COMPLETE STATIC READING EDITION

The 2016 primary and election

Was the primary rigged? The DNC deal, the debate questions, and the result

← Interactive guide and chronology · All Clinton cases

Did the DNC rig the primary?

Brazile: “I found the cancer, but I’m not killing the patient.”

Donna Brazile became interim DNC chair in July 2016. In her 2017 book she said she found a 2015 agreement that gave Clinton’s Brooklyn headquarters control over DNC spending. On ABC she said: “the only thing I found — which I said, ‘I found the cancer, but I’m not killing the patient’ — was this memorandum that prevented the DNC from running its own operation.” She also said: “I wanted to make sure there was no rigging of the process … I found no evidence, none whatsoever.” [1][2]

Sanders donors and voters sued. The appeals court in 2019 dismissed the case — some claims for lack of standing, others because the complaint did not plead fraud specifically enough. It did not decide whether the primary was fair, and it noted “deep disagreements” about the DNC’s conduct. [3]

Primary ballots are cast and counted by state and local election officials, and the counts are public. The documented complaint is about party money, staff and scheduling — real advantages — not altered ballots. [4]

What we can’t tell you. Whether the tilt changed the outcome cannot be measured.

The sources

  1. Donna Brazile interviewed about DNC independence, November 2017 ↗

    Firsthand public explanation by the former interim DNC chair, reported by ABC. Her distinction between compromised party independence and vote-rigging is central.

  2. TIME interviews Donna Brazile about the DNC agreement, November 2017 ↗

    Interview supplies Brazile’s own criticism and clarification. It does not independently reconstruct every DNC decision or estimate an electoral counterfactual.

  3. Wilding v. DNC Services Corp., 11th Cir., 28 Oct 2019 ↗

    The appeal in the donors’ and voters’ suit over DNC neutrality. Some claims failed for lack of standing, others on pleading grounds; the court did not decide whether the primary was fair.

  4. FEC: official federal election results, 2016 ↗

    Official state-by-state primary and general-election tables. Caucus reporting differs among states, so national popular-vote totals require care.

The town-hall questions

Brazile passed potential questions to Clinton’s campaign. She later called it a mistake.

Hacked Podesta emails released in October 2016 showed Brazile, then a CNN contributor, forwarding potential topics before a CNN town hall in spring 2016. In a March 2017 essay she wrote: “sending those emails was a mistake I will forever regret.” [1]

She also wrote that the Russians, “by stealing all the DNC’s emails and then selectively releasing those few,” made it look like she was “in the tank” for Clinton. [1]

What we can’t tell you. There is no evidence Clinton personally asked for the questions.

The sources

  1. ABC News: Brazile calls passing town-hall topics to the Clinton camp “a mistake I will forever regret,” 18 Mar 2017 ↗

    Report quoting Brazile’s own Time essay.

Discussion

Comment, dispute or support a claim, submit a source or rate this page through a short Google Form. It asks you to sign in with Google so we know you are a real person; your email is never shown. Nothing appears here until it has been reviewed. Conversation on X tagged #AIFiles #AIFilesClintons shows up below after the daily refresh.

CommentSubmit a sourceRate this pageStart a discussion on XFull forum topicSee all disputesFollow updates (Google Group)

Reader comments

Approved reader comments and ratings are shown on the interactive edition. This plain reading edition does not load them.

On X

This plain reading edition does not load posts. You can read this subject’s threads on the forum: Forum: #AIFilesClintons.

Reader comments are shown only after review, and rows removed from the form’s sheet disappear at the next refresh. X posts are a read-only daily snapshot; posts deleted or made private there are removed at the next refresh. Inclusion is not endorsement. A submitted source stays pending review until a page update says otherwise.