the IT guy controls the software and can make it say anything he wants it to say

collected and gone over, just to see who else had their files improperly accessed on past occasions when users were allowed to login into an app while maintenance was being performed and the firewall was down.

I worked in Enterprise Operations for 28 years and no system or app ever had maintenance performed on it while users were logged in. That is standard operating procedures that were established before ISO standards were even thought of. Personally, I feel that anyone that has control of an individuals voting information, personal information like name, address, phone etc, should at the very minimum be ISO certified.

Any one of the relationships should qualify as a conflict of interest, but 4...

republic where everyone and their nephew (literally) run things.

they want to blame the victim

You should probably consider distributing free tinfoil if you want people to be able to follow this weird logic.

the first time being in October.

great op, uncle joe!

Thanks, questioneverything.

Bernie fired the guy. Bernie is not wearing this tinfoil

of all the candidates' information most assuredly including Bernies'.

It comes at about the 3:55 mark.

but then it would have to tend to being relevant to Bernie getting information on the value of the data to his campaign in monetary terms, so he can use that to prove that amount of his damages for having been locked out that day or two.

The lawsuit says it approximates it as $600K per day. That I think would be complicated to prove. Like they'd have to spend that much to get the data elsewhere. Then is it available elsewhere? And that's how much it costs.

The lawsuit was originally asking to be reinstated, so that part is now moot, and that was likely the main reason for the suit, with the damages claim thrown in. It seems like it would be tough to prove a monetary cost to the campaign. That would seem to involve proving the campaign had to spend money doing something else because they didn't have that information, and that it cost that much to do the something else.

And remember too there is Rule 11 - they can't keep that damages lawsuit going just to harass the other campaign with subpoenas or the DNC with discovery requests. They have to really want to collect those damages. If it's shown they have other purposes, they can be sanctioned.

The ignore list is a good place for you. Bye.

But four?! Give me a break. I saw this same graphic posted by Soapbox in another thread as a comment.

Glad to see it as a thread starter.

Peace

Remember: Bernie campaign was caught by the vendor.

Stop with the conspiracy nonsense. Audit #1 shows 9x Bernie campaign saved data: http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/293643104/Sanders-Campaign-Audit-Sheet-1

because I know what they are and I bet they do not meet the industries gold standard.

in this thread. First, Treestar upthread re cigar. Now you, with the Gold Standard.

Hint: Google Bill Clinton and Cigar; then google Hillary and gold standard.

You guys are a laugh riot!

illegally accessed data

I would wait to make a judgement like that if I were not very biased

Hey, but who knows.

Your comment is wrong, your hatred of Bernie and anyone else not supporting Hillary obvious.

It may have been a breach of contract. But nothing criminal took place. And according to the terms of service for using the software, any campaign that experienced a breach of any sort has 10 days to clear it up. You simply don't know what you're talking about.

Data to Bernie's campaign. BERNIE's campaign reported the breach in October and sequestered information that was not Bernie's.

I hope thatBernie keeps the legal pressure on the DNC up.

The ties between the vendor and WassermanSchultz and Hillary's 2008 campaign are shocking. Bernie's data is being SUPERVISED by former Hillary supporters and employees.

That makes sure that if Hillary's campaign wanted Bernie's data, they could potentially just ask a former employee to put it on a disk drive a la Snowden, couldn't they?

Seems to me that literally the Hillary foxes have been guarding the henhouse containing the data of all the candidates.

I'm not accusing Hillary's ex employees of accessing information of Bernie's or O'Malley's campaigns for any unauthorized reason. They may be very honest.

But the appearance, the potential of and for wrongdoing are with the vendor relationship between Hillary's campaign, not so much with Bernie's.

I think that Hillary supporters should cool it a bit.

The vendor is so closely tied to the personality managing the DNC and the Clintons that many opportunities for troubling behavior lie with Hillary.

Bernie's campaign could only access what was made available to them even if they wanted Hillary's information.

Meanwhile, Hillary ex-employees had full, total control over Bernie's information ALL ALONG.
And Hillary's former employees had ways to look at and take Bernie's information without leaving traces of their accessing it.

" Oh, what a tangled web we weave: When first we practise to deceive!"
I haven't heard anyone yet on the DWS side explain why the hold was dropped so fast. If it was legit, it would still be on. End of story.

I tend to believe Bernie. The vendor had everybody's information the whole time, and could access any of it at any time. The vendor carelessly allowed information to be available to Bernie. That was at the very least incompetent.

Bernie's campaign says they were not asked for the information.

The DNC should have handled themselves better.

They are the guardians of everyone's information.

The vendor and the DNC are filled with people with ties to Hillary.

My guess?

Bernie is doing a lot better than Hillary wants to admit.

Bernie is probably going to win this battle over the integrity of his campaign because the vendor that has been entrusted with all that data is full of people with ties to Hillary. They had the control and therefore had and have the responsibility to protect the privacy of the informgation and security of all the data.

Bernie's campaign could not have accessed the information unless the vendor.z

No laws were broken. Why would legal authorities be involved? This was an internal political party matter.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]All things in moderation, including moderation.[/center][/font][hr]

own information.

