Seems pretty clear they get the daily talking points.

are they going to ask him for his birth certificate?

It's also funny to see some of the usernames posting that stuff, it's like they want it known that they are just a paid sockpuppet.

Talking points via secure fax, because Hill can't figure out how to send those

Seriously, though, they certainly have the coordinated defensive talking points going on the whole email scandal...every one of them on DU claims the same lame defense with almost the exact same wording.

Now, I'm really sad that it's a tactic by supposed democrats...

From the republican play book to support their neodem candidate.

are now bashing Bernie-- they viewed Obama as the weaker candidate against the Republican then, and Hillary as the weaker candidate now.

They're so fucking stupid to think Bernies returns will have anything in them. Members of congress returns are scrutinized EVERY YEAR. He's the ONLY non millionaire in the senate.

And growing more so by the day.

Her campaign is unraveling by the day, which was demonstrated eloquently when she came unglued at the Greenpeace activist.

She doesn't tolerate folks confronting her with the truth very well, and Bernie Sanders has been exceptionally patient and kind to her. She'll melt down like a wax figure if confronted by the likes of a Trump or a Cruz.

Positioning her against the delusional Kasich doesn't even seem favorable, and he's about as likely to win as a dented can of chili.

(Not that they won't invent something.)

There's nothing in them, as one can infer from the extensive financial disclosures already available online! So they have to get this nonsense in NOW before the nothing is published.

This one is just happening on this and a few other lucky boards, by the way. Absolutely no one in the universe outside them gives a shit. It's not a media thing either. It's just the holding pattern (since every day needs a "story&quot until something meatier comes along, like Susan Sarandon says something or some such.

Or something.

Hillary always pushes the limits of what's allowed. And then her supporters wonder why everyone thinks she's unethical.

Which Blue Nation Review is. A convenient loophole in the law:

"How a super PAC plans to coordinate directly with Hillary Clinton’s campaign"

Hillary Clinton’s campaign plans to work in tight conjunction with an independent rapid-response group financed by unlimited donations, another novel form of political outsourcing that has emerged as a dominant practice in the 2016 presidential race.

On Tuesday, Correct the Record, a pro-Clinton rapid-response operation, announced it was splitting off from its parent American Bridge and will work in coordination with the Clinton campaign as a stand-alone super PAC. The group’s move was first reported by the New York Times.

That befuddled many campaign finance experts, who noted that super PACs, by definition, are political committees that solely do independent expenditures, which cannot be coordinated with a candidate or political party. Several said the relationship between the campaign and the super PAC would test the legal limits.

But Correct the Record believes it can avoid the coordination ban by relying on a 2006 Federal Election Commission regulation that declared that content posted online for free, such as blogs, is off limits from regulation. The “Internet exemption” said that such free postings do not constitute campaign expenditures, allowing independent groups to consult with candidates about the content they post on their sites. By adopting the measure, the FEC limited its online jurisdiction to regulating paid political ads.

-snip-

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/05/12/how-a-super-pac-plans-to-coordinate-directly-with-hillary-clintons-campaign/

Quick - who said this about Hillary?

"She is running around talking about how this is an insult to sportsman, how she values the [S]econd [A]mendment. She's talking like she's Annie Oakley," Obama said, invoking the famed female sharpshooter immortalized in the musical "[Annie] Get Your Gun."

That's a BIG fucking rat right there...

Look at him go.

And he waited until this morning.

And you have access to Clinton's internal polling?

David Brock doesn't.

This is what vetting looks like.

Even the sanctimonious get held accountable.

No conspiracy at all, just rat fuckery.

polling with him.

It's not rat fuckery to ask for basic transparency.

Or, to put it another way, this is every bit as legit as Sanders's stupid bullshit about speech transcripts.

Good for the goose, good for the Sanders.

His superPAC correct the record directly coordinates and works with Hillary's campaign. I totally agree with you that the arrangement is illegal.

This would be a huge story.

Who's your mole--Benenson? Mook?

Because only a very, very, very select group of people get access to that kind of information.

Or is this just Creative Speculation?

It an old story. The Clinton campaign drives a truck full of dark money through a loop hole they read into the law. Since CTR doesn't spend money to run ads, they argue, it is fine to coordinate. Nevermind that blue nation review is one steaming ad after another, thinly veiled in "journalism."

They do through press releases what "ads" formerly did and exactly what campaign finance law sought to end.

Another reason Hillary cannot be trusted. She says she wants to overturn citizen untied, but violates the laws that remain.

Here's mention of it:
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/01/correct-the-record/

I checked their Twitter feed, their Facebook page, and their website.

Nothing about Bernie's taxes.



P.S. How much dark money does it take to run a low tech website?

Blue nation review?

Go there now and see if you see anything about Bernie's taxes, lol.

