It does seem to be an overly harsh a punishment to keep his own grassroots voting data from Sanders.

On the contrary, DU Sanders supporters here would think it was an absolutely fair punishment if the HRC campaign did the exact same thing. They'd be calling for HRC to pull out of the race and be prosecuted for fraud and perhaps even treason.

did nothing about it. This smells of a set up. The DNC knew of the breach, and did nothing when Sanders info was laid out for all to see. Wow...stunning. How did you miss this?

No other circumstances supporting her innocence would matter.

Last edited Fri Dec 18, 2015, 09:19 PM - Edit history (1)

...to back your ridiculous speculation with?

PROVE IT!

Wadda surprise.

And yes, I know. You'll have to have the last word. Most likely something hostile and/or rude.

Bye

When you folks can't make a case for the crap you do, it's your SOP.


BTW, you STILL have yet to PROVE a fucking thing you claim.

Bill Clinton said fall in love with a candidate, fall in line during the election.

I was once fool enough to believe that.

I'd hate to think the Sanders campaign did this reflexively, because we haven't seen the contract they signed nor evidence of the specifics of the breach. But they do appear to have a reactionary bent - in which case this could redound in a devastating manner against their favor.

evidence of the breach in October and nothing was done about it.

You really don't go to court if you don't have proof. And, as for the "reactionary" meme, they have hired attorneys. If it was overly reactionary, the attorneys would have put a stop to it. They're paid for their legal advice.

You do know that attorneys do their clients' bidding, yes?

BTW, this is funny:

The point is there is no legal grounds for the DNC to withhold property which belongs to the Sanders campaign. PERIOD. There is a clear misappropriation of property which does not belong to the person/entity which is doing the withholding. It therefore is a wrongful taking of property which belongs to another and to which the withholding party has no legal claim.

There is irreparable harm, no adequate remedy at law, the balance of harm favors the movant, and public policy issues. Great grounds for injunctive relief. All four necessary elements are there. Where do you disagree?

Having run a campaign, when you purchase voter information and build a database, there are certain rules that you must follow under a vendor and/or the political party you have obtained the data through. If any rules are violated (intentionally or not), then you can be legally locked out of the database.

One cannot withhold the property of another without a legal basis to do so. A contractual agreement is not always a sufficient basis. See above for the elements necessary for a Federal Injunctive Relief. The property belongs to the Sanders campaign. So, the DNC can just take it? I think not.

It is not property of the Sanders campaign. The campaign paid for access, but is bound by the rules that the DNC chooses to place on the database.

I disagree.

All, I am asking is for you to don't give up on Howard Dean. I trust his judgement.

Dean will stand behind Hillary no matter what now.

That's his choice.

If that turn out to be the case I'm sure we'll hear all kinds of nuanced reasoning (aka rationalizing) from Hillary supporters why that was "different".

To Call DNC Direct # 202-863-8000 Leave a message... I Did!!!

Call US House Operator 202-225-3121 and Ask For DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman- Schultz's Office... Currently unable to answer and Mailbox FULL!!!!!!!!! Give these CRIMINALS AN EAR FULL!!!!!!!