Stupid things SAID in leaked emails, but was anything actually DONE to undercut Sanders?

[RBInMaine]

From everything I'm seeing, some DUMB things were said in emails, but was anything actually ever DONE to undercut Bernie Sanders at the DNC? I'm not seeing it. In fact, I am seeing exactly the opposite. I'm seeing people saying they were sticking to Wasserman's directive and in fact staying neutral.

I see no evidence that anyone at the DNC actually DID anything to undercut Bernie at least in any significant way. Now, when it was discovered that Bernie's people went after Hillary's data lists and the DNC then moved to penalize Bernie's campaign and all the screeching about that, everyone KNEW that Weaver and Wasserman couldn't stand each other and were having a war of words. Weaver, in fact, was being a real ASSHOLE through that episode and going way over the top attacking the DNC, suing, and all the rest. So any emails with Wasserman calling Weaver a "liar" and "ass" in that episode are not surprising at all, but again, that is no evidence that the DNC ever DID anything to actually favor Clinton over Sanders.

We are not here to re-do the primary, but we must also remember that Bernie was never a member of the party for his entire career, and many times earlier in his career he actually attacked the party saying it was basically just as bad as the Republican Party. Many inside the DNC PERSONALLY favored Hillary, and that is FINE. Everyone has a right to his or her PERSONAL view, as long as they stay PROFESSIONALLY neutral in their DNC duties. There was never any doubt that Wasserman, a longtime friend of Hillary, PERSONALLY preferred Hillary well BEFORE Bernie ever entered the race. But that does not mean she ever actually DID anything to undercut Bernie EVEN if she was very angry with him and his campaign over the database episode where Bernie's campaign was clearly in the WRONG.

All this said, I have always said that Wasserman on the whole STINKS as DNC chair, that she should have been replaced long ago, and they need to change the system for choosing a chair when we have the White House. The President should not appoint the Chair. The Chair should be chosen the same way as when we don't have the White House, with an election process. People in Congress need to focus on their constituents, not running the DNC.
Wassernman may be a good member of Congress, but her tenure at the DNC has mostly STUNK.

Now what they need to do is make a clear public statement on this, fire those who said these dumb things, make sure the tech work is done well to prevent hacking (which as I understand it is or has been done), get rid of Wasserman, and get changes implemented ASAP to make sure this doesn't happen again.

Again though, bottom line is no evidence showing DNC people actually DID anything to undercut, at least in any significant way, Bernie, and we had a fair primary season with a fair outcome. There is absolutely nothing I am seeing to contradict that.

There is no evidence there was any major campaign to undermine Sanders' campaign based on a very small number of email statements out of thousands.

[OKNancy]

1. No, nothing was done

and from my readings, especially here: http://www.amalanetwork.com/2016/07/23/shills-and-scandals-the-misleading-dncleaks-tweet-by-tweet/
lots of misleading stuff going on...

As an aside, wikileaks is threatening Joy Reid!! WikiLeaks ?@wikileaks 7h7 hours ago
@JoyAnnReid You are pushing a discredited conspiracy theory. There is no affinity, whatsoever. Our lawyers will monitor your program.

[rjsquirrel]

6. Their lawyers?

Lol, what are they gonna do, sue in a US court?

Can't wait until Assange is in prison.

[Her Sister]

10. Ah Wikileaks don't want to be investigated/criticized! Threatening the media! LOL!

[sarae]

36. They're showing their true colors by threatening Joy like that.

It sounds like she hit a major nerve. HAH!!!

[EffieBlack]

44. Donald, is that you?

[glennward]

50. No. But something was done with that leaked Clinton donor list that folks seem to have forgotten. nt

[asiliveandbreathe]

54. Joy Reid?? wikileaks?? I don't think so -

Probably some kid in their moms basement - who will be found very quickly - didn't we (govt) hire hackers to sniff out hackers????

Maybe RNC hackers..where are the rnc campaign emails.....????

[OKNancy]

55. I copied that tweet straight from the wikileaks page

I don't feel like screen capping it, but for what it's worth their response is all over the news now. No, this was wikileaks.

[PatSeg]

58. "Our lawyers"???

What the hell!

[Ilsa]

3. I responded to a friend on another board about

Bernie supporters getting enraged at HRC and the DNC and voting for Trump. She thinks they will. I told her I was a SBS supporter, but I've let it go. I have to. There is too much at stake with this election in getting a Democrat elected vs someone as racist and sexist and dangerous as Donald Trump.sure, there may be a few that protest vote. But we need to set aside personal grievances, hurt feelings, and do what is right for this nation.

