Does anyone actually think that Jeff Weaver and Team Bernie didn't have nasty email conversations?

[RBInMaine]

Again, this is NOT to re-hash the primary. We are talking about the timely issue of the wikileaks matter.

I do and always liked Bernie in general and his passion on progressive issues, and I agree with him on much. He is focused on beating Trump as we all should be.

CONTEXT is very important. Weaver and Devine were very harsh with the DNC, especially after BERNIE's guy was found to have gotten into Hillary's database information. Bad blood arose between Weaver and the DNC administration over that, and that is OLD news.
Of course there would be negative comments from Wassserman and others. They don't like each other at all.

Do you think if we could listen to Weaver and Team Bernie's private conversations and read their private emails we wouldn't also find nasty things being said about Wasserman and the DNC?

On the whole, I am seeing the DNC remaining neutral and no "big conspiracy" of any kind at the DNC to undermine the Sanders campaign. There were a tiny number of communications out of THOUSANDS.

That said, I have long said that Wasserman stinks, should have been replaced long ago, and am now saying that anyone who sent the dumb email messages should go and action needs to be taken now to both make sure communications are better secured and that such dumb comments are not said, and that neutrality rules are strictly enforced. No argument there.

But as with so many things, there is much LESS here than some are purporting. MUCH less.

[Scuba]

1. "They did it too" is the lamest of lame defenses.

[reddread]

6. "just following orders" may be a contender

particularly when death is dealt.

[DanTex]

10. There doesn't need to be a "defense," because there was nothing wrong done.

Saying private things in private communications is normal.

[RBInMaine]

11. Oh please, you are WAY over-reacting to much ado about very little. Enough of the conspiracy theory.

And you also need to be fair. Private views are perfectly fine. People are allowed to not like each other.

There is NO evidence of any major effort to undermine Sanders' campaign. Please give it up.

[Scuba]

17. Views and actions are very different things ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2283493

[LuvLoogie]

14. You know what's lame? It's the hyperbolic sense of self-importance

coming from the outrageously spurned Leftapalooza. They act as if the DNC should lap up their self-righteous disdain as if it were ambrosia.

Enjoy the Fart-In.

[Scuba]

20. Hey, if you're OK with the DNC violating their own impartiality rules that's your business.

Some of us believe that the Democratic Party should exemplify fairness and democracy.

[RBInMaine]

27. Hey, no one is "OK" with it. But also not "OK" with blowing this WAY out of proportion.

TENS OF THOUSANDS OF EMAILS, a tiny few with people saying some dumb things showing some level of impartiality does not make for some vast conspiracy to undermine Bernie. That did not happen. The indisputable record is that Bernie got all the SAME resources, etc. as Hillary. TINY number of emails comparatively out of THOUSANDS, and some personal nasty comments that team Bernie was surely doing too.

[Scuba]

29. Not tiny ....

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/07/robert-reich-is-furious-with-debbie-wasserman-schultz-after-alleged-email-leak-fire-her-now/

Reich wrote on a Facebook post Saturday that the alleged emails “clearly show the DNC tried to sandbag Bernie’s campaign."

[RBInMaine]

34. Oh please. There was NO big conspiracy to undermine Bernie's campaign. Overblown drama.

[Scuba]

36. Head meet sand.

[spinbaby]

40. Were you paying attention at all during the primaries?

[misterhighwasted]

37. Reich has been anti Hillary all along. Why expect nothing but more of the same from him ?

I'd love to hear team sanders personal conversations about the "innocent" data theft.
But wiki & their Russian hackers only targeted the DNC.
Why do you suppose they chose only the one & no one else?

The bigger reveal is the trail that connects them all in discrediting Team Hillary, and not the emails of the DNC. Show us where the DNC actually acted on those conversations?
Yet the act & timing of the created scandal is brushed off as nothing.

What steps to sabatoge actually followed those conversations?
Chirp..

[LuvLoogie]

44. What action was taken that was unfair to Bernie?

The DNC are not thought police.

