It sounds as if you really don't understand the darkness behind Watergate in the slightest.

My OP is not about that dispute. I'm merely refuting the idea that the Sanders campaign did nothing wrong.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

You are missing the entire issue...totally, completely and with little or not comprehension of the facts as well as the issues.

The written contract framed the remedies. What of that issue?

You're just desperately trying to change the subject.

You want to make this all about how this was "technically" legal. Or not really, more like "technically illegal, but it can't be punished appropriately".

The irony is, this is exactly the sort of behavior that Sanders is constantly decrying about behaviors on Wall Street. You know, those people who Hillary is so evil for actually talking to, even if she doesn't exactly do what they want.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

The sanctions which are allowed under the written agreement of the parties.

Read the contract and the petition and when you're done and have a handle on the issues involved, respond to me then ... but not until then.

TIA

Even on the subject you're trying to turn this into.

Contracts are a part of tort law, which are subserviant to criminal law. The kind of activity the Sanders campaign engaged in falls well within the statutes of contract "rescission" - meaning things that allow one to immediately break a contract, even if they're not explicitly mentioned in the text.

The ten days for "breach" are usually about things like on-time payment, not felonies. And Sanders suing is very much legally the equivalent of a landlord saying a woman has to stay in an apartment (because of a contractual agreement) despite being raped by one of his employees. That's unlikely to fly in front of a judge.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

And are subserviant (sic) to crim law.

My gawd....you have got to be kidding. Are you not even aware that the first year law school generally has three required areas: Contracts, torts and crim law/procedure???? So you are telling me that in my first year I took two identical classes -- contracts and torts. Here's a hint: A tort is a civil wrong.

You are joking right? Try again: Total fail.

I meant to type "Contracts are subservient to tort law. Which is subservient to criminal law."

Brain fart.

Part of a problem with typing too fast, I suppose. I stand by the rest.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

They are distinct and separate areas of law. Neither is subservient to the other. They simply are different areas of law...such as remedies, evidence, etc., they are merely classes of theories that every lawyer takes and must learn in order to pass a bar exam. Conduct can cross several areas, but that does not make one inferior to another. What you are saying makes no sense.

No contract can avoid a tort. Such things are called unconscionable contracts.
No contract can be based on, or excuse, illegal activity. Such things are called void contracts.
No tort can excuse, or pay to get out of, illegal activity.

In this case, the Sanders campaign is trying to say that even though their campaign, as a legal entity, committed a felony against the DNC, as a legal entity, that the DNC is still bound by their contractual agreements, and they have to treat this like just a simple failure to pay their bill.

I personally think that the Sanders campaign and the DNC will come to terms over this, because it doesn't help either side, but the law is not only what is written down on paper. Judges form their own opinions about what is fair, and do it all the time in the face of companies (like credit agencies) trying to screw over regular people.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

...I don't know where to start.

Here's the deal...go to law school, practice for 30 years, do about 400 trials and come talk to me then, ok?

Wow...you truly are making no sense.

A judge will just automatically give the Sanders campaign anything it wants after they stole data, right?

We'll see.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

That is pure contract law -- no interpretation even needed on that one.

BTW: Judges do rule on principles of law and this is an easy one. The parties had an agreement. One of the terms of the agreement was viz sanctions. The sanction given by the DNC was not a remedy found in the agreement. This one is so simple it takes no real intelligence to understand that what the DNC did was not within the four corners of the contract.

If you think differently, please by reference to the contract itself, give the clause which allows for the action taken by the DNC. If you cannot give me the clause, then I know that you are just BS'ing and have nothing to offer in this discussion...my opinion, of course.

As I already said.

But as I also said before, judges make decisions based on the law completely outside of the (often one-sided) wording of any specific contract. This contract was not written with felony computer misuse statutes in mind, and it seems highly unlikely that many judges are going to allow the Sanders campaign to get away profiting off of what they did - which is basically all the DNC is asking for.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

Contracts are not "part of" tort law. Contract law is separate from tort law, and neither is "subservient" to criminal law. You can breach a contract without committing a tort or a crime. You can commit a tort without breaching a contract or committing a crime. You can commit a crime that isn't either a breach of contract or a tort. Some torts are also crimes; but torts are addressed by the rules of common law while crimes are statutory. You seem to have got all these concepts mixed up.

[link:http:// http://www.battleswarmblog.com/?p=25522|

It's the plaintiff's point of view.

Cutting off access during the breach is covered here:

16) The Agreement requires the DNC to “use security measures, with respect to the
Campaign Data, that are consistent with good practices in the data processing industry.”
Agreement, ¶ 3(f). Under the Agreement, the DNC warrants that its services shall “be performed
in a professional and workmanlike manner, consistent with industry standards in the data
processing industry.” Agreement, ¶ 8.


Keeping access cut off until the problem is resolved is covered here:

17) The Agreement further requires the DNC to “take all measures necessary to
protect the secrecy of, and to avoid disclosure and unauthorized use of” confidential information
disclosed by the Campaign to the DNC (“Confidential Information”). Agreement, ¶ 7(a).
Pursuant to the Agreement, the DNC undertakes to “immediately notify the Campaign in the
including the full extent of the time, place and manner of the use or disclosure and the corrective
steps taken by the DNC to address the unauthorized use or disclosure.” Id.

It was a lawsuit the Sanders campaign had no chance of winning.

You don't even know the issues involved, do you? Sheeesh...

Not. Even. Close.

...has a Watergate vibe. after all the decades of stupid-gates.

Big difference, though - Bernie is not acting like Nixon and appears not to have covered up anything. I think he's above this...

But, what were they looking for about Hillary or her campaign?

*

Why don't you get a grip on the facts and issues BEFORE you post. With so many telling you that you are missing this, please take a hint. Posting matters irrelevant to the present disagreements does not make for viable discussion.

And their protestations about how their motivations are all due to their supposed "superior morality".

Not when it's now clear that all their attacks about dirty tricks, and excusing any action, against the majority of Democrats who prefer Hillary, is all just projection on their part.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

The issue I am seeing with you is a lack of understanding the real facts involved in this issue.

It is a contract case. PERIOD. The parties had an agreement...one of them, the DNC, took an action not allowed to them under the terms of the contract. This is not rocket science. All you have to do is read the petn for injunctive relief and the contract. The sanction the DNC took against the Sanders campaign was not allowed under the contract between the parties regardless of the conduct alleged.

It's that simple...what is it that you don't understand???

Bullshit is the response it deserves.

don't quit your day job.

Lots of keystrokes though. Looks professionally done.

Of a moral hazard ,at the peril of Hillary Clinton's faux pas with regards to her server.Most will see the utter hypocrisy of this,not even letting the facts emerge or resolve many of Hillary Clinton's supporters jump on this so quickly,Mookie leading the pack.This is going to hurt Clinton more then Bernie Sanders.