Sanders Sues DNC, Case Settled, Dems to Debate in NH

Here's the complaint Bernie Sanders' campaign filed in federal court against the DNC for suspending its access to public voter data. The case was quickly resolved. What the ruckus was about:

The suit came shortly after campaign manager Jeff Weaver acknowledged at a Washington news conference that Sanders staffers had improperly reviewed information gathered by rival Hillary Clinton earlier in the week. But he accused the DNC of over­reacting to the breach by suspending the Sanders campaign’s ability to access the computer system containing information about Democratic-leaning voters, including data the campaign has gathered about its own supporters.

The Dems will debate tonight in New Hampshire. What should Hillary say about Sanders' data breach and the DNC's response?

[Clinton] campaign manager Robby Mook said the information stored in the database and illicitly reviewed by Sanders' team included "fundamental parts of our strategy." Experts said the Sanders campaign employees who accessed the Clinton voter information without authorization appear to have broken the law.

"Our data was stolen," Mook said. "The data that they reached in and took from our campaign is effectively the strategic road map in those states."

The Wall St. Journal recaps what each candidate needs to accomplish in tonight's debate. Bernie seems to really believe his popular support can lead to his nomination. I don't think there's anything either O'Malley or Sanders can do to affect the outcome of who the nominee will be.

Sanders main contribution will be moving Hillary a bit to the left on some issues. That's a good thing. But not enough Democrats are ready for his ideas, especially when his age and appearance make him come across as everyone's eccentric grandfather. He may be harmless like Grandpa, but no one's going to take a chance and actually hand him the keys to the office of the Commander in Chief.

< Obama Grants 95 Sentence Commutations, 2 Pardons | Democrats Debate in New Hampshire >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Hillary should say nothing (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by CoralGables on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 08:17:52 AM EST
    Sanders has already agreed to sign off saying that his staffers stole information.

    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by jbindc on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 08:33:44 AM EST
    I'm sure Wolf Blitzer will try to push it and her response should be, "It's been dealt with and we're moving on.  Let's talk foreign policy."

    This (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by FlJoe on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 08:58:21 AM EST
    whole tempest will be forgotten by this time next week, except for some Hillary supporters keeping it around as a club, such is politics.

    Bottom line: Bernie's boys got caught with their hands in the cookie jar, his campaign probably could have handled it better.
    The DNC, as usual, should have handled it better.
    Clinton surrogates should have been less "sharky", but again it's in their nature.

    If I was one of Hillary's advisors, I would tell her the answer to tonight's inevitable question about this issue should be, "we're tired about hearing about these damn data breaches". Democrat's as a whole should let this whole episode quickly disappear.

    But then again these are Democrats and I often question the wisdom of many political advisors and the media of course will be more then willing to fan the flames.


    Yes, let it go and continue with the campaign (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by christinep on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 11:50:10 AM EST
    The only gainers from any protracted controversy here would be the Repubs, who ache for an intra-party controversy among Dems. 'Better to view the matter of data access/appropriation as a lesson and reminder for the future ... for the general campaign, when one should be sure that the playing-for-keeps aspects will multiply.  For now, Dems should avoid investing too much time in an issue that could undermine the ultimate unity that we need. (As for tonight's debate, I'm guessing that HRC will know how to respond in a studied and gracious way.)

    Agreed. (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by KeysDan on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 12:59:04 PM EST
    And, the media will be more than happy to keep it going.  After all, there are the ratings to think about.  While the campaigns may well have become over-zealous in support of their candidate, it is incumbent on the candidates to have them lie down and apply a cold rag to their foreheads.  I anticipate both Mrs. Clinton and Senator Sanders to do so.

    That line (none / 0) (#12)
    by ding7777 on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 11:03:25 AM EST
    "we're tired about hearing about these damn data breaches".

    would be very foolish considering how many times the government's data has been hacked recently


    Exactly - especially from a candidate (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by ruffian on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 05:17:19 PM EST
    already accused of not securing sensitive data properly.

    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 09:18:54 AM EST
    It's resolved

    I wonder how orange has (none / 0) (#27)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 01:35:41 PM EST
    Handled this. I haven't even checked.

    Of Course (none / 0) (#28)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 01:38:25 PM EST
    Hillary supporters calling it Sandersgate :)

    Actually, the sanders supporters are much worse (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Yman on Sun Dec 20, 2015 at 01:38:09 PM EST
    They're apoplectic over the DNC.

    Actually, many self identified (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by MO Blue on Sun Dec 20, 2015 at 02:25:41 PM EST
    Hillary supporters are apoplectic over the actions of DWS and the DNC.

    Define "many" (4.00 / 3) (#87)
    by Yman on Sun Dec 20, 2015 at 09:14:58 PM EST
    Link?  Evidence?  Anything?

    What the DNC did may have been politically dumb, but it was 100% warranted.


    I did not confine my statement (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by MO Blue on Sun Dec 20, 2015 at 10:45:55 PM EST
    to only the actions DWS took in relationship with the breach. Nor did I state a personal opinion on whether that action was warranted or not. Quite a bit of the response from Hillary supporters dealt with the actions being politically dumb.

    Here are a few links:

    Some Big Picture Thoughts on the Sanders/DNC Derp War

    The Democratic Establishment is certainly trying to hobble Sanders, and even many of us who are generally supportive of Hillary Clinton agree that Wasserman-Schulz has tried to rig the contest in an absurd and anti-democratic way on Clinton's behalf.
    This isn't just bad for the Democrats -- as it turns out, it's bad for Clinton.

