Sanders campaign keeps lawsuit against the DNC alive

[think]

Source: The Hill

Bernie Sanders's presidential campaign has officially served the Democratic National Committee (DNC) with its lawsuit over access to party voter files, it said Thursday in a court filing.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan had given the campaign a Thursday deadline to serve the DNC with the suit or risk having it dropped from federal court

In the new filing, the campaign said the two sides "continue to engage in cooperative discussions in their efforts to resolve the pending litigation" and will keep the court updated on those discussions.

A source close to the Sanders campaign framed the latest development as a way to keep the door open for a lawsuit as the two parties wait for the results of an independent audit.

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/dem-primaries/bernie-sanders-sues-dnc-lawsuit-voters-data-access

---

This appears to be mostly procedural in order to keep the door open for a lawsuit pending the outcome of the independent audit.

[elmac]

1. Good

The DNC is the left arm of the GOP.

[billhicks76]

2. Agreed

[Ford_Prefect]

3. Then they should feel right at home under oath on the witness stand.

[closeupready]

29. +1.

[Javaman]

48. I have no problem with him using my donation money to sue the DNC. nt

[revbones]

51. If he's suing the DNC

then I need to make another donation today!

[daleanime]

53. +1

[Land of Enchantment]

4. Bueno. Look what they tried to pull on Tim Canova

who is running against DWS for her congressional seat. Same old shit, different candidate. Maybe they will learn something from this lawsuit.

[Duval]

5. Excellent!

Seems to be the only way to keep the DNC straight. I just hope it will work.

[Pharaoh]

6. Bernie has a great team behind him

Kudos for not backing down. Bully's just get more aggressive if you back down.

[riversedge]

35. Sanders staff does wrong by snooping into Clinton's data--then he sues. Frivolous

lawsuit. The donors have to ante up to pay for the lawyers. Stupid

[LiberalFighter]

7. That is not going to help Sanders get those super delegates. eom

[Loudestlib]

11. Some of us care about fairness. n/t

[SunSeeker]

16. Then why is Sanders talking trying to get PLEDGED delegates to flip?

[ablamj]

27. because

that's how the "game" is played. if the roles were reversed she'd do the same.

[SunSeeker]

30. No, the "game" Sanders is playing is depriving people of their votes.

To push pledged delegates to vote against the candidate their voters chose is undemocratic. It is shameful

[ablamj]

58. It's called

Politics

[SunSeeker]

59. There are rules, even in politics.

The party rule is this:

“Delegates elected to the national convention pledged to a presidential candidate shall in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them.”

http://thetab.com/us/2016/03/16/bernies-campaign-thinks-can-get-hillarys-pledged-delegates-defect-2690

[ablamj]

63. yeah

right

[CoffeeCat]

32. Bernie is not trying to get pledged delegates to flip

Please stop posting this horrendously flawed misinformation and exaggerations.

Tad Devine was asked about the pledged delegates in an interview. He said the exact OPPOSITE of what you are asserting. Jesus.

Devine said, "We don’t have a plan at the moment to be calling all the Clinton delegates, you know, once they get selected and try to persuade them individually to be for Bernie Sanders.”

Devine discusses the facts and the reality of pledged delegates--that the are fluid. Which they are. Obama ended up winning more delegates from Iowa, at the Democratic National Convention--than he earned the night of the Iowa caucuses (in 2008).

Hard delegates do switch teams. As Obama gained in popularity in 2008, many pledged delegates that Hillary earned in the caucuses switched to Obama.

That's what happens.

No one is trying to get pledged delegates to flip.

I was a delegate at our Polk County Convention, which was held on 3/12. 76 of Hillary's delegates--who were elected the night of the Iowa caucus--didn't bother to show up for her at the Polk County Convention.

This is the reality.

[SunSeeker]

34. Wrong. Here's Tad Devine's full quote:

"My point is that a front-runner in a process like this needs to continue to win if you want to keep hold of delegates. The delegates we have on the Democratic side fall into two categories. Un-pledged delegates – who are free to vote for whoever they want – and pledged delegates, who usually and traditionally have voted for candidates for whom they have been elected, but who under our rules are not bound to do so. The standard of pledged delegates is the standard of fair reflection that is embodied in the rules of the delegate selection process and also in the call for the convention. So if a front-runner wants to keep those delegates in place I believe you need to continue to win. And if you don’t win, you know, you are then going to be under pressure from your own people and your own delegates. And I think the pressure is going to build in the weeks and months ahead, particularly if Bernie Sanders has the kind of winning streak that I believe he can get on."

http://thetab.com/us/2016/03/16/bernies-campaign-thinks-can-get-hillarys-pledged-delegates-defect-2690

So apparently they think if a candidate gets on a "winning streak," pledged delegates should just ignore votes and the will of the people.

