On a different matter, this time, from information in Donna Brazile’s piece in Politico.  Brazile’s article is centered on the control Hillary Clinton and her 2016 campaign organization exercised over the DNC and how they got that control, and the article is worth reading in that light.

But there’s another matter that Brazile only mentions in support of her description of Clinton’s seizure but that wants a bit more emphasis.  First, the allegation:

Debbie [Wasserman Schultz] was not a good manager. She hadn’t been very interested in controlling the party—she let Clinton’s headquarters in Brooklyn do as it desired so she didn’t have to inform the party officers how bad the situation was.

Then an event, typical of the DNC’s financial machinations and illustrative of DNC leadership:

On the phone Gary [Gensler, Chief Financial Officer of Hillary’s campaign] told me the DNC had needed a $2 million loan, which the campaign had arranged.

“No! That can’t be true!” I [Brazile] said. “The party cannot take out a loan without the unanimous agreement of all of the officers.”

“Gary, how did they do this without me knowing?” I asked.

And

She [Wasserman Schultz] seemed to make decisions on her own and let us know at the last minute what she had decided….

And

I kept asking the party lawyers and the DNC staff to show me the agreements that the party had made for sharing the money they raised, but there was a lot of shuffling of feet and looking the other way.

The outcome:

…in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings.

This arrangement was agreed a year before Clinton had “won” the Progressive-Democratic Party nomination.  In other words, the DNC remade itself into a satrap of the Clinton machine, and done so well in advance of serious campaigning.

The Party chair not being overly involved?  The management team quietly letting the chair make decisions in a vacuum, including those that required team input?  Her replacement being stonewalled by the Party’s—her—management team?  It boggles the credulity to think these grown, highly experienced and talented men and women atop the Party didn’t understand what they were doing, or were in any way forced into doing it.  No, they all knew what they were doing.  All along, the Party’s leadership was in the tank for Clinton and did not want an honest, balanced primary contest.

It’s rich, too, that all of this is decried by the woman who herself was so far into the tank for Clinton that she fed Clinton debate questions before primary debates.

This is the level of integrity we can expect out of the Progressive-Democratic Party and so of any of its nominees unless and until there is a complete turnover of all of the Party’s leadership on down into the middle management ranks.  Every single one of them.