Also, WTF?

for discussion that isn't flame bait? That might help everyone around here.

And why hasn't the DNC and the Clinton campaign agreed to a full investigation?

How can we tell?

All their OPs.

Plus, history of h in 2008 and her own data breaching....

Why would he have his fingers crossed?

Not a single Hillary supporter that I have asked as answered.

So I'll posit to you. Do you want a full investigation from day one?

Second link. "Hints hacker"… lol. As credible as Fox News "some people say."

Third link. Well, he didn't. So there you go. He agreed to an audit. the DNC chose Kroll.

Let the FBI investigate. Of course, this would be objectionable because Obama is responsible for the FBI.

What is a full investigation and when is day one?

DNC and the Hillary campaign has yet to agree to a full audit?

I, as a Bernie supporter, would welcome an FBI investigation. And I want the Bernie campaign lawsuit to go forward.

I want everything to blown wide open.

And if that means the arrest of Uretsky and other Sanders staffers, so be it.

Hopefully nothing

Personally. I prefer to take Hillary to task for her culpability in the death, disruption, and displacement of millions of human beings.

....when it comes to the White House.

Power has corrupted the Clintons.

a guy on Usenet and the AOL message boards in the mid-1990s. Same deadpan delivery. Same "I just want to know the real story" shtick. It's downright uncanny.

I won't even mention his handle here (he can be found on Google), but if you want a laugh, feel free to send me a PM.

you would need evidence of a crime

You need suspicion. In this case, they do have evidence.

and no one, outside of camp Clinton, is claiming a crime was committed

crickets.

I don't understand why you are trying to connect his apology.

at the time. That's not the kind of campaign Sanders runs, so he acted quickly to:
1) acknowledge what happened, 2) fire the staff responsible, and 3) apologize.

Then Bernie is maligned for acknowledge what happened (because that "means
he must be guilty of something&quot , maligned for firing the staff (because that "means he
must beguilty of something&quot , and slimed for apologizing (because ... well, just because
.."he probably had his fingers crossed".

who grossly overreacted to the alleged data breach and violated their contract regarding the data collection system. The fact that the Sanders campaign has not dropped the lawsuit related to that situation. Bernie's apology had to do only with the fact that a member of his staff looked at Clinton's data when the DNC's vendor allowed a bug in the system made that possible. The staffer violated protocols by accessing that information and Bernie properly apologized for that. But what the DNC did was much worse, once again demonstrating the likelihood that DWS has her thumb on the scale.

"While we investigated the issue, we restricted access to affected areas of the VAN product for all users and limited access to data exports."

http://blog.ngpvan.com/news/data-security-and-privacy

And that is the correct thing to do. The DNC did what they needed to do to protect the data from the thieves that took it.

More than anything I think this is the point of the lawsuit.

Because so far no such thing has been proven.

I just want the facts and I think the legal process will be our friend here. We all want the facts and then we'll move on.

But I'm not going to bother to argue with you about it.

I didn't make it up.

the DNC and the Hillary campaign refuse to comment on a full audit.

You seem to be drooling over the thought of the DNC's equivalent of Benghazi.

Or perhaps you're hoping that the Bernie supporters who respond to your flamebait will get their posts hidden?

Odd behaviour for a host.










Note to inevitable jury: just asking the op a few questions, this post contains no personal attacks

Kroll cannot be trusted and Uretsky may be a plant. Only law enforcement can find the truth (but not the FBI because Obama controls them).

How'd that work out for him?

It was all a big fund raising scheme. Just like Weavers ranting and raving after the breach.

On Sun Dec 27, 2015, 08:01 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Trey Gowdy is that you?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=949327

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

fuck you RWNJ it is a personal attacks.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Dec 27, 2015, 08:12 AM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The post might be a 'personal attack', but the alert definitely is.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: If I had read this post before being called to jury it, I would have scoffed at the reference to an "inevitable jury" as too outlandish. Even in the recent alert barrage, I would have thought, no one would possibly alert on this. OK, I apologize to the poster: You were right and I was wrong. To the alerter, I'll say only: No, it is not "a personal attacks" {sic}.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Post asks valid questions
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The alert needs a hide, not the post.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

(I was Juror #4.)

I thought the person was making a legitimate point. I was more disappointed by the alert on the OP. The alerter is just making stuff up. Hosts are not limited in their posting like the old mod days.

But this is the game we play these days.

On Sun Dec 27, 2015, 01:50 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Did Bernie Sanders have his fingers crossed when he apologized for the data breach?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251949196

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Flame bait, by a host yet. Posted only to stir the pot and get angry responses. Serves no purpose.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Dec 27, 2015, 02:01 AM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: yeah. this is uncalled for.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Bad alert.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: .
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It's bullshit, but let it stand as an example of bullshit.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Jeez, it's just a stupid question...
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: lots of flame bait in GD nowadays. Time to clean it up.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: If the idea is to try and take out a host, I am not signing on for that. Not sure what "Host Status" has to do with this alert--hosts are not "better" or "more special" than average DUers. Alerter, if you don't like the post, hit the TRASH THREAD button. No DUer was insulted, called names, mocked, stalked or abused in any way. It may be an insouciant question, but given the behavior of Sanders' staff in recent days (throwing Uretsky under the bus, accusing him of being a plant, etc.) it is a very fair question, indeed, phrased without profanities or personal insults to any members here. Put the poster on ignore if you don't like his remarks.

They have been alerting on my posts non-stop, even recently for posting jury results.

Alert stalking is real, that's why I have to post disclaimers.