Peter Daou used to be somebody in the world of online political activism. Then 2008 hit and the world quickly passed him by.

His main article is about a Twitter fight between a Bernie staffer and some NY guy who likes Hillary.

He gets paid for that kind of stuff?


On the tax issue, it's National Memo and CNN who are giving it oxygen.

Is Sanders not savvy enough to have realized someone would ask him about this?

I thought that was the whole point of the Clinton campaign, that a select few could keep on getting rewarded more than they deserve.

Not David Brock.

person to prove it, and never bothering to prove your case. The bottom line is that Clinton has a very long track record of shady undertakings if not downright illegal. She has been caught in lie after lie. Remember when she told the Senate that Hussein was rebuilding his WMD supplies including nuclear and he was harboring al qaeda terrorists? More recently she said she supported the Reagan's position on HIV and AIDs. Which ironically was the truth but she had to back it down.

(morning fog, in this case) is the only one who has to prove anything. When the person dodges providing proof of their accusation by accusing the questioner, that is called tu quoque. It is a logical fallacy designed to derail legitimate discussion.

Like you just did too!

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque

Surely you would not defend this violation?

over and over and over again to be illegal coordination. Therefore it incumbent on you to do the principled thing and file a complaint with the FEC.

If it's illegal to coordinate with a superPAC because they send ads in the mail and play ads on the radio, it is likewise illegal to coordinate with a superPAC that uses modern means of communication to do the same thing: disseminate messages on behalf of the candidate.

Any honest person would agree. But that clearly does not include Hillary, her campaign, Brock, correct the record, blue nation review, or her supporters who feign ignorance.

time to go through the formal process. I should do it though, if only to prevent future campaigns from employing the same manipulative, creative violations of the law.

any tears I shed are for the "revolution" you claim to be fighting.

You must have me confused with someone else.

I've always thought that political revolution is an inartful slogan, regardless of who uses it.

That's the extent of my part.

And I'm not big on sloganeering, especially when it is inaccurate.

Make Pate.

it to admin. I am sure they would find it helpful.

Sad to see a bunch of suckers followed them off their crazy cliff.

Oh wait that doesn't require any courage on behalf of the original poster who is making claims he or she can't back up.

to deal with that. Getting a group together to all scream "racist, racist" until he is banned is bullshit. WillyT is not a racist or it would have shown up a long time ago. The Non-progressives have been trying to get him banned for a long time. And after they took care of Manny, they doubled their efforts on WillyT. I told WillyT that after Manny they'd be gunning for him. It's classic bully behavior. Get a group together and gang up on someone that you don't agree with. The message is clear. The most outspoken progressives have been picked off one by one. Many others have taken the clue and just left.

Doubled down on his infamous suggestion that black Democrats have Stockholm Syndrome, by posting an article which included the same suggestion (along with comments calling black Democrats "battered wives&quot . The title of his OP was "Thank God I'm Not The Only One" and he bolded the Stockholm Syndrome comments to make sure everyone knew exactly what he was talking about. The first time he did this it was repeatedly explained to him by many members of this community that his comments were at best highly insensitive and at worst blatantly racist. Rather than learning from that experience he chose to double down.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=109627&sub=trans

I'm curious, did you agree with that post, Rick? I certainly did not see you disagreeing...

I like to pretend that banning a poster holding racist sentiments is mob rule too.

It's simple for our brains and convenient for our ethics because after we make the allegation, we never offer up objective or substantive evidence to support our allegations. Winner-winner, chicken-dinner.

Which may not make us cowards as we allege others are (again, lacking evidence to support it)... simply lacking the courage of our convictions.

His post was way out-of-pocket, but he is a friend and very caring soul. I've been to many meet-ups with him, and I've been to his house.

Wouldn't he have to be a Democrat to be considered a ratfucker?

He is just a Republican piece of shit.

they are all busy scrambling after it. We need to let them play. We are just getting in their way.

I think I'm going to follow your lead.

You don't know what kind of animals he prefers as sexual partners. It might be hamsters. They're much cuter.

Bernie must be getting too close for comfort. I just wonder what the next talking point is going to be. Within the last 48 hrs., it went from Bernie "going negative" about HRC's Wall Street sponsors & PACs then "subverting the will of the voters" in NV. Now it's this.

who got this story going.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511642004

Last edited Wed Apr 6, 2016, 03:38 AM - Edit history (1)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Brock

"David Brock (born November 2, 1962) is an American political operative, author, and commentator who founded the progressive media watchdog group Media Matters for America.[1] He has been described by Time magazine as “one of the most influential operatives in the Democratic Party” [2] He had been a journalist during the 1990s[3] who wrote the book The Real Anita Hill and the Troopergate story, which led to Paula Jones filing a lawsuit against Bill Clinton.

