Donna Brazile – Brain-Dead Buffalo?

by Paul R. Hollrah –

On June 4, 2016, the Democratic National Committee announced that its computers had been hacked.  They blamed a Russia-based group with possible ties to Russian intelligence agencies.  Days later, a self-proclaimed hacker known as “Guccifer 2.0” leaked sensitive DNC documents, including thousands of emails stolen from the DNC and from the personal email account of John Podesta, Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman.  The hacker claimed credit for passing more than 19,000 of those emails to WikiLeaks, which released the emails just days prior to the start of the 2016 Democratic National Convention.

As those emails became public, the American people learned the extent to which the Clinton campaign and the DNC, led by Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), had conspired to deny the 2016 presidential nomination to all but Hillary Rodham Clinton.  Although Wasserman Schultz was directly implicated in the scheme, she managed to hold onto the DNC chairmanship until July 24, 2016, just hours before the start of the 2016 Democratic convention.  She was then forced to resign and longtime party activist, Donna Brazile, was named interim DNC chair.

It was then that Democrats learned the extent of the corruption at the highest levels of their party and the Clinton campaign, and Donna Brazile came face-to-face with the true character and nature of Hillary Rodham Clinton, the woman she was charged with electing as the first female president of the United States.

Just forty-five days later, on September 7, 2016, Brazile was present when NBC hosted what was billed as a Commander-in-Chief Forum, featuring one-om-one Clinton and Trump interviews with Today Show host Matt Lauer.

During the interview with Clinton, Lauer posed a question that she was not prepared for, and which she had not approved in advance: he questioned her about the FBI investigation into her private email server and her unsecured State Department emails.  As NBC technicians and cameramen looked on, Clinton experienced a “complete emotional meltdown.”  When the interview was over, Clinton expressed her displeasure at being “blind-sided.”  She smiled one last time for the camera, shook Lauer’s hand, and then proceeded to throw a full glass of water into the face of one of her aides.

According to those present, Hillary went ballistic, throwing a huge tantrum and screaming at her staff, “You f***ing idiots!  You were supposed to have this thing set up for me and you’ve screwed it up!  If that f***ing bastard (Trump) wins we’ll all hang from nooses!  Lauer’s finished… and if I lose it’s all on you ***holes for screwing this up.”  Turning to Donna Brazile, she screamed, “I’m so sick of your face.  You stare at the wall like a brain-dead buffalo, while letting that f***ing Lauer get away with this.  What are you good for… really?   Get the f*** to work janitoring this mess.  Do I make myself clear?”

As one female NBC executive reported, “Donna Brazile looked at Mrs. Clinton and never flinched, which seemed to enrage Hillary all the more.  It was the most awful, and terrible, and racist display… such a profane meltdown I have never witnessed from anyone, and I will never forget it.  That woman should never see the inside of the Oval Office… she was out of control.”

Brazile was also present in the Clinton hotel suite in New York on the evening of November 8, 2016, as the world received the shocking news that Donald Trump had been elected President of the United States.  According to a CNN reporter present in the hotel suite, Hillary was so blinded by rage that she physically assaulted campaign manager Robbie Mook and campaign chairman John Podesta.

To even begin to understand the “dog’s breakfast” that is now the Democratic Party, it is necessary to take a few steps back from the sound and fury of the almost daily blockbuster revelations.

First, it is necessary to understand the basic motivations of the principal parties.  First and foremost, we have the desire of Russian President Vladimir Putin to control as much of the world’s uranium reserves as possible.  On June 8, 2010, Uranium One, a Canadian company, 20% of which is owned by the Russian nuclear agency Rosatom, announced it had signed an agreement that would give “not less than 51%” of the company to JSC Atomredmetzoloto, or ARNZ, the mining arm of Rosatom.  According to the US Nuclear Energy Agency, Uranium One’s two licensed mining operations in Wyoming amounted to about “20% of the currently licensed uranium in-situ recovery production capacity in the U.S.”

However, in order to acquire the rights to that uranium it was necessary to have the transaction approved by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), described by the US Treasury Department as “an inter-agency committee authorized to review transactions that could result in control of a U.S. business by a foreign person, in order to determine the effect of such transactions on the national security of the United States.”  CFIUS is currently comprised of the Secretary of the Treasury (Chairman), the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Assistant to the President for Economic Affairs, and the Executive Director of the Council on International Economic Policy.

