Bernie's camp wanted to know how much of their info was compromised. The DNC paid them no mind. Then the wall drops again. And they descend like the monkeys in the Wizard of Oz on the Bernie Camp. I smell a rat. Bernie wanted a full audit. I don't think the DNC wanted this. This was a very dirty thing they did. You miss the part, that Bernie's staffers did not 'hack' anything. They went in, and there was all the info. So they wondered as before, how much of theirs could the other side see? And, many campaigns compromised by this VENDOR error. Now, for a little 'vendor history'. Hillary's IT guy from her 08 campaign was hired by DWS for the DNC to run the software for the prez election. Non Hillary supporters cried foul it was being stacked, party/Hillary. So here we are. Hillary's former IT guy, now the DNC IT guy, drops the firewall AGAIN? Me think it was on purpose. Especially when back in October, the Sanders campaign is the one that contacted the DNC to tell them of the breach, when they found it, and wondered if it hurt them too. They said they fixed it. But the wall came down again, something only the vendor can do, and did. Not the Sanders camp.
The INTEGRITY we all love is still there. It always will be.

That is just not believable.

but it is confirmed by what has been gathered and reported here by statements from the vendor (hired by the DNC to maintain the database, one of the main principals is related to DWS), the history of this type series of breaches and statements asserted in the court filing.

Personally, I think you should vote for the candidate you prefer, and I do not want to try to convince you otherwise. I have observed Hillary Clinton for a number of years and formed my own opinion of her, I lived in Maryland and Martin O'Malley was my governor for 8 years and I am a big admirer of his, I have followed Bernie Sanders for a number of years, and I believe he is extremely intelligent and incredibly honest. He typically wins 25 percent of the Republican vote in Vermont. While Republicans there say they don't necessarily agree with all of his positions, they all believe he is very honest in telling people the truth.

It is a good thing you have taken an interest in this election.

Regards,

Sam

J

... congratulations on a beautifully well-written piece.

It has been said many times, here and elsewhere, that Bernie's "supporters" have been his biggest problem. Tonight has proven that.

Coronation... sorry we are ruining that for you...

I have had enough of listening to your feigned emotional turmoil.

More personal attacks.
More condescension.

Is that what you have to offer? That's why I should vote for Sanders?

supporters to convince you. He works to convince you every single day.

But the comment I was replying to was incredibly offensive and condescending. That person had a chance to say something positive about Sanders, and instead decided to insult me.

And he may be trying to convince me very day, but his campaign did a very poor job of it today. Hopefully tomorrow will be better.

you ARE an ambassador/salesman for Bernie Sanders. He needs undecided voters and quite a few voters that will vote for Hillary to win the nomination.

Sanders can't do that persuasion by himself.

That is if you are attempting to prove the OP's point.

and that of many others. Sanders candidacy would be a much better without all his vociferously defensive "yes" men who seem more focused on propping up their version of his faultless graven image rather than constantly urging him to improve and strive to be a better candidate.

some Sanders staffers did something unethical for their own benefit"

That is has not been made clear at all.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=915488

The activity log looks like someone collecting evidence of security issues - not stealing another campaigns' data.

As well, the DNC was blatantly in breach of their contract with Sanders. and under the terms of that contract, the sanders campaign was not obligated to report a breach, etc.
https://berniesanders.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Bernie2016vDNCComplaint.pdf

19) The Agreement does not obligate the Campaign to maintain specific security
measures with respect to Confidential Information, to notify the DNC of security breaches
arising in the DNC’s Voter Data systems, or to protect any confidential information inadvertently
disclosed to the Campaign by the DNC.

Why not just one? Why issue 25 queries? Why fire someone?

You know, I don't even really care that someone in the Sanders campaign messed up. People will mess up. Someone in Clinton's campaign will mess up. I'm sure Sanders himself would never do something like this, and I don't think the mess up says anything wrong with Sanders' character.

What I mind is that having messed up, they actually seem to think that it's someone else's fault, and that they're the victims here.

They used selection criteria on certain fields to generate lists to prove they could get access to data that didn't belong to them. The data they generated was item identifiers of a fraction of the database for that state.

They went around to other states to prove the breach was not confined to one login - it was in several states.

They probably used the early states because that's where the Clinton or other campaign (because they didn't just focus on Clinton data) would have developed their 2016 data.

They are the victims as I see it.

The DNC and the vendor are responsible for the security of their data. They failed. Sanders and Clintons data was exposed by their failure.

Because the Sanders campaign had access to their own data, the only way to prove the security was compromised was to do some activities on data they were not supposed to be able to see. So they did. They did lists and counts but didn't download or steal the data. The Sanders data had been compromised more than once before including October 2015. This time, their data director wanted proof so he undertook to get it.

