DNC ‘Democratic Victory Task Force’ May Have Been Starting Point for 2016 Election Corruption
After the discovery of a document on an obscure area of the Democratic National Committee website, we are making an effort to bring perspective to it’s relevance to controversial figures and activities surrounding the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
A document discovered on an obscure section of the Democratic National Committee website has revealed a direct connection between the organization and top employees of Google, the Perkins-Coie law firm, and other high-profile figures.
In November 2015, a report was generated following a one-and-a-half-year effort describing a DNC project called Democratic Victory Task Force. The documents lists eleven total members of the team including then-
DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, then- Vice Chairwoman and CNN contributor Donna Brazile, Google Chairman Eric Schmidt, Perkins-Coie attorney Marc Elias, former Colorado Democratic party chair Rick Palacio, and seven others.
The report outlines ways for it’s members to expand Democratic reach across the country by injecting “new voices into the national media”, promoting “diversity into allied institutions”, expanding it’s “digital voter data supremacy”, among other things.
But, given that many of the members of the “task force” have been accused of improprieties surrounding the 2016 presidential election, it raises the questions as to whether this project was more of a cover for organizing corruption and collusion rather than simply a typical organizational effort of a political party. In this article, we will recount some of the controversies to refresh the memories of readers.
The task force members and their roles in 2016 presidential election controversies
Just days before the state convention, the Democratic Party of Colorado, headed by Rick Palacio at the time, incorrectly reported the results from 10 precinct locations of the March 1, 2016 presidential straw poll that would have given Bernie Sanders an extra delegate. The issue was discovered a week later, at which time the party did not correct the public record. The Hillary Clinton campaign learned of the discrepancy days before Bernie Sanders’, which only became aware when they were informed by The Denver Post. Sanders’ supporters became outraged at what they thought, and what now seems evident, was a rigged system.
During a bombshell investigation by Politico, it was reported in May 2016 that Hillary Clinton had been using money for her campaign from funds raised by the Hillary Victory Fund during lavish events that was intended to benefit state Democratic parties and the eventual winner of the Democratic National Committee’s nomination for the general election in June. Only one percent of the $61,000,000.00 raised by the effort actually benefited the state committees, according to the report. After the money was raised, it a portion was sent to thirty-two participating states, but was quickly returned to the Democratic National Committee within a day or two. Millions of dollars from the fund’s coffers went directly to Clinton’s campaign, and the report suggests millions more were used by the DNC to support Hillary Clinton over rival Bernie Sanders through web advertising and other actions. Sanders hit back hard against the DNC and Clinton in this story published after the investigation was made public.
Perkins-Coie was evidently a central player in the movement of money from the Hillary Victory Fund and advising the Clinton Campaign and DNC on how to react to the revelations of impropriety in media reports. On May 4, 2016 Perkins-Coie said in an email chain (later published by WikiLeaks) discussing the matter with the DNC and an allied media organization that only roughly $12 million remained in the victory fund, and that money would be transferred to the state committee participants and the DNC. The law firm also admitted that money had been used to benefit Hillary Clinton’s campaign, which mathematically would have been around $49,000,000.00 as of the date of the email directly by her campaign and indirectly by the DNC’s shadowy efforts to support her over Sanders. The discussion suggests that Perkins-Coie scrambled to protect the Democratic National Committee’s reputation and reduce damage to the Clinton campaign, and to discredit her rival Bernie Sanders. Perkins-Coie pondered whether it would be a good idea to reveal the exact estimate of how much money remained in the fund. The DNC concluded that they would mislead the public by using the word “millions” instead of using the actual dollar amounts. In an email chain one day earlier Marc Elias suggested the DNC should put out a public statement in reaction to accusations by Bernie Sanders that his allegations were untrue, although evidence obtained by Politico and the tone of discussions in the leaked email chains suggest otherwise. A search of DNC John Podesta’s emails published by WikiLeaks for “Marc Elias” reveals a consistent pattern of the attorney advising the campaign on how to engage in questionable, and perhaps illegal, campaign finance activities, as well as the firm being directly involved in coordinating these activities.
Around the time of the Democratic National Convention, and thereafter, Perkins-Coie has been the middle man between the DNC-Clinton campaign and controversies surrounding them.
Let’s start with the alleged DNC hack. In April 2016, the FBI informed the DNC that its servers may be compromised. The DNC failed to take any action until it says one of the IT staff informed the committee’s leader that an intrusion had been detected during the same month. Instead of contacting law enforcement for an official investigation into the breach, the DNC engaged the Perkins-Coie firm, which in turn evidently hired Crowdstrike. Reports suggest that the committee failed to inform it’s officers, or kick out the alleged intruders, for a month after the breach was detected. When these accusations were made public, questions were raised as to why the DNC waited to report the issue to committee officers until the day before a story broke on June 14 in the Washington Post revealing the network compromise. All evidence seems to indicate that Perkins-Coie was responsible for management of the crisis. What was their motive for the delay and not taking the typical route of invoking law enforcement to investigate? And, why has Crowdstrike’s own report on the matter changed since it was first posted on June 14, 2016 to what it currently says at present?