[CoffeeCat]

37. Did you read my post? Devine is not trying to flip delegates!

Nowhere in your link does Devine say that they're going to flip delegates. NOWHERE.

Devine is discussing the reality. That pledged delegates can and do flip.

ONE MORE TIME! JUST FOR YOU!! In 2008, as Obama's popularity rose--pledged delegates for Hillary flipped to Obama. It happens!

Also--I'm one of those pledged delegates!! (Oh hi!). I attended my County Convention two weeks ago. 73 of Hillary's pledged delegates did not show up! THIS IS WHAT DEVINE WAS TALKING ABOUT! If you don't maintain popularity and support, you lose delegates!

Take it from someone who has seen this phenomena firsthand.

Pledged delegates do change their minds, or switch to another candidate. Sometimes they just decide to sleep in and skip showing up to the convention!

Devine was discussing this realty. He never said that he would try to flip them himself! LOL!

What you're asserting about Devine is complete fantasy.

[SunSeeker]

39. You repeating yourself does not make your spin any more convincing.

The Tadster was not mincing words:

...Senior Strategist Tad Devine suggested that a string of victories from his candidate in the second half of the race would put “enormous” pressure on Clinton delegates.

“A front-runner in a process like this needs to continue to win if you want to keep hold of delegates,” he said. He said pledged delegates are not bound to the candidate they are pledged to.

“I think that pressure is going to build. If we can win, I think the pressure on the other side is going to grow and be enormous.”

This is a major step beyond the Bernie camp’s reported push to persuade superdelegates to switch their endorsement.

http://thetab.com/us/2016/03/16/bernies-campaign-thinks-can-get-hillarys-pledged-delegates-defect-2690

There is the odd pledged delegate that doesn't "show up," as you put it, but that is very different from a wholesale flipping of pledged delegates, where they do show up but vote the opposite of how the voters did who sent them there. That is what Tad is talking about. He is talking about "enormous pressure" being put on those delegates to flip, not just be no shows. That is undemocratic and unfair.

[CoffeeCat]

43. He's not talking about pressuring them HIMSELF

He is talking about the "pressure" that builds when the other side gains in popularity.

Clearly, you are reading into his words, what you want to see.

I know exactly what he is talking about. As stated, it happened to Hillary with Obama. She lost many, many delegates because of the pressure that Devine is talking about. This wasn't pressure from a PERSON trying to steal the delegate from Hillary to Obama.

It's the pressure that happens when another candidate ascends and becomes more popular.

You are the one who is spinning this to your liking.

I guess we can agree to disagree.

[SunSeeker]

45. He is pressuring them right now.

By (incorrectly) asserting in the media that "if a front-runner wants to keep those delegates in place I believe you need to continue to win," he is telling the pledged delegates they should flip to who is currently on a "winning streak."

The party rule is this:

“Delegates elected to the national convention pledged to a presidential candidate shall in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them.”

http://thetab.com/us/2016/03/16/bernies-campaign-thinks-can-get-hillarys-pledged-delegates-defect-2690

[CoffeeCat]

46. Well...

I will concede that openly stating in the media that the delegates are free to flip--could be construed as trying to influence them.

However, I wouldn't say that he is pressuring them. But your point is taken.

Many delegates flipped to Obama in 2008. The Hillary campaign is most likely paying close attention to this issue, because she was burned in 2008 by Hillary delegates defecting to Obama as the race continued on for months.

I have to say--I am still a bit shocked that 73 of Hillary's delegates in Polk County did not show up for her at the County Convention. Hillary won Polk County by 60 delegates, and the final count at the end of the day was Hillary by 2. That's a lot of loss of support. But it was only one county.

So.....it's all very interesting.

[a2liberal]

55. link?

I'm honestly curious, hadn't heard about this

[SunSeeker]

56. See subthread above.

Starting with this post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1390341

[LeFleur1]

28. Maybe You Should Read This.

http://www.thepeoplesview.net/main/2016/3/22/bernie-sanders-campaign-conjob-follow-the-money

[zalinda]

33. Wow, what a load of crap!

It's a Hillary supporter site, with all that goes with it, very little fact, but a lot of innuendos masquerading as facts. The main thrust is that Bernie is scamming all this supporters and he is a millionaire, wanting to get richer and is hiding money, somewhere. And that, all you Bernie supporters is why he is running for President.

What makes this so funny is that Bernie could quit his job in the Senate tomorrow and go work for some lobbyist firm for mucho bucks, and not break a sweat, if all he wanted to do was get rich. Instead he is busting his butt, running for President, with so much energy and fervor that I have no idea how he is doing it.