[Scuba]

46. These are actions, not opinions ...

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

[LuvLoogie]

48. And you think these 9 emails out of 20,000 cost Bernie the

nomination? If you're pet sitting and that cute cuddly dog comes in and poops on your carpet, maybe you talk about keeping him on the porch, but you still feed and water him and take him for walks right?

[Scuba]

49. Nope. This isn't about the primary. It's about the DNC not being impartial.

[LuvLoogie]

54. You sight an article pulling DNC email from the primary as evidence.

But then say it isn't about the primary. As if the accusations exist in a vacuum outside of the primary process.

Also, the article you post includes a couple "violated" surrogates. Nothing undermining the campaign itself.

[Scuba]

55. Their violations of the rule occurred before, during and after the primaries.

[LuvLoogie]

57. So DWS has resigned. Now What?

[Scuba]

58. Depends on the next batch released by Wikileaks. Maybe that's enough.

Sadly, I'm not optimistic about that.

[TonyPDX]

51. The debate schedules, for one. n/t

[LuvLoogie]

53. Did Bernie debate on a different night than Hillary?

In a different venue? What exactly about the debate schedule was undermining of Bernie?

[BobbyDrake]

43. No, "were going to complain about them doing stuff we do too" fits that bill.

What you're talking about is called "hypocrisy," and it's easier to spot than I think you suspected.

[Madam Mossfern]

2. There's a difference between conversations within a campaign

and the supposedly neutral leadership of the party acting in favor of a specific candidate. They are supposed to be entirely neutral.

[alfie]

5. Amen, Madam. nt

[DanTex]

12. And they were neutral.

[RBInMaine]

15. And there is no evidence of any major conspiracy to undermine Bernie AT ALL. This is being blown

way out of proportion. Also, see my comments where I agree with you and those who said the dumb things should GO and Wassernman should GO.

[PatSeg]

19. Exactly

We aren't talking about what went on within the individual campaigns, but what was said within the DNC.

[RBInMaine]

24. But even people in the DNC have a right to private opinions and sentiments. Context and fairness.

Still, Wasserman has long needed to GO, those who said these dumb things should go, and this needs to be cleaned up. No argument there.

[Renaissance Man]

33. Private Opinions and Sentiments on DNC Servers

These were "private opinions and sentiments" that used official DNC servers (transmitted through e-mail addresses associated with the Democratic National Committee).

If the interest was in avoiding the appearance of being impartial, discussion about strategy against one of the candidates attempting to secure the nomination should have been had without use of that medium (official DNC e-mail addresses and servers).

[leftofcool]

22. And they were neutral

Do you think office chatter is not allowed among DNC staffers?

[RBInMaine]

25. They WERE neutral in the big picture through the long primaries giving the SAME help and resources.

[hollowdweller]

39. Exactly. I'm sure both CAMPAIGNS have naste emails. We are talking DNC though.

[think]

3. Wow....

[Cattledog]

4. Everyone knows they are pure as driven snow!

They all do it. If you believe otherwise you're living a fantasy.

[Tal Vez]

7. There may be very little involved here, but it should be dealt with.

Anyone at the DNC who was involved should resign or be removed now. Let's get this over with!

[bigwillq]

9. This is how I feel.

[RBInMaine]

18. I have said that and agree. Do the right thing, clean house, clean up, and move on.

[leftofcool]

23. Why? For email bitching/venting?

[Peacetrain]

8. Yep.. trust me.. no one wants their thoughts

that they shared with others in moments of passionate disagreement put on review later.. and that goes for the Sanders campagin also..

DWS screwed the pooch on this one as they old saying goes.. I do not think anyone could disagree with that.. but looking at it from the long view.. it was not a DNC war on Sanders..but I am sure Sanders people feel it was.. I am not sure if the tables were turned I would not feel that way.. I sure as heck did after the caucus.. it was such a zoo.. but you look back through the lens of time, and see..people say things that were inappropriate.. it is did they do something inappropriate.. and I am not seeing that at all..

