Will someone please explain to me what RULE the DNC broke?

[UMTerp01]

I don't give a shit about lifelong Democrats emailing about their favorability of another lifelong Democrat as opposed to someone who joined the party within the past year. Now the ones about Taco Bowls and talking about a plan to challenge Bernie Sanders religion? Absolutely reprehensible, but was that a plan put in action? WHAT RULES DID THE DNC BREAK?! What "rigging" occurred?

[pkdu]

1. There were no "plans put in action"

there were a few "if we need to , we could try this"


If there were actions , there would be lawsuits against DNC.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

2. The rule they broke is that they were the DNC

There should have been more debates, even though Hillary won all of them judging by the polling, and furthermore...

I mean it's obvious, right?

Right?

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[Hissyspit]

5. "Even though Hillary won all of them judging by the polling..."

Wow, you have a completely different memory of all that than I do.

[Sancho]

32. Wasn't the debate schedule proposed before the slate was even set?

You can say that some candidates wanted more or less debates, but for all they knew Biden and O'Malley would be the last two candidates...or any other scenario. Someone like Biden was well-known and may not have wanted a bunch of debates. Who knows?

It's not a bias against Bernie to propose a schedule and then modify the schedule as things evolve.

What rule is broken by having a specific number debates? Were all viable candidates included in every debate?

[Exilednight]

62. As soon. as the debate schedule was put forward there was controversy.

The same day it was released it was speculated that it was designed to specifically benefit Hillary after what happened in 2008.

[stevenleser]

67. Which was a joke. Hillary wanted more debates in 2008. If the schedule were biased in her favor

there would have been more debates.

[Exilednight]

75. In 2008 you're right, she did want more debates because she was losing.

In 2016 she never said a word about more debates, and the DNC slanted it even further for Hillary by saying to candidates that they couldn't take part in debates outside of the DNC sanctioned ones.

[stevenleser]

80. Nope the DNC set up the debate schedule in advance.

Look, I know some folks are desperate for reasons to feel aggrieved but that doesn't mean those resins actually exist.

[Exilednight]

85. In advance of what? Everyone knew she was running in 2016 after she lost in 2008.

[stevenleser]

87. Everyone knew Biden was running too. But he didn't. Sorry, crystal ball conspiracies are silly. nt

[Exilednight]

88. It was pretty well known that Biden wouldn't run again due to his age.

There was a slight possibility for a nano-second, but it was pretty well known that VP was his last stop.

You might not have known, but most insiders knew.

[stevenleser]

89. Your crystal ball is wrong there and no, no insiders were saying that. nt

[Exilednight]

90. I know you fashion yourself as an insider, but if you

Were you would have known that Biden had no plans beyond the VP.

When his son died, he did give it some thought, but he didn't want to run based on emotion.

On here you don't know who I am, Steve, but we've met on several occasions. My boss calls you "that Fox guy" since it's the only place he ever sees you appear on TV,

I don't know who you're trying to fool, bit it's not me. .

[stevenleser]

92. What I fashion myself as is of no importance here. Biden was contemplating a run right up until the

end and people close to him know that. I know because I have spoken to several of them.

What you have is ad hominem against me and nothing else.

[Sancho]

76. So we are back to the question about the DNC making a schedule...and breaking rules.

if there were 4 candidates originally - and everyone probably had their own idea of a debate schedule. The DNC also had to negotiate TV spaces, venues, and host organizations. That's not breaking any rules.

In hindsight, every candidate got a chance to debate. Maybe they didn't get the exact schedule, venue, number, and host that they would have preferred. All viable candidates had a shot. That does not break any rules.

I see no evidence that a schedule was planned simply to benefit Hillary. It looks to me like both Hillary and Bernie influenced the schedule. None of the schedule "said" anything. It was the candidate who did the talking.

Most observers said Hillary did well in debates, and the polls reflected Hillary's debate skills.

It's not a rule violation that a schedule is developed and one candidate is a good at debating!

In hindsight, if there had been 20 debates in 20 weeks, Hillary would have probably won by a larger margin. In that case, everyone would have screamed "less debates"! It's catch 22 to accuse the DNC of favoritism without evidence.

