they did in China or force women to bear children like they used to do in Romania. I can tell you the government has no business in the decisions that women make with their families in accordance with their faith, with medical advice, and I will stand up for that right.
Wallace: All right. Just briefly, I want to move on.
Trump: And honestly, nobody has business doing what I just said, doing that as late as one or two or three or four days prior to birth, nobody has that.
NYT/CNBC’s Debate Moderator John Harwood Advises Clinton Campaign & Gloats About Provoking Donald Trump At GOP Primary Debate
AS IF YOU NEEDED MORE INFO TO SHOW THAT THE MSM WAS NOT IN THE TANK FOR HILLARY CLINTON …
The latest Wikileaks emails show that NYT/CNBC’s John Harwood purposely tried to provoke Donald Trump in a Republican primary debate and than later gloated about it to Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta. UNREAL. What a shock, anther cozy relationship between the MSM and the Democrat party’s presidential nominee. Harwood also emailed Podesta last year in May alerting him to watch out for Ben Carson’s campaign. Isn’t the media supposed to report and investigate the candidates, not be in bed with them?
This crap has got to come to an end. The medias job is to inform the people, not be a propaganda wing of the Democrat party.
The latest batch of emails from the account of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta show New York Times reporter and CNBC anchor John Harwood giving the Clinton campaign tips about other candidates and bragging about feeling vindicated by provoking Donald Trump as a debate moderator.
In a December 2015 email to Podesta, Harwood bragged about his much-criticized debate performance in which he asked Trump “Let’s be honest, is this a comic book version of a presidential campaign?”
Harwood titled the email “I imagine…” and continued the sentence in the body of the email, writing, “…that Obama feels some (sad) vindication at this demonstration of his years-long point about the opposition party veering off the rails.”
Following the pathetic performance by moderator John Harwood, Trump ripped him a new one and later said, Harwood’s carer is over or severely threatened. After getting caught with the above kind of email and that he is obviously in the tank for Hillary and part of the Democrat media complex, his career should be over.
#Lying Crooked Hillary: Debate Moderators Let Hillary Slide When Her ‘Syrian Red Line’ Fact Check Claims Turned Out to be False
EVEN UPON FACT CHECKING OF TRUMP’S COMMENT … HILLARY CLINTON IS A LIAR!!!
Make no mistake about it America, Hillary Clinton is a liar. She has been, is currently and forever will be incapable of telling the truth. Why, because no one holds her accountable or to any standard. Take the second 2016 Presidential debate where even the moderators refused to call her out on her lie. During the debate, Donald trump stated that Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State when President Barack Obama drew the dubious and so-called Syrian “line in the sand” ultimatum. However, Clinton was quick to say that it needed to be fact checked and go to her website, where of course one could get a bunch of Hillary Clinton mind-dumb, Kool-Aid drinking zombies lying for Hillary. Guess what, according to actual Fact Checking, Hillary Clinton was the Secretary of State when Obama drew the co-called line. But guess what, the moderators sat on their hands and said nothing, even Martha Raddatz who is supposed to be a Middle East expert and knew damn well that Clinton was Secretary of State when the comment was made. But she certainly had no problem confronting and at times debating Donald Trump during the debate. Hmm, imagine that?
Is this what you want America, the most dishonest and corrupt candidate ever to run for the Oval Office to be President of the United States?
Politifact weighed in, calling the statement “mostly false” based on the following timeline:
- August, 2012: President Obama makes the “red line” comment for the first time.
- December, 2012: Secretary of State Clinton reiterates the term at a summit in Prague, amid rumors that Assad is moving chemical weapons in preparation for attacks.
- January, 2013: Secretary of State Clinton brings up the “red line” again, this time in an interview.
- February, 2013: Clinton steps down as Secretary of State.
- August, 2013: White House announces that they have “assessed with high confidence” that Syria has used chemical weapons, crossing the “red line.”