2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumThe Official Bernie Releasing HIS Information Countdown Clock
The information sought:
What did Bernie know, and when did he know it, with regards to his campaign accessing HRC's computer data, his campaign's unauthorized use of organizations' logos, and his campaign workers posing as union members to gain access to restricted "union members only" areas?
If HRC should release what was said "behind closed doors" (as it's been described here) before she launched her campaign, shouldn't Bernie tell us what HE discussed "behind closed doors" with his staff in the midst of his campaign?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
berniepdx420
(1,784 posts)
grasswire
(50,130 posts)such molehills!
Response to berniepdx420 (Reply #1)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
TheBlackAdder
(29,981 posts)PonyUp
(1,680 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)to when Hillary releases her transcripts?
Or is that different because Bernie is so new, so fresh and just plain awesome?
berniepdx420
(1,784 posts)leads to a rigged economic system. The interest we have in seeing hillary's speeches is to see for ourselves if she is a Wall street shill.. to see if she tells the voters one thing while playing the game of Quid pro Quot with Goldman Sachs.
Again this looks increasingly desperate on part of the hillary supporters.. I suggest you investigate the large amounts of money your candidate has received from a small interest group... and ask yourselves ... Do I want an Oligarchy or a Democracy..
NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)... is to see for ourselves if she is a Wall street shill."
And the interest I have in knowing what Bernie knew, when he knew it, and what he said to his campaign staff about it is to see if he's a dishonest politician who KNEW about his staff's illegal/unethical activities and condoned them, or even initiated them.
See how that works?
And BTW, I am speaking for myself, not ALL Hillary supporters. I would truly like to know what Bernie's involvement was.
I believe that what Hillary said before she launched her campaign is far less relevant than what Bernie did during his campaign.
berniepdx420
(1,784 posts)equivocating the following..
1. A former hillary campaign member, who was hired by Bernie's team to be their liaison between, the DNC hired computer system company and their campaign. This Liason was then caught looking at a tiny slice of voter information of hillary's when the firewall dropped by the fault of the DNC hired Information Systems Co.
You're equivocating this to
Hillary, a member of an historic establishment family, running for president, being paid $600,000 dollars for a few speeches given to Goldman Sachs. This is also a company who is one of the top two donors to hillary. It is also a company we bailed out with tax payer money. Also, there is a majority of Americans who feel or know that our Politicians are corrupt and that they take money in various ways from large corporations in order to gain access and influence . Hillary is claiming she is tough on Wall steet .. she is claiming she told them to cut it out... we would like to see what she actually said that was worth all that money..
NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)(And I think you mean "equating" not "equivocating".)
If HRC's pre-campaign speeches are relevant, why would BS's knowledge about what his campaign did NOT be relevant?
Your description in point (1) is an interesting theory. Why didn't Bernie advance that theory himself? Because we both know he didn't. (But I do note that typical of the BS supporter, it was the DNC's fault that Bernie's staffers accessed information they had no right to access. It's the "I HAD to steal the car, because the owner left the keys in the ignition" defense.)
He fired three staffers for their involvement in the data theft. Are you suggesting he fired three innocent people rather than stand up for them?
And what about the unauthorized use of organizations' logos, or campaign workers posing as union members? I'm still waiting for BS's explanation as to how that came about, and what his knowledge was in that regard.
berniepdx420
(1,784 posts)proves that point.
Yes in my post equating is the term I should have used... but I also think your whole argument is a type of equivocation...
As for the point 1 theory.. the facts are there.
When will Hillary release her transcript. Is she hiding something. Her answers about the situation seemed dodgy at best.
Could you discuss the race baiting her campaign engaged in during the 2008 election cycle.
Could you explain why she was so late in supporting same sex marriage.
Can you explain her Iraq vote
Can you explain why Big Banks contribute so much money to her campaign and to the Clinton fund...
NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)If those are indeed "the facts", why didn't Bernie go with "the facts" instead of firing three staffers - thereby agreeing that they were guilty of the wrongdoing of which they'd been accused?
Did BS just tell them they had to take the fall, even though they were completely innocent? That doesn't sound very ethical to me. I should think Bernie would have stood by three innocent staffers if he thought they'd been falsely accused.
berniepdx420
(1,784 posts)Do you agree the system is rigged.. if so explain how hillary would change it
Why did she support the Iraq war
Will she release her transcripts from her $600,000 worth of speeches to Goldman Sachs
Can you explain why hillary supported DOMA
Can you explain why hillary was against same sex marriage
NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)YOU are the one changing the subject - which is about Bernie coming clean with what he knows about what went on within his own campaign.
berniepdx420
(1,784 posts)Does hillary take large amounts of money from donors and banking institutions..
Do you think the money is given just for the fun of it..
Do you think hillary takes large amounts of money from the Defense Industry
Do you love the fact that Bernie's average donation is 27 bucks
Do you love the fact that Bernie doesn't owe any pay backs to donors or corporations
Do you love how Bernie wants to make it every American's right to have access to health care through single payer universal
Do you love the fact that Bernie is the only major political figure ever at this level of politics to articulate what most American's know to be true... The Political and Economic Systems in our country are rigged and extremely out of balance.