    David Atkins while condemning the data breach had this to say about DWS:

    This doesn't mean that Wasserman-Schultz hasn't, in David Axelrod's words, been putting her thumb on the scale on behalf of the Clinton campaign. She clearly has been, judging from the intentionally obfuscated debate schedule and from her demeanor and reaction to this recent controversy. The Democratic Party would have been wiser to bring the campaigns together privately and resolve the matter internally. Instead, Wasserman-Schultz chose to take it public to attempt to embarrass the Sanders campaign, and merely managed to embarrass herself and the Party's data security vulnerabilities in the process.

    Armando ‏@armandodkos  24h24 hours ago
    Lol DNC sends me email asking for $$. Tell you what DNC Fire DWS and I'll write a big check.

    Armando ‏@armandodkos  Dec 19
    Tonight is the time to rip DWS. This debate schedule is ludicrous.
    1 retweet 0 likes

    That David Atkins article you quote (5.00 / 3) (#105)
    by caseyOR on Mon Dec 21, 2015 at 08:37:56 AM EST
    also makes clear that the actions of Sanders staffers was a serious breach, that the Sanders campaign has been less than truthful with its statements about the breach, and that, in Atkins's opinion, the DNC acted appropriately in cutting off the Sanders campaign's access to the database.

    The big mistake by DWS and the DNC was in going public with this, not in blocking the Sanders campaign's access.

    Bernie was on the gabfests yesterday and on morning TV today whining about the DNC's actions after the breach. He needs to stop this. His people committed an egregious violation when they searched and copied Clinton files. There is no way they look good here. Just STFU and quite whining.


    I completely agree with this (none / 0) (#107)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Dec 21, 2015 at 09:46:17 AM EST
    For what it's worh, here is a link to (none / 0) (#109)
    by Anne on Mon Dec 21, 2015 at 12:10:32 PM EST
    a pretty extensive snopes.com report that may, or may not, shed some light on the situation.

    That doesn't address (none / 0) (#110)
    by jbindc on Mon Dec 21, 2015 at 12:29:27 PM EST
    The fact that at least one staffer (who is one of the ones who has since been suspended, I believe) appeared to have generated reports of the data and then deleted his notes to cover his tracks.

    That statement out two days ago, where the NGP statement came out three days ago, do it appears to be more info.

    For what it's worth.


    Except it was the data breach ... (3.50 / 2) (#96)
    by Yman on Sun Dec 20, 2015 at 10:58:26 PM EST
    ... and the DNC response to it that was being discussed.  But sure, let's expand it to everything DWS/DNC related.  Take your FOUR people from your link.  Deduct those that aren't "apoplectic",  Now deduct those that aren't HC supporters.

    That's your "many HC supporters".  Personally, I'm sick and tired of the baseless conspiracy theories being constantly floated claiming that the DNC is biased and was doing this to hurt Sanders campaign - and i (alone) am about the same number as your "many".


    You may want this to cover (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by MO Blue on Sun Dec 20, 2015 at 11:30:35 PM EST
    only the data breach but that qualifiers was not in your opinion.

    They're apoplectic over the DNC

    My links were four more examples than what you provided to back up your opinion.

    The word "apoplectic" is open to interpretation, so since we are into deductions lets deduct that your unsourced comments might not be viewed as "apoplectic" by someone else.

    All of my link were by people who had expressed support for HRC in the past and all of them criticized DWS - some to the point of wanting her to go.

    Also, you might just want to take some time to actually read the links rather than behaving in an "apoplectic" manner since more than one comment put forth the opinion that DWS actions would harm Hillary's campaign more than Sanders.


    Actually, YOU may want to look (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Yman on Mon Dec 21, 2015 at 06:45:24 AM EST
    ... at the topic being discussed before you try to broaden it to support your theory.  Here is how the subthread stared and the statement I was responding to:

    I wonder how orange has Handled this. I haven't even checked.


    Of Course Hillary supporters calling it Sandersgate :)

    "This", being the data breach, in a diary about the data breach.

    So my response to MT was about the response to the data breach controversy at "Orange", at which point you weighed in  Now, I understand you don't like DWS and you want to pretend that we were discussing some broader issue to support your claim that "many HC supporters are apoplectic", but we weren't.  Moreover four is not "many" and your four examples were not - under any definition of the term - "apoplectic".

    So if you want me to put up some links showing how many (meaning, actually "many") are "apoplectic" (meaning actually "apoplectic"), I'll link to some diaries showing their reactions.  Then you can continue to have whatever argument you're having with yourself.


    You may want to read (none / 0) (#106)
    by MO Blue on Mon Dec 21, 2015 at 08:42:44 AM EST
    The actual title of the diary which read:

    Sanders Sues DNC....

    You may also read your own comment that moves the discussion to the subject of the DNC. Your comment introduced the subject of the DNC. If you wanted to restrict te subject to only the actual data breach, you could have done so but that is not what you did. You expanded the discussion to include the DNC. I think if you were in a court of law you would be overruled since you were the one who brought the DNC into the discussion; therefore, the subject was fair game, counselor.

    You might actually want to read the links provided, one in which Steve M clearly states:

    ..even many of us who are generally supportive of Hillary Clinton agree that Wasserman-Schulz has tried to rig the contest in an absurd and anti-democratic way on Clinton's behalf.

    IOW, it is not just my opinion - others share it.

    Now please continue this discussion without me because this back and forth on a difference of opinion has become more than tiresome.


    I read the title (1.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Yman on Mon Dec 21, 2015 at 11:07:05 AM EST
    ... AND the actual diary, which is how I know that Sanders was suing over the data breach and the DNC response.  It's also how I know that MT was discussing the reaction at Orange over the data breach and the DNC response.. But I understand that didn't fit the straw narrative you're failing to form, so you have to try to broaden it to make a different point.

