The Answer to Hank Stolz’s Donna Brazile Question

by Datechguy | November 2nd, 2016

Readability

The Answer to Hank Stolz's Donna Brazile Question

Yes­ter­day on WCRN Hank Stolz com­mented on the rev­e­la­tions con­cern­ing Donna Brazile fun­nel­ing debate ques­tions to the Hillary Clin­ton cam­paign which caused CNN to drop her (although appar­ently it didn’t cause CNN to devote a lot of air time to the story).

In the course of his com­ments he asked what would seem to be a log­i­cal ques­tion and I’m para­phras­ing here: Why would she bother to do so?

Sev­eral of the ques­tions could have been antic­i­pated and were on top­ics that she was likely pre­pared for, that being the case, why would she bother to take the risk of scan­dalous behav­ior for a seem­ingly min­i­mal advantage?

It is seem­ingly a very good ques­tion how­ever the answer is very obvi­ous: Why wouldn’t she?

Con­sider:

  • There was appar­ently no rea­son to believe the peo­ple she con­tacted in the Clin­ton cam­paign would object to refuse or divulge the recep­tion the inside information
  • There was appar­ently no rea­son to believe that Hillary Clin­ton her­self or any of her debate prep han­dlers would would be passed this info would object to, refuse or expose her divulging inside information.
  • There was appar­ently no rea­son to believe that the any such per­son would give a tip to the media about the divulging of this infor­ma­tion or appar­ently the media both­er­ing to report on it.
  • And There was appar­ently no rea­son to believe that the media would pur­sue this ques­tion on their own.

She didn’t worry about the dan­gers of being caught because she knew that nei­ther the Clin­ton cam­paign nor the media that sup­ports it would have any incli­na­tion to try to catch or expose her but she had pos­i­tive evi­dence that any attempt to claim that the fix was in would be met with uni­ver­sal deri­sion and ridicule by the media.

In other words she had no rea­son to believe there would be any con­se­quences for her actions so why shouldn’t she do these things?

It was only through Wik­ileaks that this infor­ma­tion came out, and this was some­thing she did not antic­i­pate nor did she have rea­son to do so at the time of her actions.

A bet­ter ques­tion for Hank to ask is this: Given the com­plete lack of risk of expo­sure for these actions, how many years do you think peo­ple like Donna Brazile were “fix­ing” debates in this way? As the Hill put it:

Amer­i­cans now have rea­son to won­der about the other debates and who else in the so-​called unbi­ased media world was seek­ing to assist the Clin­ton cam­paign by sneak­ing her a pre­view of ques­tions or tilt­ing the news in her favor. Such think­ing is no longer cyn­i­cal; it’s just real­is­tic as we’ve seen just how wide­spread the cor­rup­tion and bias goes.

And if peo­ple are will­ing to cheat in the debates, what else wouldn’t they jus­tify cheat­ing on to accom­plish their ends?

Clos­ing thought: I have for many years pub­licly objected to wik­ileaks and anony­mous and still do. I don’t like hack­ing and believe in per­sonal pri­vacy. The ques­tion is: Given the fact that there is every rea­son to believe this illegal/​immoral behav­ior would have con­tin­ued unabated with­out these expo­sures, can these actions be jus­ti­fied as a form of “guer­rilla jour­nal­ism” to keep our rulers hon­est? Par­tic­u­larly give the fact that almost nobody in the MSM is ask­ing the obvi­ous ques­tion raised at the Hill, cer­tainly not on TV anyways.


If you’d like to help sup­port inde­pen­dent non MSM jour­nal­ism and opin­ion please con­sider hit­ting DaTipJar




[olimome­ter id=3]

Please con­sider Sub­scrib­ing. Right now our sub­scribers con­sist of 150 of 1% of our total unique vis­i­tors based on last years numbers.

