As one reads the wretched news of how Hillary Clinton came to take over the Democratic Party and snatch the nomination from rival Bernie Sanders, in thememoirs of former DNC acting chair Donna Brazile, it's striking how the central persuading dynamic of it is money. As Fox News' Greg Jarrett explained:
According to Brazile, the DNC went broke under the leadership of Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz. This dire circumstance presented a perfect scenario for Clinton to seize command of the party apparatus by paying off its debt of roughly $20 million dollars. But in exchange, the DNC executed a written, albeit hidden, agreement transferring to Clinton the committee’s finances, strategy, and money raised -- all to the benefit of Clinton and to the detriment of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, her primary opponent.Even more deceptions and money shuffling ensued. It was a clever and complicated stratagem, but here is the simple version. During Clinton’s joint fundraising events with the DNC and state parties held across the nation, more than $82 million was raised. The states immediately kicked back nearly all of their share to the DNC which, in turn, kicked back their share and the states’ share to Clinton’s campaign.With Clinton in control of the Democratic party’s staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, mailings and money, she was able to overcome the serious primary challenge by Sanders in securing the nomination. The DNC, which was supposed to remain neutral, had been neutered by Clinton. It devolved into nothing more than a willing accessory to a devious scheme for Clinton’s campaign to get rich at the expense of Sanders.There appears to be little doubt that Clinton rigged the election process.
Basically, Clinton bought her way to access to power because she had more money than Bernie Sanders did. Bernie's smalltime donor-based money pile proved to be no match for Hillary's kookabucks. The millions and millions she had from her pay to play operations that moved through her foundation and were so irregular of bookkeeping control that no philanthropy rating agency would rate them. Most of the foundation's work went to personal expenses, which could mean anything.
Including, quite possibly, campaign finance and bailing out the DNC. Which is why, as Jarrett points out, a Special Counsel ought to be named, targeting her activities.
Because given the scope of the pay to play activities at the foundation, including the Russia-linked $145 million that came in in the wake of the Uranium One sale, it might just mean that Clinton's DNC takeover was effectively foreign-financed, wittingly or not. It may mean Russian money effectively allowed Hillary to snatch control of the DNC, and take the nomination from Bernie.
Hillary had more money than Bernie and that money came from gamy sources. Did Hillary's takeover of the DNC amount to Russia's takeover of the DNC? What a strange twist this could be, given the yelling from the Clinton camp about Russian collusion.
A Special Counsel ought to be appointed to sorrt this out.