    Alas, it's not going to work.  But it's nice that another person used the word "many" when talking about the argument you're trying to have.


    BUT THATS JUST AN OPINION (none / 0) (#94)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Dec 20, 2015 at 10:50:55 PM EST
    Of several million people.    But, you know, it's made up.

    Several million? (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Yman on Mon Dec 21, 2015 at 06:46:55 AM EST
    Of HC supporters at Kos?

    Heh - That IS made up.


    Might not use that word (none / 0) (#88)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Dec 20, 2015 at 09:33:59 PM EST
    But I thought it was really really really stupid.   And I know quite a few other Dems who did.  Hillary supporting Dems.

    DWS is a disaster.   This is a known fact.


    That's great (3.50 / 2) (#89)
    by Yman on Sun Dec 20, 2015 at 10:11:04 PM EST
    Also not what he/she claimed.

    And that's an opinion.


    An opinion? (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by MO Blue on Sun Dec 20, 2015 at 11:07:39 PM EST

    Your comment and the word choice that I replied to was an opinion on your part as well.

    Notice that your opinion had absolutely no links, no proof - merely your interpretation of the reaction of commenters on another blog(s).

    You might want to note that my links are to posts by actual blog owners or front page writers on blogs who have indicated that they support HRC. They are not just random comments.

    Bottom line the links I provided were the stated opinions of the writers much in the manner that your comment was your opinion, The only difference is that they chose to flesh out their comment with more detail than you chose to provide.


    Uhmmmm ... yeah (none / 0) (#99)
    by Yman on Sun Dec 20, 2015 at 11:15:54 PM EST
    He claimed that "DWS is a disaster.  This is a known fact."

    No - it's just his opinion.

    But yes - you did find links to (3 or 4) people who were critical of DWS or the DNC.  No idea if they are HRC supporters or not - don't really care, since they don't support your claim.


    Well once again that is your opinion (5.00 / 3) (#101)
    by MO Blue on Mon Dec 21, 2015 at 12:04:49 AM EST
    It was your unsubstantiated opinion that

    They're apoplectic over the DNC.

    That was your opinion.

    My opinion was that

    Many Hillary supporters are apoplectic over the actions of DWS and the DNC.

    You stated an opinion. I stated an opinion based on the opinions expressed by bloggers who have indicated support either in their current comment or in the past.

    Opinions are opinions. All of the above are opinions including all of your own statements.

    I did not state that my opinion was a fact, known or otherwise. We both know that an opinion cannot be proven to be true. I, not you, provided some links to the source of my opinion.

    Now you can continue to restate your opinions.  but restating them just doesn't somehow turn your opinions into fact.


    Actually (none / 0) (#90)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Dec 20, 2015 at 10:29:17 PM EST
    It's exactly what she claimed.  And what the hell is being apoplectic but an opinion.

    You claimed that your opinion (3.50 / 2) (#92)
    by Yman on Sun Dec 20, 2015 at 10:45:58 PM EST
    ... about DWS was a "known fact".

    It's not.

    And he/she claimed:

    Actually, many self identified Hillary supporters are apoplectic over the actions of DWS and the DNC.

    It's completely made up.


    Not made up (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by MO Blue on Sun Dec 20, 2015 at 10:56:38 PM EST
    see links

    The word "apoplectic" may not have been the best word choice for either of us. That descriptor was opinion. Fact is that many Dems including HRC supporters think DWS has been politically stupid, has hurt rather than helped the party and would like to see her go.


    Entirely made up (3.50 / 4) (#98)
    by Yman on Sun Dec 20, 2015 at 11:10:30 PM EST
    The subject being discussed was the data breach and the DNC response, not DWS and the DNC in general.

    "Many" HC supporters weren't happy with her long before this election began, based on the results in 2014.  Which has nothing to do with the data breach and their response.  Nor does it have anything to do with the claims that she is favoring Clinton, which is the real reason BS supporters are actually apoplectic.


    I feel for the Hillary supporters at orange (none / 0) (#82)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Dec 20, 2015 at 07:23:25 PM EST
    As Kos himself has said, the majority of active diarist are pro-Bernie. Some days when I go there to read it's redundant and so puff piece Bernie it's pathetic :)

    Clinton has this though. I know it isn't popular for me to say so but.....

    I don't want/need to alienated Sanders supporters. We are on the same side.

    I'm over the whole thing all the way around.


    A really, really good idea (none / 0) (#93)
    by MO Blue on Sun Dec 20, 2015 at 10:50:54 PM EST
    If Sanders had the same lead as HRC, I would be sitting back with a smile on my face and saying nice things about her.

    OTOH, I would still be criticizing DWS who IMO hurts rather than helps the Dem Party.


    Jeralyn (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by ragebot on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 11:26:36 AM EST
    I am shocked you would say "no one's going to take a chance and actually hand him the keys to the office of the Commander in Chief".

    No one would mistake me for a Sanders fanboy but clearly he has significant support, and quite frankly many of his supporters seem to be more motivated than any other supporters I know of with the possible exception of Rand Paul.

    I am not claiming Sanders has majority support or that he is the favorite.  But Hillary has to be very careful.  She already has the rep in some places of thinking she is entitled to the nomination.  Lots of polls indicate she has weak support in groups where Sanders is strong.  If Hillary antagonizes these groups with a heavy handed effort against Sanders they may well stay home in the general.

    Another consideration is that I am not sure Hillary has complete control.  There has been speculation some of Sanders minions could be criminally charged for their actions.  It is unclear to me if, from a legal standpoint, the DNC or Hillary or someone else is the vic; who really owns the database.  But more importantly who would make the decision to file criminal charges.  Does the DNC have to contact the controlling legal authority (and just who is the controlling legal authority) or can they act on their own?

