So the Bernie contingent was going to get serious proportional representation in the standing committees. This as we know now, resulted in the most progressive DNC platform in history.
Seen from a different angle, this incident suggests Confessore engaged in something of a give-and-take, agreeing to whitewash the joint fundraising fund, yet still keeping in this vague allusion to something being wrong with Hillary's fundraising:
"The Democratic National Committee now relies on Mrs. Clinton's fund-raising to provide a fifth of its monthly income, an arrangement the Sanders campaign has criticized."
This was a far cry from informing the public (and donors) how the joint fundraising setup was actually a free-for-all for the rich. Even more oddly, Confessore soon started reporting on other DNC leaks stories without any mention he is mentioned in the leaks, making this a whitewash of a whitewash.
The HVF story did see daylight elsewhere - CNN, Fox, Politico, The Atlantic and others covered it the following week with the DNC carefully tracking what was getting out to the public and discussing how to respond. When Politico sent over a list of questions about the fund, DNC staff consulted lawyers. Those lawyers responded:
"Will take a look and get back to you with some thoughts tomorrow. Are we coordinating with HFA [the Hillary campaign] on these as well? I think it would be helpful to know what they are going to say. Also, let's reach out to Amalgamated [the bank handling the joint fund] and make sure they don't say something dumb."
ANOTHER SMOKING GUN: When CNN reported "The Democratic National Committee has so far declined to get in between the two campaigns", Mr. Elias, clearly and specifically told the DNC to take sides and vilify Sanders:
"My suggestion is that the DNC put out a statement saying that the accusations the Sanders campaign are not true. The fact that CNN notes that you aren't getting between the two campaigns is the problem."
Mr. Elias continues: "...the DNC should push back DIRECTLY at Sanders and say that what he is saying is false and harmful the the Democratic party."
MORE STEALTH EDITING: Also of note was the suggestion of stealth-editing in play here. Wasserman-Shultz noted in her email:
"This is an updated version of the story from when it posted last night."
Evidently, the Times posted a different version of this article before Confessore updated it. It would seem no one screen-grabbed the original piece. Confessore did not reply to a request for comment via Twitter.
The Times was already caught stealth-editing during crucial Super Tuesday primaries, with their respected ombudswoman Margaret Sullivan admitting anti-Sanders bias by Times editors shortly before quitting her job.
MEANINGFUL COMPROMISE? Wasserman-Schultz replied to Miranda's email describing how Confessore changed the article to reflect how the DNC was apportioning committee seats to Sanders:
"Longabaugh's comment about being well represented on all the committees wasn't in that version. It should also include that each candidate will get their proportion of the remaining 167 members of the committee. The Chair's At-Large appointments are only 25 on each committee."
So the DNC was going to at last share power after Sanders threatened to mobilize delegates at the convention if the standing committees were to be stacked with Hillary surrogates. As we learned earlier this week, the Hillary campaign was revising their rhetoric throughout the convention to avoid embarrassing walk-outs and protests by the Bernie contingent.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
14
9
7