None of that is sinister. You can tell from their log of activity they were not stealing data - nothing was downloaded. Just saved lists of parts of files - not the file data.

What's wrong to me is what the DNC and Clinton campaign did. The logs would show in seconds nothing sinister was happening but that's not how the DNC and Clinton campaign played it. They played it to damage the integrity of the Sanders campaign - suggesting they had done something they knew they had not. That disgusts me. It was a low hit job delivered by the DNC and Clinton.

There is no way on earth you can convince me that someone prowling around in someone else's sensitive data could possibly be the victim. And blaming Clinton of all people for this is ridiculous. She was the one whose data was accessed. That's a strange conclusion.

I apologize if I'm coming off as harsh. I'm tired and it's been a long day. I need to remember you're a real person with real feelings I'm talking to.

coming off as harsh.

That data director, who to me was a sacrificial lamb, did what he should in those circumstances, when working with a vendor who had allowed security breaches before that compromised the Sanders data - allowing it to get into the hands of other campaigns. He got proof. There was no way he could prove it with his own data because they already had legitimate access to it. They had to prove it with data belonging to other campaigns.

Now if he were stealing it, he'd just start downloading it or generating big reports with the fields he's interested in on those reports in detail.

He did no downloads.
He generated no big reports.
He generated no detail reports.

He went from state to state running partial selections on various criteria in the data that tended to vary by state and was only made up with a fraction of the data due to the 'small' selections. He never selected a complete file or complete set of data with a field for every voter in that state.

That means the data director was doing just as he said - collecting proof of a data breach - not stealing any data. That would be readily obvious to the vendor and to the users of the application at the Clinton campaign. Instead they smeared Bernie anyway and took away access to his data without grounds and in violation of their contract.

Sanders encountered a breach and collected some evidence to prove it. the DNC and Clinton did not respond properly under the contract law nor fairly under the circumstance and set about to smear Bernie.

I'm not making that up on conjecture. Those are the facts. David Axelrod said the DNC was out to get Bernie. So did Bill Press. As did others. And it's why the DNC caved so quickly on the lawsuit. They were caught dead to rights in the wrong.

I don't think we'll come to an agreement. But thanks for the discussion.

That he did it without management approval was why he got fired.

There is an excellent thread here about the IT perspective on this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=915620


I believe Bernie's campaign that this wasn't the first time the firewall had been dropped and that
Bernie's campaign had previously reported the problem to the vendor and the DNC. The damn
problem should have been fixed months ago.

He really should have made his actions somehow distinguishable from someone who was taking data that would be helpful to him.

Why did he share the data with so many other people?

I don't find it convincing, despite the author's good faith. Nor does it explain why he felt the need to share the results with other people.

Well written criticism, I feel the same way as you.

Sanders supporters really don't seem to get the damage that they have been doing to their candidate.

Like yourself, I am an undecided voter and I may well sit out the presidential primary and vote elsewhere downticket on March 15th

Those who support Clinton have accused anyone who questions her policies as "haters." How juvenile is that? Certain Clinton supporters have been harassing people via pm despite being warned and asked not to. I certainly don't blame Hillary Clinton for these actions, I blame egotistical supporters who have no will power to control themselves.

Personally for me, trust and her policy stances, as well as her close relationship with Wall Street are my top problems.

Yes, I do believe that the DNC has inappropriately made things in favor of Clinton. The debates being the major one. I am glad that the candidate forum (there was only one that I know of, maybe more were added) was added on. I knew that the unions would come on mostly for Clinton not because of a conspiracy, but because her husband had their backing during his runs for the White House and I'm sure he has quite a bit of pull. I stated this long before all the union endorsements and it turns out I was right.

As for the warmonger, those can be proven by her time as a senator and a candidate. She DID vote for the Iraq War and some of us believe she should be held responsible for that bad decision. Most Democrats opposed it, why didn't she?

As for the oligarch, her and her husband are among the richest families in the nation that control the power. That is undeniably a FACT. I personally don't think someone that rich and powerful in a post-Citizen's United era should be trusted with the presidency.

Now I have no qualms with you deciding you are no longer supporting Sanders. I do have qualms with you blaming his supporters with the backstabbing, blood curdling, vitriol coming from Clinton supporters. I do have problems with public prognostication, which Clinton supporters have done half a dozen times (I will not name names) for attention purposes.

My inclination is that you have already decided who you have supported, which is fine. Just don't try to deceive people and think they are stupid.

nor do I care what you have to say.

Between this reply and the other, your outrage is off the charts.

I do not believe at any time you were a Sanders supporter. Absolutely nothing in all of your posts lead me to believe that statement....

I've said it a few times on DU, but I've gone from Sanders supporter to really disliking his supporters and thus distrusting his entire campaign and even Bernie himself. I will reluctantly vote for Hillary in my state primary and happily in the general.

