She is incompetent, isn't she? As well, she's sort of a hypocrite.

I think she's going to regret the events of the past few days.

But so far she has survived every blunder, conflict and catastrophy. Her one great virtue is loyalty to some very powerful patrons.

and rightly so.

purloined by the SND campaign, and if Sanders account isn't restored, she's gone.

perfect for lies.

vendor was alerted, it kept happening. This was purposeful. She'll have her regrets because she will pay the price that it didn't go their way.

They used it before and yeah, it was calculated and it was a pretty damn vile thing for DWS to pull

And she's scared that 2016 will go like 2008, even though she was winning this time.

And she's not gonna get her payoff for trying to slant the election in HRC's favor. She certainly shot herself in the foot today while inadverdently tossing one hell of a bone to Senator Sanders.

wow

Sanders will get his access back tomorrow morning. I think there was something in that lawsuit they didn't want public.

they folded -

wonder if we will ever know how much HRC's team looked

especially since HRC was guilty of the same thing in 2008 and a big deal wasn't made of it. By relenting, they think this will go away quickly, but I think this is gonna run through the weekend and onto Sunday morning political shows and then into early next week before this goes away. In the future, they're gonna have to get up much earlier in the morning if they want to pull a fast one on Senator Sanders.

All she cares about is her quest for power.

eom

On Reddit, an r/technology thread about the controversy included comment from a self-identified 2008 Obama campaign staffer who claimed such breaches were both common but of limited strategic value:

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

like incompetence ...............or just good planning

Maybe means nothing that her nephew has this position.. but, still has a taint of impropriety...



http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2015/12/18/1461498/-Charlie-Pierce-asks-right-question-Why-did-DNC-leak-the-story

It was an audit, but they don’t say who conducted the audit. If it was the software company NGP VAN itself, that’s a big problem… because the CEO is a very avid and vocal supporter of Clinton, and the VP of the company is Debbie Wasserman-Schultz’s nephew, Aharon Wasserman.

----------------------------
Aharon Wasserman
Vice President, Creative & Marketing

https://www.ngpvan.com/about/team/aharon-wasserman


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

sandymenor • 11 hours 21 min ago
#1

Nephew, son of her brother, Keith.

Login or register to post comments


http://www.thomhartmann.com/users/ncolorado/blog/2015/12/ngp-van-vp-aharon-wasserman-related-debbie-wasserman-schultz

I thought they were not related.

BUT...its just a Tweet and who knows if the person Tweeting is really "the person in question?"

But, its been put out there and that's up to reliable "Fact Finders" to verify.

That sentence still saddens me.

This is important information.
More will be revealed.

Good thing Bernie Sanders didn't take advice from you.

And wasn't Hillary GRACIOUS in the way that she accepted his apology? I was quite pleased with the way she handled herself through this entire process.


Hopefully, his supporters will start to emulate his behavior. I won't hold my breath, but hope springs eternal.

it's not like I have a fan club I hang with or anything like that. It got out there it got lots of hits and recs and you can ridicule and belittle all you want.

Hillary had no choice but to be Gracious on the outside. But I'm sure she's seething on the inside. Not at Senator Sander's though.

Thanks for the kick. It ought to make it easier for one of your pals to find. She told me she didn't know how to perform searches. I relented and gave her the link, I couldn't bear to see her suffer so.

I've never ever mocked you, or made snarky comments about YOU. Why do you feel the need to do that sort of thing? Can't you discuss the issue without getting personal with a poster?

The hue and cry against "the DNC" and "the Clinton campaign" here was pretty loud and vociferous--it's not hard to find those threads. And now, here we have Senator Sanders, himself, agreeing with the people who objected to the behavior of the campaign workers who, it turned out, besmirched Sanders' reputation. He apologized to both SECSTATE Clinton AND "his supporters" for the bad behavior of at least three, and who knows--maybe five, or more, people.

Hillary knows that someone has that information that was lifted from those files. So of course she's upset. I wouldn't say she was seething, though. She was understandably annoyed and concerned.

The question now is, will they dare try to use it? I'm pretty sure Sanders would not approve such a thing--I think the one who is SEETHING is him. His chief of staff and communications director, with their nasty press conferences and appearances, made Sanders look like a total ass. I'm guessing he's had a few words with them, and I doubt those words were "How ya doing, old buddies, old pals?"

"must be because Bernie apologized" and about how maybe now Sander's supporters will start emulating his behavior. I'm a Sanders supporter and it was my OP. It went quiet because it's been here for over 24 hours.