Yeah, only a Hillary supporter could think it is all about the money.

Z

[LeFleur1]

49. Lots of Things to Think About

I've noticed many of the things mentioned in this article. It's more about the disingenuous things Sanders says to pump up his supporters than that he might be rich. It's more about the way he suddenly joined the Democratic Party when he does not like it, never did belong to it until he thought it was in HIS best interests. Now that he's in it he's making demands. That's kind of hard to deny. It's so typical of him. I really don't care if he's rich or not. That's not the crux of the article. It's his attitude, and his sneakiness that bother me, while pretending he's oh so pure. Shortly after someone in his campaign grabbed lists of Hillary supporters we got a letter from Bernie asking for money. We wondered why in the world...then the news broke that they had stolen names. He should have run as an Independent. His supporters would still support him. Also...about the Platform. The reason I am a Democrat is because of the things they believe, the things in their platform. If they state that they will support a 'democratic- socialist' government, I'm not sure how many Democrats will go along with that. I'm not even sure what it is. It has never really been explained. If he means roads, libraries, prisons, schools. That's not new. What is new is that the Republicans were allowed to get a majority in our government because so many of the younger generation had better things to do. Whoever is elected affects them. Someone should tell them that. Should they vote for 'the better' of a list of candidates? Yes, they should. If only the Better is running, and not the BEST, they should still vote because BETTER is better than AWFUL. Laws passed by AWFUL will affect them in a bad way. What we have in Congress now is AWFUL. They are introducing hideous bills, obstructing and, in general, screwing up our country. Vote for someone who can change it and has the will to do so. Vote for Hillary!

[zalinda]

50. I am voting for the best, and it is NOT Hillary.

Bernie joined the Democratic party because he promised the Democrats that if he ran, he wouldn't run as an Independent and split the Progressive vote, plain and simple. The bigwigs at the party thought that he would only make a little splash and quickly die out, he didn't.

The Democratic party, right now is more like the party of Eisenhower or even Nixon. The Democratic party used to be FDR and LBJ and the like, which gave us Social Security, 8 hour work week, overtime, minimum wage, rural electrification, clean water act, GI Bill of Rights and Medicare to name a few. These are all socialist programs, which only mean benefiting the commons, or community.

Bernie is more of what the party used to be, not what it has become. If you look at all the information that the young have looked at and what the old remember how it used to be, you'd see that Bernie is the only choice for working America.

Z

[jwirr]

14. Since I have phone banked for some of those super-delegates

I suspect that had that been done to them - they would have done the same thing as Bernie.

[bvf]

23. This has not one fucking thing to do with delegates--

super or otherwise. It's about right and wrong. Principles still mean something to some people.

[annavictorious]

54. Sanders sometimes reminds me

of a relative who has invited himself to dinner at your house and then complains about the food.

[iandhr]

8. Oh yeah when their national data director improperly accessed HRC data.

Last edited Thu Mar 24, 2016, 09:27 PM - Edit history (1)

And then the campaign changed their story about it many times. The access was restored within a day and a half. This lawsuit is the height of chutzpah.


And since I am Jewish I can bring the Yiddish.

[LiberalArkie]

10. When the national data director who worked for the 2008 Obama campaign and the DNC and

was recommended by the DNC for the job with Sanders. Don't forget that part.

Also I have not heard of any of Hillarys contributors getting emails from Sanders, but plenty of Sanders contributors have gotten emails and phone calls from the Clinton campaign. Funny how that worked. It seems he was working against Bernie to most people.

[pnwmom]

13. I get emails from Sanders, so you can't say that anymore, at least truthfully.

And when I go to the Sanders campaign website, I'm met with a request for a donation that lists the last four digits of my credit card number! (If you don't believe me, ask a friend who's a Hillary supporter -- and has donated to Dems in the past -- to go to BernieSanders.com and tell you what they see.)

The candidates both pay to use the same DNC national database, so there's nothing nefarious about either campaign having shared data. It was the proprietary info that was in question.

[appalachiablue]

20. In using Bernie's campaign site to donate multiple times I've never seen cc nos.

or any personal data on file. Ever.

[pnwmom]

21. Try it right now.

Today they didn't list it right on the front page, like they did just a week ago.

Today I saw it when I hit the "contribute" button on the front page. Hitting that button led me directly to another page that called me by name and listed my CC.

[appalachiablue]

24. Just now: No name, no cc, no info.- blanc. You owe me $10. See you next Valentine's Day.

[a2liberal]

60. It's ActBlue saving your info

most Democrats use it for fundraising. ActBlue likes to save your credit card info so you can give again easily, and they don't distinguish it and only save it for that candidate -- they save it for all campaigns. I would see the same thing if I went to Hillary's site even though I've never donated to her.

