"Nothing in this agreement shall be construed to violate the DNC's obligation of impartiality and neutrality through the Nominating process. All activities performed under this agreement will be focused exclusively on preparations for the General Election and not the Democratic Primary. Further we understand you may enter into similar agreements with other candidates."
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/TODAY/z_Creative/DNCMemo (002).pdf
Glen Greenwald has already debunked this and 3 other viral lies spread by DNC operatives and colluding media
The Clinton/DNC agreement cited by Brazile only applied to the general election, not the primary.
On Wednesday, Politico published a blockbuster accusation from Braziles new book: that the DNC had rigged the 2016 primary election for Hillary Clinton through an agreement that gave Clinton control over key aspects of the DNC, a claim that Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., endorsed on CNN. The Clinton camp refused to comment publicly but instead contacted their favorite reporters to publish their response as news.
The following day, NBC published an article by Alex Seitz-Wald that recited and endorsed the Clinton camps primary defense: Brazile was wrong because the agreement in question (a copy of which they provided to Seitz-Wald) applied only to preparations for the general election and had nothing to do with the primary season. That defense, if true, would be fatal to Braziles claims, and so DNC-loyal journalists all over Twitter instantly declared it to be true, thus pronouncing Braziles accusation to have been fully debunked. This post documents how quickly this claim was endorsed on Twitter by journalists and Democratic operatives, and how far and wide it therefore spread.
The problem with this claim is that it is blatantly and obviously false. All one has to do to know this is read the agreement. Unlike the journalists spreading this DNC defense, Campaign Legal Centers Brendan Fischer bothered to read it, and immediately saw and documented how obviously false this claim is:
The NBC article that was originally used to spread this claim now includes what amounts to a serious walk-back, if not outright retraction, of the DNCs principal defense:
DNC and Clinton allies pointed to the fact that the agreement contained self-justifying lawyer language claiming that it is focused exclusively on preparations for the General, but, as Fischer noted, that passage is contradicted by the rest of the agreement. This would be like creating a contract to explicitly bribe an elected official (A will pay Politician B to vote YES on Bill X), then adding a throwaway paragraph with a legalistic disclaimer that nothing in this agreement is intended to constitute a bribe, and then have journalists cite that paragraph to proclaim that no bribe happened even though the agreement on its face explicitly says the opposite.
The Clinton/DNC agreement explicitly vested the Clinton campaign with control over key matters during the primary season: the exact opposite of what journalists on Twitter caused hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people to believe. Nonetheless, DNC-loyal commentators continue to cite headlines and tweets citing the legalistic language to convince huge numbers of people that the truth is the exact opposite of what it actually is:
Fortunately for the more fragile members of the political community here on hype... I honestly have very little interest in discussing politics regularly.
