Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Friday, November 03, 2017

PROOF that Donna Brazile is lying. The damning word: "FINAL"

This post will soon present proof that Donna Brazile lied about the agreement which she says Hillary signed with the DNC. I hope that readers will spread the word.

But before we get to that, let's look at another piece of evidence. We now know that that the Russians are -- at the very least -- doing their best to create intra-party rancor among the Dems:

I found the chart here.
8 of the top 10 trending topics on @SecureDemocracy's Russian propaganda tracker are about the DNC/Democratic primary controversy.
Here is the Securing Democracy website, and here is their Twitter feed. Obviously, the Russians are capitalizing on Elizabeth Warren's statement this morning. She's a good woman who foolishly fell into a trap.

I will now present proof that Warren should have viewed Brazile's claims with more suspicion.

The Brazile fabrication. In our previous installment, we noted that the "damning" document referenced by Donna Brazile is not online. This absence is suspicious. If the thing reads the way she says it reads, there would have been a link to a pdf.

Strangely, this odd absence did not stop some of the early comments -- the ones from "ordinary readers" -- from discussing the way the document was supposedly worded. Such debates offer further evidence for my theory that right-wing troll network knew about Brazile's piece before Politico published it.

The same thought may have occurred to you that occurred to me: If this document is real, then why didn't we see it when the Russians hacked the DNC? This morning, Josh Marshall published a fascinating find...
There is what at least appears to be a draft of the agreement in the Wikileaks Podesta cache of all places and from what I can tell it doesn’t include any of this.
By "this," Marshall refers to the parts of the agreement that are not "kosher." We know about these parts only from Brazile; we have no other evidence that this material exists. Everything in the document we have is, in fact, perfectly "kosher" and innocent.

Marshall goes on to offer these caveats:
Again, that version is just a draft. The final copy could definitely have included other codicils or side agreements. It’s possible I’m misinterpreting the document. I’d ask campaign types to take a look.
You can find the Wikileaks version of the agreement here. It's a Word document. It doesn't look like a draft to me. Absolutely nothing about it indicates a draft. It's very detailed and well-formatted, with a codicil and spaces for signatures.

Moreover: The file is not labeled "DRAFT." It is labeled "FINAL."

It seems obvious that either the Russians or stateside Trump supporters found this FINAL agreement in the DNC cache and decided to use a falsified version to whip up some Hillary-hate just when things were looking bleak for Trump. By washing the falsifications through Brazile, they don't have to show an actual document. She can function as the fall guy if and when the whole thing is shown to be bogus.

They've done this sort of thing before. Remember this exercise in creative writing?

Why did Brazile go along with the plan? I don't know, but I suspect that she had an encounter with some James-Spader-as-Raymond-Reddington type. I don't know the carrot and I don't know the stick, but I do know that nearly everyone can be manipulated and pressured.

I've signed a few agreements in my time. I have never seen a draft agreement labeled "FINAL" -- and neither, I'm pretty sure, have you. Lawyers are very careful about such things.

Let us suppose, hypothetically, that the Wikileaks document really did bear the label "DRAFT." Have you ever seen so drastic a rewrite between the draft and the final version? Offhand, I cannot recall reading about a legal agreement which was drafted to say one thing and then massively re-worded to say something extremely different.

(Well, there's a rather involved story about the Schedule of Abjuration signed by Joan of Arc, but that's going back a ways. Maybe I'll tell the tale one of these weekends, after Trump leaves office.)

I'd like to hear from the readers: Do you know of a precedent for this sort of thing? Have you ever seen a "draft" agreement that was labeled "FINAL"?
The obvious fact that most Democrats refuse to grasp is that most of the people who are playing them are not in fact democrats. They allowed them to infiltrate the party and cause division. They are not people with principals or values. At least not the ones Democrats believe in. The only way out I can see at this point is for Democrats to rally around the real democrats and kick the bums out. They are not helping anyone so I am sure they will not be missed. Enough is enough.
I checked the link and opened the Word document. It appears that the document was saved with the word "Final" as part of it's name. The actual document does not have "FINAL" at the top. I have seen documents saved with "final" in its name. Every practice of law is different. In corporate practice, you usually see the words, "Execution Copy" at the top right, first page of the Word version with all the dates, signatures, etc. filled in. Signatures are indicated like this: /s/Joseph Cannon. I would typically rely on a version as being final if it was sent to me looking like that. Internally, I've seen documents with an inked stamp "FINAL" on the front page. It's possible that someone saved the final draft with the word "final" in its pathline. In my experience, there can be many "final" drafts. I laugh! So exhausting to deal with, which is why I don't rely on them until they're executed. RE Donna Brazile, years ago I seem to recall that you pointed out how Donna made a deal to get Obama the nomination behind Hillary's back. Am I remembering that incorrectly? I recall that it was opined that Donna hated Hillary, so this was no surprise to me. Sad about EW though.
I'm a lawyer, but not a transactional lawyer, so my experience with drafts back and forth is not huge. In fact, it pretty much dates back to the days before faxes. However, I would generally agree that it is far more likely than not that a file doesn't get called final as an expression of hope rather than a statement of fact.