Do you love that we can build our own future... that we are beginning to see behind the illusion of scarcity... to see behind the curtain laying bear the puppet masters pulling the strings.
Feel OUR Bern
berniepdx420
(1,784 posts)libdem4life
(13,877 posts)they were folks the DNC knew well, and since it was the DNC server, they too, knew well. Why was nothing said by them? It was in their best interests and they were well in the know to Out the Suspect. Why? I think we all know. It was NOTHING.
Now back to 6 figure speeches and 9 figure millionaires, spouse and rich daughter...Nothing to see here...right.
Try again...this one Fails.
NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)The facts are that Bernie's campaign staffers accessed HRC's data. It was documented via the log books. Three staffers were fired, because there was no question as to their guilt.
You can indulge in all of the conspiracy theories you want, as I know BS supporters are more than wont to do. But the facts are the facts.
berniepdx420
(1,784 posts)over the last 30+ years... and we wonder what they had do and who they compromised for such a loot. My topic is why you are not more upset that so much wealth is concentrated in so few hands. I wonder if you wonder what giant progressive steps we could take as a country if we just actually had elected someone who actually wants to do only good for us all. How do you think the wealth got so concentrated ? You know what I am talking about ? It's logical
NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)It was the topic I wished discussed.
If you want to discuss something different, post your own and OP and start a new thread.
And just by the way, the "But what about HER?!?!?" responses to every post about Bernie are more than tiresome - they are telling. If you can't defend your candidate by talking about HIM instead of about HER, you might want to consider not responding at all.
The constant deflection and need to change the subject every time someone posts something critical of Bernie does not speak well for your confidence in your own candidate.
berniepdx420
(1,784 posts)is rigged and we actually have a chance to vote in a champion of the people.. would love to have you onboard... peace!!
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)
asuhornets
(2,427 posts)
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)NGP VAN screwed up and dropped the firewall during the course of a normal business day. Upon doing routine searches, the staffer in question discovered they were getting information that was proprietary to Clinton. They did a couple of documenting searches - even naming them stuff like "NOT Sanders" so it was obvious - but didn't download any information. All this happened in the course of about an hour before an upper level staffer was informed. The offending staffer was fired and then DNC went overboard and violated their contract when they locked Bernie out. He sued them, they backed down and that's the end of the story as we know it.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Second of all, without waiting around to find out if anything actually illegal was done, Bernie fired the person in question. So there, that's what he did. That's how honest and ethical he is. But if you really wanted to know and you weren't just playing some little internet game you could have looked that up yourself. Getting lazy aren't you? Or just desperate and petty.
Now where are the transcripts?
And pretending to be ignorant doesn't make you look any better than actually being ignorant. You know damn well the date of those speeches makes no difference in this case. For one, Hillary knew she was going to run for president. Secondly, even if she didn't, Goldman Sachs and the health insurance industry paid her a lot of money to say things they wanted to hear, or else they wouldn't have paid her to say them. Money in politics is why our government is so corrupt and in favor of the 1%. Is that how you think it should be? Because that is what you are defending by being an apologist for Hillary.
.
floriduck
(2,262 posts)you could prove that Bernie's discussion had less than or equal to harm on the American people as a result. I believe Hills speeches did nothing but condone the banks past and potential future actions. And don't forget, her audiences were forced to pay damages. But Bernie telling his staff whatever ha said has not been shown to be a punishable crime. Otherwise little Debbie Wasserman-Schultz would have dredged that up already.
Sorry, but you just FAILED!
asuhornets
(2,427 posts)
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)Let them continue to think everything is rose colored and that the issue Sanders is talking about aren't important. I await the dumbfounded look and crying when Hillary loses yet again.
berniepdx420
(1,784 posts)
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)Those who like to scream at people and make accusation that aren't true. I let my star membership lapse for a few days and some of them were kicked off my list. Time to put them back on I guess.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I'd creatively rationalize a distinction lacking a relevant too if my bias on doing so.
2pooped2pop
(5,420 posts)And no the Hillary countdown is probably more of a joke because we all know those speeches will never be released unless she wipes them with a cloth first.
Empowerer
(3,900 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)The famous Nance Greggs, reduced to copycat threads.
In fact, EVERY thread that mentions Bernie Sanders and not policy is a sign of desperation.
NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)... speech transcripts, but is IS desperation to want to know what Bernie knew about the behaviour of his own campaign?
Okey-dokey then!
I knew what the responses would be the minute I posted this - and I'm savouring the hypocrisy of people who think what Hillary said outside of the campaign is more important than what Bernie said about the illegal/unethical behaviour of his own staff when his campaign was in full swing.
