So now the Sanders' campaign is suggesting that the DNC is behind the data breech

[still_one]

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/the-sanders-campaign-is-taking-their-fight-with-200738611.html?soc_src=mail&soc_trk=ma

A few days ago the Sanders camp suspends two more staffers over data breach

"Bernie Sanders' campaign suspended two more staffers directly involved in the data breach that has roiled the party, a Sanders aide confirmed to POLITICO after the Democratic debate on Saturday night.
Pending an investigation, the two aides join data director Josh Uretsky in leaving the campaign following the revelation that they accessed and downloaded voter information from Hillary Clinton's team during a technology glitch on Wednesday."

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/bernie-sanders-suspends-two-staffers-217007

We have a Sanders' advisor making implications, but no proof. Wonderful

Does the Sanders campaign have proof or not? If they don't have proof, and it turns out false, then do they believe using Joe McCarthy tactics is a good strategy?

[NCTraveler]

1. The Sanders campaign is imploding.

Proof: The last week. It doesn't make sense because it's the same reaction a child has when mom of dad catches them with their hand in the cookie jar.

[please_read]

5. LOL

[draa]

10. Why do you care if his campaign is imploding?

Come on, tell why you're concerned. Is he your candidate? I don't know but I doubt it. If he's not, please tell us why you even care.

For most of us it's obvious why you folks are so concerned with Sanders' chances that you'd post repeatedly about it. And it has nothing to do with Sanders chances. smh

[NCTraveler]

20. SBOH. Nt

[draa]

35. +1

[tecelote]

2. Here's the new issue mentioned...

The Sanders adviser described the fact Uretsky was recommended to the campaign by people with links to the DNC as astonishing in light of what happened. Specifically, the adviser pointed out that the campaign was slammed by Clinton’s team for the breach and punished by the DNC.

“I just think it’s utter hypocrisy on their part,” said the adviser. “I mean here we are being attacked for the behavior of an individual, which we ultimately fired. We agree he acted improperly, but it’s just amazing to me that this … individual that actually caused this trouble in our campaign was recommended by these guys.”

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/the-sanders-campaign-is-taking-their-fight-with-200738611.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251946750

---

Hillary agreed to an investigation during the debate. Let's see where it goes.

BTW - no one is being called a commie.

[still_one]

11. Gee, Ted Devine has DNC connections. Something isn't right

[Uncle Joe]

12. If Wall Street has its' way that's only a matter of time.

It’s a Wonderful Life, Comrade

Which makes it all the crazier that when the movie first came out, it fell under suspicion from the FBI and the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) as Communist propaganda, part of the Red Scare that soon would lead to the blacklist and witch hunt that destroyed the careers of many talented screen and television writers, directors and actors.

(snip)

Since then, the movie has been more than redeemed as it slowly became a sentimental and beloved holiday perennial. And if anything, its portrayal of a villainous banker has been vindicated a thousand fold as in the last seven years we’ve seen fraudulent mortgages and subsequent foreclosures, bankers unrepentant after an unprecedented taxpayer bailout and unpunished after a mindboggling spree of bad calls, profligacy and corkscrew investments that raked in billions while others suffered the consequences.

It’s a wonderful life, alright, but not if you’re homeless or unemployed tonight, not if your kids are hungry and you can’t pay for heat. There are still a lot of Mr. Potters in the world. We know who you are and we’ll keep calling you out. God rest ye merry, gentlemen.

http://billmoyers.com/2014/12/23/wonderful-life-comrade/

[tecelote]

21. +1!

[99th_Monkey]

22. "Hillary agreed to an investigation during the debate. Let's see where it goes. "

As I understand it, "the investigation" the DNC has already handed over the DNC, to a shadowy
corporation with a reputation as the quintessential "corporate fixer", like a privatized CIA, that
"makes sure" certain things happen for their clients. It's called Kroll.

Googling "Kroll, Bush, DNC, NGP VAN, Clinton" (or some variations) will turn-up quite an unsettling eye-full.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2015/12/23/curious-choice-of-auditor-for-democratic-database-flap.htm
https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/3y3r8o/details_on_how_the_dnc_and_kroll_the_group_hired/

Including this one on Daily Kos, which is well worth a read:
Some things we learned from yesterday’s data kerfuffle
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/12/19/1461908/-Some-things-we-learned-from-yesterday-s-data-kerfuffle

[tecelote]

29. Thanks!

I thought that the investigation was to be court ordered by an independent company agreed on by both parties?

