Bernie Explains DNC Data Breach and Hillary Says "We Should Just Move on..."

[CorporatistNation]

We Want ALL The Facts FIRST Hillary!

VIDEO: "Bernie Sanders Explains DNC Data Breach"

hint (Note Hillary Sign on front of DNC NGP VAN Bus) WTF? What more do ya need to see??? DNC In Da TANK fer Hillary!!

Hillary suggests that "We just Move on because the American people are not interested in this..." NOT TRUE Hillary...

WE (Democratic Primary Voters) WANT A COMPREHENSIVE, EXPEDITIOUS AND FAIR EXAMINATION OF NGP VAN'S RECORDS and COMMUNICATIONS AS WELL AS Those of THE DNC AND DNC Leadership/Management, YOURS AND BERNIE SANDERS...

How Come Nobody From NGP Has Been Fired???

THEN and ONLY THEN (After We Know All of The Facts...) THEN... WE CAN "Move on!"

From SALON: “Debbie Wasserman Schultz decision to breach the DNC contract, under which she is bound, in order to smear Sanders was opportunistic.

The contract required written notice of termination and a 10-day grace period to cure any alleged default. Clearly the DNC was in violation, not Sanders.

Because the contract put the onus for securing data on the DNC, it was liable for the breach as well. But the issue was bigger than mere contract law or political dirty tricks.

In suspending the vital operations of a presidential campaign, Schultz trespassed on the right of all citizens to FREE and FAIR elections. :

Democrats could ill afford to be seen condoning her actions. Nor could they afford to pay her bills. If she acted without authority she’d be liable for damages, but only if the party was as swift and honorable in dealing with her, as Sanders was in dealing with Uretsky.

The party also had to ponder the sworn depositions Sanders might now take regarding such delicate matters as who Schultz spoke to about her decision to impale him.”

http://www.salon.com/2015/12/19/debbi...

[Thinkingabout]

1. Are you sure? I understand Sanders has suspended two more.

A breach by Sanders camp into Hillary's information could lead to criminal investigations. Sanders is not happy about this.

[ViseGrip]

5. Yep, for looking at the open door, left open once again by the DNC's software guru. Was he fired?

[Thinkingabout]

12. Did the the software guru have an agreement for use of the databases

Not enter another candidates data base? This is problem. Furthermore if this had already reported I doubt the agreement was changed to include if there was a software problem the the agreement did not apply any longer. The staffer should have been more focused on getting Sanders elected, as it stands time was spent on creating a breach in which Sanders has had to take action and it interfered with valuable debate coaching Sanders and it broke his concentration and he had to work on a problem caused by his staff member. If there is an insistence on firing some in the software company then maybe Sanders is going to have to remove all of his staff people.

[Phlem]

22. Complete BS.

Fascinating how the DNC turned an about face and restored access within 24 hours of a lawsuit.

What about this, say the lawsuit goes through, if Bernie were complicit, Hillary could end his campaign instantly, but I'm sure you're going to tell me how fucking gracious she was about letting that one slide.

My word.

[Thinkingabout]

24. You are probably correct, this is all BS, the breach should have never occurred.

Sanders was ask for an agreement for an independent audit, he agreed, database access was restored. Eos

[JDPriestly]

35. Here are my thoughts based on what I have heard and read on this.

The DNC contracted with a vendor to manage databases of the candidates for the Democratic nomination for president in 2016.

We can assume that one of the duties expressed or implied in the vendor's contract was to secure the information of each campaign from the other campaigns.

In October and again recently, the vendor failed to secure Hillary' s campaign's information, possibly by weakening or shutting down a firewall that set Hillary's data apart from the information, the data, of Bernie Sanders' campaign.

The Sanders' campaign discovered the breach. In October, they were concerned that Sanders' data had also been breached and that access to Sanders' data had been allowed to one or more of the other campaigns. (Based on a video of a press conference by Bernie's campaign manager.)

Again, recently, the Sanders' campaign discovered that it had, due to a failure by the vendor to secure Hillary's data, obtained access to that data. Sanders' employees ran queries that tested the data to which they had access for data that belonged to Hillary's campaign, and the tests were positive. Hillary's information was available to Bernie's campaign.

Upon learning of this, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, before completing an objective test of the security on the data and before giving Bernie's campaign adequate opportunity to respond to requests for data or information, and perhaps without having properly asked Bernie's campaign for the information, went to the press screaming that Bernie's campaign had accessed Hillary's data (via access provided apparently, necessarily by the vendor's failure to adequately secure it) and that Bernie would be refused access to his own campaign's data as a result. Bernie's campaign has been damaged by the DNC's refusal to allow Bernie to access his database for a certain period of time at this crucial stage in the campaign.

Bernie filed a lawsuit for an injunction requiring the DNC and its vendor to allow Bernie access to his own data.

I assume that some sort of arrangement, some sort of partial settlement that required Bernie to provide information regarding the breach of the firewall and the queries his campaign made and perhaps other information was made, and the DNC and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz backed down and is allowing Bernie access to his own material. This is my guess.

Based on my experience, I suspect that as a part of that agreement, Bernie was required to apologize openly to Hilary for any breach. This is just my guess, but Bernie apologized during the debate.

In my opinion, the DNC and its vendor and possibly others need to apologize for the fact of the breach of the security measures that were supposed to have been taken by the vendor. It is nearly impossible for me to believe that Bernie Sanders' campaign would have had any contractual or other duty to protect Hillary's campaign database. Bernie is noted for his honorable conduct, but to expect Bernie's campaign to identify and separate Hillary's data from his own when they were apparently both made available to him would require him to do the very queries of the database that it appears that his campaign made. Thus, in my opinion, not knowing more than others not directly involved in the situation, the duty that was breached was on the part of the DNC's vendor or possibly the DNC itself. I seriously doubt that Bernie had any contractual duty to protect the security of Hillary's data. I can't understand how that would even work without Bernie's first querying all the data he had and identifying the data of Hillary -- which is, from what little I know about the situation, what his staff did.