[stevenleser]

81. This Boil's down to some folks desperately wanting to feel aggrieved.

What I don't think they get is that the Sanders campaign put all that out there to try to bolster his anti-establishment credentials and get the emotions of his followers riled up. You can see by their statements now that this was all campaign rhetoric. They know it was fair.

[George II]

63. Right, I believe the schedule was set before April 2015.

[PatSeg]

54. The debates were a joke

That is when I started getting really pissed at the DNC and Debbie Wasserman Schultz. I wasn't supporting any particular candidate, but I wanted more debates at reasonable times and more media coverage of Democrats. At the time republicans were dominating every news cycle. It was insane.

[stevenleser]

68. That is your opinion. It is not evidence of any bias or rule being broken. I disagree.

The debates didn't change much, rarely do, and I found the constant harping on peoples favorites days of the week or looking for a sports game on which a debate conflicted with nothing more than silly whining.

[PatSeg]

70. And that is your opinion

Many people were upset with how Wasserman Schultz managed the DNC and I know a lot of people who are affected by the debates, if they get to see any. It was not "silly whining", it was reasonable to expect better from a DNC chair during a presidential election.

I think there is plenty of evidence that DWS was biased, self absorbed, incompetent, and just flat out bad at her job.

[stevenleser]

72. Nope, not opinion, backed up by polling after debates going back years. nt

[PatSeg]

73. So maybe we just shouldn't have debates at all?

I seriously doubt that people are not affected by debates and I sure don't put much stock in polling.

[stevenleser]

79. If the criteria for having them is whether they change the primary race then sure.

That's not my criteria for having them so I would disagree.

[treestar]

3. And he already left

He just joined to run for POTUS and get the attention.

[glowing]

29. As far as I understood it, he never did join the party.

He's always been an Independent because of VT Dem rules concerning the candidates
From the state. I believe he's always been an Independent running on a democratic ticket. That would be more consistent than thinking he joined and then stopped being a menber.... Otherwise, his switch like that would signal to many in his movement to dump the Dem party.

Quite honestly, I'd love to see how many people have actually left the party over how many have joined the party? Just for a sense of how many people Are leaving vs how many new Dems are signing up to vote?

[treestar]

44. I thought I had read that he resisted as a Democrat

So maybe his Senate seat is why he is going back out. If he never did, he should be even more grateful to the Democrats letting him run as one and having access to the party apparatus and being able to debate Hillary on national TV. All of that helped him get far more votes than he would have had he run as Indy.

[Hissyspit]

4. “In the conduct and management of the affairs and procedures of the Democratic National Committee,

particularly as they apply to the preparation and conduct of the Presidential nomination process, the Chairperson shall exercise impartiality and evenhandedness as between the Presidential candidates and campaigns. The Chairperson shall be responsible for ensuring that the national officers and staff of the Democratic National Committee maintain impartiality and evenhandedness during the Democratic Party Presidential nominating process."

http://usuncut.com/politics/debbie-wasserman-schultz-hillary-clinton/

5 Times Debbie Wasserman Schultz Violated DNC Rules and Stacked the Deck in Favor of Clinton

This article is from December. People were complaining as far back as June 2015.

I would expect that, as this is a factual response to a question in the OP, this post will not be alerted on unless the OP is as well.

[msanthrope]

6. Well....that's the rule. Prove it was broken. I clicked on the link and

saw no evidence of same.

[Cosmocat]

18. Right

responder used the same OPINION PIECE in a response to me.

Look, DWS was completely putrid across the board, and she absolutely did not divest herself of her support for Hillary as she darn well should have given her position.

She is thankfully gone now, much later than it should have occurred.

BUT, there is no ACTUAL action that the DNC itself did anything illegal.

This thing about the debates, there could have been 1,000 debate and the election would have turned out the same.

I wish we lived in a world where Bernie was the nominee, but the world we live in Donald Trump is a VERY viable threat to win POTUS.

People are people when they go into the voting booths.

