This is one of those times. Rather than blow that opportunity with some cheesy and quickly forgettable snarky remark from a press secretary, the Clinton campaign could've instead insisted that the DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz fix the obvious problem with the party's database software, and then restore access to the Sanders campaign ASAP. They do that, and:

• The original point about the data breach would be reinforced in the public's consciousness;
  
• Mrs. Clinton looks great in the public eye and can stand tall, for having insisted to DWS that the Sanders campaign be treated equitably and fairly by the party; and
  
• Sen. Sanders is neatly boxed in, and can really do little else but apologize and say thank you -- that is, if he knows what's good for him.

As the Clinton campaign's press secretary, Fallon should know that already, without being told or reminded. He wants to do snark, then he should book himself a gig at the Comedy Store and polish his routine.

IMHO, Jeff Weaver's public defiance at that press conference, which was hastily called in response to the allegations, was an unforced error bordering on the disastrous. His surly posturing offered absolutely terrible optics with respect to public relations, since it's the Sanders campaign that's clearly in the wrong here, not the DNC or Mrs. Clinton.

If Sen. Sanders doesn't stop the bleeding pronto -- and he now needs to do this personally -- then he will have rendered both himself and his campaign irrelevant in fairly short order, and will be replaced by Martin O'Malley as Mrs. Clinton's main challenger for the Democratic nomination.

"The campaign is hamstrung without access to the voter data," the campaign said in the lawsuit. It said the campaign is losing an estimated $600,000 in contributions each day it does not have access to the data, which is used to target donors. "However the damage to the campaign's political viability, as a result of being unable to communicate with constituents and voters, is far more severe, and incapable of measurement," the complaint said.

But audit logs suggest a more complicated story than that simple DNC vs. Sanders storyline.

Records show that during a 40-minute span that began at 10:40 a.m. on Wednesday, four Sanders staffers sifted through the Clinton campaign's data and conducted 25 specialized searches, according to a person familiar with the breach. The most valuable information obtained, the source said, were lists of individuals the Clinton campaign has identified as its most hardcore supporters across 10 states, as well as lists of those individuals whose support for Clinton is wavering, and could therefore be convinced to support Sanders instead.

The lists are obtained through the time-consuming process of phone banking and, based on those conversations, scoring voters based on how likely or unlikely they are to support Clinton. Sanders camp could benefit from the lists, for instance, by saving time on hitting up those voters who are clearly for Clinton and focusing on winning over those whose support is weaker.

According to a review of the audit logs, Sanders operatives conducted searches for Clinton supporters over 70 -- a number that indicates those voters are hard core Clinton supporters unlikely to be swayed by any outreach by the Sanders campaign. And they searched for Clinton supporters under 30, a number that showed the support was not strong and those voters could be easily swayed. The audit logs also show Sanders' deputy national data director Russell Drapkin granting access to their colleagues to view the proprietary information.

Link

And then, there's this:

The Sanders campaign employees who accessed the Clinton voter information without authorization appear to have run afoul of the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, said Jason Weinstein, a former supervisor of the Justice Department's computer crimes section.

Those employees "have reason to be concerned about legal exposure," he said, for what appears to fit the definition of illegal hacking.

Link

Maybe Rubio is, especially since Bush seems to have crashed and burned.  Problem is that only those at the back of the pack seem to be in a position to get any help from the RNC.

I, and others, have posted links to how Trump is turning the conventional campaign process on its head by ignoring conventional wisdom of using political operatives to take polls and create a ground game.  Talking heads on both the left and the right have pointed out this may well be in big part the reason outsiders like Trump, Carson, and Cruz (who is a self described outsider on the outs with the RNC) are doing as well as they are doing.

Until Sanders' minions breached the database (not sure to call it the DNC database or the outsourced database) I was sorta of the opinion he was to some extent an outsider.  Clearly early on he was getting big crowds and had a lot of mass popularity.  But with headlines that he has used the DNC database to at least shore up his popularity I would not be shocked to see him take a popularity hit.  Same goes for Clinton who, rightly or wrongly, has the reputation for having the DNC in the tank for her.

With the DNC facing a possible law suit from Sanders and lots of griping from Sanders supporters about heavy handed action by the DNC&DWS, not to mention possible criminal charges for the Sanders' minions who breached the database it is hard to envision a happy ending to this.

On Thursday, the DNC told the press a contractor inadvertently breached a firewall in a software program exposing data files of presidential campaigns and that a Bernie Sanders staffer (Josh Uretsky, with the campaign three months) took the opportunity to sneak a peek at Hillary Clinton's files. Sanders' campaign instantly sacked the staffer but Schultz still cut off its access to data, a punishment she seems to have made up on the spot, thus bringing crucial outreach and fundraising efforts to a halt. Schultz didn't even nod to due process, pronouncing the death penalty without so much as reading Sanders his Miranda rights.

On Friday, Sanders' campaign filed a federal lawsuit alleging breach of contract. It sought a restraining order and money damages that, assuming the facts set forth in the complaint, exceed a million dollars a day. It was a strong case. Uretsky may have behaved unethically but there was no malice aforethought- the forbidden fruit fell in his lap--and from the moment the campaign learned of his possible malfeasance, it acted honorably and swiftly. Schultz, conversely, appears to have acted without color of authority under law, contract or party rule.

The contract required written notice of termination and a 10-day grace period to cure any alleged default. Clearly the DNC was in violation, not Sanders. Because the contract put the onus for securing data on the DNC, it was liable for the breach as well. But the issue was bigger than mere contract law or political dirty tricks. In suspending the vital operations of a presidential campaign, Schultz trespassed on the right of all citizens to free and fair elections. Democrats could ill afford to be seen condoning her actions. Nor could they afford to pay her bills. If she acted without authority she'd be liable for damages, but only if the party was as swift and honorable in dealing with her as Sanders was in dealing with Uretsky. The party also had to ponder the sworn depositions Sanders might now take regarding such delicate matters as who Schultz spoke to about her decision to impale him.

????