Hopefully, an INDEPENDENT review of the vendor's security and firewall systems and of any access by any campaign to the information in another campaign's database will be conducted as soon and as openly as possible.

We Bernie supporters view the DNC as so biased in favor of Hillary that we question whether this was perhaps to some extent, whether conscious or not, intended to harm Bernie's campaign. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz has close ties to Hillary as do some of the employees in the DNC's vendor for the databases.

Further, the DNC's conduct in other respects has, in the view of many Bernie supporters, been detrimental to the campaigns of all candidates other than Hillary. For example, scheduling the third of only six debates on the Saturday night, a party night across the nation, before Christmas insured a very lower viewer base.

In addition, requiring that candidates who participate in the six official debates may not debate other than in those debates is a travesty of the democratic process.

As a Bernie supporter, I wish to have a full investigation of the relationship between the DNC, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and the Hillary campaign.

The DNC led by Debbie Wasserman-Schultz appears in my view to have no intention of allowing any candidate other than Hillary to win the nomination.

These are the facts as I understand them based on what I have read. I think that we Bernie supporters have a lot to be angry about. This primary process is a travesty.

I think that Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is losing a lot of Democratic voters. I for one have stated all along that I will vote for all Democrats on my ballot, but NOT FOR HILLARY.

The DNC acts very much like a machine that wants to control the outcome of the primary process.

I wrote this as a response to a question by a DUer in another thread before watching this video.

I think that Hillary, with her downcast eyes, had rehearsed her response or prepared her response to Bernie's statement, and that Hillary is either lying about something or hiding facts. She does not want an independent review of this matter.

But after so many Clinton scandals and rumors of dishonesty, this accusation against Bernie's campaign about a breach caused either intentionally or negligently as far as we can tell by the vendor for the DNC which has employees with previous employment and other ties to the Hillary campaign, is one that should be pursued in the court if at all possible.

The vendor is at fault here from what I can tell from the facts.

But we need a truly INDEPENDENT investigation of the facts, hopefully as part of a lawsuit.

I will vote for all other Democrats on my ballot, but not for Hillary Clinton. I do not think she has good judgment or good character. That's my opinion.

[CorporatistNation]

69. Nice Full Throated Review... Agree Completely. FULL Ahead on The Lawsuit!

Damn the Torpedoes and let the chips fall where they may... Hillary clearly is worried as the behavior of her Team including DWS was Damning in its immediacy and degree of reaction... Suggesting that they may have had some "prior knowledge?" Hmmm? Smells of a Set up... Even can we say a conspiracy to harm Bernie?

[Bubzer]

54. What do you mean "are you sure"? It's not even a question. Every Dem should demand the investigation

All records must be laid bare... including who accessed what and when since the sanders campaign began using the DNC database.
Anyone with a CompSci background will tell you a firewall doesn't just mysteriously fall on it's own. The Vendor must be thoroughly investigated along with whatever roll the DNC may or may not have had in what transpired. That includes a detailed look at all communications, including any and all electronic correspondence. Every dem should expect this level of transparency.

[Thinkingabout]

65. Yes it should be investigated, Sanders has agreed to an audit, possible criminal charges against

Sanders staffer.

On the question of "Are you sure?" yes it is a question.

[Bubzer]

72. You're mistaken if you think the investigation is going to be limited to just that staffer.

The staffer won't face any conviction for using well established best practices for identifying and documenting a security breach.

Bernie's lawsuit against the DNC alone will see to that. It does a marvelous job of citing the contract...and it stipulates that it's the DNC's roll to maintain security... which they failed to do.

The Hillary camp will be under investigation for abuse of that firewall breach as well, to see if they took advantage of the breach.
The investigation could easily balloon from there.

[Thinkingabout]

74. It should be a full and complete investigation. Sanders has

Suspended two more staffers, he is taking action. Now on the other hand implicating Hillary camp without evidence will not excuse the breach made by the staffers.

[Bubzer]

75. I don't think you understand the situation. The staffers didn't make the breach. They reported them.

There have been numerous breaches of the firewall. One such breach was detected by the Sanders campaign, in part because of a data transfer that occurred, that they did not initiate, to a source other than the DNC or their own systems. The Sanders campaign brought it to the attention of the vendor, who did little to resolve the issue, other than pay lip service.

The staffer that was "caught", was in the midst of gathering evidence to prove that a breach happened due to the vendor pretending that a breach hadn't happened before. It's very odd that such a breach was "detected by a third party" and reported to the vendor.

This means someone had to be actively probing the firewall to even be able to detect that anyone else was doing the same... though the network is secured from external access... that means it would have to be someone who has existing access to the network to be able to detect such a breach...and even more unusual that they were lying in wait to report someone else probing the breach.

To my knowledge there are only two groups who could have reported on the event: The DNC itself... which would be odd since the contract is very clear about it being their responsibility to maintain security (not the campaigns)... or Hillary's campaign... which would also be odd... why would the Hillary campaign be actively probing against the firewall? It would suggest a knowledge that the firewall would be down in the first place.

Perhaps the Hillary camp is clean in this. Perhaps. At the very least, the vendor needs to be fired for incompetence. There's no excuse for dropping a firewall of all things. It was, after all, the DNC's contractual obligation to ensure security, and they failed.

[AgingAmerican]

57. Yes we are sure

Let the cards fall where they may...

[CorporatistNation]

2. Bernie Must Press This to The WALL!!!

Hillary wants to just move on...

OF COURSE SHE DOES!!! Because there is loads of dirty tracks all over this on her computers and those of the DNC... Emails of Hillary, DWS, VAN and DNC personnel should all be reviewed for culpability. Not just Bernies Team!

[leftofcool]

8. Be careful what you ask for.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

92. No special care required. Open it ALL up and let's just see where it goes.

Everything. And anyone who is guilty can take a running leap straight to hell. I'm always a proponent for the truth outing.

[Ferd Berfel]

21. Agree! I'd like to see a full independent (if that's possible) investigation

This thing stinks and my money is still on Bernie.
We know what Bernie did when he found out - What did Hillary know and when did she know it?

She hand picked this IT clown car. They've "allowed" data to get hack twice that we know if and they still have the job. What's up with that?

[tecelote]

25. The investigation needs to include emails in the discovery process.

The server logs are easy to manipulate and there is only one record held by the DNC and the vendor.

Emails on the other hand, have copies on the DNC computers and those of the campaigns staff. They are not easily deleted as Hillary knows.

The investigation should cover all campaigns and from day 1 when the vendor originally gave access to the campaigns. As Bernie said, we don't know who else had access.

[notadmblnd]

32. What would stop the HRC campaign and the DNC from communicating on a seperate server

like the one HRC had separate from the State Department? I understand that the same IT guy that set that server up for her private use, works for the vendor too.

[JDPriestly]

36. With so many former Hillary employees at the vendor for the DNC, someone

could have simply downloaded Bernie's information to a flash drive a la Snowden and walked it over to Hillary's campaign. There would be no trace of any transfer of the data to Hillary.

We need a thorough independent investigation of favoritism and bias in the DNC and the vendor's office.

They may be completely innocent, but we Bernie supporters deserve and demand to know the truth.

If the court refuses to hear Bernie's case, then this matter should be taken to private arbitration with all parties agreeing to liberal and thorough discover and full public access to the facts revealed in the discovery process.

[CorporatistNation]

3. The Data That Very Likely is Reviewable...

On everyone but Bernie's Team could do likewise...

[ViseGrip]

4. So Hillary says they were "distressed" to explain the immediate actions? A Commander in Chief

cannot get distressed and go to the press to create shenanigans without any facts! When I heard it, I couldn't believe it. The more I see it here now, this is really important.

[ViseGrip]

7. PS. Hillary came right out trashing Bernie's campaign in seconds. Is this how a President can react?

[Dem2]

6. Careful what you wish for

It's easy to be convinced that Hillary is a lying criminal (that is your right), but one cannot know the integrity of a group of employees that neither candidate might even know all that well.

[MADem]

9. That picture is what, 7 or 8 years old? And SALON put that piece out before this

business hit the fan:

Sanders said while apologizing for the breach during Saturday night's Democratic debate that his staff "did the wrong thing."

"This is not the kind of campaign that we run and if I find anybody else involved in this, they will also be fired," Sanders said.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/sanders-campaign-suspends-two-more-staffers-over-clinton-data-breach-n483411

And the Sanders campaign then booted two more staffers off the island (will more follow?).

And then he apologized....to SECSTATE Clinton....AND HIS SUPPORTERS.

Why aren't his supporters following his lead? You'd think they'd understand that he wants to find the guilty parties, yank them out like weeds, and move on smartly. Instead, they keep beating on a false meme that his Chief of Staff and communications director put out (and now they're quiet as church mice--funny how that works).

Makes no darn sense. But don't take my word, listen to Senator Sanders:

There is an independent audit going on right now, we'll probably know more by next week.

[nc4bo]

11. So the sign isn't photoshopped?! It's real? nt

[Luminous Animal]

13. Do you agree that should be an independent audit FROM DAY ONE?

Bernie has asked for one. Hillary and the DNC will only agree to an independent audit of this specific incidence.

Let the lawsuit go forward unless they all agree to an independent audit from day one.

[CorporatistNation]

18. INDEPENDENT AUDIT FROM DAY ONE!!!!

They object because Hillary, Debbie et al ... HAVE PLENTY TO HIDE!!! SUE THE SHIT OUT OF 'EM!!!

[Luminous Animal]

20. Do you object to an independent audit from day one. As yet, neither the DNC or the Hillary

campaign has signed on.

[MADem]

56. Be careful what you wish for.

It will end the Sanders campaign once it comes out that the reason that access was "suspended" (not "terminated&quot is because the company was afraid that the Sanders campaign would try to delete their footprints.

I think the judge will find for DNC, and then the Sanders campaign will have nowhere left to go. They might be able to get a round of faux "high dudgeon" fundraising accomplished like they did last time, but people will start to fall away--no one likes to be lied to, and the chief of staff and communications director lied, as did the national data director (who was fired for it).

The only one who has told the truth in this scenario on the Sanders team is Bernie Sanders, himself. And he apologized to Clinton...AND his supporters--because he felt that they deserved better than the crap that they were served up.

I don't think an independent audit is going to be the panacea that many hope it will be. I think it might serve to highlight bad behavior that a lot of people don't quite yet understand.

http://time.com/4155185/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-data/

[MADem]

27. I don't know WHAT they agreed to in terms of the timeline. Do you have evidence--a

link or anything on those lines--that suggests that what you are saying is true? Or is this simply discussion board and blog speculation? I haven't heard any "detail" complaints subsequent to Sanders' apology to Clinton.

All I know is that an independent investigation IS underway--the Sanders campaign agreed to this. I imagine they'll be going through computers and tablets and phones and desk drawers, too.

People have been putting a LOT of words in Bernie's mouth lately. His chief of staff, his communications director, an awful lot of so-called supporters--but the only words I've heard coming out of Bernie's mouth is "I apologize."

He seemed a) Sincere, and b) Pretty pissed off at his staff who stole the data and then LIED about it. You don't fire people for nothing, after all.