If we can get another 150 sub­scribers at $10 a month (another 110 of 1% of those who have vis­ited this year) We can meet our annual goals with no trou­ble, with the same num­ber of sub­scribers at $20 a month I could afford to cover the pres­i­den­tial cam­paign out­side of New Eng­land firsthand.

And of course at that price you get the Da Mag­nif­i­cent Seven plus those we hope to add on and all sub­scribers get my weekly pod­cast emailed directly to you before it goes up any­where else.


Choose a Sub­scrip­tion level



Yesterday on WCRN Hank Stolz commented on the revelations concerning Donna Brazile funneling debate questions to the Hillary Clinton campaign which caused CNN to drop her (although apparently it didn’t cause CNN to devote a lot of air time to the story).

In the course of his comments he asked what would seem to be a logical question and I’m paraphrasing here: Why would she bother to do so?

Several of the questions could have been anticipated and were on topics that she was likely prepared for, that being the case, why would she bother to take the risk of scandalous behavior for a seemingly minimal advantage?

It is seemingly a very good question however the answer is very obvious: Why wouldn’t she?

Consider:

  • There was apparently no reason to believe the people she contacted in the Clinton campaign would object to refuse or divulge the reception the inside information
  • There was apparently no reason to believe that Hillary Clinton herself or any of her debate prep handlers would would be passed this info would object to, refuse or expose her divulging inside information.
  • There was apparently no reason to believe that the any such person would give a tip to the media about the divulging of this information or apparently the media bothering to report on it.
  • And There was apparently no reason to believe that the media would pursue this question on their own.

She didn’t worry about the dangers of being caught because she knew that neither the Clinton campaign nor the media that supports it would have any inclination to try to catch or expose her but she had positive evidence that any attempt to claim that the fix was in would be met with universal derision and ridicule by the media.

In other words she had no reason to believe there would be any consequences for her actions so why shouldn’t she do these things?

It was only through Wikileaks  that this information came out, and this was something she did not anticipate nor did she have reason to do so at the time of her actions.

A better question for Hank to ask is this:  Given the complete lack of risk of exposure for these actions, how many years do you think people like Donna Brazile were “fixing” debates in this way?  As the Hill put it:

Americans now have reason to wonder about the other debates and who else in the so-called unbiased media world was seeking to assist the Clinton campaign by sneaking her a preview of questions or tilting the news in her favor. Such thinking is no longer cynical; it’s just realistic as we’ve seen just how widespread the corruption and bias goes.

And if people are willing to cheat in the debates, what else wouldn’t they justify cheating on to accomplish their ends?

Closing thought:  I have for many years publicly objected to wikileaks and anonymous and still do.  I don’t like hacking and believe in personal privacy.  The question is:  Given the fact that there is every reason to believe this illegal/immoral behavior would have continued unabated without these exposures,  can these actions be justified as a form of “guerrilla journalism” to keep our rulers honest?  Particularly give the fact that almost nobody in the MSM is asking the obvious question raised at the Hill, certainly not on TV anyways.


If you’d like to help support independent non MSM journalism and opinion please consider hitting DaTipJar




Olimometer 2.52

Please consider Subscribing. Right now our subscribers consist of 1/50 of 1% of our total unique visitors based on last years numbers.

If we can get another 150 subscribers at $10 a month (another 1/10 of 1% of those who have visited this year) We can meet our annual goals with no trouble, with the same number of subscribers at $20 a month I could afford to cover the presidential campaign outside of New England firsthand.

And of course at that price you get the Da Magnificent Seven plus those we hope to add on and all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.


Choose a Subscription level



Buy My Book!

Buy My Book!

Hit DaTipJar and Support Conservative Journalism & Opinion




Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 4,146 other subscribers

DH Gate Dot Com, Online Shopping

Cheap ecigarette from China - DHgate

Best Grassroots Blogs

Winner - 2014 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Catholic CD of the Month

Know your Catholic Faith

Da Pages

Winner - 2014 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Donald Trump Calls on DaTechGuy Worcester MA

 
%d bloggers like this: