Was Democratic Primary Rigged Against Bernie Sanders? Elizabeth Warren Says ‘Yes’

The Massachusetts senator added that Democrats must “recognize the process was rigged” and “build a new process, a process that really works, and works for everyone.”

(COMMONDREAMS) — When asked by CNN‘s Jake Tapper in an interview on Thursday if she believes the 2016 Democratic primary was “rigged” in favor of Hillary Clinton against Bernie Sanders, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) gave a definitive one-word answer: “Yes.”

Tapper’s question came in response to the bombshell piece by former interim Democratic National Committee (DNC) chair Donna Brazile, which detailed the party organization’s “unethical” fundraising agreement with former Secretary of State Clinton’s presidential campaign.

Elizabeth Warren says she agrees with the notion that the 2016 Democratic nomination was rigged in Clinton"s favor https://t.co/Z6KpCGJj4Q

— CNN Politics (@CNNPolitics) November 2, 2017

Warren emphasized that DNC chair Tom Perez now faces a crucial “test”: whether he can succeed in “bringing Bernie Sanders and Bernie Sanders representatives into this process” and convincing progressives that the party is committed to a “fair” process that people can believe in.

“This is a real problem,” Warren said. “But what we’ve got to do as Democrats now, is we’ve got to hold this party accountable.”

In a separate interview on PBS Newshour on Thursday, Warren said that in order to restore public trust and win elections, Democrats must “recognize the process was rigged and…build a new process, a process that really works, and works for everyone.”

Brazile’s Politico Magazine piece on Thursday—excerpted from her forthcoming book, Hacked—highlighted the so-called “Joint Fundraising Agreement” between the Clinton campaign and the DNC.

The deal effectively handed the Clinton team full control over the DNC’s finances and staffing decisions in exchange for its help in paying off the organization’s $24 million debt.

Brazile’s account immediately sparked a firestorm of outrage on social media, and Sanders backers viewed the piece as vindication of their belief that the Vermont senator was denied a fair shot at the Democratic nomination.

“We all knew that the primary was rigged,” Saikat Chakrabarti, executive director of Justice Democrats, said in a statement responding to Brazile’s article. “But the corruption that plagues the Democratic party is bigger than one primary—it’s become a rot set at the very root of a party claims to be for working people…The American people could prosper if Democrats did more to build unity with the grassroots wing of their party that has a winning message.”

By Jake Johnson / Creative Commons / Common Dreams / Report a typo

This article was chosen for republication based on the interest of our readers. Anti-Media republishes stories from a number of other independent news sources. The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not reflect Anti-Media editorial policy.

CNN's Jake Tapper Spars With Terrorist Advocate Linda Sarsour After She Calls Him Alt-Right

Content originally published at iBankCoin.com

A battle has erupted between CNN"s Jake Tapper and left-wing Muslim activist Linda Sarsour, after Tapper called out the Women"s March group co-chaired by Sarsour after tweeting their support for convicted cop-killing domestic terrorist Assata Shakur, who has been ducking American justice in Cuba since 1984.

Shakur - aunt of deceased rapper Tupac Shakur, is a member of the far-left Black Liberation Army (BLA) and was convicted of the 1977 murder of New Jersey State Trooper Werner Foster during a shootout on the NJ Turnpike. Shakur escaped prison in 1979, and after five years on the run fled to Cuba where she currently lives under political asylum.

In light of Women"s March tweet in support of Shakur, Tapper responded:

Shakur is a cop-killer fugitive in Cuba. This, ugly sentiments from @lsarsour & @dykemarchchi ...Any progressives out there condemning this? https://t.co/rXnHLgE2hR

— Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) July 18, 2017

In response, Sarsour tweeted that the very liberal Tapper had joined "the ranks of the alt-right to target me online."

.@jaketapper joins the ranks of the alt-right to target me online. Welcome to the party.

— Linda Sarsour (@lsarsour) July 18, 2017

Sarsour then slipped into the well worn reactionary identity politics of those with no argument - suggesting that Tapper was perhaps referring to her being a Palestinian, pro-immigrant Muslim.

.@jaketapper please share my "ugly" sentiments? Unapologetically Muslim? Unapologetically Palestinian? Pro-immigrant? Pro-justice? Shame.

— Linda Sarsour (@lsarsour) July 18, 2017

Nope! Tapper responded by calling Sarsour out for attacking actual feminist - Somali-born Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a former Muslim turned atheist and a victim of female genital mutilation (FGM).

Your comment about @Ayaan for one.

— Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) July 18, 2017

Ali (@Ayaan) - a fellow at Harvard Kennedy School of Government and founder of a women"s rights organization, has been a vocal critic of Islam.

A must read article: https://t.co/IICLPmy006

— Ayaan Hirsi Ali (@Ayaan) May 17, 2017

Jake Tapper"s tweet referring to Sarsour"s comments on Ali was in reference to a 2011 tweet in which Sarsour said Ali and was "asking 4 an a$$ whippin,"

Kurt Eichenwald Seizes the Moment

After Sarsour"s alt-right comment Newsweek writer Kurt Eichenwald could no longer bite his tongue - letting Sarsour know that her attack on Tapper was a bad idea...

I"ve paid little attention to controversies involving you. But if ur calling @jaketapper alt-right? Not a big credibility boost for u.

— Kurt Eichenwald (@kurteichenwald) July 19, 2017

Other reactions

Real feminists don"t advocate destroying their opponent"s vaginas while defending regimes that regularly mutilate women"s clitorises.