I think if that lawsuit goes forward, two things will happen.

1. The Sanders campaign will be told to pound sand, because they were the ones who first broke the agreement that they made with the DNC to not cheat. Sanders has admitted that his staff cheated. It kind of cures the complaint they made that they were cut off. You don't allow the burglar to continue to empty the house while you investigate it. You have to freeze everything in place, then make copies, so you have a "moment in time" recorded so that the investigators can see who saved what.

2. Those three Sanders campaigners (and maybe two or more in addition) will end up getting to their feet when the bailiff says "Will the defendants please rise?" They could conceivably do jail time for computer crimes.

Time, as it always does, will tell.

[JDPriestly]

46. My view on this as a Bernie supporter:

The DNC contracted with a vendor to manage databases of the candidates for the Democratic nomination for president in 2016.

We can assume that one of the duties expressed or implied in the vendor's contract was to secure the information of each campaign from the other campaigns.

In October and again recently, the vendor failed to secure Hillary' s campaign's information, possibly by weakening or shutting down a firewall that set Hillary's data apart from the information, the data, of Bernie Sanders' campaign.

The Sanders' campaign discovered the breach. In October, they were concerned that Sanders' data had also been breached and that access to Sanders' data had been allowed to one or more of the other campaigns. (Based on a video of a press conference by Bernie's campaign manager.)

Again, recently, the Sanders' campaign discovered that it had, due to a failure by the vendor to secure Hillary's data, obtained access to that data. Sanders' employees ran queries that tested the data to which they had access for data that belonged to Hillary's campaign, and the tests were positive. Hillary's information was available to Bernie's campaign.

Upon learning of this, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, before completing an objective test of the security on the data and before giving Bernie's campaign adequate opportunity to respond to requests for data or information, and perhaps without having properly asked Bernie's campaign for the information, went to the press screaming that Bernie's campaign had accessed Hillary's data (via access provided apparently, necessarily by the vendor's failure to adequately secure it) and that Bernie would be refused access to his own campaign's data as a result. Bernie's campaign has been damaged by the DNC's refusal to allow Bernie to access his database for a certain period of time at this crucial stage in the campaign.

Bernie filed a lawsuit for an injunction requiring the DNC and its vendor to allow Bernie access to his own data.

I assume that some sort of arrangement, some sort of partial settlement that required Bernie to provide information regarding the breach of the firewall and the queries his campaign made and perhaps other information was made, and the DNC and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz backed down and is allowing Bernie access to his own material. This is my guess.

Based on my experience, I suspect that as a part of that agreement, Bernie was required to apologize openly to Hilary for any breach. This is just my guess, but Bernie apologized during the debate.

In my opinion, the DNC and its vendor and possibly others need to apologize for the fact of the breach of the security measures that were supposed to have been taken by the vendor. It is nearly impossible for me to believe that Bernie Sanders' campaign would have had any contractual or other duty to protect Hillary's campaign database. Bernie is noted for his honorable conduct, but to expect Bernie's campaign to identify and separate Hillary's data from his own when they were apparently both made available to him would require him to do the very queries of the database that it appears that his campaign made. Thus, in my opinion, not knowing more than others not directly involved in the situation, the duty that was breached was on the part of the DNC's vendor or possibly the DNC itself. I seriously doubt that Bernie had any contractual duty to protect the security of Hillary's data. I can't understand how that would even work without Bernie's first querying all the data he had and identifying the data of Hillary -- which is, from what little I know about the situation, what his staff did.

Hopefully, an INDEPENDENT review of the vendor's security and firewall systems and of any access by any campaign to the information in another campaign's database will be conducted as soon and as openly as possible.

We Bernie supporters view the DNC as so biased in favor of Hillary that we question whether this was perhaps to some extent, whether conscious or not, intended to harm Bernie's campaign. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz has close ties to Hillary as do some of the employees in the DNC's vendor for the databases.

Further, the DNC's conduct in other respects has, in the view of many Bernie supporters, been detrimental to the campaigns of all candidates other than Hillary. For example, scheduling the third of only six debates on the Saturday night, a party night across the nation, before Christmas insured a very lower viewer base.

In addition, requiring that candidates who participate in the six official debates may not debate other than in those debates is a travesty of the democratic process.

As a Bernie supporter, I wish to have a full investigation of the relationship between the DNC, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and the Hillary campaign.

The DNC led by Debbie Wasserman-Schultz appears in my view to have no intention of allowing any candidate other than Hillary to win the nomination.

These are the facts as I understand them based on what I have read. I think that we Bernie supporters have a lot to be angry about. This primary process is a travesty.

I think that Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is losing a lot of Democratic voters. I for one have stated all along that I will vote for all Democrats on my ballot, but NOT FOR HILLARY.

The DNC acts very much like a machine that wants to control the outcome of the primary process.

I wish Bernie luck in his lawsuit. We Democrats deserve to know the whole truth about the functioning of our Democratic Party. It appears that since at least 1992, our Party has strayed from representing the working people of America. We need to get back on track. Bernie's movement includes all of us who want reform within the Democratic Party and our country.

[MADem]

52. No--these guys have been managing the DNC database for YEARS, now.

This is not their first rodeo.


I don't think anyone forced Sanders to apologize or made it part of any deal. I think Sanders apologized because he's a decent guy and that's not the way he does business.

His staff got out there spinning, and they said a lot of ugly things. It then turns out that the guy who was spinning the MOST improbable story got found out as a result of the audit--and as a result of that audit, he was fired...and two of his subordinates were tossed over the side a few days later.


I don't think the DNC is biased, and I think, were the shoe on the other foot, the Bernie supporters would be calling for Clinton's HEAD. They wouldn't be satisfied with an apology or two, and the shitcanning of one national director and two subordinates. They'd want the campaign shut down, they'd want everything examined, they'd want frog marching, they'd want the candidate to resign. They wouldn't accept the apology and say "It wasn't HER fault, it was the fault of cheating staffers."

