If Bernie Sanders would have joined the Democratic Party back when he first...

[MohRokTah]

Ran for the Senate, he would have had a say in who was to become the chairperson of the Democratic National Committee.

So complaining about it now is much like closing the barn door after the horse gets out.

[Leftyforever]

1. lol

not serious... lol

[Iliyah]

2. Yeah, but but but

[MohRokTah]

4. You posted while I was typing.

I care about what you have to say.

[Iliyah]

10. It ironic isn't it

What a world - LOL

[tecelote]

50. He has a right to complain now.

Gross negligence by the vendor and continued incompetence by the DNC staff.

The firewall was down for everyone not just Sanders. Common protocol is to lock everyone out when a firewall is compromised.

Your local elementary school does it with their data. The DNC was incapable after multiple incidences.

Why does such incompetence not bother you whether you're for Hillary, Bernie or Martin?

[MohRokTah]

3. OH look, someone has replied and I cannot see what they said.

That tells me I don't care what they said.

[w4rma]

5. That's misinformation. Bernie has been caucusing with the Democratic Party his entire Congressional

career. By being a caucus member, he was able to have a say.

[1StrongBlackMan]

7. Are you sure about that? ...

I was pretty sure non-party members have zero say in what occurs within the party.

Perhaps, you should look into it a bit farther.

[AtomicKitten]

16. He serves as top Democrat on the Budget Commitee.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/bernie-sanders-remakes-budget-committee-his-image

[MohRokTah]

19. That has zero to do with the DNC

If you are not a Democrat, you cannot be a member of the DNC. While in the Senate he voted for majority/minority leaders and whips.

He has never been in the Democratic Party until recently, thus he could not be a member of the DNC.

[1StrongBlackMan]

25. More acurately ...

He serves as the top member of the Democratic Caucus, serving on the Budget Committee. Bernie is an Independent that caucuses with the Democrats. But Caucus in with the Democrats does not allow non-party members a say in the Democratic Party's internal operation.

[bobbobbins01]

51. He also marched with Martin Luther King.

That's the only caucus he needs.

[pnwmom]

63. Millions of people can say that. It's nice, but not a qualification for the Presidency. nt

[MrWendel]

64. Oh look kids...

it's time to play the "I marched with Martin" card!

[1StrongBlackMan]

69. If I was more the cynic ...

I would think that poster responded like that because of my screen name!

You think?

[1StrongBlackMan]

67. Huh? Okay ... now what are you talking about?

[Iliyah]

8. Not a member of the Democratic Party while serving in the Senate

"a member".

[MohRokTah]

11. No, he wasn't

Only Democrats have a say. Independents who caucus with the party have no say beyond the leadership votes in the legislative body.

While in the House, he had a say in the Speaker, majority/minority leaders, whips, etc. but he had no say in the DNC chair because he was not a member of the DNC.

[billhicks76]

56. Who Cares?

We want change. We want a lot of things. And Hillary will offer nothing but Wall St and War Machine corruption. You will never change your mind. Good luck with that.

[MohRokTah]

59. You obviously care.

You took the time to post in a thread about his choices and lack of say in internal DNC politics.

[Betty Karlson]

6. I'm glad you at least find your own remarks funny.

To me it sounds like camp Weathervane is gloating over their ability to play foul.

[1StrongBlackMan]

9. This isn't my fight; but, ...

What foul play?

[Betty Karlson]

12. Shutting the Sanders campaign out of their own data,

after the Sanders campaign have alerted on the security breach for two months.

The DNC let the breach continue as long as the Cinton campaign could benefit from it, and took an action that disadvantaged the Sanders campaign when it suited the Clinton campaign most.

The fact that the DNC didn't dare to let Sanders take it to court only shows how little basis DWS and the rest of the coronation committee had for such a biased action.

[MohRokTah]

14. That wouldn't have happened if he would have cooperated on Wednesday

He refused to cooperate.

It's his own damned fault he lost access temporarily. The whole thing could have been settled within a couple of hours of the breach, but he refused to cooperate.

[Betty Karlson]

21. One cannot prove a negative. It is impossible to co-operate with such a request.

This whole thing stinks of DWS bias. Anything to secure the nomination for her opreferred candidate; democracy be "damned".

[MohRokTah]

23. The only bias in this scandal

Comes from Sanders, his campaign, and his supporters.

[Betty Karlson]

26. Those who will not see usually just repeat accusations without argumentation.

Your post is a prime example of that truth.

[MohRokTah]

27. No, it's the massive Humber of posts from Sanders supporters

that are evidence of your axiom

[Betty Karlson]

28. You ignore them at your own peril.

Good luck with the last 20th century campaign in USA history.

[MohRokTah]

31. Any that won't vote for Hillary after she is nominated...

we're never Democrats and would never vote Democratic to begin with, so no loss there.