Why can't BS just step up to the plate and tell us what he knew, and when he knew it?
berniepdx420
(1,784 posts)Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)I don't know how the two are even comparable. Bernie fired his staffer for just the appearance of impropriety, even though the staff probably was only documenting the breach. It was the right thing to do. Hillary, on the other hand, was paid thousands by the very people who crashed our economy. We deserve to know what she said to them because if she pandered to them - and all accounts are she did - then it directly effects her ability to rein them in if she's president.
berniepdx420
(1,784 posts)
R B Garr
(17,984 posts)
madokie
(51,076 posts)but you flew off the dang rails.
Whats up with that?
NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)If Hillary's non-campaign-related speeches are "fair game", shouldn't a demand for Bernie's explanation of his own campaign's behaviour be fair game, too?
madokie
(51,076 posts)on your own, I'm sorry but I can't help you.
NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)sheshe2
(97,619 posts)
Iliyah
(25,111 posts)SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)be well
sheshe2
(97,619 posts)Are you implying she is not?
Why do you shoot fish in a barrel?
The Mythbusters team tested and proved the accuracy of their interpretation of the idiom. If the fish does not die from the shot, it is quite likely to die from the shockwave.
Before the days of refrigeration, fish were packed and stored in small barrels. The barrels were packed to the rim full of fish. Any shot that entered the barrel would hit at least one of them. Thus nothing can be easier than shooting fish in a barrel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_fish_in_a_barrel
Sounds like a veiled threat to me.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Jesus you are reaching yet again. You just can't help yourself can you? Now you've moved on from smearmongering Bernie to smearmongering DUers?
We've all heard the expression "shooting fish in a barrel" but you go ahead and try to turn it into an actual physical threat.
omg...... 
.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Who are you calling an idiom? How dare you!!! I'm going to alert on your anti-semantic ranting!
enigmatic
(15,021 posts)I'm Canadian now dude, how dare you!!!!!111!!!111
berniepdx420
(1,784 posts)cui bono
(19,926 posts)
.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)
Divernan
(15,480 posts)Or be eviscerated, hoisted on her own petard? Mon dieu, quelle horreur!
Exsanguinate from repeatedly shooting herself in the foot? feet?
Death of a thousand social security cuts?
Au contraire, stay healthy, Hillary Clinton, and enjoy a long, blissful retirement strolling the beaches in some perfect, One Percent, tropical enclave, hand in hand with your loving husband - you two lovebirds will have so much quality time together, just the two of you. No hangers on. No more jetting around the world to different destinations in different private jets.
Cha
(319,057 posts)Thank you! 
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)That question was brought up during a debate where one of the moderators was reading a question coming in via email or something of that nature. As far as I know, Bernie hasn't touched it.
NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)It's Bernie's supporters on DU have demanded the release of those transcripts.
And HRC has never demanded that Bernie cough up an explanation for his campaign's illegal/unethical behaviour.
But as an HRC supporter on DU, I'm asking Bernie to tell us what he knew, when he knew it, and what discussions he had with his staff about what they did.
Sauce for the goose, and all that.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)...this kind of bullshit primary drama that goes down on DU, just like it did in 2008 and 2004, isn't representative on any particular candidates' supporters as a whole... nor is it representative of the Democratic party electorate as a whole. Instead of trying to stir the shit pot that is the inevitable intra-party civil war that occurs during any primary with 2 or more high profile competitors, lets just recognize that the war always ends by summer and try not to slime other candidates too much. Its not a good look for us and we aren't accomplishing a damn thing in the meantime.
NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)My only point in posting this OP is to demonstrate the hypocrisy of those DUers who think Hillary owes them full disclosure of what she said in her speeches pre-campaign, while maintaining that Bernie owes the voters NO disclosure of what went on within his own current campaign.
It was prompted by all of the "countdown clock to HRC releasing her speech transcripts" OPs/posts that show up here on a daily basis.
Not to worry, though - I haven't taken anything posted on DU seriously for many years now in terms of being representative of what goes on in the real world.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)shouldn't be done. Hypocrite and apologist. Check.
.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)Bernie has a fairly clean past. That really can't be denied when looking at his career as a whole. There isn't going to be much to find there that we don't already know. The Republicans on the other hand give us those awesome 47% moments and I'd much rather see that being the counter attack.
NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)But that's exactly what prompted the BS supporters "demanding!" that HRC release her speech transcripts - their hope that there is a "47%er moment" there.
And yet, many of them have already stated that if there is NO such gotcha moment in the transcripts, that will be because she altered the transcripts before releasing them - thereby removing any real reason for demanding them in the first place.
Round and round we go ...
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)I'm with phleshdef.
NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)But they won't.
So I get in the mud when I feel like it. So what? It's not like anything said on this site is of any consequence in the real world.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)wanted it hushed up real quick, besides as Bernie's lawsuit progresses I'm sure you'll get your wish and you know what they say about that?
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Or yourself. This is confusing...
.
Beowulf
(761 posts)But if she doesn't release them, then I will have to fill in that blank myself. She wants me to believe that speaking fees and campaign contributions have no effect on her decision making. Those transcripts could help her make that case with me. Unless, of course, they can't help her make that case. Which right now is what I'm left to assume.
As for Bernie, sure, he can go ahead and release all the information he has about the data breech. Of course, he'll want a full, open and thorough investigation into the entire matter, which I suspect neither the DNC nor the Clinton campaign really wants.