And you know this.

So yeah, there is a little inequality of treatment, there.

[JDPriestly]

55. What about the vendors' probable breach of its duty to prevent Hillary's data from being

accessible to any other campaign?

That's the root of the problem. That's what needs to be investigated.

I saw a list of the searches that Bernie's employees did. They looked like they were intended to identify and separate Hillary's data from Bernie's. They looked to me like they were intended to show that Hillary's information was in the database. I could be wrong, but that is what it looked like to me. You can't determine for sure whether you have data you aren't supposed to have without looking for it. And the searches sought it out.

The DNC has favored Hillary very definitely from the beginning of Bernie's campaign.

The debate schedule is a travesty.

The five worst nights of the year for debates are New Year's Eve, Christmas night, Christmas eve, the Sunday before Christmas and the Saturday night before Christmas. Maybe New Year's day is even better than this Saturday before Christmas.

The DNC has done what it could to silence any discontent in the Democratic Party. It will pay for that dearly as will all of us Democrats.

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz should resign and a DNC chair should be appointed who will be fair to all candidates running for office as Democrats.

We Bernie supporters feel shunned and excluded from the Democratic Party at the highest levels.

Just went to a neighborhood party tonight. Lots of Bernie supporters in my neighborhood. Lots of them. I was very surprised. I am totally amazed at how popular Bernie is in my area of California.

The DNC needs to be more open to change. Terribly conservative bunch.

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz should have resigned after the 2015 fiasco of a campaign that she ran in the mid-term election. That was really a mess. She did not motivate and organize or inspire grass-roots Democrats well at all.

[MADem]

58. What about the Sanders' campaign's duty to not sneak and peek?

You're trying to play the "two wrongs make a right" game and that doesn't cut it.

"The Devil Made Me Do It" only worked on the Flip Wilson show.

This is not about a vendor, this is not about the DNC. It's about a guy who went into a database, stole shit, had subordinates steal shit, and then he LIED to his bosses about what he did. When the DNC shut down the system, preserved his footprints, made copies so they could study it, and then told Sanders what happened, Sanders agreed to give them the affidavits they sought AND fired the jerk who made this mess for him.

I'm pretty sure Sanders is furious. Still. He can't be happy to have had to fire three people, and probably give a talking to to his comm director and COS. And there may be more firings ahead.

Further, if he continues with his lawsuit (his access was not terminated, it was suspended so they could copy everything) he can expect his former staffers to be charged with computer crimes. Will they take the fall and do the time? Or will they cough up names of higher ups and insist they were only following orders?

[JDPriestly]

60. Sorry, but this is about who had the contractual duty to protect the integrity of the candidates'

databases.

This is about the vendor. This is about the DNC.

Sanders is still suing the DNC at this time.

A thorough investigation is needed.

The database was made available to Sanders' employees. Sanders is displeased that they searched that database, but the duty was to keep the database away from Sanders' campaign.

The Sanders campaign informed the DNC and presumably the DNC informed the vendor of the breach of Hillary's information in October.

If Sanders didn't think he had a pretty good case and some damages due to the temporary failure of the DNC to give him access to his own data, then he wouldn't have sued.

I think Sanders has the winning argument here. Sanders has no duty whatsoever to protect Hillary's data if the vendor provided the data to Sanders in October and again in December. That's two breaches of the data, neither caused by Sanders' campaign as far as we can tell from the DNC allegations.

Sanders is probably the good guy in this, not the DNC.

Hilary hung her head and did not look into the camera when Sanders answered the question about it in the debate. The DNC/Hillary situation may be worse than we know on this. But this last is pure conjecture on my part.

That the vendor was the party with the duty to separate and maintain the security of each candidate's data is, I think probably the case. I cannot imagine that the vendor did not have that duty. If the vendor did not have that duty then that was certainly the duty of the DNC. So either way, the vendor or the DNC has a problem, not so much Sanders.

[MADem]

62. No, it isn't. It's about Thou Shalt Not Steal, and nothing more.

Sanders staffers betrayed their boss and besmirched his integrity by stealing data from his competitor.

[JDPriestly]

63. We shall see what happens next.

Sanders' employees did not steal the information. It was made available to his campaign.

Sanders' employees reported a breach of information in October. I assume they were the same employees as those who then conducted the searches in December.

[MADem]

66. No--he -- as Senator Sanders said -- breached Clinton's data and ran dozens of

searches, created reports, and downloaded material. And he got a few people to help him, too.

They have affadavits in support of this. That is why three people are g-o-n-e from Team Bernie, and more may yet be fired. That's why those people are likely to wind up in court accused of computer crimes.

That's why Sanders is so angry. That's why he apologized.

You do know that "breach in October" story was about a different database, not this one? No? Well guess what--that was the fired data director, trying (and failing) to spin. He wanted people to BELIEVE it was this data base--but it wasn't.

You're not hearing that any more because that one didn't float.

http://blog.ngpvan.com/news/data-security-and-privacy

For clarification, NGP VAN played no part in the October data issue that has been mentioned....there has been independent confirmation that NGP VAN has not received previous notice of a data breach regarding NGP VAN. Josh Uretsky, the former National Data Director for the Sanders campaign confirmed on MSNBC (at 5:47), and also on CNN, regarding the previous incident: “it wasn’t actually within the VAN VoteBuilder system, it was another system.”

Talk about smoke and mirrors--the fired guy lied about THAT, too.