[msanthrope]

33. Thank you. It's ludicrous to think that DWS influenced millions of voters. nt

[Sancho]

34. You beat me to it...no real evidence that the DNC did anything except support Bernie.

His staff stole data, his campaign sued the DNC, and he played fast-and-loose with the election rules. Despite that, the DNC considered Bernie a "Democrat", supported his inclusion on primary ballots, and treated Bernie like Clinton, O'Malley, etc.

I have seen no concrete evidence that the DNC actively did anything that broke the equal treatment rules. If anything, Bernie was skirting the rules (and expectations) of Democratic candidates.

[treestar]

45. This ^^^

It seems characteristic not to acknowledge anything positive. You've just listed all the positives which far outweigh the influence of 1 of 20K emails.

[NurseJackie]

52. Thank you.

Perhaps they're angry that deference wasn't given to him, or that human beings had personal opinions that differed from their own.

[thesquanderer]

69. Perhaps a better source...

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/dnc-leak-shows-mechanics-of-a-slanted-campaign-w430814

[giftedgirl77]

8. Lol, nice source

[Hissyspit]

9. O.k. Debunk it. A lot of sources came up when I googled the OP's question.

And, again, the "rolling on the floor" laughing smilie - the smilie-of-choice for years now of those who have no argument.

Funny how the DNC apologized.

[giftedgirl77]

10. Lol, not even going to bother reading that shit to start.

If there were so many other sources why did you post the one that was a known Sanders fluffer? I mean they didn't post one reliable, factual document the entire primary, why would they start now.

[obamanut2012]

11. USUNCUT is not a LEGITIMATE source

I agree with the other poster about that.

[DanTex]

21. There's nothing to "debunk". That's an opinion piece.

There are no actual instances of rules being violated, there are internal emails expressing personal opinions that were never acted upon.

[DLCWIdem]

49. the DNC apologized for unity to try and appease at a time when we need to concentrare on

Trump. Just like there are those posters who are telling other we must appease the Bobbers. Just like there are Bobbers who are holding up theor vote to get something. Appeasing someone and apologizing doesn't neccessary the equivalence of guilt.

[stevenleser]

39. And that rule was never broken, so we're good. nt

[stevenleser]

71. You want the quick and easy debunking that source deserves? Here it is

1. Debate schedule:
There are professional sports games/matches of some kind virtually every day of every week. If that is your criteria for a bad debate day, you will never be satisfied. Which is the point of folks who brought this up. They wanted a quick and easy reason to rail at the DNC.

2. Part a. DNC Offices.
Another silly complaint. Did Sanders folks ask to have collocated offices? There is nothing here that suggests they did. If they had asked they would have been provided space too.

Part b. "New Hampshire Dem Party folks rushed to sign up with Hillary's campaign." From my article here http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512286221 That is allowable within the rules.

3. This one is great. Trying to turn the improper access of Clinton campaign data by a Sanders staffer into another reason to be outraged. Sanders should have been denied access to DNC data after that breach. You are responsible for your campaign staffers and that staffers actions, along with several of his cohorts was egregious.

4. That is not a violation of the rule. DNC staffers are absolutely allowed to privately work for a campaign.

5. That is done every contested primary. That is nothing new.

There you go. All 5 silly contentions debunked.

[Ford_Prefect]

7. I'm getting really tired of seeming click bait like this OP. If you haven't been paying attention

to the complaints filed and the several lawsuits over procedures and proper access to party information then you need to go back and read about all of it, since before the primaries and caucuses began. There was very clearly coordination between a number of actors in this kabuki theater.

As they are the emails show a formal discussion between a few senior members of the DNC who should really have known better, given their experience and their level of responsibility in the party. You sound a bit like someone trying to hide any suggestion of racism at a country club where all the key members know the secret handshake and the Code to keep "undesirables" from joining.

That they did anything like this is not surprising in light of the history of the previous HRC presidential campaign run. I would likewise expect some kind of action like it inside any modern high level campaign by either party. That is in the regrettable nature of contemporary politics certainly since Reagan's campaign, if not Nixon's. However this is about the Party leadership not a campaign.