    Bottom line Hillary has to be very careful something does not PO  Sanders supporters enough that they will not support her in the genera.

    "Age and Appearance..." (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by shoephone on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 12:11:53 PM EST
    This is funny to me. Clinton's 68, Trump is 69, Sanders is 74...Remind me again...how old was Reagan? They're ALL too friggin' old, in my book, to be running for president.

    As for appearance, well that's in the eye of the beholder. I certainly think Trump is the weirdest, ugliest looking of all the candidates, but his popularity is sky high with the GOP base.

    Funny times, eh?

    I don't think Sanders will get the nomination, but his age and appearance have nothing to do with it. The Clinton juggernaut is what it is, and the establishmentarians want her. But to assume that she can win without the eventual votes of Sanders' supporters is sheer folly. And there is no guarantee she will get that support.

    "the establishment..." (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 12:58:18 PM EST
    Is it time to wave my teensy-tiny Clinton-2016 "hope and change" flag?

    So does the Sanders campaign think they can win (none / 0) (#35)
    by ruffian on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 05:27:26 PM EST
    without the Clinton supporters? Or do they just know from experience that the Clinton supporters will come along if Sanders wins? Interesting.

    It's my belief that Clinton will be the nominee, (5.00 / 4) (#36)
    by shoephone on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 05:42:44 PM EST
    so your question becomes a moot point. But the implication that Wasserman-Schultz and the DNC are in the tank for Clinton is not going to help with bringing Sanders supporters into the fold. The paucity of debates, and the weekend scheduling of debates has helped inflame Sanders supporters. There is going to have to be a huge unity effort on the part of the DNC next year. Good luck If someone with more stature, experience, and devotion to growing the Democratic brand (someone in the mold of Howard Dean) had been at the helm of the DNC this election cycle, some of that rancor between the campaigns could have been avoided going towards November 2016.

    In my opinion.


    There was this one time (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 06:38:22 PM EST
    I remember a bit of a problem with Clinton  supporters and party unity.

    As I was that time I am a Clinton supporter.  


    Unity is becoming tougher each election cycle (none / 0) (#45)
    by shoephone on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 06:54:13 PM EST
    There are too many people that think the system is rigged. They're not exactly wrong about that. The flood of secret money is so corrupting.

    I live in a reliably blue state, so my vote probably won't matter. But if I lived in say...Missouri...I would vote for whomever the Dem nominee was, regardless of my concerns (and yes, I'm not thrilled with HRC on some accounts) because any Republican winning in 2016 would be a disaster. Many of us can have our ideals, our values, and still be practical -- even if it "hurts."


    In 2008 and 2012, (none / 0) (#52)
    by MO Blue on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 07:36:55 PM EST
    my vote didn't matter any more than a vote from someone in a reliably blue state.

    There are few things I would bet my house on but I would have bet it that there was not a chance in h€ll that Obama would even come close in MO. It was a sure bet.

    MO, which was once a swing state, has become a pretty red state. HRC might conceivably do better than Obama here but I have real reservations that she can make it a close enough contest to make my vote count at the presidental level. I doubt it would have made a difference in the Senate race if Mr. Legitimate Rape hadn't shot himself in the foot.

    I live in one of the remaining Democratic pockets in St. Louis county so my vote does help elect my Rep at Federal and State levels and some of the local and State officials.


    And the hits just keep on comming (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by ragebot on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 12:50:54 PM EST
    WAPO story  

    Blurb from the story from Sanders' minions:

    "Weaver also suggested the DNC was likely to settle the case because they were afraid of what might come out in the discovery process of the legal proceedings.

    "We will get access to all the internal communications of the DNC where we can demonstrate what I think most people think is going on, which is that there are some people in there who are clearly trying to help the Clinton campaign," he said."

    Blurb from the story from Clinton's minions"

    "But a few hours after the matter was resolved, Fallon put out a statement highlighting the fact that the Sanders campaign had "agreed to submit to an independent audit to determine the full extent of the intrusion."

    "We believe this audit should proceed immediately, and, pending its findings, we expect further disciplinary action to be taken as appropriate," he said"

    Both sides seem to be following the old Chinese proverb of burring the hatchet, right in the back of your enemies head.

    I'm no fan of DWS, but Obama heads the party (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Towanda on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 01:24:18 PM EST
    and there is history between the Obama staff and Sanders that may be a significant backstory.

    David Axelrod loves him some Bernie (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by jbindc on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 01:30:53 PM EST
    It is very sad to me (5.00 / 5) (#42)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 06:46:57 PM EST
    To see people who have so much in comm saying such hostile and silly things to each other over such a stupid thing.

    I am having flashbacks and not in a good way.  

    This issue is over.  In a few minutes we will hear both candidates say it's over but I fear it will not be over here.   And that's sad.  And frankly stupid.

    Namaste, (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Zorba on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 06:57:05 PM EST
    I bow to the divine in you.

    HA (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 07:05:16 PM EST
    First time fer everything

    You need to (none / 0) (#55)
    by Zorba on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 08:54:48 PM EST
    take some yoga, my brother.
    Be well.
    And again, namaste.

    More info (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by jbindc on Sun Dec 20, 2015 at 08:16:36 AM EST
    While Sanders apologized and Clinton accepted, and all that's good for the party, there are still some details which are coming out that should be known.

    A timeline  (my bold)

    On Wednesday morning, NGP VAN applied a new software patch to the DNC's voter database system, and because of an error in the code, users were capable of accessing some limited, yet extremely valuable information belonging to other campaigns for a very brief window of time. Even though the glitch opened access, users still needed to take deliberate steps to seek out such information.