[JDPriestly]

67. Who had the duty to make sure there was not breach of the firewall?

The vendor. Whether it was NGP VAN or some other vendor, I do not see that Sanders' campaign had any control over the databases or could have done the searches unless there was a breach of the firewall and security of the databases. That could not have been Bernie's employees' fault because they would have had no way to access the database unless it was provided to them or they hacked it. I have not heard any claim that they hacked into the database. I have only heard that they were provided access to the database and they searched it and made lists.

How did Bernie's team get access to the database of Hillary if the security provisions established by the vendor(s) were in place and functioning.

Again, it was not the duty of anyone in the Sanders campaign to establish the security protections for Hillary's data. Had those protections been in place and had they functioned, this entire issue would not have arisen.

It is clearly the fault of the vendor, not of the Sanders campaign that the Hillary data was accessible to the Sanders campaign.

[MADem]

68. No, no, no. You're saying that if you leave your pocketbook on the table in

a common room at a shared workcenter, I have the right to rummage through it and help myself to its contents, because Bernie, in essence.

It was the duty of Sanders' people to not run keyword searches, to not run reports, to not create lists and take screenshots, and not hand permissions to four other people so that they all could do those screen grabs, over and over and over, to steal the material.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2015/images/12/18/merged_document.pdf

Further, there's this:

....However, the access logs do show that Sanders staff pulled not one but multiple lists—not searches, but lists—a fact that shows intent to export and use. And the lists were highly sensitive material. News reports have indicated that the data was "sent to personal folders" of the campaign staffers—but those refer to personal folders within NGPVAN, which are near useless without the ability to export the data locally....Even without being to export, however, merely seeing the topline numbers of, say, how many voters the Clinton campaign had managed to bank as "strong yes" votes would be a valuable piece of oppo.

...This doesn't mean that Wasserman-Schultz hasn't, in David Axelrod's words, been putting her thumb on the scale on behalf of the Clinton campaign....Still, the Sanders camp's reactions have been laughable. It was their team that unethically breached Clinton's data. It was their comms people who spoke falsely about what happened. The Sanders campaign wasn't honeypotted into doing it—their people did it of their own accord.... What's very clear is that the Clinton camp did nothing wrong in any of this. Sanders campaign operatives did, and then Wasserman-Schultz compounded it by overreacting. And in the end, the right thing ended up happening: the lead staffer in question was fired, and the campaign got its data access back.

Read the whole thing for more detail. Overall, though, this gibes with my tentative view of the matter. The DNC may have overreacted, and maybe NGPVAN is incompetent. I'm agnostic on those issues. But there's not much question that the Sanders campaign acted badly here, and then tried to pretend that they were merely "testing" the system's security—which is, as Atkins says, laughable. They pulled dozens of lists from the Clinton campaign and, according to news reports, never notified anyone they had done it.

This was stupid, and Sanders has been ill-served by his team. He's rightfully fired the guy who did it, and probably ought to fire the subordinates who joined in. And that should be the end of it.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/12/heres-what-actually-happened-great-sanders-clinton-data-theft

[CorporatistNation]

84. In 2007, The DNC the Exact Same Thing Advocating for One Candidate...

Who happens to be the current President. They actually throw people out of events if you happen to support other than the pre- ordained candidate. The Democratic Party when it comes to Primary Elections at ANY level is the polar opposite of Democratic. As I live in Florida, I have seen Debbie Wasserman Schultz endorse Republicans over Democrats in Congressional races... in major newspapers!

The establishment Democratic Party will put up a shill just to block a Progressive Candidate or put a "body" in a race to protect the incumbent, where there is a progressive Independent that might have a chance of unseating a dimwit Republican in a gerrry-mandered district.

This is who they are. Nothing new here...

Now is the time however to hold accountable those who attempted to rig, bait or set up the organization of the one candidate of integrity in the race. I look for said "chips" to clatter loudly once they fall.

[nc4bo]

10. I can't buy the sign - photoshoppin' is a full time hobby for some.

But 2 Thumbs up for the Sander's campaign pursuing the truth, no matter what it is.

[ViseGrip]

14. Here is picture link. It's real. It's Hillarys' campaign bus. Powered by VAN....the software

company candidates rent, now headed by her IT guru from her 2008 campaign.
Nefarious? No. But the connections of anyone involved who was not on a Clinton past payroll, Bill's or hers, up to the media is astounding.

http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/video/exterior-shots-hillary-clinton-presidential-campaign-bus-news-footage/451054904

[nc4bo]

16. oh dang! I'm going to file this under *This don't look good Part 2431*

The cozy cronyism is so blatantly in-your-face....... it's crazy.




Oh btw, THANKS!

[MADem]

59. It's cronyism to hire a company that has worked for every Dem congressman

to run your campaign computer system, and then lease for them a van (you put your logo on it of course--it's a billboard) and their identifier (so your staffers at your state sites know their role) so they can go from office to office, doing their job?

That's suspicious to you?

You do know those guys ran Obama's last campaign? Elizabeth Warren's?

Is she part of the conspiracy, too?

[questionseverything]

81. the point is their current job is supposed to be impartial @ dnc

[MADem]

82. They have been "WITH DNC" for decades, now.

They're not allowed to work for individuals? They're not allowed to, say, put the logo of the candidate they are working for on their van?

They've worked for most national candidates.

Not sure what that 'point' is. I guess Elizabeth Warren is "compromised" because they worked for her...? If they put HER logo on their van when they ran around wiring up her offices, does that make it somehow "unfair?"

smh.

[questionseverything]

83. during the primary the dnc is supposed to be neutral

so their venders should be neutral

are you admitting they are not?

[MADem]

88. What in the world are you trying to say? They have worked for MOST Democrats down the years

who have run for federal office. Blaming the vendor is just asinine.

The one who needs to be blamed is the one who signed an agreement to respect boundaries, and then failed to respect those boundaries....not the vendor of services, who has been under contract to the DNC for YEARS now.