Seems a lot of them are as nuts as any tea partier and in similar ways. And conspiracy theory obsessed.

And man do they ever stop shouting?

...getting high praise from Nance Greggs, who is no slouch herself as a writer.

You are by no means being harsh. Your caps lock key is apparently not stuck on "Shout."

I don't believe a word of the long winded OP ...except that I do believe you support H. Good for you. It doesn't amount to a hill of beans to me.

we could just see where you have stood along the way.... But surprisingly it's empty..shocker... I call B.S. on your assertion that you were for Bernie and now you are not.... don't buy it

you names and questioning you like it's not okay to be undecided. Lots of people are undecided and they wait to see how they are moved intellectually and/or emotionally along the way. Thats why candidates campaign. That's the political process. Yet the Bernie supporters act like you are their public enemy if you didn't blindly pledge alligience to BS from the start. That's why I find his whole campaign so phony and alienating. You have to buy into their exact dogma or you are literally not wanted or believed. I could never take that kind of roll-playing seriously. So phony.

Good luck with your decision. I just never bought into his chaos.

TO the Sanders campaign. But I guess there are always exceptions.

and thank you for posting.

You screwed up by not stopping at a stop sign on an empty back road. A cop sees and stops you. The cop then arrests you and throws you in jail and charges you with reckless endangerment. And then makes sure the local newspaper hears about it.

You get pissed.

Sure you screwed up, but the response and punishment is far out of proportion to the "crime."

I think it was worse than not stopping at a stop sign, which is a victimless crime. Here, it's clear some Sanders staffers tried to take proprietary data for strategic purposes. They clearly wanted to use it for their own gain.

...and we tend to ignore or excuse it.

Kinda like "Let's toss the guy who runs a Stop sign in jail, but ignore those people over there who are robbing the bank."

When the scope of what happened came out, it seemed harsh, if not overly so.

Of course, the DNC is the same organization (though with a different leader) that responded to Florida and Michigan moving their primaries in 2008 by disenfranchising those entire two states for a long while. So they have some experience with heavy penalties.

I enjoy your posts on DU, for what it's worth.

... I've had quite the opposite experience.

The more Hillary supporters I encounter, the less I trust her or think she has any business in the Oval Office.

But your OP touched on many of the same feelings I'm having in the wake of this fiasco.

eom

This was a timed, orchestrated maneuver to destroy Sanders' campaign by the DNC. If this was an illegal act in the manner you describe, the DNC should have went to the police. I think that they didn't do this because it would open themselves up to investigation that would find out the truth about the data breech and why it was never fixed. It would also expose the relationship between the DNC, the data firm and the Clintons.

The fact is they went to the press and violated their own contract with the Sanders campaign by suspending the Sanders' campaign access to their own data and thereby crippling his campaign. What they didn't expect was the reaction of Sanders. They expected him to roll over, apologize and beg for forgiveness like the average wimpy Democrat of late.

A lot of things have never added up about Bernie for me, and it's just gotten worse as his seems very gimmicky and phony and even worse than that now. This whole latest incident is surreal how his campaign can act so angry when they were the perpetrators. I'm done with slicing and dicing good Democrats and maligning them for little more than his ego. The anger and name calling and now pure deception is backfiring on him.

Hillary's strong debate performances along with that absolutely salute worthy Benghazi testimony has solidified her as a true leader. Bernie pales in comparison as an angry, disorganized, petulant curmudgeon. It's given quite a glimpse into how chaotic his leadership would be. No thanks.

Sanders needs to tell his supporters to calm down and stop bullying voters.

or even progressive. One Bernie "supporter" on this site stated that he favored Trump over Clinton. Many of them are sincere, but it's important to fully understand what we're dealing with here. Pay close attention to the new crop of posters who absolutely hate political correctness, Obamacare, gun control, etc.

in fact - in Democratic circles I have never, ever seen such bullying and sliminess.

Douglas Carpenter (19,801 posts)

129. I pledge to support Hillary if she is the nominee? Do you pledge to support Bernie if he is the nominee?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=868787

-----------



131. Absolutely not
I'm a Democrat. He is NOT a Democrat. I wouldn't vote for him if you held a gun to my head, just like I would never and have never voted for a republican in my 38 years of voting. In fact in the minuscule chance that he was nominated I would never give another red cent to the party, knock doors, or phone bank for Dems.

Not in a million fucking years. And frankly, at least 50% of that feeling could be credited to his supporters who have spent the last several years smearing the shit out of real Democrats.

So no, never, ever, ever would I vote for him. Never.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=868804

And they did call about it, and handled it respectfully. I hope you heard it tonight.

Sanders handled it terrifically. He's a good man.