[Betty Karlson]

36. 2010 / 2014 low voter turn-out is because the voters weren't "real Democrats"?

I am appalled by your cognitive dissonance.

[MohRokTah]

41. Democratic turnout in non-presidential elections is always low.

In 2010 and 2014, the issue is compounded by higher than usual turnout by Republicans who were motivated by hatred for Obama.

[1StrongBlackMan]

29. The Bernie campaign couldn't cooperate in ...

an analysis of what they admitted occurred?

Really?

[Betty Karlson]

33. The issue was that they should prove they had no data from the Clinton campaign.

They had to prove a non-existence. How is one to meet such an onus of proof? Impossible.

[MohRokTah]

39. That wasn't the requirement.

They had to ASSURE the DNC that the data had all been deleted and would not be used in strategy. That's it, simply state in writing they have no copies and no matter what, the breached data will not be used by their campaign in decision making.

They had to further cooperate with with an independent audit.

My guess is, they knew damned well and good to they could not make such an assurance and scrambled to be certain that no data existed on their equipment before cooperating.

[Betty Karlson]

40. In other words: they had to prove a non-existence. Which is impossible.

You cannot prove that data has been deleted if it hasn't been established that the data was downloaded in the first place. All we know for sure is that the data had been accessed.

Prove to me that you have stopped hitting your wife.

[MohRokTah]

44. Again, that was not the requirement.

I suggest you use dictionary.com

[Omaha Steve]

68. Link to that info please

Since I haven't read that in anything so far. Help me out here.

OS

[1StrongBlackMan]

43. Sure they could ...

The reporting indicates specific files were downloaded and shared among 4 people, over a specific period. All they had to do is provide access to those 4 accounts.

If the files weren't there, Camp Bernie would be vindicated ... on the other hand, if the files WERE there ... well ...

[1StrongBlackMan]

15. That is some conspiracy theory stuff, right there.

Are you suggesting accessing the proprietary data of an opposing candidate is to be ... excused? ... ignored? ... because they notified the DNC?

Does that even make sense?

[Betty Karlson]

24. No: it is inexcusable.

Which is why the DNC was alerted in October - and then they did nothing? How does that make sense?

Only when the Sanders campaign wanted to collect proof / ascertain whether Clinton had accessed their data, did the DNC suddenly shut them out of the data. And only them, even though there was every reason to suspect that the Clinton campaign had potentially accessed proprietary data (not their own) too, but without reporting it for two months.

[1StrongBlackMan]

34. Really? ...

So you tell a bank that their security system is flawed, and they do nothing to fix the flaw ... so, per your argument, you are free to exploit the flaw and help yourself to the vault ... right?

Your second paragraph does not comport with the facts, as reported by multiple sources.

I know ... I know ... the media is in on it, too.

[Betty Karlson]

38. Showing the bank that you can access your neighbour's bank account...

should not result in just you being denied access to online banking. It should result in EVERYBODY being denied access, because everybody can potentially access each other's accounts.

Shutting you out while your neighbour can still access their account and YOURS doesn't make sense - unless the bank want to disadvantage you and only you, or if they want to enable one of your neighbours in particular.

[leftofcool]

70. Uh, no

Showing the bank you can access your neighbor's account shows them you are a thief.

[Betty Karlson]

72. Shooting the messenger: standard corporatist behaviour.

[joshcryer]

13. DWS should not have pulled the trigger.

Knowing damn well she couldn't go through with fighting an injunction on the eve of a damn Democratic debate.

[MohRokTah]

17. Sanders should have cooperated in Wednesday

Kmowing damned well that would have been the end of it and he would not have come off as an unprincipled dishonest politician.

Instead, he chose to blame the victim.

[joshcryer]

20. That's Weaver's fault.

Sanders didn't have any knowledge of it until DWS called him up and told him.

Weaver and the rest of the data guys were waffling the entire fucking time, throwing out so many excuses, making up so many outs. And of course a lot of idiots are buying in to it.

Now Sanders has the prospect of his campaign being hurt because it's suing the DNC over a non-issue that would've never happened if DWS got off her high horse and had a meeting with Sanders personally.

They need to drop the suit and fire Weaver if he can't get it together. This is the wrong ball game to play. Right now it can blow over quietly.

But DWS needs to fucking go, she endangered the whole party.

[wildeyed]

71. I could get behind this too.

DWS falls on her sword and Sanders steps up and acknowledges his people's misdeeds and fires a few more. Works for me....

[billhicks76]

53. Clinton Backed Down

Lawsuit is proceeding. That's where facts come out...not your erroneous smearing. Clinton could have read all Sanders data without downloading. Sanders warned them in October. The CEO of the data firm worked for Clinton just like Schultz did. Please don't pollute the discussion with falsehoods.