    For those who think that, oh it was just open and of course any staffer from any campaign would look - kind of like taking advantage if you got higher access to research service you pay for personally.

    As a result of this analysis, NGP VAN found that campaign staff on the Sanders campaign, including the campaign's national data director, had accessed proprietary information about which voters were being targeted by the Clinton campaign -- and in doing so violated their agreements with the DNC. These staffers then saved this information in their personal folders on the system, and over the course of the next day, we learned that at least one staffer appeared to have generated reports and exported them from the system.

    None of this is in dispute. It's fully documented in the system logs. And these details reveal nothing less than a serious violation of the agreements governing the use of this data. Underscoring that fact is the point that the Sanders campaign has fired their national data director and indicated further disciplinary actions may be taken pending the results of their own investigation.

    Breach of contract goes both ways.

    Overnight, the Sanders campaign has now suspended two more employees pending even further investigation

    It's Over (none / 0) (#57)
    by CoralGables on Sun Dec 20, 2015 at 08:41:21 AM EST
    Time to Move On

    Well. The lies and smears aren't ovet (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by jbindc on Sun Dec 20, 2015 at 09:05:39 AM EST
    It's just nice when people know facts when they speak.  Several people around here don't seem to understand that.

    Especially Bernie Sanders should know the facts (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by ruffian on Sun Dec 20, 2015 at 08:09:37 PM EST
    when he talks about it. He misrepresented what happened when he described it last night. He acted like his people did. To have to take deliberate action to get the data- it just showed up on their computers. That is hogwash. I don't think he deliberately lied, but he does not understand what is going on, which may be worse.

    Clinton was gracious to let him off the hook. I take that as a sign she wants to move on, whether as a political calculation that she has nothing to gain by dwelling on it, or a genuine lack of interest, I cannot say.


    *people did not have to (none / 0) (#85)
    by ruffian on Sun Dec 20, 2015 at 08:11:22 PM EST
    Very True (none / 0) (#59)
    by CoralGables on Sun Dec 20, 2015 at 09:23:12 AM EST
    But still, time to move on.

    So, you think you know "the facts?" (none / 0) (#61)
    by Anne on Sun Dec 20, 2015 at 09:43:07 AM EST
    Would that be "all" the facts?

    Not really sure why you are giving this the dog-with-a-bone treatment, since all you know is what you're reading from sources which may or may not be accurate in what they are reporting.

    And yes, I'm doing the same thing, reading as much as I can, trying to understand the mechanics, mostly - whether what the Sanders people did, in the limited window the firewall breakdown made possible, compromised the Clinton data anywhere near to the extent some people are insisting they did.  

    But here's what I think I know, overall: the Sanders people weren't responsible for the firewall coming down - that was a software issue, and the vendor was responsible for that.  The firewall coming down was not a one-way street: the ability to view the topline info existed for all the campaigns that had information in the database - that means Sanders and O'Malley, not just Clinton.

    Sanders says they've fired the people they believe were responsible for or participated in taking advantage of the breach.  Seems you can either believe him, or not.  You can also choose to put the shoe on the other foot and examine how you have reacted to the numerous things Clinton has been accused of and whether you have accepted her explanations or were satisfied with how she handled them - and ask yourself whether the level of proof you have been demanding of the Sanders campaign is consisted with any level of proof you have ever demanded of Clinton.

    I think the Democratic candidates, and maybe especially Clinton, recognize that they need to send a message that they have addressed the situation and are moving on, that they are as united as ever in their opposition to the Republican agenda, and will not allow the GOP to make this an issue.

    My sense is, that while the Washington Post took DWS's bait and chose to allow her to go public with something that absolutely could have been handled in-house, the media in general - with the exception of right wing variety - does not seem to be making much hay out of this.  At this point, I think they may be realizing just how dangerous Trump is.

    Sure, you can get bogged down in this if you want, but I'm not sure what it really accomplishes, especially if the campaigns are signalling that they want to move on.  


    It's Over (none / 0) (#63)
    by CoralGables on Sun Dec 20, 2015 at 10:23:37 AM EST
    Time to move on.

    Ha. You are persistent, (none / 0) (#65)
    by oculus on Sun Dec 20, 2015 at 11:48:29 AM EST
    though ineffective.

    It's interesting (none / 0) (#64)
    by Towanda on Sun Dec 20, 2015 at 11:07:04 AM EST
    that you are posting so defensively, so repeatedly, on this, Anne -- and without your usual attention to the facts; for example, Sanders has fired "people," plural?  Not that I have read; source?

    (For myself, I find this story interesting, and worth pursuing for the facts -- without air quotes -- because it resonates for anyone who worked in the 1972 campaign . . . and then and since, we have learned to take close look at a candidate's hiring to assess potential White House hiring.)


    Oh, for God's sake... (5.00 / 4) (#66)
    by Anne on Sun Dec 20, 2015 at 12:28:10 PM EST
    Two more staffers working for Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders' have been suspended in the wake of the revelation that the campaign had improperly accessed and downloaded voter data belonging to the Hillary Clinton's campaign.

    The Sanders campaign communications director Michael Briggs confirmed to NBC News Sunday that two more staffers were suspended for involvement in the breach, which was made public Friday. Briggs declined to name the staffers, who he said were suspended Saturday after logs regarding the breach were handed over to the campaign by the DNC. He said the two weren't fired "because we are still assessing the situation."


    I had originally understood that these other people were fired, but apparently the Sanders campaign prefers to take the interim step of suspension until it has all the facts.  Unlike some people here, who in spite of not even having all the facts, seem to be holding Sanders and his campaign to an entirely different standard than they ever ask of Clinton.