The importance of the emails is that they show a tacit conversation going on inside the party about how to Attack and Disable a candidate, and by implication the party members who voted for him. At last count that was more than 13 million Democratic voters along with uncounted caucus members whose votes were essentially if not actually being denied by the DNC management. Whatever your leanings are on the issues the candidates represent that is not a minority of the voters.

Do you recall how it felt to watch the theft of the vote during Florida's recount in 2000 going on in full view of the cameras? The staged outrage swirling around outside the recount sites? I am not claiming that the same degree of interference is indicated in the emails so far disclosed. The pattern, though, is clear enough.

And for those of you tempted to alert on this please consider that this is a conversation we all need to have about what is correct behavior by responsible party officials. The candidate has already been chosen and elected by proclamation. The primary is over. The party still has need to clean house over this activity and this is most definitely the time to discuss it. If we cannot do so in candor then the party risks its credibility as a whole, something which will affect anyone running as a Democrat this fall.

[DanTex]

22. It's not click bait, it's factual.

Last edited Thu Jul 28, 2016, 09:52 AM - Edit history (1)

Lawsuits being filed means nothing. People file lawsuits all the time. There is no actual evidence of any rule being broken.

People are allowed to have personal opinions and express them privately in emails. Nobody at the DNC did anything to handicap Bernie's candidacy. What they did was vent to each other, around the time that Bernie and his campaign was calling them corrupt and insisting that DWS resign. It's hardly surprising that when Bernie's campaign was actively attacking the DNC, they would complain about that in private emails to each other.

But to their credit, in their actions, the remained impartial. They had to let DWS go for political reasons, not because the DNC did anything wrong.

[treestar]

46. Very true filing a lawsuit only means someone is alleging something

It will be seen whether they can prove it or not. The filing party has the burden of proof.

And the way Bernie attacked the party and called it corrupt after all they had allowed it to do, and even sued it - people are not weighing this 1 of 20000 emails against all that and the positives the party allowed him. Just because he'd caucused with them, which is nothing like being a real member and not equal at all.

[Lars39]

12. Impartiality was broken when Hillary declared

Her candidacy and DWS did not step down.
As Hillary's 2008 campaign co-chair she had a conflict of interest in staying head of DNC.

[bettyellen]

31. That's not a rule

[Lars39]

37. good grief

[stevenleser]

40. No, your grief is not good. DNC chairs are not required to be devoid of opinions and

Preferences, that is not what the rule means at all.

[Lars39]

48. Her prior service for Hillary should have excluded her for DNC leadership during this primary.

[stevenleser]

59. No it shouldnt and nothing in the rule suggests that it should. Every DNC Chair has preferences

during the Presidential primary.

[Lars39]

61. Her past speaks to her ability to be impartial...it is compromised optics at the least.

[stevenleser]

64. Her past is irrelevant. She conducted the primary fairly and stayed within the rules. Thats all that

matters.

[baldguy]

13. A foreign power trying to manipulate a Presidential election isn't important at all.

What's important is a few ill-advised emails from some overzealous DNC staffers.

[Ford_Prefect]

14. So far no one has declared that they did not write the emails thus exposed.

The OP asked about the Emails and what they do or don't imply about the party leadership along with what else might be significant about claimed offenses by that leadership.

At this point the facts remain. What they mean is the question.

For what it is worth the party was warned months ago that hacking had been going on over a period of time. One must ask just what kind of amateurs were in charge of protecting the party data?

[baldguy]

16. Let's see 20,000 emails from the Sanders campaign.

We can find the half-dozen most ill-advised messages that cast the organization in the worst light possible, then spend a week harping on them. Then we'll talk.

The DNC emails are the sideshow diversion. The real story is the fact that every indication shows that Putin is behind it, and the fact that he could manipulate people so easily.

[DLCWIdem]

50. imply? well that implies 0 proof.

[Hissyspit]

25. Who said it wasn't important? The OP wasn't asking about that.

And your characterization of the content of the emails is inaccurately dismissive.

[stevenleser]

41. Unless you can point to an email that broke DNC rules, which you can't...

... People are right to dismiss the emails.

[Hissyspit]

51. Of course you would say that.

[stevenleser]

60. I know, because I am right and have the facts with me. That's usually the side I am on. nt

[FSogol]

15. Divide, divide!

[liberal N proud]

17. No rules were broken, just some egos

Some who thought they were privileged.