Or...was that wishful thinking and everything is rigged in Clinton's favor?

[99th_Monkey]

38. That may be doing on too, I'm not certain of that.

There was some brief mention of "mutually agreeable" but it seemed to be eclipsed by
DNC's announcement it had unilaterally assigned it to Kroll.

This thing is unfolding still, as we speak. My sense is pretty much anything could happen next.

[Hoyt]

3. This crud just makes Democrats look bad. If it's indication of how Sanders' administration

would handle similar issues, . . . . . .

[draa]

16. Please, just stop.

After 32 years in this party this is nothing. This squabble just happens to be more public than most. It's not bad for anyone, especially not with the GOP so insane.

If our party can't withstand this then it's our fault. We built it and if it's that weak, we deserve to bear the brunt. Thanks.

[tecelote]

24. Exactly.

We need a President unafraid to take action.

Bernie is the most honest person running.

He and Hillary have been in politics for a long time. Who's had scandal after scandal?

[Thinkingabout]

52. There is big difference in scandal and actual fact of the breach, this is nat a scandal.

[99th_Monkey]

4. Your rhetorical question is perched on a mile-high stack of false presumptions & nasty insinuations

"Does the Sanders campaign have proof or not? If they don't have proof, and If it turns out false, then do they believe using Joe McCarthy tactics is a good strategy?"

[1StrongBlackMan]

14. And the whole basis for the investigation is based on what? eom.

[99th_Monkey]

36. The basis for the investigation is this: a DNC plant named Josh, "stole" data from Clinton,

from a database that is mis-managed by a well-known pro-Clinton DWS hand-picked company called NGP VAN, a company that "recommended" Josh to the Sanders campaign to manage his database.

Have you not heard about all this? Which parts are unclear to you?

[1StrongBlackMan]

44. Perhaps, you should check in with Bernie central ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=948274

[99th_Monkey]

51. Perhaps I should, but this is NOT a link to "Bernie Central", it's to an article on Kos

an article written in an to attempt to tamp-down Sanders supporters' concerns about Josh
being "recommended" as a HRC/DNC mole to set-up Sanders' DataGate in hopes of damaging his
campaign.

The article itself concludes in part with this admission:

There’s plenty in the article to raise both eyebrows and legitimate questions about the DNC’s ethics and actions ..

Then caps it off with this ... "..without falling in with what appears to be an instance of journalistic exaggeration.."

Nice try, but your title line has virtually nothing to do with your link.

[1StrongBlackMan]

57. LOL. n/t

[still_one]

17. Alert then

[99th_Monkey]

28. Why would I do that?

I've been on DU for over a decade, and since 2007 as 99th_Monkey, and I think
I have initiated probably no more than 10 alerts, for that entire time, or thereabouts.

Unlike some on DU, I don't have a habit of alerting posts that simply disagree, or even
ones that may offend me for some reason, other than reasons clearly stated in TOS. I
don't see anything in TOS about presumptions and insinuations being alert-worthy.

[still_one]

49. Sorry, I thought you were impling I was being incidenary,

It's intent was a hypothetical comment, with a valid or invalid comment or assumption

I apologize for jumping to the wrong conclusion

Also I like you avoid alerting, and never put anyone on ignore.

Happy and safe Holiday

[99th_Monkey]

54. No problemo.

I think honest disagreements are the life-blood of democracy.

Wishing you all the best over the holidays as well.

[nc4bo]

6. Not concerned over a bunch of blather......

I'll take a wait and see stance.

Everything else are just some folks being really, really thirsty.

[awake]

7. It seems like the DNC leaked this problem to the press

Instead of handling it quietly behind closed doors the way It would have been done under Dean's leadership DWS let this situation get out of control. I can not say if the DNC had their hand in the data breach but the way they have let it cuntinue to cause deviceiness has not help the party or any of our candidates.

[seabeyond]

13. Dean wasnt dealing with Sanders. Maybe that is the difference in the handling, Sanders has no desire

to keep the chaos out of the Democratic party, but more willing to help it along and be a part of the chaos.