It's an internal squabble.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]All things in moderation, including moderation.[/center][/font][hr]

issue.

Many posters here have categorically stated that Bernie's campaign committed a crime, I don't agree with that and apparently neither did Schultz but she clearly violated the contract and damaged Bernie's campaign.

It wasn't an internal squabble the instant that Schultz arbitrarily cutoff Bernie's campaign from their hard earned information in trying to cripple his campaign and damage his character.

he is her nephew.

Can you provide a link?

they are not related

Otherwise someone might find it appropriate to apply the same label to you.

an employer they have miserably failed. I wondered what explained the lack of any concern about the fact that this data is not secure, never has been and the people being paid large fees to secure it still being in charge of that security they have so spectacularly failed at delivering.
Crony follies. Should have known.

fired than have been.

Fingers in ears, blinders on full

...to the latest conspiracy spam that has a noted error (NOT nephew) in it, not that it matters when one is dealing in fantasy.

One is just a deliberate lie to enhance the bullshit.

OMG!!111!! They must be linked in some sort of conspiratorial way, they are all DEMOCRATS - and we know how corrupt and awful THAT party is. Amrite?

you can't deny those conflicts of interests exist.

All one has to go by are the actions of the people involved and their actions speak for themselves whether conscious or not.

I mean, he initiated the entire ordeal, he MUST be on your memegif, no?

some light on the matter as to initiated and is to blame for anything.

Democratic "establishment"=criminals.

Am I properly catching your drift?

I stated her staffers.

Because they're not CURRENT staffers.

And there is a difference. Unless you think they're all Manchurian Candidate type that have been waiting 10, 20, years to do something like this.

committed the same or similar transgression as Bernie's former staffer which was fired.

But as you state former connections with ties to the vendor and DNC could also come into play.

The only solution that I see to get to the bottom of this is an independent audit going back months, we know there was a problem with the firewall at least in October.

Which is filled with former staffers. The whole lead-in basically says "these are the staffers that did this"

It may not be intentional. It may be intentional. But that's the impression it gives.

involved but it doesn't exclude current staffers whether intentional or not.

If the firewall is down and this has been a chronic problem all the candidates' information has been at risk.

I didn't write the headline. The way many posts are written here lately about leaving the Democratic party and how all these former associates, but of course, still loyal Democrats, must be guilty of something merely for having associated with Hillary. It seems over-the-top cynical and conspiratorial, don't you agree?

This once valuable place feels like a joke now. I keep feeling like Free Republic has taken over.

"I wonder when I'm gonna get called a Demonrat"

security in regards to the candidate's information needs to be investigated in a comprehensive manner.

An independent audit would do that.

That DNC blew it by making it public and Bernie supporters will use it to do more harm to Hillary.

I guess I am the ONLY one who cares who wins the WH...

shucks

campaign left them with no choice.

public.

Now it is time to go back to no bashing of OUR candidates because the alternative is actual physical death for many.

The accusations have been made and the corporate media will most assuredly stay with them.

What complete and utter nonsense. ... Playing six degrees of separation and linking all this non-relevant BS to try and excuse what Bernie's guys did all on their own.

Pathetic.

who was Chief Technology Officer for Clinton's 2008 Campaign.

Bryan Pagliano was Clintons IT director under Pearlman
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2008/clinton/clintonorg.html
who recently took the 5th as the guy who implemented Clinton's private server

http://www.publicintegrity.org/2015/10/20/18647/why-joe-trippi-thinks-bernie-sanders-won-t-win-2016
Center for Public Integrity: What do you think would happen if Bernie Sanders beats Hillary Clinton in Iowa?

Trippi: The entire Democratic establishment would come out of the woodwork to stop Bernie Sanders from being the nominee. The establishment fervently believes that a socialist cannot be president of the United States.

... as their founder has been deeply involved with HRC's political career.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathaniel_Pearlman

But we DO know what happened in response... Instead of calling the campaigns in to reslove the issue, DWS called the press, damaged the Sanders campaign with both slander and an apparently illegal ban on access to their own data base, and the vendor blamed the customer for their massive failure: it is hard to see this as much other than political gamesmanship in the Karl Rovian vein.

Are the only ones gullible enough to think this besmirched Sanders or his campaign in any way.

Sleazy, deceptive, no morals, cheating, etc.

DWS took it personally and that is all.

I'd love to be informed if she has made a reference to not approving of the DNC's action.

Wall Street. I'm seeing a common thread appearing.

That DWS went to press rather than authorities and then so rapidly backed down on the Sander's campaign response of going so quickly to the courts is an extremely strong "tell" about what occurred.

I expect that if there is systemic mis-use or mis-access of the databases it is on the part of DWS/DNC/HRC and not Sanders.

I speculate that DWS/HRC and associates are so self-entitled and Machiavellian that they are blind.

This harms the integrity of the election process and the Democratic Party.

eom

signed by all parties. DWS VIOLATED that contract when she went public. The contract requires a ten day period for all parties to be made aware of any breach, and to discuss it before anything is made public.

Sanders hasn't withdrawn his lawsuit, and I hope he does not. I have read the DNC wants to 'settle' but imo, it would be best to go forward, use the discovery phase to find out what really happened, UNDER OATH.