Then we have the issue of Fusion GPS and the circumstances surrounding the infamous Trump dossier compiled by British ex-spy Christopher Steele. Fusion GPS was first hired by the Washington Free Beacon to conduct opposition research on Donald Trump for the Republican party. When it became evident that Trump would become the Republican nominee for president, the firm was then hired by Perkins-Coie in April 2016 who paid for services out of DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign funds. The public was not made aware of this arrangement until October 2017. It’s worth recounting the DNC first learned in April 2016 of the alleged breach of it’s network by Russian hackers. It’s also worth noting that this was at a time when Hillary Victory Fund money was being inappropriately re-rerouted from benefactor participating state committees to the DNC and the Clinton campaign. To put this in perspective, Perkins-Coie, via Marc Elias and other attorneys in the group, were evidently simultaneously managing possible laundered Clinton campaign funds, handling an alleged breach of DNC networks by Russian government hackers in a not-so-typical manner, and working with a political research firm to get dirt on Donald Trump from Russia. The whole story behind all this isn’t yet clear, but it’s becoming more obvious by the day that conduct of a questionable nature was occurring behind the scenes at Perkins-Coie and it’s relationship to the alleged DNC hack and Trump dossier.
Marc Elias has been directly in the company of Clinton campaign staff during public interviews and official testimony regarding the aforementioned incidents. This is likely because he was the center of the activity, and thus could advise staff on how to address questions without implicating wrongdoing.
Around the same period of time that the DNC’c Democratic Victory Task Force was being formed, Google’s Chairman Eric Schmidt was working with the Hillary Clinton campaign to develop strategies for it’s operation going into the 2016 presidential election, according to an email published by WikiLeaks two years later. In April, 2014, Schmidt began an email chain between himself and members of Hillary Clinton’s senior campaign staff wherein he laid out a plan that would incorporate human and digital strategies apparently to help get the former secretary of state elected as president in 2016. He described migrating all digital assets, including NGP Van voter records and vendor information, and all other Democratic campaign data to a central cloud service such as Amazon AWS which could be used to digitally identify voters across various platforms, and make it easier for the campaign to target them with marketing and resources both online and offline. This is a clear indication of an attempt by Google’s top official to use technology to propel the interests of a single political candidate and to interfere in a free and fair election. What’s even more interesting is the same technology Schmidt describes in the email is the same technology alleged to have been used as a staring point for intrusion into the DNC’s networks, not to mention that DCLeak’s domain is currently owned by Google.
Additional clear evidence of Schmidt’s bias for Hillary Clinton was spelled out in an additional email dated April 3, 2014 and published by WikiLeaks later. The communication reveals that the Google Chairman was interested in becoming top outside advisor, and willing to help fund Clinton’s path to victory.
These are just two examples of not only Schmidt’s interest in Hillary Clinton being elected as president in 2016, but also his willingness to do whatever was needed of him to make it happen. With this knowledge in hand, it is no wonder why users and the president would question the subjectivity of Google services. We now see that this concern isn’t only justified, but it’s evident.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz
In early 2014, the Democratic National Committee was suffering an economic crisis. Huge debt accumulated following the presidential election campaign of Barack Obama in 2012 and required the organization to find ways to keep it’s operation going. An opportunity presented itself in the form of Hillary Clinton and her interest in pursuing the White House in 2016. According to a report by Politico, Hillary Clinton agreed to bail out the DNC, provide bare essential funding to keep them running, and then essentially took control of the committee. Afterwards, the committee (as described earlier in this article) engaged in active measures to support the campaign of Clinton over that of rival Bernie Sanders, and allowed her to improperly funnel campaign money of the Hillary Victory Fund to states, back to the DNC, and directly and indirectly into the Clinton campaign. All the while, according to the Politico article, officers who oversee the DNC were kept in the dark.
Schultz was also accused of failing to notify officers when she became aware of the DNC network being compromised, as previously noted in this article. She resigned after WikiLeaks published emails which revealed the committee clearly showed favoritism for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election.
Donna Brazile is a prominent figure in Democratic politics, who also moonlighted as a contributor to CNN. But her reputation took a beating when it was revealed that she provided debate questions to the Hillary Clinton campaign on two separate occasions. Leading up to a CNN town hall on March 13, 2016, Brazile was supplied with questions that were expected to be asked during the event. She then emailed top Clinton aides at least one of the questions in advance, which is a violation of debate protocol. In another email to Clinton’s team, Brazile revealed a question that may be asked during a March 6 Democratic primary debate in Michigan.
These unethical actions were a slap in the face to Hillary Clinton’s Democratic rivals, and ultimately resulted the loss of her contact with CNN.
The discovery of the Democratic Victory Task Force document provides evidence of a direct working relationship between characters who have been branded in controversy for their roles in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, a relationship that was organized within the central organ of the Democratic party. Many facts arising out of the relationship are clear such as each member, and the agency as a whole, taking steps to ensure the victory of one Democratic candidate over another. Beyond the primary presidential race of 2016, the evidence is still somewhat murky, but with each controversy in the general election, the theme — and many of the players — remained the same. The differences were the target and the political affiliation of the active measures campaign.
In the end, all Americans should be furious at how Democratic officials and operatives attempted, without evidence, to destroy a president by accusing him of undermining our democracy and colluding with Russians in attempt to influence an election, when the only evidence to prove such an effort points directly at the 2016 Democratic presidential candidate and the high-profile figures who helped her.
Follow RJ Burnett on Twitter
Download the Democratic Victory Task Force document by clicking here.
Operation Case Closed is planning an on-the-ground inquiry into the Seth Conrad Rich murder case beginning November 15, 2018. We are collecting donations to fund the initial cost of the trip of roughly $2000. A PayPal account has been set up to accept contributions. Please consider supporting our effort by clicking here. Also, you can follow our progress or send case tips and comments via our Twitter account by clicking here.