CNN severs ties with Donna Brazile

CNN says it is “completely uncomfortable” with hacked emails showing that former contributor and interim Democratic National Committee chairwoman Donna Brazile shared questions with the Clinton campaign before a debate and a town hall during the Democratic primary, and has accepted her resignation.

Hacked emails posted by WikiLeaks show Brazile, whose CNN contract was suspended when she became interim DNC chair over the summer, sharing with the Clinton campaign a question that would be posed to Hillary Clinton before the March CNN Democratic debate in Flint, as well as a possible question prior to a CNN town hall, also in March.

In a statement, CNN spokeswoman Lauren Pratapas said that on Oct. 14, the network accepted Brazile’s resignation.

On October 14th, CNN accepted Donna Brazile’s resignation as a CNN contributor. [Her deal had previously been suspended in July when she became the interim head of the DNC.] CNN never gave Brazile access to any questions, prep material, attendee list, background information or meetings in advance of a town hall or debate. We are completely uncomfortable with what we have learned about her interactions with the Clinton campaign while she was a CNN contributor, Pratapas said.

In a tweet, Brazile thanked CNN and her now former colleagues there. Thank you @CNN. Honored to be a Democratic Strategist and commentator on the network. Godspeed to all my former colleagues, she wrote.

A CNN employee, speaking on background, suggested Brazile may have met the woman who was supposed to pose the question about lead poisoning during a service event planned the day before the debate.

As for the town hall event, a follow up email from Brazile posted by WikiLeaks on Monday and other emails obtained by POLITICO seem to point to Roland Martin, a TV One host who was co-moderating the Town Hall, as the source of the questions.

The Donald Trump In These Allegations Is Not The Complete Monster I Married

Melania Trump

Melania Trump

Over the last few days, a number of women have come forward to accuse my husband, presidential nominee Donald Trump, of sexually assaulting them. As the candidate’s wife, I know him better than anyone, and I want to assure voters that the Donald Trump in these allegations is not the complete monster I married.

Believe me, the misogynistic, lying, pathologically self-centered Donald I know is nothing like the one these women describe.

I’ve been married to Donald Trump for more than 10 years now, and in all the times I’ve seen him treat other human beings as nothing more than objects for his own gratification, I’ve never seen him do the things he is currently being accused of.

I realize my husband has his faults. He can be impulsive, short-tempered, cruel, arrogant, bigoted, thin-skinned, manipulative, hateful, defensive, intolerant, deluded, vindictive, greedy, perverted, narcissistic, dishonest, threatening, megalomaniacal, and psychopathic. But show me an irredeemably horrible, self-obsessed person who isn’t. What I have never personally seen him do, though, in all the years I’ve listened to him say demeaning and graphically sexual things about women, is touch someone without their consent.

That is simply not the vicious, racist, dangerously unstable sociopath I wake up next to every morning.

Now, am I by Donald’s side 24 hours a day? Of course not. But based on what I’ve experienced of him as a disgusting, reprehensible egomaniac who sees only himself and denies the humanity of others, it’s hard for me to imagine him doing the things these women accuse him of. Scapegoat racial minorities? Yes. Make veiled suggestions that someone should assassinate his opponent? Sure. Degrade and humiliate women at every opportunity in his personal and professional life? Of course. But assault? I just can’t see the loathsome demon I married doing something like that.

In the coming days and weeks, the media is going to try to portray my husband as a lecherous, chauvinistic serial abuser. But what they don’t understand is that deep down inside, he’s just a prurient, sexist predator ‘one who doesn’t let anything get between him and the satisfaction of his immediate desires’ and that’s it! Nothing more, nothing less.

I know people will say that I’m deluding myself. That I can’t read the writing on the wall. That the only way I can be psychologically comfortable continuing to live alongside such a heartless, dangerous, malignant individual is by blindly convincing myself that he could never have committed the crimes that he’s been accused of and, indeed, bragged about on tape. All I can say is that when I see him in the morning before he goes to work and at night when he returns home, Donald is simply a human horror show who has never once given a moment of thought to the hopes, dreams, struggles, or circumstances of anyone else in existence. That’s my Donald.

So before you rush to judgment, please, forget what the media is telling you for a moment, and try to see my husband the way I do: as a repugnant, repulsive cancer of a person who makes our world a crueler, more hateful place by his very existence.

That’s the real Donald Trump

The FBI’s Defense of How the Clinton Interview Was Conducted Is Full of Holes

james-comey-testimony-fbi-defense-clinton-interview-doesnt-addIn a nutshell, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Justice Department permitted Hillary Clinton’s aide Cheryl Mills — the subject of a criminal investigation, who had been given immunity from prosecution despite strong evidence that she had lied to investigators — to participate as a lawyer for Clinton, the principal subject of the same criminal investigation. This unheard-of accommodation was made in violation not only of rudimentary investigative protocols and attorney-ethics rules, but also of the federal criminal law.

Yet, the FBI and the Justice Department, the nation’s chief enforcers of the federal criminal law, tell us they were powerless to object.

Seriously?

In his testimony this week before the House Judiciary Committee, FBI director James Comey inveighed against critics who have slimed the Bureau as “weasels” over its handling of the Clinton e-mails investigation. I am not one of those people. After a quarter-century in the trenches with the Bureau as a prosecutor, I am one of those hopeless romantics who love the FBI and harbor real affection for the director himself.

I genuinely hate this case. I don’t mind disagreeing with the Bureau, a not infrequent occurrence in my former career. But I am hardwired to presume the FBI’s integrity. Thus, no matter how much irregularities in the Clinton investigation have rankled me, I’ve chalked them up to the Bureau’s being hamstrung. There was no chance on God’s green earth that President Obama and his Justice Department were ever going to permit an indictment of Hillary Clinton. Jim Comey says he didn’t make his final decision to recommend against prosecution until after Mrs. Clinton was interviewed at the end of the investigation, and that he did not coordinate that decision with his Obama-administration superiors. If he says so, that’s good enough for me. But it doesn’t mean the director made his decision detached from the dismal reality of the situation. And whatever one’s armchair-quarterback view on how he should have handled it, that reality was not of his making.