The data breech isn't a big campaign issue to me even if the roles were reversed. But the government working for the interests of the 1% over the 99% is an important issue for me and Hillary taking such large sums of money from the 1% raises questions about whose interests she will serve as president. This is a very important issue for me and goes to the heart of the question of what kind of country I want to live in.
Which brings me to this gotcha-style of discussion. Supporters of both candidates do it, but it really distracts from the bigger questions of what kind of country do we want to be?
bvf
(6,604 posts)NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)... you DO think Bernie should disclose what he knew, when he knew it, and what he discussed with his campaign staff about their illegal/unethical activities - or not?
I don't see the response "flop sweat" as having addressed the OP either way.
bvf
(6,604 posts)
I don't see the response "flop sweat" as having addressed the OP either way.
That's one of the hazards of flop sweat.
beedle
(1,235 posts)He fired the people responsible, gave access to all the computers and documents requested, and made statements regarding what he knew.
Is there some reason you don't believe what he said? Is there a specific question that someone is asking about this have that is not answered? Are there missing documents you need to see?
Or is this just another drive by unsubstantiated smear job?
Lucinda
(31,170 posts)
Trajan
(19,089 posts)I actually think Bernie would give that stuff to you, if you really wanted to see it ... That's if what you are asking for made any sense ... It doesn't ...
How the mighty have fallen ...
madokie
(51,076 posts)NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)... for people to ask what goes on in BS's own campaign? But it DOES make sense for people to demand that HRC release the details of what she said outside of her campaign?
Okey-dokey - thanks for clearing that up for everyone!
berniepdx420
(1,784 posts)
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)Some ppl on DU can't get beyond foaming at the mouth.
BlueMTexpat
(15,689 posts)davidpdx
(22,000 posts)Again if some people can't handle the truth, they are not living in the real world.
BlueMTexpat
(15,689 posts)things. Sanders supporters (so OK - not SBS himself which I don't believe was alleged in the OP) have requested copies of Clinton's non-campaign-related speeches; in a tit for tat, one Clinton supporter wonders why we shouldn't equally request information about Bernie's actual campaign-related faux pas.
Then you say - in response to someone else - that some people on DU (meaning Hillary supporters) can't get beyond "foaming at the mouth" - THIS after all I see on DU day after day are CDS smears. So my remark was "pot and kettle" - in other words, the so-called "foaming at the mouth" is certainly not limited to one side. 
So then you tell ME that if "some people" (presumably meaning me) cannot handle the truth, they are not living in the real world, LOL. 
I am very much attuned to the real world, thank you. That is why I am a Hillary Clinton supporter.
And this exchange has run its course so far as I am concerned. 
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)I certainly wasn't referring specifically to you, in fact I was responding to someone else when you jumped in. Until your reply to me, you had not posted in the thread, so there is no way I was replying specifically toward you.
My reply that "some people can't handle the truth" was again going back to the fact that the OP (and the person who I replied to who I told not to bother explaining explaining it to the person they replied to) was accusing Sanders of raising a stink about the transcripts.
The OP said nothing that indicated she was talking about Sanders supporters. Absolutely nothing. If someone wants to differentiate between what Sanders says and what his supporters said, then they need to make that CLEAR.
Yeah this conversation is over........
cui bono
(19,926 posts)For the tenth time... Bernie is the one suing the DNC regarding the whole firewall fiasco. HE'S the one who wanted a full investigation. HILLARY and DWS all of a sudden wanted to put the whole thing behind them when BERNIE asked for this. The DNC ILLEGALLY BLOCKED Bernie from access, hindering his campaign's ability to function efficiently.
As to the rest, I haven't been following because it all sounds like stuff that @stylistkavin says.
Do you actually not realize that what is said to someone who donates a YUUUGE sum of money to a political candidate is important at this time when the point of this political movement is about getting money and corruption out of politics? Stop being an apologist for Hillary. She needs to be held accountable and disclose who she is beholden to. The people deserve to know. This is still, barely, a democracy of, by and for the people. Well it will be if we can overturn Citizen's United. What was Hillary's stance on that one?
.
MrWendel
(1,881 posts)love too. Take it? Stop! Its too much your being unfair!
Laughing Mirror
(4,185 posts)
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)
frylock
(34,825 posts)JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Please repost. Could be fun!
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)8. Just as a change of pace ...
Edited on Thu May-22-08 05:58 PM by NanceGreggs
... why don't you respond to the point made in the OP?
Hillary pledged that the votes in FL and MI would not be counted. Now she says that they must be counted, and this issue is "very important to her".
Was she lyin' then, or is she lyin' now?
----
40. Hillary Clinton in late 2007 interview on MI primary ...
"It's clear. This election they're having is not going to count for anything."
That quote has been posted, reposted, and posted again - but apparently not enough times to sink in.
Perhaps you can provide a link to a statement from Hillary (before she realized she needed the votes in MI and FL) declaring that although she signed the pledge, she understood that votes from those primaries would be counted?