[pnwmom]

61. And I have no problem with that. I'm just saying that there's nothing nefarious

about either Bernie or Hillary having access to the kind of information that is in these databases. They share the DNC database and they both use ActBlue. So Bernie supporters will get "suspicious" communications from Hillary, and Hillary supporters will get "suspicious" communications from Bernie. But there's really nothing bad going on at all.

[a2liberal]

62. ok, sorry I misunderstood (nt)

[A Simple Game]

22. Your computer is probably auto filling the form, change your settings. n/t

[Jitter65]

47. happens to me and many of my friends also. Never gave my credit card number to any campaign

except HRC. So how else did Sanders get the info?

[Plucketeer]

12. It's "height"

unless, of course, "hight" is Yiddish too.

[Lordquinton]

17. Where is the lawsuit against the Sanders campaign?

Apparently nothing illegal happened, unlike the DNC withholding records.

[iandhr]

19. They restored the access after the staffer who improperly accessed HRC's data was fired...

... and the showed they no longer had any of HRC data.


If they continued to deny service after that THEN Bernie would have cause to sue.


But there access was restored very quickly.

[Helen Borg]

9. There are probably tens of lawsuits in this campaign...

[modestybl]

15. Good. The DNC is as trustworthy as their favorite candidate...

You can't turn your back on these people for an instant...

[SunSeeker]

18. It was the SANDERS campaign that stole data. nt

[modestybl]

25. Wrong... it was Sanders camp that reported the breech...

The wall was between both data sets, god knows what the Clinton folks stole. It was curious that Sanders supporters were getting email from the Clinton camp soon afterwards...

[SunSeeker]

31. Oh please. The Sanders camp stole data. That is why Sanders was forced to APOLOGIZE.

[modestybl]

36. Wrong... Sanders apologized because he is a decent man...

... and the employee who mishandled that data - and employee recommended by the company to the campaign - was promptly fired. But this was the SECOND time that the Sanders people had to notify the company of a security breech - which was the company's fault. Who knows what the Clinton campaign was able to do, since both sides could see into each others database. Only notifications of data breeches have come from the Sanders campaign.

Now, who runs that company? NGP VAN founder Nathaniel Pearlman was Hillary's 2008 campaign chief technology officer.

Incredibly incestuous relationship. I'm glad that the Sanders camp has persisted with the lawsuit. There is a reason HRC rates over 60% untrustworthiness rating.

[SunSeeker]

38. He apologized because he admitted it was wrong. He fired the man that did it.

Sanders did not fire his top data staffer because Sanders "is a decent guy." The Sanders staffer stole data. No one alleges any Clinton staffer stole data, your baseless speculation notwithstanding.

There is no dispute that Sanders staff wrongfully accessed Clinton data for hours. The Sanders camp admits as much in its pointless Complaint. Now that the Complaint has finally been served (after Sanders was forced to do so by the Court or face dismissal of the case), it will be interesting to see if the DNC deposes Sanders.

[modestybl]

40. Not true...

None of your facts are correct... but that obviously not a major concern in camp HRC. The Sanders campaign from the start was willing to go under oath, and filed suit... DWS and the DNC backed off and allowed our campaign access to OUR data... because they didn't want to go under oath. I'm glad the Sanders lawyers are keeping this corrupt agency of the DNC under pressure. What was HRC's favorite phrase concerning young black men? Oh yeah, bring them to HEEL.

[SunSeeker]

41. You're the one ignoring facts.

These logs show Sanders people spent a bit under two hours in the data. During that time, they called up information from about a dozen states. They queried the database for the number of voters who met certain criteria. The "Turnout" variable shows on a scale of 1 to 100 how likely a person is to vote. A voter with a high "Priority" score would be someone the campaign will make every effort to contact.
...
But rather than reporting the glitch immediately, they probed the database for a bit under two hours. At some point, the staff produced a page of information that at the very least would show the count of certain voters.

Experts familiar with the Democratic voter data base say that the Sanders campaign would have gleaned valuable information. At the end of the day, they knew some things about the Clinton campaign that they hadn’t known before, even if they didn’t seek to crack into the Clinton data.

We rate Sanders’ claim that the campaign didn’t "go out and take" information as Mostly False.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/dec/22/bernie-s/Sanders-take-Clinton-voter-data/

[Pauldg47]

42. Sanders will win this...he's pretty sharp.

[SunSeeker]

44. I see you are not interested in the facts either. nt

[liberal N proud]

52. And he wants Democrats to support him?

[Betty Karlson]

57. Good for him: take Debbie down for all her corruption.

That over-priviledged DINO is more than we can bear, as a party.