But even with the perception of being screwed by the emails, now that we know a foreign government was involved and the emails were leaked to help a candidate, how do we know they were not tampered with?

I have dealt with tampered emails before where someone changed what another wrote in an effort smear them. They failed because it was obvious that what they added to the email didn't sound anything like what the originator would have said.


So again; How do we know, that Russia didn't change the text of those emails?

[Ford_Prefect]

19. If the emails were tampered with the originals will bear that out.

What I find curious is that no one yet has denied writing them or that their content is inaccurate as one would expect to hear were they faked or modified.

Say what you will about how they came to light, and that is an important question, they still stand as reference to behavior by senior DNC staff, who are supposed to be responsible and balanced in their actions affecting the primary and campaigns.

The perception of bias in the behavior of DNC officials existed long before the emails, and their source, came to light. That the emails seem to bear out this bias is the issue at hand, and referred to in the OP.

Candidates running in local, state and congressional elections have doubts about how the party will or may not support them based on the behavior of the DNC during the primaries. That is not based on a few emails recently exposed to public view.

I have seen what the selectivity of the DNC has wrought in my home state of North Carolina during recent and past elections. I can only guess what magic formula they might apply as a loyalty oath today, since they very clearly do not consider the party rules to be binding for all Democrats.

[Hissyspit]

24. No one in the DNC has come out and said they thought the email text was tampered with.

[leftofcool]

27. Yes, I believe Donna Brazille did.

There was an email from her that was fake.

[Hissyspit]

30. I've Googled all over. I can't find that.

All I can find is her apologizing to the Sanders camp. I have been impressed with her response to the whole thing, but I can't find her saying the email from her was faked.

[uponit7771]

20. NOTHING...NOT ONE THING !!!

[Scuba]

23. Quick! Everyone bury their head in the sand and pretend there are no problems! Quick now!!!

[Ford_Prefect]

26. You know the funny thing about sand is that you cannot breath it nor when you are under it.

Imagine that?

A few of my traditional republican neighbors insist it's not that hard to do, but then we often disagree over practicalities in politics at least as often as we do over barbecue recipes.

[Tarc]

38. How about answering the question rather than disrupt the discussion?

[Scuba]

47. It was answered above.

[rjsquirrel]

28. It's so overblown

Politiics as usual.

DNC isn't a government entity. It's a private one. And of course they supported the "establishment" candidate with their emotions and words behind the scene -- they are the establishment in question!

Hillary won BIG. It was not "close" -- that's a big lie. She would have cleaned his clock had the DNC been behind him. She won by millions of votes and hundreds of delegates. There was no "fix."

I am sick of the whining.

[B Calm]

35. Neutrality rule.

[apnu]

58. Besides being pouty, snarky jerks, what did DWS and her staff specifically do to violate neturality?

Did they deny Sanders' campaign access to data? Funds? Other resources?

The emails confirmed what everybody already know, DWS and her staff were very bad at their jobs and were catty, petty jerks about Sanders.

But personal opinions and private conversations aside, what did they deny Sanders campaign that they gave to the Clinton campaign?

[stevenleser]

84. Which only covers how you conduct the primary and public endorsements.

Snarky emails don't break the rule. DNC members are allowed to have preferences and they are allowed to support a candidate.

[randome]

36. The Rule Of Robotic Perfection. It's the latest style.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[MichiganVote]

42. The rule of endorsing a female for the presidency.

[alc]

43. depends on who you're trying to appeal to

Depending on someone's point of view they either will or won't see "rigging" of varying amounts. Arguing about what the DNC did/didn't do probably doesn't help Hillary.

Hillary supporters will likely be stronger in support by focusing on "no rules were broke" and trying to minimize the activities/results.

Bernie supporters may be more likely to come to Hillary by acknowledging that the DNC wasn't impartial (rules or not) then moving on to Hillary vs Trump - when they are ready. I can see undecideds also being easier to sway by stipulating whatever they want about the DNC activities and moving on to Hillary vs Trump discussion.