I guess we're back to the ever-changing definition of what "is" is ...
----
46. The fact that she STATED unequivocally ...
... that the MI primary wouldn't count, and now she's saying the exact opposite?
Okey-dokey. I thought blatantly lying was a pretty strong reed - but apparently it means nothing to the Hill campers.
Kinda like lying about sniper-fire - doesn't register either ...
But I'll ask again anyway: Any links to statements by Hillary (pre-losing) that she thought the votes in FL and MI would be counted despite the pledge?
----
53. FL and MI will be dealt with ...
... in due time, and you know that. They just won't have their votes counted as-is - which is the ONLY reason Hillary discovered how "important this issue" is to her.
And I don't understand why it's "dumb" to ask when Hillary became so insistent that FL and MI should be counted. I think the voters have a right to be suspicious of the intentions of someone whose heartfelt concern for the voters of these two states only surfaced when she realized she NEEDED them in order to stay viable.
Where was her grave concern for "all of the votes being counted" pre-Super Tuesday, when she thought she'd have things "all wrapped up"? Didn't hear a peep out of her re FL and MI back in those days.
----
78. Thanks, Aunt Patsy, for your kind response.
Edited on Fri May-23-08 02:47 AM by NanceGreggs
I would only ask one thing: Do you honestly believe that if MI and FL had gone overwhelmingly for Obama, Hillary would now be demanding that their votes be counted? Do you believe that if polls were taken today and both states showed landslide victories for Obama, Hillary would get on-board with a revote?
There is a difference, IMHO, between changing one's mind because they now perceive things differently, and changing one's mind only when it benefits oneself to do so.
Hillary didn't have "second thoughts" about her stance on these two states not being counted - until she realized she NEEDED those votes to stay viable.
I'm sorry, but I see her sudden epiphany on this topic just a tad too convenient to her own purposes.
In addition, this is not a matter of "changing one's mind" about a policy or previously-held position. This is a matter of having agreed to binding rules and then, when you are losing according to those rules, insisting that they be changed to accommodate your "new" position on the matter - and if that change benefits you personally, it's to be viewed by all as just a happy coincidence.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6081220
mhatrw
(10,786 posts)All of this combined doesn't add up to a single Clinton Foundation corporate or foreign government donation.
OMG! An employee from Sanders campaign recommended to Sanders by the DNC poked around indefensibly insecure software that was provided by the DNC!
OMG! Some random Sanders campaign workers wore some BUTTONS while trying to ORGANIZE some union members!
OMG! Some random Sanders campaign workers may have used some LOGOS without getting PERMISSION!
I know. This is baby stuff, compared to HRC's multiple sins.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts) 
Helen Borg
(3,963 posts)Gothmog
(179,822 posts)Wow, this is pathetic. i really feel sorry for you.
MaeScott
(971 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)
Deny and Shred
(1,061 posts)1) The employee responsible was immediately fired the day the news broke
2) The DNC supsended access to the data base by the Sanders campaign, with DWS vowing to not allow restoration of that access until a full DNC investigation was completed
3) The Sanders campaign demanded an immediate judicial hearing to air his side of the story and restore access
4) As the time for the hearing neared, the DNC restored access, and halted their internal investigation.
How often does someone guilty of theft demand an immediate court date? How often does the victim of the thievery settle out of court - for nothing - and do all they can to put the incident behind them?
Any examples will do.
Why did the DNC stop its investigation?
Matt_in_STL
(1,446 posts)Just like Bernie asked for when this happened. Why is the DNC so afraid of an actual investigation?
wavesofeuphoria
(525 posts)People started a petition to release the transcripts, as well as Todd asking in the debate. Bernie hasn't once mentioned releasing transcripts.
Hillary supporters should get behind this ... Petition for a DNC investigation. Good for the OP for suggesting it.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)berni_mccoy
(23,018 posts)I know you know the difference between what Hillary said to Wall Street vs what Bernie said to his staff. Dont do this to yourself, ok?
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)TheFarS1de
(1,017 posts)They are well and truly programmed to follow the status quo . Not an original thought amongst them , just conjecture and half truths.
Vinca
(53,986 posts)are on a canvassing list makes you wonder who might have accessed what.
jillan
(39,451 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)Yum!
Uponthegears
(1,499 posts)for Bernie
(Apologies/credit to Robert Duval and Francis Ford Coppola)
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Then dont demand more than you are willing to give.
berniepdx420
(1,784 posts)Jester Messiah
(4,711 posts)You guys really need to bring some new material.
BlueMTexpat
(15,689 posts)that ANYTHING - whatever the heck it might be - is WRONG if - and only if - it is Hillary who does it. 
mcar
(46,055 posts)Fair is fair, after all.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Some of the things said of him in GDP rival the alleged adoration of the BOG.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)Bohemianwriter
(978 posts)Besides, didn't Bernie want to sue DNC for a full investigation?
And did DNC and Hillary agree to that?
Or did they want to shut it down. Perhaps Hilary should come clean as to why she wants a full investigation of the firewall case...