[1StrongBlackMan]

18. I agree; but ...

Didn't she release the data?

[joshcryer]

22. Release what data?

[Iliyah]

30. After the agreement today she will release the data

[joshcryer]

32. What data? The proof of the breach?

And I'm not sure what that has to do with fighting the injunction. The DNC cannot fight an injunction the eve of a Democratic debate. It can't fight an injunction against a leading campaigner throughout the primaries, for that matter. It's political suicide and DWS should have known better.

[Iliyah]

35. After the agreement for investigation into the breach DWS agreed to release

BS' list of the files.

[1StrongBlackMan]

37. No, the DNC will provide Camp Bernie ...

Access to the database.

I would suspect Camp HRC had something to do with that.

[joshcryer]

42. Yeah, I think so too.

I think the Clinton camp and other top Democrats realized what a clusterfuck was about to happen. If DWS, by pulling the trigger, wound up fighting the injunction in court, she would have won.

The DNC was well within its rights to stop the data flow due to the "all necessary measures" clause over protecting confidential information in the contract.

edit: To clarify, if the DNC did not provide access to the database they would have had to file a motion fighting the injunction, and the lawyers would have made the argument about the "all necessary measures" clause, escalating the issue further; because at that point the Sanders campaign could not get access to the data without an independent audit or something crazy.

She simply jumped the gun without thinking about the ramifications for the entire party and needs to go.

[1StrongBlackMan]

47. I agree ...

I think it came down to a pissing match, with neither DWS or Camp Bernie willing to back down.

[AgingAmerican]

45. It worked out better this way

The corruption machine exposed itself! Absolute power corrupted absolutely! This whole thing is a huge public service to real Democrats. Can see what their party has turned into - a corrupt anti-democratic power unto itself.

[MohRokTah]

46. The only corruption machine exposed in this scandal was the Sanders campaign

[billhicks76]

49. That Is Beyond The Pale

The guy with all the integrity? You expect anyone to believe your lies? Mind-boggling. And I thought republicans lived in a bubble.

[billhicks76]

48. Really? That's A Joke

Who the hell cares. She's awful regardless of who picked her. No debates practically? Letting Trump take all the airtime? She should be in jail in my opinion. Watch people leave the party. Real smart. Repugnant.

[MohRokTah]

52. Jail??? REALLY???

The only people who belong in jail in this scandal are four Sanders staffers.

[billhicks76]

58. That's Amusing

[MohRokTah]

60. They are the only ones who actually committed a crime.

[billhicks76]

73. You Don't Have All The Facts Yet

Clintin could've been observing all that data and transcribing by hand over last three months. That's doable. Someone may have "downloaded" to show proof that the data company refuses to fix the problem that allowed BOTH sides to see the others rolls. Sanders had two million donations. His roladex is infinitely larger and more relevant than Clintons. They backed down because they knew a lawsuit would bring the actual facts to light of which you don't have a complete version now.

[merrily]

54. He voted Dem, but wanted to be beholden only to voters, not to party donors. What a scoundrel!

Dems like Howard Dean (when head of the DNC) and Schumer (when head of the DSCC) called him an asset to the Democratic Party.

But, sure, let's keep posting sh*t that is against voters' self interest in clean politics and clean politicians. And to make it really, really ironic, let's do that while we condemn the Supreme Court decision in Citizens' United and donate to Hillary's super PACS.

[moobu2]

61. I think he stayed an independent so he could use it as leverage

with the 2 political parties. If the Democrats needed another vote, they could give Bernie some important position on a committee to encourage him to vote with them for example etc... Bernie Sanders is an egotistical phony who's just using the Democratic Party for his own purposes.

[merrily]

62. Did you pull that out of your left ear or your right ear?

[NCTraveler]

55. Clintons network is beyond impressive.

It comes from decades of work with the democrats.

Perfect point you make.

[MohRokTah]

57. Had Sanders joined the Democratic Party way back in the beginning...

his network within the party would have rivaled Clinton's easily.

[DonCoquixote]

65. Goalpost moving

Debbie got shown to be a hack, period. Are you really trying to sell the idea that if Hillary wanted Debbie, Sanders would not have been outright ignored?

Come now, all the use of smilies cannot cover for the fact people are not buying what DWS is selling.

[BeyondGeography]

66. You're going to get screwed

Running as an outsider, literally and figuratively, against a lifetime party stalwart like HRC with her crony atop the DNC is a recipe for unfairness. It's too bad, but that's life and, as such, to be expected.

I thought Bernie's campaign fought well and won the day yesterday. I also think in the larger picture Bernie's choice to remain independent all these years hasn't helped him one iota in this primary.

As someone who's much more invested in winning next November than in this or that candidate, this saga makes me wince. The DNC looks incestuous and inept, and, when Bernie loses, which he will, his supporters will have one more reason to feel less enthused about the winner.