    As for my "repeatedly," and according to you, "defensively," commenting on this subject, you must have me confused with someone else (Ga6th - I stopped counting at 18 comments; jb? I stopped counting at 30).  I have had a grand total of 6 comments on it.  Six.  In three days.  

    I have not apologized for or defended anyone; I've corrected the usual mischaracterizations from GA, suggested that perhaps jb needs to unclamp her jaws from this bone, but at no time have I ever said (1) it didn't happen, (2) it wasn't wrong to do it or (3) that no one should be held accountable.

    So, with all due respect, I think maybe you're off base.


    Lease stop. Recent research (3.50 / 4) (#68)
    by oculus on Sun Dec 20, 2015 at 12:42:49 PM EST
    indicates stress in older adults increases the risk of Alzheimer's disease.

    Gave you a "1" (none / 0) (#79)
    by Zorba on Sun Dec 20, 2015 at 03:55:26 PM EST
    for an ad hominem attack.  
    I think you know better than this, oculus.

    Not ad hominem. (none / 0) (#80)
    by oculus on Sun Dec 20, 2015 at 04:31:48 PM EST
    This whole back and forth causes me stress and, w/o benefit of personal knowledge or expertise, seems to me to exhibit others' stress also.

    Misunderstood your intent (none / 0) (#81)
    by Zorba on Sun Dec 20, 2015 at 04:43:44 PM EST
    Changed the 1 to a 3.

    Clinton and Sanders (none / 0) (#72)
    by ragebot on Sun Dec 20, 2015 at 01:41:01 PM EST
    official position seems to be it is time to move on.  I have noticed lots of combative comments at main stream news sites from both sides.

    I really have no dog in this fight.  Only poll I have seen on who won the debate is the Drudge one and it is suspect if only because Sanders was the winner with 60% OMalley with 30% and Clinton with 7.99%

    Anyone have a link to a better poll.


    If you're not averse (none / 0) (#78)
    by CoralGables on Sun Dec 20, 2015 at 02:26:00 PM EST
    to gamblers giving you the answer, Hillary's odds are dropping today. Sanders' odds are getting longer.

    Going rate to make a wager on winning the nomination:

    Clinton 1/14
    Sanders 8-1
    O'Malley anywhere from 66-1


    LOL. Last night I predicted more blow-ups today (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by shoephone on Sun Dec 20, 2015 at 12:38:41 PM EST
    on this site, and, obviously, I was right on the money.  

    Too hilarious. "Dog with a bone" doesn't even begin to cover it.

    As much research as you put in to (4.33 / 6) (#3)
    by Anne on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 08:56:01 AM EST
    so many issues and subjects, Jeralyn, I find it incomprehensible that you have reduced Bernie Sanders to being a harmless grandpa; it appears you know little about him, about his record, about his platforms, about his support.


    no one's going to take a chance and actually hand him the keys to the office of the Commander in Chief.
    does him - and you - a great disservice.

    Actually (1.00 / 1) (#6)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 10:02:31 AM EST
    But not enough Democrats are ready for his ideas,

    Hillary's main campaign thrust has been  has been built on stealing Sanders ideas,
    So she steals his campaign platforms, and Sanders campaign takes a peek at their demographic database,

    Hillary stole a whole lot more than Bernie's staff,


    She was (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 10:05:23 AM EST
    Running before Sanders

    Her (1.00 / 1) (#8)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 10:07:30 AM EST
    policy positions all have changed

    She stole the Bern campaign

    That is Theft!!


    Um, no (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by jbindc on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 10:12:20 AM EST
    Policy positions are free.

    The data stolen by the Sanders' campaign was gotten through hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of dollars and thousands of people-hours put in by the HRC campaign. It's work-priduct, which has a value. If these were two companies, thus would be corporate espionage.

    The two aren't even remotely related.


    There (none / 0) (#10)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 10:45:48 AM EST
    Is no corporate espionage, the data was left unprotected, anyone on either campaign had access to the information.
    No passwords were stolen, no security systems were breached,
    They walked in through a open door, and browsed.
    From what I understand, and I may be wrong, what was looked at was demographic data for just 2 states, Iowa and New Hampshire.

    On the other hand Clinton just took the blueprint of Sanders campaign, and co opted it. No, there is nothing she will not do , or say, to be President.
    Even the Clinton supporters have no faith that she will fulfill these campaign promises that she is throwing around.
    Name almost any issue, she has been on both sides of it.

    I just find it ironic that the Clinton campaign is squealing about theft, when the bulk of their "new " campaign is all Sanders policies.


    No, (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 10:54:29 AM EST
    You are wrong. They searched and saved information and made lists. It's not just that the glanced at the information

    I agree, Trevor (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 12:56:32 PM EST
    What's really ironic is watching people defend the ownership rights of the data used to cold-heartedly manipulate them.

    What is even more ironic is watching (4.00 / 3) (#33)
    by ruffian on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 05:21:06 PM EST
    the self proclaimed more liberal people saying stealing personal data is no big deal. That's really rich.

    Not accurate (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by shoephone on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 05:57:49 PM EST
    First, "liberals" are not saying it's no big deal what the Sanders staffers did. A few people who have flown off the handle on this site have mis-characterized what others here have said. The comments I've seen suggest that the staffers responsible for accessing the Clinton voter files need to be fired, that the database--which is known to have had firewall flaws previously--needs to be secured, and that DWS, who has compromised her own thin veil of impartiality, needs to step down.

    Secondly, data on voters is not personal information, it's electoral campaign information.


    Proof? (none / 0) (#38)
    by jbindc on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 06:09:36 PM EST
    which is known to have had firewall flaws previously

    The Sanders campaign keeps saying they told the DNC and vendor months ago, but we've yet to see any proof of those conversations.

    The vendor says this was the first time.