AS WELL AS giving up her entire transcripts from every Wall Street speech she had had!
Hmmmm?
2pooped2pop
(5,420 posts)If Clinton had not already crossed that breech, you can damn well bet that she would not let this issue die. She knows if they dig too deep it will be more of her own skeletons that surface.
I'm all for a complete investigation that also includes the mysterious first breach. Lol I would demand it if I could.
Buns_of_Fire
(19,161 posts)For BOTH of them. In addition to marriage licences, passports, 8x10 glossies of any colonoscopies, complete transcripts of all legal proceedings (both civil and criminal), results of any bloodwork ever done after the age of six, shoe size, recommendations from neighbors (three minimum), DMV records, and a complete list of what they had last night for dinner.
Actually, I'm far less interested in what may or may not have been said as I am in the fact that she raked in a quarter-million for SAYING it.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Response to jeff47 (Reply #87)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
R B Garr
(17,984 posts)doesn't mind benefitting from others' investments in the system. So phony.
George II
(67,782 posts)....to "test how bad the breach was".
There were four people who logged on - for periods of 26 minutes, 55 minutes, 95 minutes, and 101 minutes (total of more than four and a half hours), all overlapping, so one would assume they were all in a room talking to each other and "comparing notes" or telling each other the locations where the downloaded data was stored.
The log on times were 10:59, 10:46, 10:43, and 10:40.
The log off times were 11:25, 11:41, 12:14, and 12:24.
They spent almost half of their four-plus hours looking at the four early states of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina.
If they were just testing the breach, how is it that of 50 states almost half their time was in those four?
Also, a lot of the rest of the time they were in the database they were moving data that was downloaded and saved in folders created during the breach.
Very curious indeed.
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)This is the level you've reduced yourself to wallowing in.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Hillary's speeches are not state secrets that can't be divulged. Nor are they internal discussions within her campaign. They are speeches and statements that she made in public gatherings (or semi-public gatherings).
Their content would simply indicate how she really feels about issues and how she relates to and feels about those institutions.
I suspect they are probably innocuous. If she had simply said "Sure here they are" it would have blown into the ethers of nion-issues. But Clinton's refusal to do so has made it an issue.
Either there are things in them that are embarrassing. Or else it's is yet another case of the Clinton's feeling like they don't have to answer to normal rules of behavior, and once again needlessly shooting themselves in the foot as a result.
The Sanders data stuff has been and will likely be investigated to what happened. And if someone wants to ask Bernie "What did you know and when did you know it?" Fine. Fair game. If he refuses to answer, he too will be shooting himself in the foot.
But it's kind of irrelevant because it's already clear that he didn't like what they did, and people responsible got fired.
George II
(67,782 posts)......he is still head of the organization that took the data. Remember what Harry Truman said (this is the sign that was on his desk in the oval office):
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Should he walk into he nearest police station and demand that he be put in jail?
George II
(67,782 posts)...
I've been a contributor to the DNC and the Obama campaigns as well as other Democratic campaigns, using an email address that I don't use for my personal and business correspondence.
The breach took place on December 16.
On December 17 I started receiving emails to that address from the Sanders campaign (under the domain democracyforamerica.com)
I received:
3 on December 18
2 on December 19
1 on December 20
2 on December 22
2 on December 23
1 on December 27 (at least they skipped sending stuff around Christmas)
1 on December 28
1 on December 29
1 on December 30
3 on December 31
and I've been getting 2, 3, or 4 emails from them every day since.
They have been under the names Robert Reich, Charles Chamberlain, Karli Thompson, Bernie Sanders, "Ben Jerry", DFA for Bernie Sanders, Eden James, Jim Dean, and several more - all as xxxxxx@democracyforamerica.com
This all started ONE DAY after the breach during which they "didn't take or save any information"!
I haven't unsubscribed because when the campaign comes to a close I'll be curious about just how many emails I've been spammed with.
But this brings up something else that's troublesome, he goes around the country claiming that he doesn't take money from Super Pacs, etc., but he's using the resources of Democracy for America's computer/email system. I'm sure it's all legal, but it contradicts his protestations that he doesn't use outside committee money.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)But unless evidence, I think that may be just due to the nature of how and why we getting on various mailing lists. There's a lot of sharing and intermixing going on all over.
I've sent contributions and signed a few petitions, and done othr things that have ended up putting me on the list of Email Hell. I'm constantly getting bombarded with urgent messages from President Obama and various other dignitaries and lower level flunkies to contribute to this or that......
George II
(67,782 posts)....and they are using it and still using it two months later, that to me is "in a nefarious way". I never gave them that address, and no organization for which I used that address gave it to him.
And even though what they're doing isn't malicious, the fact that they have it belies their claims that they never kept or used any data from that breach.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)I still trust Sanders integrity.
If his staff is using information gotten by ill means, they should be called on it. If they are doing it with his full knowledge he should be called on it.
But unless proven...it's speculation.
And in any case it's tiny potatoes compared to the larger (and often systemic) crap that is going on.
George II
(67,782 posts)....I'm just tired of seeing his campaign and his supporters claiming that they didn't keep anything that purloined during those hours they were cruising that data base.
Rocky the Leprechaun
(222 posts)I can show you the emails I have received from Clinton since 12/22, when the breach occured, including "I'm Not Kidding" emails.
All of them have found itself into the trash bin via a filter.
seaotter
(576 posts) Goldman Handcuffs.JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)I'd love to think that this is indicative of their thinking and strategy at this stage of things, and not just a lonely, isolated supporter's well-meaning ideas of what would be helpful for them to pursue. The losing profile and singular lack of fantasy suggested by this stuff is spec-TA-cular. It's through the floor and fracking its way down a mile below the cellar. It's the stuff of Hitler bunker remixes.
Do you have any kind of position with Clinton 2016? Are you affiliated as something more than a volunteer who wakes up the old folks on voting day? Please don't be getting our hopes up pointlessly! I'm dying to hear. Thanks!
NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)My reason for posting this was in response to the utterly ridiculous "demands" for HRC's speech transcripts.
I knew exactly what the reaction would be, and the hypocrisy that is already on full display.
People who actually believe HRC should disclose what she said in speeches she made before her campaign think it outrageous! that any questions be asked about the goings-on in Bernie's campaign.
We know his staff accessed HRC's computer data, that they used logos they had no right to use, and that they posed as union members to gain access to restricted "members only" areas.
But no one is supposed to talk about that. It's far more important to delve into Hillary's speeches fishing for something untoward than to make inquiries about wrongdoing by Bernie's staff that we actually know happened.
Hypocrisy at its finest.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)a presidential candidate's positions on issues of the day, as stated to executives of Wall Street banks and other big corporations, in speeches for which she received tens of millions of dollars. The rudeness! These people should know their place! What Clinton said to Blankfein is just between her and Blankfein, it's nobody else's business!
NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)HRC made those speeches as a private citizen. What she said is not a matter of public record because she was not speaking in any official capacity at the time.
The speeches were paid for as per a contract. You did not pay for them, nor did you pay to attend the event at which the speech was made.
Where you get the idea that you somehow have a right to know what HRC said to anyone, anywhere, outside of speaking as a senator, SoS, First Lady, or in some other official capacity, is beyond me.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)I think the HRC campaign must insist on your point, absolutely and as loudly as possible in public. It is absolutely no one's business what private business deals Clinton cut and what promises she made to the Wall Street banks or any other corporations. Whatever was agreed, whatever was earned, whatever was exchanged, that's between her and her corporate masters, and not for democracy-fetishizing rabble to know. Fuck anyone who wants to know! Vote for her or begone, Trump will be your fault! These barefoot hippies have no right to intrude upon the business relations of their betters! Probably the same sorts who want to know the provisions of the TPP, or of secret FISA laws! Anarchists! She's going to be your president, do not look her in the eyes and kneel when she passes!! Fuck any American citizens who think her business dealings are relevant to politics! Accept whatever the press release says, or be cut out of the circle of Clintonian privilege! Peasants! Rabble! Losers! Back in your holes!
For your sake I hope you are among the blessed rich. It would make the spectacle you present less depressing.
NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)I ask because you already seem to know that Clinton "cut private deals" and "made promises to the Wall Street banks".
The fact remains that whatever HRC said as a private citizen speaking at a private event is none of your business - in the same way that whatever Bernie has ever said as a private citizen at a private event is none of your business either.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)They are legal, yes - which illustrates nothing other than that this form of corporations buying politicians is legal.
Your idea is that politics can be privatized like this. (Actually, it never would be if it weren't your particular candidate who was doing it.)
frylock
(34,825 posts)
Chichiri
(4,667 posts)What did Bernie know, and when did he know it?
jillan
(39,451 posts)time the firewall was down. A large group of Bernie supporters have come forward with the same accusations & we had forwarded the information to the Bernie campaign. I want to know how much info her campaign stole from Bernie supporters.
Bernie fired his IT guy. Hillary just pleaded innocence, of course.
NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)Bernie's camp gets caught accessing HRC's computer data, it's verified that they did so, BS fires staffers as a result - but it was Hillary who stole from him.
jillan
(39,451 posts)NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)BS's staff got caught red-handed stealing HRC's data. It was documented. Three staffers were fired.
HRC's staff was never accused of doing the same thing - ever.
I've had emails from Bernie and from O'Malley, despite not being a supporter of either. Some email contacts are shared by all Dem candidates, some are not.
Do you realize how ridiculous it sounds to say "Bernie got caught stealing, but Hillary is the guilty party"?
beedle
(1,235 posts)Bernie fired the people responsible; handed over all the files and paper work requested; cooperated with the investigation; made statements as required addressing the issue.
Is there something else that Bernie needs to do?
Would you feel better if he had quietly had the DNC make database hacking legal? Refuse to had over any files or paperwork unless the GOP were alsomade to turn over all their files and paperwork? Refuse to cooperate with any investigation into the incident and simply claim that having access to the database in no way could tempt him to look at it and use it improperly?
frylock
(34,825 posts)What the hell happened, Nance?
NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)... in order to point out the absurdity of the "demands" for HRC's speech transcripts, and the hypocrisy I knew I'd see in the responses.
So now we have it in black-and-white. It's okay to accuse HRC of "hiding something" by not disclosing what she said at a private event, but it is NOT okay to even mention the fact that Bernie's staff has done some very unethical and underhanded things in the midst of a campaign for the party's nomination.
Just a little experiment to prove a point - and I think it's been proven beyond all doubt.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Own your desperation Nance. Own it.
NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)... what my purpose was in posting this OP.
Whether you accept that or not is of absolutely no interest to me whatsoever.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Own it.
NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)... is accomplishing anything? It actually sounds like a "copycat" response to me.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)
Bjornsdotter
(6,123 posts)...as shortly after it I started receiving emails from the Clinton campaign.
Yes...let's see how long it takes for Hillary to push for full disclosure of the breach.
frylock
(34,825 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)That's a measure of doubt and desperation right there.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts) NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)I specifically chose to "copycat" in order to make a point.
And that point has now been made.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Own it.
NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)I knew the copycat thread title would attract the attention of exactly the posters who I wanted to hear from.
And it worked like a charm.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)that is gripping the Clinton campaign right now.
Like a charm.
You. Copycat threads. I thought you were bigger and better than that.
NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)... for the upcoming primary states? HRC supporters have nothing to feel "desperate" about.
On the other hand, trying to make something out of the nothingness that is TranscriptGate is as desperate as it gets.
It's obvious why BSers want those transcripts. They're hoping to find a "47%er moment", a "gotcha" that will get HRC out of the way. It's too bad BS can't win the nomination on his own merits, so his supporters have to cling to some pitiable hope that Hillary can be taken down before BS has to concede defeat.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Desperation, doubt, and copycat threads are the order of the day.
bvf
(6,604 posts)of "flop sweat" can hardly be expected to get your point.
Hence the crickets.
enigmatic
(15,021 posts)"It's obvious why BSers want those transcripts. They're hoping to find a "47%er moment", a "gotcha" that will get HRC out of the way. It's too bad BS can't win the nomination on his own merits, so his supporters have to cling to some pitiable hope that Hillary can be taken down before BS has to concede defeat."
Are you inferring that the only reason President Obama won was because of Romney's 47 percent moment? It wasn't on his own merits?
NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)You'll have to show me where I said that, because I'm positive I didn't.
Obama didn't have to rely on Romney's 47%er statement to win. But it seems that BS supporters think they really need such a statement from HRC in order for Bernie to win. Otherwise, they wouldn't be so desperate to keep making an issue of it.
enigmatic
(15,021 posts)It was just all to do about nothing?
Were you on DU2 writing posts calling out those who were making it an issue to use against Romney in the election?
Love to see those posts.
NanceGreggs
(27,835 posts)You forget that what's big news on political websites is not necessarily anything the average voter pays as much attention to as we do. It was just another nail in Romney's coffin - it confirmed what most people already knew about Mitt and his attitude. I doubt that it was a vote-changer in and of itself.
I wasn't here in 2012. I'd left DU in 2009 because I'd had it with the constant Obama bashing.
Logical
(22,457 posts)
ucrdem
(15,720 posts)starting with Karl Rove's AmericanCrossroads superpac:
Because it looks like Sanders is benefiting from Citizens United
and we wouldn't that to get around.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)DefenseLawyer
(11,101 posts)Mighty weak.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)What else do you need to know?
It's not like he swept it under the rug. The campaign immediately came out and spoke to the media, fired the staffer and started an investigation. But, as a Hillary fan, I wouldn't want to talk much about on-going investigations (Ahem, cough, FBI, cough).
They've also talked with the groups about the logos, so that's been cleared up. I think that was an honest rookie mistake. These groups' websites used his image to promote their rating systems and the staff probably thought in-kind was OK.
And the only people reporting the union member stuff was Hillary fans (the reporter didn't really dig too much there), so there's not much to know. If it happened, Bernie wouldn't support it, but I think that was much ado about nothing.
McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts) merrily
(45,251 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Their pathetic attempts to ridicule you for an obviously fair question/request in light of their similar question/response shows and fair minded person what's what.
cali
(114,904 posts)trying desperately and failing fabulously, to smear Bernie as dirty and hypocritical as the corrupt Hillary. It is laughably lame.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)in 2008? You know, the one who works for free for FOXNEWS, assuming the Fox-style Colmes position as a "liberal" strawman?
Just wondering. Thanks!
Journalist Steve Leser in 2008: Hillary is a liar.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251658816
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)At the elbow, the ulnar nerve travels through a tunnel of tissue (the cubital tunnel) that runs under a bump of bone at the inside of your elbow. This bony bump is called the medial epicondyle. The spot where the nerve runs under the medial epicondyle is commonly referred to as the "funny bone."
Ouch! She hit my funny bone!
Every copycat thread and its creator deserves ridicule and I say that even though I'm pretty sure I did it once.