PUBLISHED: 7:58 PM 27 Jul 2016
UPDATED: 11:22 PM 27 Jul 2016

Now It’s Coming Out That “THE” Post Was Involved, Corruption Everywhere

dnna-brazile-large

Ever since the Democratic National Convention held in Philadelphia on Monday, the Democratic Party has fallen into a state of turmoil. As you may recall, after the DNC email leaks which showed that the party was openly trying to “rig” the system against one of its own candidates, Senator Bernie Sanders, its Chairwoman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, resigned.

Soon after this, The Washington Post ran a story that suggested Donna Brazile, a Democratic Party Superdelegate, would become the new Chairwoman, at least as an interim measure until someone else is found to assume this position.

What do we know about Brazille? Well, according to her own personal website, Brazile is a “Veteran Democratic political strategist, an adjunct professor, author, syndicated columnist, television political commentator, Vice Chair of Voter Registration and Participation at the Democratic National Committee” and also the “former interim national chair of the Democratic National Committee” and former “chair of the DNC’s Voting Rights Institute.”

In other words, the Democrats perceive Brazile to be extremely qualified for the job of next Chairwoman of the DNC. But is she really?

What her biography dosen’t tell is that Brazile may be secretely opposed to one of the Democratic party’s presidential candidates, Bernie Sanders.

According to an email Brazile addressed to the Director of Party Affairs and Delegate Selection Patrice Taylor, Brazile wrote “I have no intention of touching this” in reference to the Sanders Campaign. When asked why, she replied ” Because I will cuss out the Sanders camp!”

The email, which can be found here, was released by Edward Snowden  confirms that the Democratic Party higher ups are deliberately opposed to one of their own candidates.

The strange thing is that despite the clear anti-Sanders bias demonstrated by both Wasserman Schultz and Brazile, the Washington Post continued to write in Brazile’s defense, saying that Brazile “provided impartial analysis” on a consistent basis.

Further, the “Post insists Brazile remained neutral on Sanders until Clinton ‘won’ the California Primary. Even then, she was highly complimentary.”

Although the Washington Post writers had more than enough time to “research the leaked DNC emails and discover Brazile’s real attitude towards Bernie Sanders and his supporters” they clearly did not. No wonder so many Americans are having trouble trusting the media.

What do you think of the Washington Post’s inaccurate coverage of Brazile? What do you think should be done about it? Please comment below and share your thoughts.