The vendor sends out teams that serve and support their customers. I just am not taking your point. "Admitting?" They run the fricken computers. They weren't doing any hacking--those asses that got fired were the ones doing that. Given that there were more names on that list, I would not be surprised if one or two more get the ax.

[MADem]

38. You do know NGP VAN does ALL the Democrats' software? ALL the national campaigns.

Just because there are stickers on a bus doesn't mean they provided it. They worked on the campaign--maybe they cost-shared the rental of that thing (no one BUYS them, after all)? Maybe the CLINTON campaign provided that bus TO the people THEY hired to do their work, in this case NGP VAN --that seems by far the more likely scenario.

https://www.ngpvan.com/about

NGP VAN is the leading technology provider to Democratic and progressive campaigns and organizations, offering clients an integrated platform of the best fundraising, compliance, field, organizing, new media, and social networking products.

GET INSPIRED BY OUR INCREDIBLE CLIENTS

Nearly every major Democratic campaign in America is powered by NGP VAN, including the Obama campaign’s voter contact, volunteer, fundraising and compliance operations in all 50 states. The organizers, fundraisers, and strategists that use our tools work tirelessly to advance important causes and elect inspiring leaders, like President Barack Obama and Senator Elizabeth Warren. From equality + reproductive rights to education + climate change, the passions of these leaders and organizations are shaping a brighter future - and we’re passionate about offering them the technology they need to bring their goals to life.

They most definitely worked on Obama's re-election. The focus when they worked for Bill Clinton was CONGRESSIONAL voting (what LBJ used to do on the back of an envelope, before computers)--they worked out of the WH OLA:

NGP VAN is a privately owned American company specializing in helping progressive campaigns and organizations leverage technology to meet their goals.[2] In 2009, the company was the largest partisan provider of campaign compliance software, used by most Democratic members of Congress.[3] The company's services are utilized by clients such as the Obama 2012 presidential campaign,[4] the British Liberal Democrats, and the Liberal Party of Canada.

Its current president and CEO, Stuart Trevelyan, was a veteran of the 1992 Clinton-Gore War Room, providing research, analysis, and whip counts to the Clinton Administration as a member of the White House Office of Legislative Affairs.[5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NGP_VAN

It's entirely unsurprising that she would hire that company AND give them a van to go from place to place to set up their offices.


They also bought the platform that Obama used for social media in 08: http://www.forbes.com/sites/karstenstrauss/2013/11/14/the-democratic-campaign-machine-gets-a-shot-in-the-arm-ngp-van-buys-nationalfield/

Not sure what you think that picture "proves." That Clinton hired them in 08, that Obama and most of the Democrats in Congress have hired them since? That the DNC has been doing business with them for a couple of decades? What?

[JDPriestly]

50. The van proves that Hillary hired or had a close relationship with the DNC's vendor

responsible for protecting the security of the data in the primary candidates' databases.

That is a problem for those of us who support Bernie.

This calls for an INDEPENDENT investigation into the DNC and Hillary's relationship with the vendor that allowed the breach of Hillary's data and its accessibility by the Bernie employees.

It's the vendor that first breached a duty to protect Hillary's data seems to me.

I have seen the allegation that Bernie's employees searched Hillary's data. But I have not seen an allegation that Bernie's employees willfully or illegally SOUGHT ACCESS TO HILLARY'S DATA.

That access was apparently carelessly given to Bernie's campaign by a vendor said to have close ties to Hillary. Whether it really had close ties to Hillary and just what they were needs to be independently investigated.

[MADem]

53. EVERYBODY hired those guys.

Everybody.

Those guys ran Elizabeth Warren's campaign. Is she in "cahoots" with them, too? She had a "close relationship" with them as well.

Is every Congressman who hired them in "cahoots?"

Because that's most of the Democrats in DC.

[ViseGrip]

94. I think the Al Grayson vs Patrick Murphy race should be audited too!

[MADem]

95. Who calls Alan "Dumps Wife For Big Pharma Lobbyist Who Then Runs For

His Seat" Grayson "Al?"

[840high]

42. Thanks.

[CorporatistNation]

19. That, My Friend is What Integrity Will Get You...

Bernie has got it and this bunch is short on credibility and credulity from every perspective. This was a setup effort to bait some young person working this data area in order to screw Bernie. I have a little experience in campaigns with DWS and she is anything but honest or trustworthy.

[nc4bo]

23. Bernie will be getting a donation from me before end of week!nt

[ViseGrip]

29. Mine is in the mail! He already raised one million in just one day!

[AgingAmerican]

15. When DWS/Hillary did their kneejerk pounce, they expected Sanders to just drop out

Surprise!!

[grasswire]

17. is this the way that Hillary would do foreign policy?

Knee jerk, shoot from the hip?

[azurnoir]

26. Lol I'll wager she wants to move on and quickly too

[CoffeeCat]

28. The Clinton camp underestimated Bernie...

...they didn't think that he would fight back. And they certainly didn't think that he would take this to the next level, and demand an investigation that would also leave the Clinton camp vulnerable.

Bernie has guts. He's not afraid to stand up and do the right thing.

He's doing this for all of us, all of us who are working so hard.

I am incredibly impressed.

The Clinton camp thought they could play their usual dirty tricks. Well, they're not dealing with the usual politician. This entire thing could ruin them. It's all ready galvanized the Sanders camp. $1 million in donations, in one day! Sanders supporters are galvanized and energized.

If the Clinton camp looked at data or engaged in other activities that could prove embarrassing--and those things are made public, their entire campaign goes up in flames.

Maybe the Penn crowd will think twice, if they decide to mess with Bernie again. I hope they are all twisted in knots--about all of this. They deserve it. The erosion of their Iowa numbers couldn't come at a better time.