[B Calm]

4. To reply honestly would be breaking the new rules.

[RBInMaine]

7. Be objective. Was anything DONE to undercut Bernie or not? Evidence please, not emotion.

[B Calm]

8. Fish not biting today.

[reddread]

11. all these barracudas and sharks?

https://archive.org/details/BigOneTh2001

[RBInMaine]

14. Adults are able to have civil, objective, evidence-based conversations. You might think about that.

[LuvLoogie]

53. It's funny. You ask people to state a charge and provide

evidence, they clam up and accuse you of laying some kind of trap. Happened to me the other day on FB, when I challenged someone to name a charge against Hillary. On what should she be charged and tried?

The person was all. "I'm not playing that game. If you can't see how the people don't deserve redress against Hillary in court. I'm not going to get in a back and forth with you and list a bunch of things."

I said, I 'm not asking for a list. Just one charge. Name it. "

She wouldn' t even name it. For some, just being HRC or DWS is a crime.

[B Calm]

59. I see one post already removed.

[JudyM]

63. You might think about TOS. The actual truth cannot be discussed here, period. So we'll have

to leave it to your ingenuity to look for the truth elsewhere if you actually are interested.

[Andy823]

67. Unlike the JPR site, right?

I bet we can all go there and say we like Hillary, she won honestly, etc. and nothing at all would happen! Or we could question the insane ideas that Trump would be better than Hillary.

I really don't understand how you, or any of the others on JPR can come here and make comments about not being able to speak the truth, when you are all members or one of the most authoritarian sites I have seen. I guess the echo chamber of Hillary haters isn't very interesting since so many of you have shown up here this weekend.

[JudyM]

68. I am in fact not a member of JPR, so you might want to check your assumptions.

[JudyM]

64. Fisherman nonetheless convinced that the bait should be appealing.

[reddread]

9. AP announcement on the eve of Ca primary

[still_one]

13. So now you are saying AP was involved? Even before California, the math wasn't there for Bernie

There were a lot of issues on the ballot besides the nominees, and people went to the polls and voted.

[reddread]

16. "was anything done to undercut Bernie?"

[still_one]

18. The AP announcement did not deter people from voting.

[Scuba]

31. Of course it did.

[reddread]

35. not in the New History it didnt

not in the New Herstory.
get on script.

[still_one]

39. really, so Californians decided not to vote on the propositions and other offices because

of this

Most Californian's are not that shallow

[reddread]

42. do you believe in vote suppression?

since this would be, like the biggest example in quite some time.
so if this is some alternate reality where that never happens,
please let me know.

[still_one]

38. Do you live in California? There were propositions and other offices on that ballot

which Californians care about

Sorry, but Californians are not that shallow

[Scuba]

45. In 2008 more than 5 million voted in the California Democratic primary. In 2016, < 3.5 million.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Democratic_primary,_2008

Totals 5,066,993

http://sfist.com/2016/06/08/more_than_twice_as_many_democrats_a.php

In total, nearly 3.5 million Californians voted for Democratic candidates in Tuesday's primary.

[still_one]

48. not so. Your figures are NOT the final count

5,084,993 votes for the Democratic ballot
2,188,201 votes for the Republican ballot

http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/california

[Scuba]

5. Yes, things were done that violated the impartiality rule ...

http://usuncut.com/politics/dnc-leaks-9-emails/

1. The DNC’s communications director was eager to point out negative angles for Sanders stories
Luis Miranda, the national communications director for the DNC, is seen in two separate email chains briefing reporters with both Politico and the Wall Street Journal. In one email thread with Politico’s Daniel Strauss, Miranda told Strauss that he would “point out… some of the issues” with Sen. Sanders’ DNC committee appointments “off the record” with Strauss to help him write his story. Strauss initially asked for Miranda to send the list of appointments over “with no fingerprints attached.”

...

3. DNC officials worked closely with the Hillary Clinton campaign to respond to Sanders’ money laundering allegations

...

However, the collusion went deeper, with Luis Miranda shown in various emails drafting talking points to be used by the Clinton campaign in response to the Hillary Victory Fund’s money laundering allegations. In the thread dated May 4, Clinton campaign spokesman is seen badgering Miranda asking for the draft for a Medium post defending the Clinton campaign’s questionable fundraising strategies.

...

5. DNC staff automatically dismissed interview requests from “Bernie bros”
In the wake of the Hillary Victory Fund fallout, DNC staffers were seen dismissing interview requests for Debbie Wasserman Schultz about the money laundering allegations due to the political affiliations of the interviewers themselves.

[randome]

15. #1 is the only violation I see.

The others are responses to one candidate attacking another. Should the DNC simply not offer help wherever possible?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.[/center][/font][hr]

[RBInMaine]

27. I agree.

[RBInMaine]

22. #1 is troubling, but doubtful any significant impact on the process. We also must remember CONTEXT.

Hey, if impartiality rules were violated even in a few small ways, then FIRE them now. But there are also two sides to a story, CONTEXT of these things must be considered, and we must also ask if anything was done that could have changed the outcome of the primaries.

I not seeing anything major here. I am not seeing any major collaborations or actions designed to go after Bernie's campaign. I am seeing some little bits and pieces out thousands and thousands of emails, mostly dumb COMMENTS, and even exculpatory statements.


No strong case that there was any MAJOR effort on the part of the DNC to undercut Bernie. I am seeing a few small, isolated, bits and pieces out of tens of thousands of communications.

[merrily]

12. This just may be the funniest and most one-sided OP I've seen here in a while.

[RBInMaine]

17. Then I guess you didn't bother to read the entire OP. If you have evidence that anything

was actually done that undercut Bernie's campaign in any significant way, please give it. I am looking at some other good responses.

I have said those who said these things at the DNC should be fired, and Wasserman STINKS. So please, it would be nice to have an adult conversation if you are capable.

From all I'm seeing, anyone who thinks Bernie lost the primaries on this set of facts is living in an alternative universe.

[merrily]

32. Why would I reply substantively to a post that implies I am not capable of adult conversation?

Always a personal insult from you.

[OKNancy]

21. well, your guy this morning is wholeheartedly on the unity train

He says he is going to work hard for Hillary and is going to defeat Trump.
He is not continuing to fight the primary.

[merrily]

23. What does that have to do with what I posted?

My comment was about the OP post. I thought the primary was Bernie vs. Hillary, not Bernie vs. a DU OP post.

But, if your problem is actually with re-fighting the primary, perhaps you should have addressed them to the OP?

As for me, I have not done a single OP revisiting the primary from either side. Not a one.

[RBInMaine]

29. And Bernie Sanders has just again said he strongly supports Hillary and will be going after Trump.

[merrily]

30. What does that have to do with my comment about your OP post?

Please see Reply 23. Thanks.

[RBInMaine]

33. You imply that Bernie's campaign had to have been seriously undermined. I say not, and Bernie is

strongly supporting Hillary. If I am misreading your sentiments, then please clarify.

[merrily]

34. Please see Reply 32. Thanks.

[RBInMaine]

37. Then show me you ARE capable. Please, leave the thin skin to Donald Trump.

[calimary]

52. Evidently, so does his former campaign chairman, Jeff Weaver.

Although I didn't see it myself - when he was on Joy Reid's show this morning, but I read about it.

Eyes on the Prize, Guys!

Shit - after all those months of rather unwelcome acrimony and divisiveness, we're finally all getting back together, for Pete's Sake. Seems to me it'd be mighty good to build on THAT and focus on the shared goal, and the common enemy of that goal.

Let's move forward.

[CrowCityDem]

19. No, nothing was done. Also, they were during the time when Bernie's camp was accusing them of crimes

So it's no mystery why people being accused of not just being corrupt, but being campaign finance criminals, would say some impolite things in their private communications. But since they never said those things publicly, and didn't act, there is no story here.

Does anyone honestly think if Bernie's campaign got hacked, we wouldn't find emails saying nasty things about Hillary or Debbie?

[Madam Mossfern]

43. As a former local politician

I know not to put anything in email, especially if it's just venting or a passing thought. When you're a public figure anything you say or do becomes public. It's a way of keeping things right. Public servants need to be honest with their constituency. This is arrogance - pure and simple.

Of course I'll still vote for the Democratic candidate, but very warily. This election season shatters the very core of my concept of democracy in the USA. Yet again, the Clinton campaign has shot itself in the foot. Bernie supporters, i fear, will feel no allegiance to the Democratic Party after this. Not having DWS speak at the convention is just not enough IMHO.

[CrowCityDem]

47. Two questions:

1. How are members of the DNC, talking to other members of the DNC, through DNC communications, "public figures"? If a crime had not been committed by the hackers, we would never have even known who some of these people were.

2. What does this have to do with your level of support for Hillary? She was not at all involved in this. It was the DNC, which is not her. Why are you holding her accountable for something that neither she, nor her campaign, did?

[Madam Mossfern]

60. If you're a DNC member you're a 'public servant' to the Party

IMHO, they betrayed the trust of their constituency (Democrats) by colluding to make sure that a particular candidate won the nomination. The Party, in a primary campaign is supposed to remain neutral. It was an analogy and I still think a valid one.

How do I not know that Hillary was not involved, nor did she have knowledge of the collusion? I thought she was close with DWS - no? My support is for the Democratic candidate. It happens to be Hillary Clinton, and I will vote for her to make sure the Trump doesn't prevail. That about sums it up.

[CrowCityDem]

61. So you will believe what you want to, with no evidence to back it up.

There is no evidence that the DNC actually DID anything to specifically hinder Bernie. There are no public statements, no changes of the rules, nothing. The only thing you can point to is the debate schedule, but that was set before Bernie was even running.

There is also no evidence of Hillary being in any way involved in the private conversations that were going on in the DNC. You want to think there is, so you're acting as though it happened. If you want to be fair, like you're asking of the DNC, then don't go holding against Hillary something she didn't do. Go ahead and be disappointed in things you don't like. But don't extend that to things you're making up.

[B Calm]

24. Exactly, it's not worth a hide!

[RBInMaine]

26. Childish attacks and no substance at all. Typical. I feel sorry for you.

[RBInMaine]

25. Are you entirely incapable of a fair and adult conversation just because it might contradict

your worldview? Read the entire post and look at how I say Wasserman STINKS and should GO and that the people who said these things in these email should be fired. Does any of THAT register? Did you read the whole post? Do you have any CASE?

[Logical]

28. Carry on! nt

[giftedgirl77]

40. It's just another death rattle from some diehard supporters

that have made every accusation possible.

[reddread]

46. curves ahead

the low road is treacherous.

[giftedgirl77]

57. Lol

[L. Coyote]

41. Only just enough stupid to spin it into a vast left wing conspiracy...over reaction run amok.

Another distraction for the troll army to promote.

[Surya Gayatri]

49. Massive K & R. Thanks for posting.

[Android3.14]

51. I'd like to respond, but the new rules forbid it

Too bad we cannot have an honest discussion about this issue.

That being said, Hillary has an opportunity to show leadership by canning DWS and fixing the DNC so the next primary will not have a cloud of cheating hanging over it.

[Vinca]

56. It doesn't matter.

What does matter is now we see the underpinnings of the organization and the notion they were suggesting going after Bernie's religion - or lack thereof - makes my almost physically ill.

[NorthCarolina]

62. Magic 8 Ball Says?

Some things are obvious.

[AgadorSparticus]

65. Exactly! People are allowed personal bias. It is called human nature.

It is whether they act in an inappropriate manner in their professional capacity that should be at question. But we know that is not what this is about.

[The Second Stone]

66. Had all the stuff the DNC been accused of doing to Sanders been done,

I'd be okay with it. Sanders is a newcomer to the party. It is not the job of either major party to take a risk of there being a Trump. Sanders isn't a Trump, and I regret the comparison because it isn't fair to Sanders. But there are two reasons the Democrats have that would have prevented a Trump. 1. Superdelegates are far more powerful in the Democratic Party, and most are elected officials, accountable and with something at stake; and 2. We were far more willing to stick formally by the rules, but privately among the DNC members, remember who had worked with us in the past.

The anti-Semitic comments are unfortunate and got the guy ousted.

The good that comes out of the "biased" process is that outsiders like Jill Stein, (may she someday become sane) see that the rules will be followed, but that they are generally unwelcome.

This is politics, and the stakes are our very freedom.

[JCanete]

70. Jesus Christ, I feel like democracy should matter to you, as if that component has

nothing to do with freedom. If democracy only goes to the highest bidder, and the only viable parties absolutely have their bidders, and then the democratic party leadership puts its hand on the scales, you can't pretend to me that that is democracy. It may approximate democracy just enough for us to feel like we have a hand in the process, but that's just an effective ruse.

Using Trump to justify every shitty thing we do is getting really fucking tiring, especially since our party is just as responsible for a reactionary magnet like this fucker getting so much attention from a disaffected, and frightened populace. People are freaking out about what they are losing and then being pointed towards immigrants and the poor and black people, affirmative action etc. as the causes for their pain and suffering, which is a direct result of both parties continuing to help funnel the commons up into the hands of the top 1 percent.

so don't tell me we need to support that behavior to avoid Trumps. If we give a shit at all about stopping Trump and future Trumps, this is exactly the behavior we need to reject.

[The Second Stone]

71. You don't need to support any behavior and you don't need to avoid Trump

if you don't want to. The world is as it is, it isn't neutral and never was, and you aren't responsible in your own mind for anything you don't take responsibility for. Feel free to project onto others whatever you wish.

You don't have to vote against Trump, you can vote for any candidate you want to. You can write in any candidate you want to. And it's a secret ballot, so if you don't tell anyone, then nobody will judge your vote.

But don't send anyone to tell me that they expect a perfect world and then expect me not to judge that as the very dreams of a fool.

[treestar]

69. Nothing whatsoever

It seems email should not be used by people in high places. Appears easier to hack into email than to get a phone tap or a bug in a meeting room. These people need to start using the phone for their discussions likely to veer into speculative territory.