[Scuba]

13. Yes, they did things that were inappropriate, that violated the DNC's impartiality rules ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2283493

[Renaissance Man]

16. Apples to Oranges

You're comparing a political party (that, in its bylaws, requires the DNC to remain neutral in the nominating process) and the campaign for an individual candidate.

Apples and Oranges

[RBInMaine]

21. I'm making a fair point given the CONTEXT of this. Also, no "big conspiracy" to undermine Bernie.

[Renaissance Man]

26. Actually, you are not making a fair point.

When two candidates are working to secure the nomination of a party, there is actual strategy that is discussed in an effort to secure the nomination, and this often involves "dirtying up" the opposing candidate.

There should NEVER be strategy discussed by alleged "impartial" staffers of the party to either help or harm a candidate attempting to secure its nomination.

[RBInMaine]

31. I am making the fair point about the nasty personal comments portions. Also, no evidence of any

ongoing conspiracy to undermine Bernie. In fact there were also exculpatory comments. Conversations about doing something that may have been unfair is not the same as actually following through and doing that thing. As I am seeing it, little to nothing was actually DONE here. Talk is one thing. DOING is another.

In one respect, it's much ago about not much at all. Bernie got all the same resources etc. as Hillary, and overall the DNC was very neutral throughout that long primary campaign.

However, we hopefully all agree it was still wrong, that those who made any biased suggestions or comments should GO, and that Wasserman should have GONE long ago since she stinks as DNC chair.

[Renaissance Man]

35. Very Neutral but not Completely Neutral

"... overall the DNC was very neutral throughout that long primary campaign."

Very neutral, but not completely neutral. The DNC Bylaws don't include the qualifier "very" before the word neutral. The fact that you had to add the qualifier lets me know that even you agree that this process wasn't completely neutral.

We agree that it was still wrong, that those who made biased suggestions or comments should go, and that DWS is a complete disaster as our our chair.

[CrowCityDem]

28. They said worse things publicly. They did accuse the DNC of crimes, after all.

[Dawgs]

30. Thanks for admitting that the DNC did go after Bernie.

It's very big of you.

[RBInMaine]

32. Please, cool the overblown drama. There was no big campaign to "go after" Bernie.

[Kathy M]

42. No ... do agree with your first sentence .

Something is off about this whole thing . The two democratic campaign's should work this out behind the scenes on this . Media should stop fueling story . This whole thing seems to be a diversion and topic that divides . Heck how do we know the supposed leaks are real ? If anyone has not looked into the players on Rep ticket meaning Trump , manafort , stone do not forget Trump has been friends with Ailes for decades every story is suspect . Ask who benefits from story .......

[Hissyspit]

41. "The timely issue of the Wikileaks matter?"

You mean the two news posts about the leaks that I posted that got locked about the Wikileaks matter so people would know about it, locked because they were considered "rehashing the primaries," and several other posts also locked, and now there are repercussions that people are talking about here because it's impossible not to? That timely issue of the Wikileaks matter?

[ismnotwasm]

45. The emails when read in context

Are surprisingly benign. Just gossipy and speculative in areas.

[DemonGoddess]

47. agreed

There are only a few which are decidedly troublesome. THOSE need to be addressed, and the parties involved need to be removed. Bigotry of ANY kind has no place in our party.

[NorthCarolina]

50. Yes, did the Sanders campaign collude with the DNC against Hillary? Guess we'll have to wait to see

if emails like that turn up in the releases. Imagine that, the DNC colluding with both of their top candidates for the defeat of both.

[cannabis_flower]

52. I get what you're saying but..

It would be all fine if we were talking about nasty emails between Hillary and her team. That's fine and all good.

We are talking here about nasty emails between leaders of the DNC and they are supposed to be impartial.

[aikoaiko]

56. DWS was just fired (ahem, resigned).

[Adrahil]

59. Of course they did.

Politics is a contact sport. I bet there were private conversations in the Sanders camps that would be embarrassing if publicly released.

Make no mistake, this attack by Wikileaks is a thinly veiled effort to crush the Democrats.