But that approval requirement posed a problem:  One of the principal members of the committee was US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, a woman whom Putin thoroughly disliked and held in little regard.  In fact, the “bad blood” between Clinton and Putin erupted into the open in March 2014 when, in response to a question about Putin’s actions in sending thousands of Russian troops into eastern Ukraine, Clinton responded, “It’s what Hitler did back in the 30s.”

Then, on June 4, 2014, Putin struck back with a sexist put-down, saying, “It’s better not to argue with women.”  He went on to suggest that Clinton was weak and that, “maybe weakness is not the worst quality for a woman.”

But Putin had always understood the Clintons’ fondness for money.  And as the Russians assumed control of Uranium One’s uranium assets between 2009 and 2013, Canadian records show a flow of cash into the Clinton Foundation.  In fact, published reports tell us that nine investors in the deal funneled some $145 million to the Clinton Foundation… contributions that were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Hillary Clinton had with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors to the foundation.

In addition, on June 20, 2010, just twelve days after Uranium One announced its intention to sell “not less than 51%” of its uranium reserves to the mining arm of Rosatom, but prior to the time that Hillary Clinton signed off on the transaction, Bill Clinton earned a $500,000 speaking fee for a speech he delivered to a Russian investment bank with ties to the Kremlin… a bank that was actively promoting Uranium One stock.  In other words, while there was no love lost between the Clintons and the Russian oligarchs, there was nothing like truckloads of cash and a sizeable chunk of the world’s uranium reserves to salve old animosities and bruised egos.

Two years later, recollections of the Uranium One transaction being fresh in everyone’s minds, the success of that collaboration may have served to grease the skids for the Clinton campaign and the DNC to seek Russian help in developing dirt on Donald Trump.

According to an October 24, 2017 story in the Washington Post, the Clinton campaign and the DNC admitted to having laundered some $12 million through Marc Elias and the Perkins Coie law firm as their portion of the cost of developing the Trump dossier.  Perkins Coie hired a Washington political consulting firm, Fusion GPS, in April 2016; Fusion GPS utilized the services of a former British MI6 agent, Christopher Steele; who, in turn, paid Russian government sources for dirt on Trump… real or imagined.

Although $12 million is pocket change compared to the $145 million the Clinton Foundation received during the same time period of the Uranium One transaction, it is still a great deal of money to spread around between a Washington consulting firm, a former British MI6 agent middleman, and a crew of Russian intelligence operatives looking for some easy money.

When the dossier was leaked to CNN and published in full by the BuzzFeed website just ten days before Trump’s inauguration, it was accompanied by a disclaimer, saying, “The allegations are unverified, and the report contains errors.”  In fact, those familiar with details of the dossier insist that none of the allegations contained therein have proven to be true.  Nevertheless, when the leaked document was said to have exposed ties between the Trump campaign and the Russians, as well as some rather unsavory activity between Trump and Russian prostitutes, it is alleged that the FBI not only underwrote a portion of the cost of the dossier, but used some of its bogus allegations as evidence before a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) judge to obtain a warrant allowing them to spy on the Trump organization.

If that is true, we now have just the beginning of a scandal that will soil the FBI forever.  That is where we find ourselves today, asking why all of the attention seems to be directed toward Donald Trump and his alleged “collusion” with Russians, when it appears that whatever collusion occurred was between the DNC, the Clinton campaign, and the Russians.

One does not have to know Donna Brazile personally to know that she is a proud woman… a woman who will not take verbal abuse lying down.  So, is it any wonder that, when Clinton appeared to collapse while leaving the 9/11 commemoration at Ground Zero on September 11, 2016, Brazile admits to having considered replacing her at the top of the Democratic ticket… a fact that is certain to have made its way back to the Clintons?  If so, Brazile has a very large target on her back.

When Donna Brazile suddenly found herself heading the disjointed DNC, she apparently tried to do all the right things.  But whatever she might be, she is not a “brain-dead buffalo,” as Hillary Clinton apparently believes.  She may even be the only honest Democrat in captivity.
| November 13, 2017

Paul R. Hollrah is a retired government relations executive and a two-time member of the U.S. Electoral College.  He currently lives and writes among the hills and lakes of northeast Oklahoma’s Green Country.

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply