....in the Hillary campaign.

No deleting emails.

No scrubbing servers.

NOW.

twice is a pattern

If they push forward with the lawsuit, that means investigations and a pealing back all the layers of obfuscation.

Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!

But can the senate afford to lose both?

any Republican.

So while I greatly lean towards Bernie in this election (and gave $60 today to his campaign at berniesanders.com), if our disagreements lead to a Republican in the White House, we will be in serious, serious pain.

Our tribe is the tribe of helping others, of sharing and getting together for the good of all.

The country is not going to elect an R--especially if it's Rump. This is the GE. Bigger turnout which is what Bernie has done: energized a lot of PO'd voters.

Mussolini was once thought a buffoon, too.

you don't just go and ask a judge for what you want. You have to have a legal ground to do it. That suit has nothing to do with Hillary's campaign.

http://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000151-b72f-d9b7-ad79-f7ff512d0000

will be around the IT firm and her buddies. Sanders campaign didn't hire them so has nothing to do with that fact. I hope they have what it takes to proceed.

And to those who fear hurting our "No 1 girl", ergo we lose the GE, I call baloney. It's just more for the Republicans to hit her on in the GE.

Now she's gone and gotten herself another stupid, shady situation. Does not bode well for the already abysmally low trustworthy rating. I pray Bernie doesn't give her a second pass on her bad judgement.

This too shall not pass.

at $600,000 per day. Bernie must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that was the amount it cost him. Thus the suit is about the value of having that data, in monetary terms. The IT firms and "Hillary's buddies" have nothing to do with it. Only the market value of the service. There won't be any "investigation" but the one by Bernie's lawyers to find evidence that it cost Bernie 600K per day not to have access to that information.

.......defending the Clintons against their attackers.

!!!

Which "Hillary people"? What emails?

Who are the parties in this suit?

Congressional candidates in your state were vulnerable too! So Bernie wants to know if his info was compromised as well as hers was, when his guy went into work and went into the system as usual, and there is all Clinton's stuff! The wall is down again. This guy reported seeing this in Oct. So....was the wall ever put up? And he wants Clinton audited too, did they look? Ever? Remember, her IT guy from 08 was hired by DWS for the DNC prez race. It stinks, but all the staffers are connected to Clinton. It's been stacked. I smell a rat.

All I did was order a goddamned book from Amazon!

that the people looking are the ones from the other side and that they have been looking for a good while now. I even thought I saw something on that previously. So, when Sander's side got to looking now at this second KNOWN breach, then the DNC, protecting Clinton, started blaming Bernie. It's actually a technique the republicans use quite well. Jump up and accuse the other guy first, then when they prove it was you, you still have "well both sides do it" It deflects shit off the republicans quite well.

And this kind of thing is not Sanders style at all. Never has been. Wouldn't start now. What they would have had to gain from that info was not worth the risk anyway. Nope, Sanders is an honest man, the other side....not so much.

His way

It's DWS scorched earth response that is raising eyebrows.

Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!

Integrity?

nt

Discovery allows discovery of all communications/meetings/agreements between and among
this bunch. Now Hillary, albeit a graduate of Yale Law, has a problem with complying with court orders and subpoenas. If she had produced her billing records from her time at the Rose Law Firm during the Ken Starr Whitewater investigation, as ordered to by the courts, Starr would have ended his investigation many months before Monica Lewinsky & Linda Tripp came upon the scene. Instead, and against the advice of several high-ranking Democrats, including David Gergen, to just turn over the damn records, she refused and claimed they were "lost" for two years. After 2 years of stalling, said records miraculously turned up on a table in the White House family quarters.
If she had simply produced the documents when they were subpoenaed she would have spared her husband, and the country the whole hot mess of the impeachment.

An HRC administration would be 1 Chinese fire drill FUBAR after another!

This hot mess is a preview of what we'd get if Hill made it to the Oval Office.

There she'd be, basically living alone in the family quarters while Bill swans around to private islands for private parties with his private jet set buddies, and she broods over her decades long revenge list.

I can see her roaming the darkened halls of the White House, night after lonely night, conversing with the portraits of past presidents - for you young'uns, that's what President Richard Nixon used to do - although he at least had a loving spouse in residence to console him.

And the DNC overreacted.

...under a contract that was included as an exhibit in the lawsuit.

Furthermore, the campaign uses its list for fundraising etc., not to mention getting people out to debate-watching parties and the like. It is the absolute lifeblood of any campaign. So $600,000K/day may not be unreasonable to ask and would obviously include punitive damages -- whether the court would grant it is another question, I'd say probably not although I think they would have granted something.

Anyway, filing a lawsuit to protect one's campaign from a damaging breach of contract is hardly blackmail.

...That is it, precisely. That is where DWS made her mistake. And the fact that she backed down in the face of going before a judge, just shows that she was in the wrong to remove access to the data. The contract language is quite clear on the subject, and DWS / DNC were in breach of their contract. And that is true even if you assume the most nefarious motives to the Bernie campaign regarding the recent breach.

between Bernie 2016 and DNC. Bernie 2016 says DNC broke the agreement and it cost him money. Bernie 2016 is the plaintiff and has to prove it cost him money.

... that Hillary lost the 2008 nomination - by a very small margin - to Barack Obama.

BS is NO Barack Obama. Never has been, never will be.

"The company’s president, Stu Trevelyan, told reporters that the glitch that made Clinton’s campaign data visible occurred during a routine update to the software, and an audit is underway. He said that Sanders’ staff would not have been able to save or export any data they saw."

http://m.nextgov.com/cybersecurity/2015/12/bernie-sanders-has-his-own-computer-scandal-data-breach-exposed-hillarys-secret-info/124637/

They don't care. It's blind loyalty and it's an ugly thing to behold. They'll never admit that the Sanders campaign just kicked their ass on this one. Big time.

Kind of sad... and yes, ugly too. I don't know what they put in the drinks at The Political Pub but I bet that even Scientologists would love to have the recipe.

that perhaps the firewalls were being purposely dropped and that the Bernie campaign has knowledge of HRC campaign accessing Bernie campaign data, and he knows that info will come out as part of the impartial audit.

HRC campaign epitaph: Hoisted by their own petard.

When the Bernie spokesman mentioned "discovery" my ears perked up.

This may be a huge rope-a-dope by our side.

nt

At the same time Hillary's campaign manager parsed his words when asked and would not deny they'd accessed Bernie's files.

I think this story is going to get MUCH more interesting before it's over.

Would love to do the Spec Rogs for that case!!!!!

Circling the drain, eh?

:bounce

They'll give Bernie the access and data back to avoid being exposed as the crooks they are.

I've already noted a little bit of "oops" in their statements.

No matter what the HRC campaign does, she's already guilty using the purest proof that exists - her name is Hillary Clinton.

It's pure genius.

no matter what the DNC does?

the DNC will want to avoid litigation.

...when in reality, it's just the right thing to do.

Bernie fired his guy, and moved on...at least from that stage of this debacle. The smart thing to do here would be for HRC to do same to DWS. But, we all know that won't happen, so in her own special way, she's doubling down. Both are now fighting for their political life. They have the most to lose. No one will hire DWS in the political realm for some time, and Hillary loses her last entitlement, I mean chance, to move into the White House and Rule the World.

Very bad timing. Very bad decision. But it's HRC and DWS here...who knew.

Heading for the exit soon.

...but that may not end the civil lawsuit. The suit is for damages and it can go on even if access is allowed. Immediate access may mitigate the damages, but there may still be damages and that would allow the civil suit to continue. HRC, DWS and their minions did not think of the consequences of their conduct. Hillary should have known better...after all she supposedly is an atty.

I will though. I would imagine any deal to return the data and access would include a withdrawal of the complaint.

...but IMO, the Bernie campaign will win the petn for injunctive relief...no need to settle on the Causes of Action for Damages.

LOL, I guess I am just itching to draft the Spec Rog for DWS!

keep the suit alive.

...but generally, injunctive relief and damages are separate. The injunctive relief portion addresses immediate relief that is requested because irreparable harm most likely will result if the status quo continues. The damage portion of the action deals with the harm caused by the conduct of the defendant. There's more to it than that, but that's the basics. One asks for immediate relief to prevent further harm and the other seeks damages for any harm done.

I also appreciate the contributions of the IT people. They have really helped me with all of this!

except for the exhibit (which I trust must say what the lawsuit asserts it says...). Apparently DWS and the DNC are in breach of contract with the Sanders campaign. This is key. If, as they allege, a staffer accessed Clinton's data, the contractual protocol is a written warning and a ten-day period during which the accused can respond to the accusation. The contract disallows locking the campaign out of the database before that ten days has passed.

This entire imbroglio stinks. I am impressed that Bernie's supporters worked together to address this suspicious and partisan crap.

Barely two days had passed before the lockout.

Does Hillary have ANY lawyers on her team??

You should get your mind out of the gtr.

That's the second time you've used "petn" in a sentence. It still isn't a word.

BTW, as I mentioned above, Clinton is not a party in this suit.

Random example:

I hereby retract my snark.

And you allege that if the Defendants' actions are not immediately stopped, you will suffer immediate and irreparable harm. That's what TROs and TIs are for.

In the meantime, you take depositions, and get sworn affidavits. And videotapes. And anything else that falls under discovery.

Former legal secretary, former court reporter and law school graduate here who has taken a zillion depositions.

Worst one I ever had was a statistician. Made him stop and spell words out so I could write them down in English, not in steno. But they sure sounded like nothing I'd ever heard in English.

I think they will find Communication showing outright coordination which is illegal between Clinton and DNC/DWS They need to specify from all email accounts under the control of any party used by list people here. We know they like to hide using email servers in the control of third parties.

That is the real purpose of the law suit. I picked up that hint from what the Bernie spokesperson said. Discovery. Exactly.

Whooo hooooo!

It's not the Clinton campaign that started this....

And the terms will include dropping the lawsuit. I think DWS and the DNC really overplayed their hand.

We want to see the emails that prove coordination between DNC and Clinton campaign.

doesn't mean much in terms of obtaining the truth.

You'll be lucky to crack 10% in Iowa now that the myth of Sanders' integrity has crumbled to dust.

I keep seeing DUers whose names I recognize as having been kicking around here for years acting like they have lost any sense of objectivity in this primary season. Yours is definitely a handle I've seen many many times before, and up until the primary you seemed a reasonable and thoughtful poster. And now here you are posting this.

Your post makes no sense. What does ANY of this have to do with Bernie's integrity? At absolute worst you have a staffer who stepped over the line and was promptly fired by the campaign for doing so. I haven't seen ANYONE even try to claim that any of this reflects on Bernie himself in any way, yet here you are, doing exactly that. How? Are you trying to imply that Bernie was behind it somehow? That he ordered the staffer to access this info? That he hacked the DNC database? What?

I don't think DU will ever look the same to me after this election. Far too many seemingly sensible posters have suddenly become completely insane when discussing their chosen candidate. No one is even trying to make sense anymore, it's all "You SUCK! And your candidate is the DEVIL!!!". We've all gone completely mad.

Just like the ones who hated Clinton's gits in 2008 but now pretend to be her biggest supporters.

Tomorrow will now be must see TV. And Sanders' integrity has done nothing of the sort, but thanks for playing.

No, I didn't think so. All bark and no bite.

Unless you believe a lot of rethuglican conspiracy theories.

No Hillary people under oath.

No Hillary campaign emails in evidence.

Nothing in discovery from the Hillary campaign.

The lawsuit is a Hail Mary Pass. If the ball gets dropped anywhere, or the pass doesn't even come close, it's over for the Sanders campaign before the first vote is cast.

The suit can morph into something much worse for DWS. Coordination.

That's a tall fucking order.

Oh, never mind.

getting the DNC to return Bernie's access to the data and an alleged monetary loss to Bernie 2016 for being locked out. Bernie 2016 has the burden of proof regarding that monetary amount.

Discovery in a lawsuit includes obtaining evidence from nonparties.

If you're standing on the sidewalk, minding your own business, and you happen to observe an automobile accident, you can be subpoenaed, and compelled to appear for a pretrial deposition (under oath) to recount what you saw, even though you're not mentioned in the suit.

Nonparties can also be compelled to produce documents that are relevant to the case.

The pendency of the litigation wouldn't give the Sanders campaign an unlimited license to obtain information from the Clinton campaign. A nonparty can move to quash a subpoena if it goes beyond what's appropriate for the lawsuit. Nevertheless, to the extent that the inquiries are relevant to the issues being litigated, individual Clinton staffers and volunteers will have to give testimony, and the campaign will have to produce documents (including electronic records).

There is a limit on discovery. It has to have some relation to the suit. I read the complaint.

The request for relief:

WHEREFORE Plaintiff Bernie 2016, Inc. respectfully requests that judgment be entered against Defendant DNC Services Corporation:
A. Mandating Defendant’s specific performance of the Parties’ Agreement, and Defendant’s immediate restoration of Plaintiff’s access to the Voter Data system;
B. On the second and third causes of action, for damages in an amount determined to be at trial, but presently known to exceed $75,000.00; and
C. For such other, further and different relief as the Court deems just and proper.


A is already moot. It's a matter of proving the value of the time lost. The complaint elsewhere alleges $600K per day and it lasted a couple of days. The entire suit that is left is about whether it really cost Bernie 600K per day. Bernie having to prove that is the amount it cost him.

As to the first request for relief, restoring the Sanders campaign's access, whether it's moot depends on what the DNC agreed to. I haven't read yesterday's agreement. It's conceivable that the DNC agreed to restore access pending a full investigation, reserving its right to curtail access down the road after it has all the facts and after the judge has been able to review thorough briefing by the parties. In other words, the DNC might have merely conceded the request for a preliminary injunction, not the ultimate relief. If the Sanders campaign's access is still at issue, then it's easier to see the relevance of discovery from the Clinton campaign.

As to the request for money damages, the DNC probably agreed to restore access (whether temporarily or permanently) without conceding that it had breached the agreement. In that case, there would still be the issue of whether there was a breach of contract, as well as of the money value of any breach if found. I could envision discovery from the Clinton campaign on the first point, if the DNC argued that the injury to the Clinton campaign was so severe as to justify it in bypassing the ten-day notice-and-cure provision of the agreement. As to the money value, the Clinton campaign is the nearest analog to the Sanders campaign. If the DNC argues that the Sanders campaign is overstating the importance of the database, it would arguably be relevant for the court to receive evidence about how another campaign used the database.

Any discovery from the Clinton campaign would be limited to respect its legitimate interest in not being unduly burdened, and, given the fact of an ongoing struggle for the nomination, its legitimate interest in not giving away valuable information to a rival. For example, some documents might be produced but only in redacted form (with some parts blanked out).

As for relevance, it's construed broadly, but still not as broadly as some nonlawyers suppose. An important limitation is that the standard is relevance to the issues in the lawsuit, not to the overall struggle between Good and Evil, which is how some people would view it. I distinctly remember a client who wanted me to make a big deal about something nefarious that a principal on the other side had done 30 years earlier. It showed that he was a bad person, so it would help us in the litigation, right? Well, no. Judges are impatient with crap like that. From posts on DU, I have seen people on both sides trumpeting allegations or talking points that are intended to put the campaign of their disfavored candidate in a bad light but that don't relate to the much more limited issues raised by the complaint filed in court. You're certainly correct that discovery along those lines will not be ordered by the court.

Bernie 2016 has to convince the court DNC breached the contract, which means they didn't provide him the data, admitted, and that the clauses of the contract read such that they could not refuse to provide the data under the circumstances without breaching the contract.
The Clinton campaign doesn't have anything to do with that.

Bernie 2016 has to prove the damages, or the value of the damages, and the Clinton campaign does not have to help them do that. The analogy is not enough to make it relevant and make the Clinton campaign spend time on it. They will have to prove the market value of access to that data by some means. They could bother the Trump campaign with it too on the allegations of "similarity." They will need to hire expert witnesses.

That would be like allowing a personal injury plaintiff to subpoena other people who once had injuries of a similar nature to testify to how painful they can be. Because it is analogous. Fact witnesses have to know something about the actual case.

The DNC was terrified of discovery, because they screwed the pooch and know it.

Attracting millions more viewers to see Bernie strut his stuff!

I wonder how many millions of them will realize he is the real deal.

for the first time, pay attention and remember where they were, what they were doing when honesty, straight talking, came to town.

Bernie has no time for lies and no time for distractions from his mission to save [I say this as an Atheist] all of us!

Go, Bernie!!!

To be back ladies n gents. This shits GOLD

I almost forgot some troubles. LOL

2) we need to see all emails of the fired aide and possibly others.

And you do understand that a law suit puts all the evidence on the table. So those emails, they will be seen. Because of the suit Bernie filed. This is why people with things to hide do not file suit and that is a reason many suits are not filed. Discovery. It's what's for dinner.
But it's sort of fascist to ask people to give up their rights. Fascist tactics in elections are a big, big no no in my book, NCTraveler.

"He stole data." we take as political hyperbole, typical dung slinging. Ending with the alleged thief taking it to court to be under oath cuts through the dung and makes the alleged thief look more alleged than thief.