    This is a fiat lie (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 06:35:12 PM EST
    They have said in print there was a known bug.  

    Still eaiting (none / 0) (#43)
    by jbindc on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 06:51:04 PM EST
    On all those email conversations and phone logs from the Sanders campaign to the vendor and DNC tellung them this.

    And I asked for proof.  When I googled, the only thing I found about this not being the first time comes from the Sanders campaign - not actual proof.


    The ceo of the company (4.20 / 5) (#46)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 06:55:45 PM EST
    Not part of the Sanders campaign, has said there was a known software bug.  I'm not linking to it because you would just spew some more BS.  There are links and I'm sure you have seen them.   What you are doing is ridiculous.  Feel free to take the last word I'm done.

    Maybe you should educate yourself (5.00 / 4) (#41)
    by shoephone on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 06:45:34 PM EST
    before flying into rages all the time. Ya know, using google and such.

    David Atkins, in an article from today's Washington Monthly, had this to say:

    The DNC contracts with NGPVAN, meaning that firewalls between competitive primary campaigns within NGPVAN are incredibly important. But they also have been known to fail.

    The Atkins article is interesting and informative. It's written by someone who has years of experience working on campaigns, and prefers to use a different database than NGPVAN. He's very balanced in his view of the failings of the software, the Sanders campaign, and Wasserman-Schultz.

    As for your accusation that the Sanders campaign is lying about previous breaches on the VAN software, you may want to read this from Snopes to see what former Obama '08 campaign staffers noticed about that same software.

    Nothing is definitive, yet. But what information is already known holds weight.

    I need to get ready for dinner plans in town, so I'm not going to have any more time to devote to suppositions and accusations this evening. I'm sure by tomorrow there will be more blow-ups here. In fact, I think I can count on it.


    That is still not oroif (none / 0) (#44)
    by jbindc on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 06:53:00 PM EST
    That this database failed before and that the Sanders team told the DNC or vendor about it

    But, nice try.


    First of all, it wasn't personal data. (5.00 / 4) (#48)
    by Anne on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 07:01:48 PM EST
    Second, no one's saying it was okay that whatever was accessed was accessed.

    I read something today that might help people understand this whole thing a little better.

    The first thing to understand is that NGPVAN is a creaky voter database system that looks, and feels like it was put together in the 1990s. It has been the mainstay of Democratic campaigns all across the country and has intense loyalty among national campaign professionals--though it should be noted that the California Democratic Party uses one of its more robust and more expensive competitors PDI (PDI, hilariously, sent an email this morning to its users with the subject line "At PDI Data Security Is Our Top Priority.") I myself have extensive experience running campaigns on both platforms, both as a campaign consultant and as a county Democratic Party official in California.


    The other important piece of information to note is the difference between a "saved search" and a "saved list." NGPVAN's voter tracking has the option of being dynamic or static, meaning that you can run dynamic searches of voters whose characteristics may change as NGPVAN's data is updated, or you can pull static lists of voters who currently fit the profile you are seeking. Most voter data pulls within an NGPVAN campaign will be dynamic searches--and in fact, that is the default setting. You really only want to pull a static list if you're doing something specific like creating a list for a targeted mail piece--or if you want a quick snapshot in time of a raw voter list.

    However, merely pulling a search or a list doesn't mean you can automatically download all the information on those voters. You can see topline numbers. You can take a few screenshots--though it would take hundreds of screenshots and the data would be nearly useless in that format. To download the actual data, you would need to run an export--a step that requires extra levels of permissions only allowed to the highest level operatives. Despite the breach that allowed them to run lists and searches, Sanders staffers apparently did not have export access.

    However, the access logs do show that Sanders staff pulled not one but multiple lists--not searches, but lists--a fact that shows intent to export and use. And the lists were highly sensitive material. News reports have indicated that the data was "sent to personal folders" of the campaign staffers--but those refer to personal folders within NGPVAN, which are near useless without the ability to export the data locally.

    I have no idea why anyone would think it made sense to do what apparently was done by several Sanders campaign staffers.  

    I don't think this is going to kill the Sanders campaign; but I imagine the Clinton campaign is breathing a sigh of relief that no one on their staff took advantage of the 40-minute break in the firewall.  Given what Clinton went through with respect to her e-mail, I'm not sure she'd have survived the damage if her campaign staff had done this.

    I do think the Clinton campaign needs to tread carefully; too much umbrage, too much high-horsing, is not going to help bring either campaign's supporters to a position of unity once a nominee is chosen.  And the Sanders campaign needs to back off demonizing the Clinton campaign.

    I wish they could both agree that DWS needs to go, but that doesn't look likely.

    Above all, I think - I hope - we can all agree that unity is a must, even if we think there's no way a Trump or a Cruz could be elected.


    As president Obama is the (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by caseyOR on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 07:14:27 PM EST
    head of the Democratic Party. He, for whatever reason, appointed DWS to this position at the DNC. I doubt very much that he will ask her to resign. And, while I think she has been a disaster, any attempt by Sanders and/or Clinton to oust DWS in the middle of a presidential campaign would be a public relations nightmare, and a logistical one as well.

    When a New Democratic  president is elected Obama will no longer head the party. At that time the new president can replace DWS, just like Obama replaced Howard Dean.


    You don't know what you're talking about. (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 01:39:43 PM EST
    Trevorbolder: "On the other hand Clinton just took the blueprint of Sanders campaign, and co opted it. No, there is nothing she will not do , or say, to be President. Even the Clinton supporters have no faith that she will fulfill these campaign promises that she is throwing around."

    I happen to be a supporter of Mrs. Clinton's candidacy, and you have absolutely no business speaking for me or any other supporter of hers.