Brock began his career as a right-wing investigative reporter, but in the late 1990s switched sides, aligning himself with the Democratic Party, and in particular with Bill and Hillary Clinton. In 2004, he founded Media Matters for America, a non-profit organization that describes itself as a "progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media."[4] He has since also founded super PACs called American Bridge 21st Century and Correct the Record, has become a board member of the super PAC Priorities USA Action, and has been elected chairman of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW).[5][6]

The Nation has described Brock as a “conservative journalistic assassin turned progressive empire-builder”;[6] National Review has called him a “right-wing assassin turned left-wing assassin”;[7] and Politico has profiled him as a “former right-wing journalist-turned-pro-Clinton crusader.”[5]"

clip to end

"In 2001, Jonah Goldberg wrote in National Review that while Brock has been “hailed by liberals for 'coming clean,' they would never really trust him.” He quoted reporter Jill Abramson as having said that “the problem with Brock’s credibility” is that “once you admit you’ve knowingly written false things, how do you know when to believe what he writes?”[12] Similarly, The Guardian referred in 2014 to “residual unease among some liberal operatives that Brock’s conversion story fits into a pattern of opportunism and self-promotion rather than ideological transformation.”[29] Observing in 2015 that Brock had admitted to mudslinging before, The Daily Beast noted a difficulty in dispatching fears he would do it again.[4]

Brock's claim that the Clintons have never committed any wrongdoing has received criticisms from many, including fellow Democrats, who have cited instances of abuse.[58] His methods have been described by many as overly-personal and without boundary. As such, Brock has been criticized for his lack of an ideological goal and his place as a character assassin.[4]"

--------------------------------------------------------

How could someone knowingly hire such a creep?

Hillary's henchman is no different than Rove, he'll say and do anything for money.

It's just shocking that this level of lies and slime is coming from the Democratic side.

That fits Clinton to a T.

I've run across people like that. They are usually not nice people to be around since they're always scheming to get the advantage.

and he's stooping just as low.

To me they are pretty relevant to the primary. Actually, I am VERY surprised that her supporters do not seem interested in seeing them...wonder why.

and release the returns?

But she won't because she knows that if anyone sees what she said to the banksters, her campaign would be in the dumper in about 15 minutes.

The movie Minions are a lot more likable...

This may be an issue only because he made it one. He can take away this toy whenever he dares.

to hide her Goldman Sachs speeches.

This seems like a really stupid move by Brock. I don't expect the fans to stop and think about it, but you'd think Brock would.

There have been demands for each candidate to release documents. If one acquiesces without complaint, and the other stonewalls, the comparison will not be flattering for the stonewaller. It doesn't matter what the documents are. If Team Hillary had any sense, they'd be demanding the release of documents that are impossible to attain, as their Birther Movement cousins did.

This is stupid 'scandal' for the Hillary campaign to push, as they're bound to be called on it and left standing there looking like hypocrites as they defend Hillary's right to hide her comments to Goldman Sachs.

As in proof? You say this A LOT, but I don't recall any actual proof of malfeasance.

Your ignorance and/or denial notwithstanding.

You keep flogging this, inferring that there is some malfeasance on the part of the PAC or Clinton campaign, but THERE IS NO EVIDENCE that is true.

The link states this is LEGAL coordination. So what is the problem? You don't like it, change the law. And you KNOW there is plenty of evidence that the Sanders campaign plays fast and loose with PAC rules when it suits them, too.

http://time.com/4261350/bernie-sanders-super-pac-alaska-millenials/

The law, written before the age of social media, prohibits advertising. Brock's superPAC advertises as it is known today.

They are flagrantly violating the law. They have no scruples and cannot be trusted.

At least not that has been proved. Anymore than Sanders is violating the laws when his campaign staff splits off and two days later opens a PAC office right next door to the campaign office

BOTH campaigns are playing the game. They BOTH do it. You don't like it? Change the laws. This involves getting a better Supreme Court, BTW. So a Democrat better be in the White House this time next year, or we are all fucked.

YOU are violating the laws of logic by continuing to flog this dead horse.

is pretty standard.

Romney refused, and we all assumed that it was because he had dodged taxes illegally using offshore banks and got pardoned when one of them was busted and released a list of customers. And he was filthy rich, so his returns would just underline how different his life is from most people's.

But Sanders makes a basic salary, so HIS returns should be a huge plus, underlining the fact that he really a modest man of modest means. So the ONLY reason this thing is weird is that Sanders is refusing. Something isn't right, otherwise it would be out their already, because this SHOULD benefit his campaign

For the record, I don't think he did anything majorly dishonest, but he has set the bar so high for everyone else, any stumble on his part makes him look like a screaming hypocrite.

And I expect he will. I believe he's already promised to do so.

