There is a difference between transparency and hacking.

[DanTex]

Hacking into the private, personal communications of DNC members, as well as financial records of donors, and publishing them is not "transparency". That is a crime.

You might argue, technically it's a crime, but it's in the interest of the greater good for the public to have more information about political parties and leaders. This is the basic moral argument from Assange, Snowden, etc. I have sympathy for this argument, within limits.

But in this case, the targets of the hacking are partisan. They went after Democrats, and not Republicans. If they decided to leak personal emails from party leaders on both sides, that's one thing. But leaking just the Dem emails is a purely pro-Trump move. This is not about empowering the public, it is about influencing the democratic process in the direction that a small number of hackers want it to go.

The only moral defense of this would come from someone who believes so strongly in President Trump that they think the means of illegally and one-sidedly exposing private communications is justified by the goal of electing Trump to the White House.

I'm sure there are some people who feel that way. In fact, I feel that Trump is enough of a threat to this nation, that if someone hacked into his or the RNCs emails and leaked them, I would be happy about it. No, I don't approve of hacking into people's private emails, but the damage Trump would do to the nation and the world if he were elected is just so extreme, that in my opinion, it would be morally justified.

And so, yeah, I get that people with the polar opposite political views as me -- people who think that the world is going to hell because of Latinos and Muslims and only Trump can save us -- will likewise be happy about what Wikileaks did. But what is puzzling is that people on DU are celebrating this nakedly pro-Trump act.

[onehandle]

1. How come this isn't happing to Republicans? Who is funding the hackers?

Hmm........

[nsd]

4. Putin/Russia? /nt

[yeoman6987]

37. Is it possible Repugs have better computer security?

I don't know but it's like companies. Some get hacked and some don't.

[newblewtoo]

45. I have always found them to be a bit

anal retentive when it comes to that type security so yes it is possible they do. It is also possible no one cares enough to bother hacking those bitches britches. Chances are you are going to find just what you might expect, where would be the 'news' in that?? Besides they are doing an excellent job of self immolation just stand back and let them finish the job themselves.

[Frances]

2. Agree

I would not want my private emails hacked because I say some things in confidence, especially when trying to be supportive of someone going through a tough time

Or when I am going through a tough time and want to vent

I think that anyone in the DNC has to be very interested in politics and I expect them to have their own views. I want them to make every effort to abide by rules, but I don't begrudge them their personal views

Look at the posts on DU, for example

[Scuba]

3. So everything the DNC did was OK because it was exposed by hackers?

[DanTex]

5. What the DNC did was OK, period. Hackers or no hackers.

The hackers didn't expose wrongdoing, they exposed private communications and personal financial information. The objective was to sow discord among Democrats and help Trump become president.

[Scuba]

6. So violating their own impartiality rules is OK?????

This isn't about Trump; it's about the DNC's behavior.

[DanTex]

7. They didn't violate any impartiality rules.

There are no rules as to what DNC members are allowed to write in personal emails. What matters is their actions, which were impartial.

[Scuba]

9. This is about actions, not opinions.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2283493

[DanTex]

11. Did you seriously post a link to "USUncut". LOL.

What next, an HA Goodman article? A "sane progressive" video? Be serious.

[Scuba]

13. Are you disputing the content or attacking the source? The DNC has not refuted the leaked emails.

[DanTex]

14. I'm doing both. The content is garbage, which is not surprising, because the source is

also garbage. I'm not interested in USUncut's take on the DNC emails anymore than I am of HA Goodman's.

[Scuba]

15. The DNC isn't denying that the emails are authentic.

[DanTex]

18. Neither am I. I am denying that they violated any rules.

The USUncut article doesn't expose any rule violations, they just take private emails that don't violate any rules and falsely claim they are rule violations.

It's like this. If you bugged Judge Gonzalo Curiel's home, I bet that at some point he makes a comment to his wife about Trump's racist attacks on him. That doesn't make him unfit to be a judge, he's allowed to have personal thoughts and communicate them in private to his wife as long as he acts in an impartial manner when presiding over the case.

In the same way, DWS is allowed to say critical things about Bernie Sanders in private communication, particularly since the Bernie campaign was constantly impugning her integrity. That's not against the rules, anymore than Curiel's hypothetical comments to his wife would be.

[Scuba]

19. Here's the rule they violated ...

[DanTex]

21. They didn't violate that rule.

DWS is allowed to state a personal opinion in a private email, as long as she exercises impartiality in the conduct of the Presidential nomination process. And she did that.

[Scuba]

22. They acted inappropriately, as has been exposed by the leaked email. Pretending it's just ...

.... opinions being expressed is burying one's head in the sand.

[DanTex]

24. No, they didn't. There is zero evidence of that.

They sent private emails to each other expressing things that they meant to express in private and now Russian hackers have leaked them in order to try to embarrass them and help Trump win.

There are zero examples of partiality in the actual conducting of the nomination process. This is why you have to resort to linking to "USUncut". Because you've got nothing.

[Kentonio]

26. Yes there was, the debate scheduling debacle was the most open and obvious example.

Then again as you all denied the incredible obviousness if it back then, despite most political commentators also saying it was obvious partisanship, I don't expect you to suddenly admit the truth now.