[draa]

18. The DNC could have handled this better as well.

Don't blame Sanders because this was taken to the press. That wasn't his fault. This could have been dealt with internally and all this avoided, but going to the press was a shit move. Even more so when the DNC is supposed to work for ALL candidates. They brought this on themselves.

[seabeyond]

32. He notched it up threatening suit at tune of 600k a day of the peoples $ before DNC took to press

[draa]

39. I understand that. But they'd cut him off from his data so what did you expect him to do.

Did you really expect him to stand by and be held hostage like that. Under terms of contract they simply weren't allowed to do what they did. They weren't allowed to "suspend" his contract. Should he have folded and went back home then? I mean, what should he have done if the DNC refused to release his data? The argument that his lawsuit was the reason is for going to the press makes no sense.

Like I said before, it's the DNC's fault. There's a lot that they could have done differently. Too bad for them they didn't.

[seabeyond]

42. He stole and refused to comply. What did you expect DNC to do? Stand by, be held hostage?

[draa]

46. I expect the DNC to do the same thing anyone who signs a contract does.

Honor it. And they should have shut down ALL campaigns until the firewall breach was fixed. That's where their mistake was made. Even though you claim theft, that still doesn't cover the contract and the fact that they targeted Sanders when all campaigns data was at risk.

There's a clause in the contract that would allow the DNC a remedy to the initial problem. They ignored it. Whether they pay for it I don't know, but I do know that the DNC, if they wanted to shut down a campaign like they did, should have went to a federal judge before doing it.

[seabeyond]

48. And all Sanders had to do was comply. It would have been a one day story, done. Over with.

DNC would not have shut him out of his stuff.

Instead, Sanders thinks this makes him look presidential and he is playing it for all he has, attacking the Democratic party that welcomed him into the primaries. He failed and continues to fail, every step of the way.

That is not on anyone else, but Sanders.

[draa]

50. Seriously? Comply with what exactly?

I'm confused, he reported the firewall being down on Thursday and then the DNC suspends his data. What was he suppose to comply with? He had nothing to comply with even if he was expected to comply (he'd already complied).

His data was suspended after he reported the breach and fired Uretsky. That was on a Thursday mid morning. He asked for his data to be restored after they fixed the firewall and they accused him of stealing. You have accused him of stealing. He didn't steal anything. NGP VAN said so themselves. Here's Snopes if you need more proof.

WHAT'S FALSE: The data were accessed over a lengthy period; the data were "exported" or otherwise extracted; the data were of high value to the Sanders campaign.

http://www.snopes.com/bernie-sanders-campaign-data-breach-controversy/

You notice the word "export" in that quote? He didn't steal anything. His staff accessed data that they weren't supposed to view. Nothing was stolen. They restored the firewall, Sanders fired Uretsky, and then asked for his data to be restored. The DNC refused and Sanders sued. That's it. That said, the DNC going to the press was still a shit move and that will never change.

[MeNMyVolt]

8. Let's see what he says tomorrow, after MTP and FTN.

The Yahoo story was thinly sourced, and from and "advisor".

[MohRokTah]

9. The desperate actions of floundering campaigns are HILARIOUS!!!!!!!!!!!

This is better than ANYTHING Jeb! Has pulled yet!

[Bluenorthwest]

15. Can you dispute the facts of what the advisor actually said? He said the individual

who looked at files had been recommended by the vendor. If the author of the piece characterizes that as conveying some other meaning that would be up to the author. Do they have proof of what they said? Sure, it's just a matter of fact.

Can you tell me why they should not mention those facts?

[Luminous Animal]

19. Looks like you got played.

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2015/12/26/1463734/--Don-t-Be-Played-The-Sanders-Campaign-Hasn-t-Charged-Conspiracy-or-Claimed-Josh-Uretsky-is-a-Plant

While it’s true that the article mentions conspiracy, it’s important to note that this was a characterization by the author of the article. Nowhere in the article is the anonymous source actually quoted as alleging a conspiracy or suggesting that Uretsky was a “plant”.

[Bluenorthwest]

23. Exactly.

Not the best readers here on DU....