So why all the "RAT FUCKING" posts? I know you, personally, did not make the posts about rat fucking, but it is so weird that so many Sanders supporters got so amped about this issue..... I swear I was not even paying attention, just thought it was more boring campaign tit for tat until all the drama started up.

I read 17 threads on the topic from pro-Bernie peeps here It was the level of invective and profanity that the topic seems to inspire in y'all that finally got me to read up on the topic. And now, yeah, I wanna see them. Thanks to you and yours I mean how hard is this, really? Just get the submit the damn taxes for vetting and everyone will stop asking for them. I mean he doesn't have anything to hide, right? Being that he is so pure and transparent.

Bernie will release his taxes when everyone else does.

Bernie released his transcripts and got crickets.

I think the proposed position for Bernie is more than fair under the circumstances.

Clinton did, at least. Not sure what is going on over at the GOP clown show. I guess Trump is dodging it too? Is the argument that Sanders is going to wait until TRUMP releases his returns

Why doesn't he just release his returns? If he has nothing to hide, then it should be a POSITIVE for his campaign, right?

Fair and simple.

You maintain Clinton released her taxes. I maintain Bernie released his transcripts.

Transcripts do not equal tax returns

And WHY is Sanders dodging this? You think there is something nefarious in Clinton's transcripts, right? So does this mean there is ALSO something nefarious in Sander's tax returns? And how does something that you think Clinton did wrong justify Sanders ALSO doing something wrong?

I thought the entire POINT of Bernie Sanders was how pure and transparent he is, that he is morally BETTER than the average politician. But now it is just another tit for tat political slap fight. Sigh....

by not releasing transcripts of her $250,000 speeches - as many people have asked for many, many times for a long time.

If she can't comply with that, I'd just tell Hillary to run along and find something else to lie about. I would just ignore her and her campaign on any information requests - including his tax returns.

Sanders has financial disclosures going back to 1990.

Many candidates for president have not provided tax returns. Why should Bernie do something Hillary's husband would not?

Obviously, all these tax returns are for is to provide stupid fodder to the deadheads Hillary hired that wrote very poorly and inaccurately about Sanders financial disclosures. Why feed the lame brains Clinton employs? Send them to a recycling processing facility or garbage dump and let them chow down on something there. In terms of what they'll produce, I'm sure they won't really know the difference.

Bernie can provide them in the general election to an opponent who is more transparent than Hillary and hires folks with knowledge and a brain to look over financials.

the two incidents are not related. But I am not going to explain it again because I have a life and I already did once. Here is a link that might be helpful. To debate productively, there are certain rules of logic. You do not follow them, therefor it is impossible to have a real debate with you. I am not interested in verbal slap fights today, so I'm out.....

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque

Both transcripts and tax returns are not required to be disclosed by law. Many past presidents, including Bill Clinton declined to produce tax returns for the years before they were elected.

Both tax returns and transcripts represent voluntary disclosure.

So transcripts and tax returns are very related in that way. That not a fallacy. It's a blunt fact.


Hillary Clinton, one of the most famous Washington politicians in her secretive behavior, has declined to be transparent in disclosing her transcripts. Bernie Sanders was transparent in disclosing his speech transcripts.

In response to the failure of the other candidate, Clinton, to be open and transparent by voluntarily disclosing her transcripts, Sanders is well be justified in declining to disclose his tax returns.

It is all about transparency and disclosure. If one candidate won't disclose and be transparent, the other candidate is entitled to respond similarly. That is what is being said here.

To cry about Sanders not voluntarily disclosing his tax returns when Clinton has declined to voluntarily disclose her transcripts is pure hypocrisy on transparency - thinking that we should have tunnel vision on the tax returns while ignoring the speech transcripts.

just because one document has a name like "transcript" and another document is named "tax return" does not mean there have to be different rules for voluntary disclosure. Because that would be a real logical fallacy - the fallacy you are trying to spin here .. but failing to accomplish.

Remember Rmoney? And if Bernie is so honest and pure what's the problem?

Why are berning heads exploding and accusations of RAT FUCKING being made EVERYONE who is a serious candidate for President of the USA is EXPECTED to release their returns. This is not a conspiracy against Bernie

Did they suggest he might not really be Jesus after all?

Imagine if the fraction of effort spent on attacking Democratic voters who dare to speak their mind was devoted toward the banks or the wealthy the Sanders supporters claim to resent? Only instead, they defend the seemingly inexhaustible list of one percenters campaigning for Bernie and instead direct their rage toward Democratic voters, civil rights activists, and advocacy organizations.

... watching MSNBC mostly, but also sample FOX and CNN. I have not seen a story on Bernie's tax returns. Most are predicting he will win Wisconsin, but probably not by enough to overtake Hillary's lead.