It didn't go quiet because Bernie Sanders apologized, the post has nothing to do with Sander's apologizing to Clinton and I'm sure you are aware of that.

There was nothing uncivil in what I said. Apparently you thought the thread should be be more active. If you don't base your expectations of how active a thread should be on on your own OPs, what do you base your expectations on? You have 100k posts more than I do. Obviously a lot more people reply to you when you post. So mentioning your popularity was a fact- not rudeness or incivility.

All Sanders supporters may not emulate his behavior but I'll tell you what- if all of HRC supporters are currently emulating her behavior- it says more about her than you might think.

But when someone comments on the activity in a thread, it's not always about you.

In this case, it was NOT about you, quite plainly. It was about how the responses to this thread dried up the minute Sanders said "I apologize."

Absolutely no one has said unauthorized access to the Clinton database was ok by Sanders peope and no one has made the statement that Sanders should not have fired those responsible. And if you have cites to the contrary, I'd like to see them.

What has been pointed out is the unfairness and the double standard that the current chair of the DNC is going by in her attempt to tip the scales more toward HRC. When Camp Hillary accessed the Obama database in 2008 there was no running around of Obamas supporters screaming she's a thief, she's a liar as folks have done here. In fact no one said it at all because Obama didn't run to the press with it like DWS did. It was resolved behind the scenes. The person that looks like an ass is DWS and the DNC and the Clinton spokes person who went on national media screaming they stole millions of dollars worth of information when that is the furthest from the truth. The DNC blew this up because they thought they could hurt Sanders with it, unfortunately for her- it didn't work as evidenced by her relenting and giving the Sander's campaign access back to their own data after a lawsuit was fired. And Wasserman-Schultz relented Friday afternoon, not Saturday after the debate, which goes more to the fact that Sander's apologizing during the debate had nothing to do with the thread dying.

Team Hillary did not access Obama's data base in 2008. You might research this more or at least listen to people like Howard Dean who know what they are talking about on this. No data was accessed, stolen, downloaded or exported. In fact, it wasn't even seen by the Clinton campaign. So, there is no double standard. Bernie had thieves working on his campaign and now they are gone. End of story.

How lame.

She hasn't made it here yet. I worry about her, you know?

I'm a bit puzzled by your goading and baiting, frankly. I don't understand why you are coming at me so rudely with this "Where is your pal" snark. I don't know what you're talking about--it's obvious that you're trying to be caustic, but I don't understand why.

I feel certain she'll be telling you all about it if she hasn't already. She's been Pm-ing me all day. Why I don't know

I'm asking why it is a big deal now and not when your preferred candidate engaged in theft?

Is that answer concise enough for you?

....and have been searching for a solid link.

Thank-you!

If you have more details and proper citations, please share.

I'm not a lawyer (thank god), but a minute of research tells me the following:

About the phrase "information and belief", Wikipedia says:



So the Sanders campaign apparently has no firsthand knowledge, but based on secondhand information that is not apparently cited, believes this to have happened. But he's not too sure, which is why he has to use the hedging phrase "information and belief".

Okay, but let's say that it actually happened, whatever that is. Was this malicious behavior on the part of the Clinton campaign? No, it was the unintentional transmission of information to the Clinton campaign. In other words, by an accident (by an unspecified person or organization), the Clinton campaign received info (of a completely unspecified nature) that they apparently did not request.

So what we have is secondhand belief in some vague incident in which a campaign accidentally received info they didn't ask for. That is incredibly qualitatively and categorically different than the intentional gathering of confidential data that any reasonable person would have known they were not authorized to access. If you have more information, being an open-minded person, I'm willing to change my mind.

I also want to reiterate that I don't think Bernie Sanders himself had anything to do with this, nor would he condone such behavior. I think he has been ill-served by his top campaign staffers, and that it would be helpful if they would follow the ethical behavior and standard set by their candidate.

And do you really believe that the attorneys from the Sanders campaign is gonna lie to a judge?


I guess we can wait till the Judge decides to take a look at the case. I'm looking forward to it.

Like I said, I'm willing to change my mind based on new information. That's what reasonable people do.

Also, the whole point of the phrase "information and belief" is to say things that you think are true, but don't have firsthand evidence for. I'm not saying they lied-- I'm saying they believe it, but they don't have evidence.

And, again, the claim is that it was accidental transmission of data to a campaign, not a deliberate attempt to collect valuable data that they clearly knew they were not authorized to access.

I'm not a user at msnbc.com so I can't watch the full episode online and I can't find just a clip of just howards comments .So if you have access to msnbc go watch there. I was watching on television when I heard it.

I'll try to find it if I get the time.