The part I take issue with is whether agreements sometimes change dramatically over the course of negotiations. That can and does happen, especially in cases where one side has far more power in the relationship than the other.
Citizen K, I can't claim to have had wide experience of legal agreements, but I have had some. In my life, a draft was always labeled a DRAFT and a final agreement was always labeled FINAL.
Joseph, my experience is limited to capital markets, corporate governance, SEC filings, M&A, derivatives, executive compensation and some restructuring. If I could pull up a library of the last fifteen years or so, of all the docs saved, you'd see a million "final" docs that weren't final. Even a few "Execution Version" copies that turned out to be the almost last version. Heh. Other practices may be different (real estate, tax, estate planning, contract law). I have reviewed due diligence that's included campaign documents - they were typically messy and didn't follow a pattern. All I'm saying is, it doesn't mean a lot that the document was saved with the word "final" in its pathline. One is more likely to see "draft" on the first page or as part of the header of the document. "Final" or Execution Version" on the absolute last version of the Word document, the version that is
printed and executed. There was nothing like that on the first page of Word document at the link. Corporate attorneys are notorious for never actually drafting something from scratch. They rely heavily on precedent which leads to the use and re-use of old Word documents (which might have been saved with "final" in its pathline), which they mark up, recirculate and maybe never rename. There was nothing about the appearance of the document at the link that led me to believe it was a final document. It is simple enough to d/l the doc and save it with any name.
This whole story reeks of suspicion. Of all times to do this, why did Donna Brazile decide to do this less than one week before an election?! The timing is extremely suspect, as if it's done to do maximum damage, and the fact that this crap is coming from a longtime Democrat only increases my pessimism of the whole event. Then Elizabeth Warren piles on? What a bunch of clowns. I knew the high of Indictment Monday wouldn't last.

And this should put a rest once and for all that Hillary's decision to use a private email server, and her handling of it, had anything to do with her negative image. This latest Brazile stunt proves for the umpteenth time that Hillary's opponents across the political spectrum will have no shame in literally making stuff up to smear her. Any fool who thinks the problem with Hillary is that she brings the scandals on herself, or her handling of them, is either a Hillary hater themselves or knows nothing about American politics and can be safely ignored. And God help them if they think there's anyone the Democrats can nominate that won't immediately be painted as corrupt and scandalous.
when I read Donna B's article late last night I immediately thought two things: the ARROGANCE of Bernie the rip-off artist running as a Dem to divide the vote & ultimately destroy democracy in this country while Hillary kept the DNC afloat - & two, God I hope Cannon sees this shit & tears the mask off it. THANK YOU for caring & researching…
Amazing. Democrats seem to fall for this nonsense every time--send out a hit job, provide a smoky diversion and then give your opponents something to bleat about. How curious is that when news regarding the WH is bleak and bleaker?

I'm disappointed in Brazile and in Liz Warren. Donna is backpedaling now, saying 'no, the primary was not rigged.' But, of course, the damaging meme has already done what it was meant to do. Then there are the satellite barkers on the Far Left, stirring up shit: "Bernie was robbed and would have won the 2016 General Election!" Yeah, when pigs fly. And Democrats for America (centered in Burlington, VT, of course) slams Northam in Virginia, screaming he's a racist and liar. There's a 3.6 pt spread favoring Northam at the moment before Tuesday's Gubernatorial election. So, of course, the Bernie Bros decide to pile on. Because Gillespie will be so-o-o much better for immigrants. The Far Lefties are sailing on the Ship of Fools.

You can't make this stuff up. When the generic numbers favor Democrats anywhere from 8-10 pts, who benefits from these accusations and controversies? Not Dems, that's for damn sure. Was this all about Donna B. wanting to sell a book? A publisher that wanted to spark interest? Or something more nefarious, stirred up by opponents, enemies and/or fifth column types.

With Liz Warren? This may simply prove that Warren is a politician with half an eye on 2020 and a desire to shore up that left flank. She certainly doesn't need to worry about her Senate race in 2018. Unlike Hillary Clinton, she'll be readily forgiven, maybe even applauded for being politically savvy. Nonetheless, I find the whole thing disappointing.

There's only one thing Dems need to focus on: winning elections this year and next. You'd think that would easy with a favorable margin at our backs. Apparently not.

Suicide is so more attractive. For the Party. For the Country.

I hope Democrats ignore Donna Brazile's b.s. She has been worthless to the Democrats for years. She is probably a tool for the "other side," meaning Trump and the Russians, just like good old Bernie.
So let me get this straight, first off all the dems say the wikileaks drop was bs, but now you want to use one of those bs documents to prove your case? Plus your big huge climatic evidence is that it says "FINAL", which someone here already commented that, that could also mean final draft. And on top of all this, out of all the corruption brought out in the wikileaks drop, this is the only thing you care about, right? Not any of those other emails exposing hillary and podesta? No, they are all just fabrication and lies right? That is until you can use one to your own advantage, then i guess at least that "one" document is real, right? And yet you still waive your flag for hillary....., sad, man i can't wait til she's in handcuffs, keep your eyes open dems, it may be coming sooner than you think.... :-P

Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is 

powered by Blogger. 

Isn't yours?

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Image and video hosting by TinyPic