— Maer Roshan (@MaerRoshan) July 19, 2017

Terrorists Love Terrorists https://t.co/d8nRtTb93f

— ACT for America (@ACTforAmerica) July 18, 2017

I just agreed with @jaketapper ???? pic.twitter.com/WmAKHGpIzn

— Mary Elaine (@PalmBreezy) July 19, 2017

I"m just happy that at least somebody in the media with an influential platform has sounded off on this. Thank you, Jake Tapper.

— Doubting Thomas (@OutrageDenied) July 18, 2017

@womensmarch She Not only shot and killed cops; she robbed a progressive poor church in Brooklyn

— Michael Powell (@powellnyt) July 19, 2017

#LindaSarsour pic.twitter.com/UZQ8ODOuL9

— Eric Allen Bell (@EricAllenBell) July 18, 2017

So liberated...

Follow on Twitter @ZeroPointNow § Subscribe to our YouTube channel

5 CNN figureheads who act more like controlled puppets than newscasters

5. Carol Costello

Carol Costello is an American news anchor and former host of CNN Newsroom. (Screencapture: YouTube)

4. Don Lemon

Don Lemon, host of CNN Tonight (Screencapture: CNN/YouTube)

3. Jake Tapper

Caricature of CNN"s Jake Tapper, host of "The Lead." (DonkeyHotey/Flickr)

2. Chris Cuomo

Chis Cuomo is a TV journalist for CNN (Screencapture: CNN/YouTube)

1. Anderson Cooper

CNN"s Anderson Cooper, host of AC360 (Intellihub)

©2017. INTELLIHUB.COM. All Rights Reserved.

AG Lynch Admits She "Regrets" Tarmac Meeting With Bill Clinton

As yet another member of President Obama"s administration desperately attempts to define their own legacy (with words other than "failed", "rigged", or "favoritism"), Attorney General Loretta Lynch put on her gentlest, quietest voice for an "exit" interview with CNN"s Jake Tapper, admitting she "regretted sitting down" with Bill Clinton because "it gave people concern" and wants to be remembered for ensuring justice to "all Americans."

As The Hill reports, Lynch said Sunday that the fallout from her tarmac meeting with former President Bill Clinton was "painful" for her.

Lorettya Lynch on the fallout over her meeting with Bill Clinton: "It was painful for me" #CNNSOTU https://t.co/w3ewyrtBNb pic.twitter.com/bZA9V0qzrC

— CNN Politics (@CNNPolitics) December 18, 2016

"I do regret sitting down and having a conversation with him, because it did give people concern. And as I said, my greatest concern has always been making sure that people understand that the Department of Justice works in a way that is independent and looks at everybody equally," Lynch said on CNN"s "State of the Union."

"And when you do something that gives people a reason to think differently, that"s a problem. It was a problem for me. It was painful for me, and so I felt it was important to clarify it as quickly and as clearly and as cleanly as possible."

The Clinton campaign has cited Comey"s decision to send a letter to Congress just days before the election about newly discovered emails as one of the reasons she lost.

"But certainly if Bill Clinton hadn"t gotten on the tarmac that time and gone to you, things might have been different," said host Jake Tapper. "You would have had more say. You would have been able to control Comey more ... It might have changed the letter that he gave at the end there."

Lynch replied: "I don"t think it would have changed his view of what he had to say or not say to Congress."

So to be clear, Lynch regrets the meeting only because she was caught and it caused controversy... not because it was clearly a bad judgment call!

But, as Lynch went on to explains, she wants her legacy at DOJ to be one of inclusion...

Once again, defining the narrative is key - "inclusion" - which appears to defined by her and the DoJ as easing and deciminalizing any law-breaking activity that appears to bias against poor or minorities (whether or not they actually broke the law or not). As a reminder, The New York Post noted earlier this year that even a senior Justice Department official predicts the decriminalization-cum-deincarceration movement will backfire in higher crime nationwide. “In five years the crime rate is going to be crazy again,” he said.

The official, who oversees probation of felons paroled from federal prisons and who requested anonymity, worries the new department policy will be abused.

“I don’t see liberal judges even attempting to make people pay or spending the time making an accurate determination of a person being ‘indigent,’ ” he said. “It’s another way of not holding people accountable for their actions.”

The Justice guidance defines “indigent” as anybody who might be “eligible for public benefits,” but not actually receiving them. “Jurisdictions may benefit from creating statutory presumptions of indigency for certain classes of defendants,” the source said.

The administration claims cops and courts conspire to exploit poor blacks to generate city revenue in some kind of shakedown. But data show blacks fail to pay their fines at far greater rates than whites, so why not target whites if cash extortion is the objective?

Many of the cities with the highest fines, such as Philadelphia, are run by Democrats; and the Justice Department is no piker when it comes to levying fines.

“US attorneys always want fines and restitution amounts in the millions from people who have little chance of ever paying it back,” the department official said.

Liberals are actually to blame for the trend they’re trying to reform. Court fines and fees help pay for all the new costs liberals have added to the system, such as drug counseling and home electronic monitoring. They’ve also pushed judges to assess more fines in lieu of incarceration, especially for drug offenders.

Yet now they claim the whole court fine and bail system is racist.

Former federal civil rights attorney Hans Bader, now with the Competitive Enterprise Institute, describes the latest reforms as a “massive assault on the criminal justice system.”

It’s a slippery slope to clemency for criminals, large and small.