    You've clearly never worked in politics and government, and are once again just regurgitating whatever the latest hatemongering spew du jour about Democrats happens to be today, courtesy of the babbling and know-nothing white-wing robotrons at Fox News and AM squawk radio.

    Ideas and policy positions in politics and government aren't patented and copyrighted, Trevor. We place them in the public realm so that they might be examined, analyzed, borrowed, copied, emulated, amended and adopted, however candidates and public officials may determine.

    Bernie Sanders knows that his odds of winning the presidency are slim at best. His is a campaign of both ideas and ideals, and his stated goal has been to reinvigorate the Democratic Party by reminding its members of what we're supposed to stand for and who we're supposed to represent. And in that regard, he has likely succeeded beyond what even he probably thought possible when he first undertook this endeavor.

    Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and you'd be amazed at what you can actually see accomplished if you really don't mind who gets the credit. Sen. Sanders understands that.

    You and other GOP conservatives, on the other hand, quite obviously don't. Rather, you're motivated by a mildewed and obsolescent ideology that's lifted straight out of the Gilded Age and the McKinley administration's playbook.

    This ideology has further been underscored by a corroded concept of American exceptionalism and a warped sense of white male entitlement, both of which fuel this pervasive fear and blind rage about "The Other" that now hold the Republican rank-and-file and leadership by your collective throats.

    So, perhaps we should take up a collection, Trevor, that you and your fellow members of the Mark Hanna fan club can buy yourselves a sorely needed clue, one which might actually enable you to start living in the 21st century.



    Oh Be Jesus Mary and Joseph (none / 0) (#30)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 01:52:16 PM EST
    Step down off that high horse,

    And make sure you are wearing your boots

    Anyone knows policy positions cannot be copyrighted and patented,

    I just find it so funny that Hillary has changed so many positions to get in line with Sanders, or to get to his left, he should charge her with theft.

    Can anyone really believe anything Hillary says she stands for? Polling says no, voters do not believe her to be truthful

    It's called ironic.


    Irony (none / 0) (#31)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 03:08:06 PM EST

    a literary technique, originally used in Greek tragedy, by which the full significance of a character's words or actions are clear to the audience or reader although unknown to the character.

    Actually, Democrats believe her (none / 0) (#73)
    by Yman on Sun Dec 20, 2015 at 01:44:00 PM EST
    25 years of fake scandals tends to do some damage.

    The Republicans who are responsible for most of those negative numbers?  Who cares.  It's not like they're going to vote for her anyway.


    if by some chance Sanders wins (none / 0) (#13)
    by ding7777 on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 11:20:23 AM EST
     the nomination he will move to the center for the general election (or as you might say he is "stealing Hillary's" policies)

    Creating fake accounts (none / 0) (#16)
    by Towanda on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 12:01:44 PM EST
    to download (read: steal) Clinton campaign data is more than browsing.  You need to read the New Republic's reportage on this, Trevor. . . .

    Trevor doesn't care (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by CoralGables on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 12:13:56 PM EST
    He's not voting for Clinton or Sanders anyway.

    His willy-nilly accusations suggest: Trevor is (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by christinep on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 12:28:41 PM EST
    trying--unsuccessfully--to throw wedges between the two camps.  Maybe that is why I think he is trolling.

    Lol (none / 0) (#20)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 12:46:34 PM EST
    Sanders supporters do not need a wedge

    Hillary is everything they are not

    Please, just scroll through her positions now, and what they were 2 years ago, 4 years ago, 8 years ago.

    The most blatant one is the trade agreement.

    I just find it so ironic the  Clinton campaign is crying theft.


    Wasn't pushing the conversation to th left (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Dec 20, 2015 at 09:39:49 AM EST
    One of the reasons Bernie ran? My recollection was, he indicated if Elizabeth Warren ran, he would not.

    If Hillary has gone further to the left by adopting her opponents positions, isn't that what Senator Sanders wanted?

    Sounds to me like at least one of  Bernie's objectives was accomplished.


    "Stole them" - heh (none / 0) (#71)
    by Yman on Sun Dec 20, 2015 at 01:40:46 PM EST
    Uhhhmmm, ...no.  Bernie doesn't own any issues or policies, and probably not a phrase you should use in this thread.

    Nah (none / 0) (#75)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Dec 20, 2015 at 01:46:32 PM EST
    She stole them, she has no investment in any of his policies, other than the primary vote it will get her.

    And she will give some back for the general election, and then the rest of them if she becomes President.

    Is everyone so literal , very touchy about Hillarys Policy foundation, built upon shifting sand  


    Heh - that's funny (none / 0) (#76)
    by Yman on Sun Dec 20, 2015 at 01:49:52 PM EST
    Unless you're trying to be serious.  In which case, ...

    .... it's seriously funny.


    Please (none / 0) (#83)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Dec 20, 2015 at 07:30:47 PM EST
    I think everyone accepts that Hillary isn't invested in her new changing policies
    She is a weathervane

    As many here have posted, they appreciate Bernie running as it has caused Hillary to veer left

    You actually think she would have veered left without The Bern in the race, lol.

    She is not invested in her "newfound" positions.

    They were a necessary political move to outflank The Bern.


    Please (none / 0) (#86)
    by Yman on Sun Dec 20, 2015 at 09:10:11 PM EST

    My sides hurt from laughing so much.


    Ah (none / 0) (#102)
    by TrevorBolder on Mon Dec 21, 2015 at 05:26:06 AM EST
    A true believer
    Enjoy the kool aide

    Hillary should say that no one should be looking (none / 0) (#34)
    by ruffian on Sat Dec 19, 2015 at 05:25:02 PM EST
    at my personal data without a search warrant - not the government, not the Sanders campaign, NO ONE.