[still_one]

26. Well what do you expect from "no child left behind"? Of course I can't use that excuse

[still_one]

25. I will accept that, but it sure is getting propagated around here a lot. I won't post links

because I don't want it to be interpreted as a call out, but the link I used from Yahoo was directly from threads post here.

I have no problem with an investigation, and if wrong doing is found, then punish the appropriate people and or campaigns, including the Clinton camp.

If I am getting played I apologize, and will consider self-deleting. Let me think about it

Thanks

[Luminous Animal]

27. I you read the Yahoo article, you might notice that it was the author of the article not

an unnamed Sanders's advisor who advanced the conspiracy.

[MeNMyVolt]

31. You have 225 people who recommended the original thread to convince.

Plus a healthy thread in the SBS group.

[Luminous Animal]

33. So? I recced it because of the accusations that the DNC is stonewalling not because the

journalist decided to create a conspiracy out of thin air.

And clearly, the DNC HAS leaked information. Why?

I also agreed with the part of the article that states that the Sanders's campaign wants a full investigation from top to bottom starting from day one.

Hillary has yet to agree with a full investigation. During the debate she agreed to an investigation for the one incident only.

[CorporatistNation]

45. Funny, I Did Not Hear The HillBill Specify .. Just One Incident. Anyway IF You Are Innocent

of ANY wrongdoing and are completely above board and beyond ANY degree of reproach... Then why for Heaven's Sake would the Hillary Team not agree to be completely forthcoming?

[Luminous Animal]

47. The agreement with the DNC is for an audit of the data breach.

The Bernie campaign wants a wide ranging and full investigation. That the DNC and the Hillary campaign have not responded to the suggestion of a full investigation. During the most recent debate, Hillary artfully side-stepped Brernie's suggestion of a full investigation but, rather, mentioned her support for the investigation promoted by the DNC.

SANDERS: Not only -- not only do I apologize to Secretary Clinton -- and I hope we can work together on an independent investigation from day one -- I want to apologize to my supporters. This is not the type of campaign that we run.


CLINTON: I very much appreciate that comment, Bernie. It really is important that we go forward on this.

I know that you now have your data back, and that there has been an agreement for an independent inquiry into what did happen.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/democratic-debate-transcript-clinton-sanders-omalley-in-new-hampshire/

[R B Garr]

58. Why does she have to grind his ax? He can grind

it himself. She is in no way obligated to be led down any path that he is on. He's suing so let him carry his own weight. How ridiculous to suggest there is something wrong with her backing away from his poor decisions to make a spectacle of himself.

She is not his caretaker. Its not up to her to embrace his mistakes. To suggest a conspiracy because she won't engage in this madness is ridiculous!

[Number23]

55. Plus a million. It is very clear (and even more hilarious) to see where this meme is coming from and

being nurtured.

[Bluenorthwest]

30. So what it is about what was quoted as being from the campaign that you dispute?

You can't ask anyone to prove the characterizations of what they said, only to prove what they actually said. So can you dispute what was actually said? If not, why are you asking if they can prove it? The man was recommended by the vendor. Why should that not be said?

The facts and truth should matter at least a bit. Don't you think?

[Jarqui]

56. +1

The article didn't mention the October breaches at all - which is a key part of the Sanders campaign upset

[demwing]

34. Which Sanders adviser? Name him or her, if you can

if not, be revealed as just another spreader of worthless rumor and innuendo.

[MeNMyVolt]

37. Um, the OP cited two articles..

...and you resorted with a personal attack.

Why not critique the articles?

[demwing]

41. The Politico article doesn't mention the advisor story

the Yahoo News article (have you ever read anything printed in that shit pit called Yahoo News?) claims the story came from a "top adviser" but declines to name him or her. The story is unconfirmable rumor. Do you defend such rumors?

[MeNMyVolt]

43. No, I posted on another thread...

... that I do not like the thinly sourced Yahoo article, with the "advisor" stuff. Want to wait and see what SBS says tomorrow on MTP and FTN. Just didn't think it was necessary for the "spreading" crap against Still One.

[Vattel]

40. The Sanders campaign has not accused the DNC or anyone else

of planting Uretsky. The only one using "Joe McCarthy tactics" here is you. Congrats on the unintended irony.

[Doctor_J]

53. Actually they're not, but just keep on lying

Is everyone from the new hate site going to post this here, separately?