[DanTex]

28. The leaked emails, to my knowledge, said nothing about debate scheduling.

[Scuba]

30. Be patient.

[Kentonio]

32. Why would we need an email about it? The act was carried out completely openly.

The fact it did nothing to aid the DNC's supposed cause (increasing visibility of the DNC candidates and platform), harmed Sanders (by reducing his visibility) and only actually helped Clinton (by harming Sanders) left most people with little doubt as to what the motive was.

None of this matters in terms of the nomination of course, we need to beat Trump. The idea that thee DNC should get a free pass on it however is not ok, and its especially not ok when people (not you) keep claiming that anyone who is angry about it is just carrying water for the GOP. The sooner we clean house, the sooner we can properly focus on what is important.

[DanTex]

34. So this is just the same old grudge from a year ago. The emails are just an excuse to

re-litigate things that are long behind us.

[Kentonio]

36. It's an actual issue.

The fact it has been ignored for a year because we were in the middle of a primary battle and everyone was split into sides doesn't stop it being an issue. That battle is over now, and we should be able to sort out the issue finally without the pressure of the nomination hanging over it. Anything that brings the party together now is a good thing that increases our chances in November, and resolving these long unresolved problems will go a long way towards achieving that.

[yeoman6987]

39. Then she should speak at the convention.

Why are we acting guilty if we are not?

[DanTex]

40. I don't get to make that decision.

[yeoman6987]

42. I know. I don't either.

We need more power. Lol.

[annavictorious]

31. Were the tactics discussed actually implemented or just discussed between individuals?

Did party leadership actually green light anything?

Doesn't wrongdoing generally involve actually doing something rather than talking about it?

[Scuba]

33. See for yourself ....

http://usuncut.com/politics/dnc-leaks-9-emails/

[annavictorious]

43. Do you have anything other than spin from a notoriously biased internet source?

Next thing, you'll be linking to Goodman and RT.

And do you have anything that actually shows that the tactics were actually implemented?

[Scuba]

44. The DNC isn't denying that the emails are authentic.

[stonecutter357]

8. K&R!

[TheKentuckian]

10. When there is no transparency then hacking is necessary

especially if they are or support the surveillance state spooks.

What a bunch of hypocrites! All about undermining, end arounding, or flat out opposing Constitutionally protected privacy for us but will go to any effort to hide public business from the public even while being inept at.

[nashville_brook]

12. ding ding ding...we have a winnah!

so obvious...to those paying attention.

[DanTex]

17. That's the Assange argument, and like I said, I'm sympathetic, to a point.

But this was not a hack for the sake of informing the public, it was a pro-Trump hack designed to sow discord among democrats. What's more, there wasn't any actual wrongdoing exposed, just some dumb things said in private email communications.

Also, it appears to be actually the product of state surveillance spooks from Russia. That's right, Russian state hackers are trying to influence US elections in a pro-Trump direction, and some people on DU are actually happy about it. Unreal.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. nothing is safe that does not show how it can bear discussion and publicity." Lord Acton

Every thing secret degenerates, even the administration of justice; nothing is safe that does not show how it can bear discussion and publicity. Lord Acton

[DanTex]

23. My guess is that when it comes to your personal communications and financial

records, you feel a little differently about privacy than when it comes to the communications and financial records of other people.

Am I right?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

25. Of course. But, I'm not the DNC an organization trying to elect a government.

Shouldn't the members of the party that the DNC represents be privy to what the DNC is doing?

[DanTex]

27. Are you suggesting that DNC members can't have private conversations?

How far do you want to take this? Should we bug all of their homes and publish everything they say to their families? Maybe we can attach their brains to some science fiction machine to record even their private thoughts.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

29. Is the DNC not responsible for what it does?

For what donations it accepts from whom? Are not some of the communications revealing about the methods used during the campaign?

Why shouldn't the members of the party know what the organization that represents it is doing?

Would you be as upset it the same kind of revelations were made about how Trump came to be the nominee? If the public were told who contributes to his campaign?

[annavictorious]

35. The DNC didn't implement the tactics that these two individuals discussed.

"Why shouldn't the members of the party know what the organization that represents it is doing? "

We know what the DNC did and didn't do. For what it's worth, these ideas were never carried out.

"...the methods used during the campaign"

These "methods" were discussed by two people and never adopted by the DNC.

[DanTex]

38. Sure. But it didn't actually do anything that violated any rules.

The emails leaked by Russia/Wikileaks were private communications. They weren't actions.

If a bunch of internal RNC/Trump emails were leaked, and they managed to sow discord among Republicans, I would be happy because I don't want Trump to become president.

[Hav]

20. The decision of revealing info from one side and not the other is one issue.

I'm more concerned about revealing critical private information of donors, for example. Transparancy is one thing, but you should still have a right that certain private information like cc data doesn't get published against your will. Otherwise, all these hackers and leakers should operate fully transparent with their real names and all their private info public and plastered all over the web as well. But I guess transparency doesn't apply to them.

[asiliveandbreathe]

41. Thank you for expressing and explaining this

difference..I have been saying it is the hack that is truly a crime - the other stuff is just politics...and further - the personal donor information - similar to the jeb bush fiasco, should never have been exposed....we need to go after the hackers....

be well..

[eastwestdem]

46. Excellent point. nt