My guess is that the release was meant to change the discussion from "Hillary vs Trump", and not to show any rules broken.

[Orsino]

53. They failed to be perfectly neutral in all their doings, as the rules nominally require.

I think the bias was obvious from the start, if not earlier, and I don't see it as a huge deal.

[stevenleser]

65. Proof please, I see nothing of the sort. nt

[Orsino]

91. The superdelegates are proof.

That they're allowed to declare long before anyone votes is a thumb on the scale. That's not a terrible thing, IMO, but it means a newcomer is never on a level playing field.

[stevenleser]

93. ... of nothing. There, fixed your subject for you. nt

[Orsino]

94. Establishment delegates break for Establishment candidates.

You need not fear what's alread been demonstrated. That's what superdelegates are for--to keep the party from being hijacked.

[citood]

55. There is an impartiality rule

I looked it up last week...don't want to bother to find it again.

This isn't a trial, there is no evidentiary burden. And frankly it doesn't matter if a rule was broken or not, by strict definition.

What the emails show is an organization that was supposed to set up the framework for a fair contest had some people who did not even pretend to hide their bias towards one candidate.

Now, DWS is gone, and its old news.

But what happens next? Either pretend it didn't happen, or make sure it doesn't happen again.

I think fixating on what precise rule may have been broken doesn't help prevent it from happening again.

[stevenleser]

66. They are allowed to have biases and preferences. The rule doesnt state they cant and every

DNC chair and member of the DNC has them.

The question is, did they conduct the primary fairly and did they refrain from publicly endorse anyone?

If the answers to both those questions are yes, and I have seen no evidence otherwise, they fulfilled their obligations.

[citood]

86. We really don't know the answers to the first question

Because its really a small number of emails from a short time span. We have no idea what happened behind closed doors...and ignorance was bliss.

But now that these emails are out...not necessarily a smoking gun that the DNC did anything unfair, but certainly an indicator that some members would have liked to (ie suggesting questioning Sanders' religion). That quick glance behind the curtain has left a lot of people with doubts about impartiality...whether DNC members were partial or not, perhaps the perception that they were should be addressed in the future.

[CrispyQ]

56. These were not just lifelong dems, these were DNC officials.

It's not just about rules, it's about being neutral. Sanders engaged a lot of people who weren't politically active before. This kind of activity could very well disengage them.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/dnc-emails-howard-dean-226199

Speaking from his own experience as the head of the DNC, Dean told MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” that the behavior of Wasserman Schultz and her staff was inappropriate. It's the kind of scandal that the former Vermont governor said he took extra care to avoid during his time leading the committee.

“I don't want to knock Debbie. I've always admired her as a human being, but this is not something the DNC ever should have done,” Dean said. “We had a really strict rule. We are so strict that I did not vote in the Vermont primary at all, because voting for somebody and keeping your mouth shut is not the same as being neutral.”

[UMTerp01]

57. Thanks for the responses

I really was not trying to stir stuff. I knew I could get quick answers on here but I legitimately did not know what rule exactly had been broken that would support the argument that it was rigged. Thanks. Will be my last OP about it. It happened. I get Sanders and supporters being upset about even impartiality. If that had come out about Obama in 08 I'd be salty too. Onward. I just wanted to know if there was a serious infraction.

[Bluenorthwest]

74. For those of us hated by Mr Marshall's religious right 'peeps hearing him gleefully suggest

baiting their bigotry against a Democratic candidate is a deeply chilling thing. Such things should never happen in this Party. That's why the DNC is apologizing and firing people. They know how fucking harmful this sort of thing is.
This Party claims to want diversity but it hires operatives who will go tell the bigots who is gay and who is an atheist to harm their standing? Do you want diversity or not? That backstabbing shit suggests that the answer is unclear at this time.

[GeorgeGist]

77. Why did DWS resign?

[stevenleser]

82. Perception issues from the emails. Not because she broke any rules. nt

[Throd]

78. It is possible to do the wrong thing without breaking any rules

The DNC had their thumb on the scale.

[stevenleser]

83. Sure, but this isn't one of those cases and there is no evidence it is. nt