brought pressure to bear, and DWS backed off.

with a few extra

conspiracy,more to the idea that the Adults in the room are taking control of this circus. R.T.Rybak will not let the DNC slide into chaos. Got a hunch the phone lines were white hot over the weekend,and R.T. took control. DWS is a joke and we all know that she will screw up a two car funeral,and you know darn well Ms. Clinton will not stand for something or anything that even seems to besmirch her or her campaign. Mr. Sanders will not throw sacks of poop at people just for the sake of throwing something. The fellow is old school style Politician,let the fools hang themselves,and just smile. Karma baby.

are awesome.

dam partial to our progressive persons. R.T. is one to watch,he is up and comer. Only wished that I had one tenth the patience or knowledge as Mr. Wellstone. Like many in Minny,we knew him well.

Funny how that works.

...what a Karl Rove might do. She has adopted Karl's play book.

2015 SL is fully in the tank for Hillary.

It's been funny watching him justify his multiple flip flops to support Hillary this election.

Thanks!

.

These OPs are too funny.

Not so much a "bombshell" as "oh crap, we will lose if this goes to court".

The contract requires a 10-day period before cutting Sanders off.

In an emerging situation where you don't know if they are continuing to gain access to data they're not supposed to have, a reaction is understandable.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You have to play the game to find out why you're playing the game. -Existenz[/center][/font][hr]

they would have shut down access for everyone while the issue was investigated and tested.

This was a punishment, not a security action.

I don't do much federal work these days, but, IIRC, the standard in federal court for interim relief (getting a court order before the case can be fully litigated) is that it can be issued in either of the following circumstances:
(1) The plaintiff (or other party seeking relief) shows a probability of success on the merits and a danger of irreparable injury if relief is delayed; OR
(2) The plaintiff shows that there is a fair question going to the merits and a marked imbalance of the hardships.

I think Sanders would have won on either of these grounds.

You hypothesize that the DNC didn't know if the breach was continuing. Two problems: First, it appears they did know that it was not. It was a temporary security failure. Even while the Sanders people were gathering evidence to document the extent of the breach, they found it suddenly closed. Second, even assuming that there's a continuing danger, the DNC can't with a straight face take the position that, with all campaigns able to access each other's data, it cut off the campaign that reported the problem while leaving the Clinton and O'Malley campaigns free to access data from each other and from Sanders.

DNC might have a colorable argument that the Sanders campaign acted improperly (though I've seen numerous IT people saying this is what you do to document a problem) and that a temporary suspension was appropriate as a punishment (though the contract says otherwise). Even if the judge's first impression was that the DNC was likely to prevail on both those arguments after all the facts were known, Sanders would get the injunction if the judge also decided that Sanders had a decent argument on even one of those points. There's an imbalance of hardship because if the injunction is wrongly granted, it only means that the DNC's punishment is somewhat delayed, but if the injunction is wrongly denied, the Sanders campaign suffers considerably from being unable to access the data that it itself has created.

ETA: I meant to add that I disagree with the OP. The DNC didn't cave because Sanders threatened to reveal some dirt about DWS or HRC. The DNC caved because its lawyers looked over the Sanders campaign's papers and said, "We have no good argument to oppose this. If you don't cave, the judge will surely order that Sanders be immediately restored to full access." The DNC decided that reaching an agreement was better than taking the PR hit of being slapped down by a federal judge.

It does not.

Critical of them when they try to put the genie back in the bottle.

One thing is certain, there's no pleasing the conspiracy minded.

You guys really need to PICK.

they gave them back access to their files.

Of course neither does blackmail which is what the op is fundamentally suggesting.

The DNC was in breach of contract for terminating Sanders' access to his data without the stipulated ten-day window. They overreached. The suit compelled them to restore it, and they did. I do not believe DWS is listening to us at all, unfortunately.