[ViseGrip]

31. Erosion of numbers indeed. Look at her while Bernie is explaining things....eom

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

41. "Sanders supporters are galvanized and energized."

And spittin' mad!

[LovingA2andMI]

30. Knowing just a little bit....

How the NGP Van works -- it is hard to believe that only one side accessed data during the "breech that broke the internet". Maybe, just maybe it is just one side thus far, has admitted to it.

[senz]

33. A full, complete, and independent investigation.

Get it all out into the open. To be against that is to look like you have something to hide.

[AzDar]

34. There is a Hillary sign on the Company bus?? What. The. ACTUAL. Fuck???

[ViseGrip]

37. No, the company sign is on the Hillary bus! That's her tour bus!

[MADem]

43. I think the Hillary campaign in 08 rented a bus for those guys to use

while they went from state to state setting up the computer systems in the offices--that seems the most likely scenario to me. And if they paid for it, why shouldn't they slap their stickers on it?

I don't think that is a "company" bus. I think it's a bus the campaign leased for their computer guys, that they hired from this company.

Usually, when people lease transportation for campaigns, they decorate it with shrink wrap or stickers, or what - have- you. Remember the rMoney bus?

[ViseGrip]

45. Way too cozy! That was the subject line for the picture earlier

[Jarqui]

39. "we went from 26 debates in 2008 to six debates in 2016

, three of them on weekends. It’s called the Democratic Party, but no one other than Clinton and Schultz had any say in the matter."

I didn't realize they dropped 20 debates. I knew it was a few. But 20 is a lot.

[winter is coming]

61. What happened is they introduced an exclusivity clause.

IIRC, only six of those 26 debates in '08 were DNC events, but local newspapers/radio stations/etc. could schedule their own.

[ViseGrip]

93. telling with so few debates, make them sign away not to participate in any other debates. SHAM!

[Jarqui]

40. "Schultz ... appears to have acted without ... authority under law, contract or party rule"

So they agree DWS didn't have a legal leg or rule to stand on

[Populist_Prole]

44. Sounds like a jerk boss I once had

Real high-handed "kiss up & kick down" type.

If he even thought he had something on you he'd summon every resource at his disposal to find any dirt as far back as he could find. Would tap-dance like Fred and Ginger when he was proven wrong.

If he himself was called on for a mistake, it was always "Let's not dwell on the past....let's go forward" or somesuch BS.

Yep. Double standard.

[ViseGrip]

48. Hillary came out too right away, "STEALING" millions of dollars worth of data, before any facts

came out. Is this how she will handle a presidency? Total knee jerk?
You know, it IS unlike Hillary, who stays cool under the worst of circumstance.


This is out of character for her totally. That is why I think this was a set up, between the Clinton camp and DNC/DWS. Hillary Clinton never reacts in a knee jerk fashion. This wreaks of acting...

a real shit show.

[Populist_Prole]

49. "The lady she doeth protest too much"?

Curiouser and curiouser.........

[Oilwellian]

78. Shame on you, Barack Obama!

Second verse, same as the first.

[BlueCheese]

47. Sanders' supporters should be overjoyed that this issue is over.

His campaign did something egregiously wrong. They fired or suspended the people involved. His main opponent graciously accepted his apology.

The idea dwelling on this another nanosecond would be good for him is crazy.

[winter is coming]

64. It won't be over until an independent audit for last several months has been done.

I find it interesting that Bernie supporters are willing/eager to have a comprehensive audit done, while Clinton supporters are urging us to forget it and move on. It's clear which side is afraid of what an independent audit might reveal.

[leftofcool]

73. I guess you missed the new news?

We will not be moving on until criminal charges are files against at least 4 Bernie staffers, Bernie's campaign and anyone else involved in theft. The actions were criminal and there is an audit going on right this minute.

[CorporatistNation]

85. Precisely the POINT!

[frylock]

77. Nothing to see here, folks..

please move along.

[bhikkhu]

51. I'm fine with just moving on

and I don't think there is some vast conspiracy, or some fundamental incompetence at work. No need for anyone to go Benghazi with it.

[ViseGrip]

91. So is Hillary....

[NCTraveler]

70. She called for an investigation.

Info in the op is shady at best. That's giving the benefit of the doubt which is a benefit I don't think should be extended at this point.

[winter is coming]

79. She wants an investigation of last week's breach.

She hasn't said anything about an independent audit going back several months, much less the '08 incident.

[NCTraveler]

80. I could care less about that as well.

I understand your need to attempt to collect everything possible in Gowdy fashion in order to try to say "look over there." Clinton and I both want an investigation. Sanders has fired one person and suspended two more. I highly doubt the house cleaning is done.

[ViseGrip]

71. A campaign story locally, and NGP-VAN

Comments here, "every democratic candidate uses VAN", well is just not true. You would wonder why the few who don't, make that decision.

In a mayoral race, my candidate paid for access to VAN. Throughout the campaign, we could never access it. We called the state party over, and over. They said they could not understand why, and it must be our computers! The program would come up, but we could not fineness our data! We ended up relying on the County election data, which was okay, as it was a local race. However, my candidate was progressive and experienced the same type of shenanigans on the campaign trail. He had to miss one debate, as he is a lawyer. We gave that date as a block out, he had to be in court. So, they scheduled it on that day. Then they came out all over the media, to say he did not have the courage to debate. He already did three, and in the end did 15 of the 17, just like the other candidate! But you never heard of a missed debate by the opposing candidate. (media in concert)

Then we learned afterwards, this democratic opposing candidate, used another vendor for his data. So they don't all use VAN, however we felt with the party operating in the same manner against our democratic candidate, this was on purpose, almost as if he knew the program was not going to work for us. There is much more to this, and there still may be a criminal claim filed for other reasons against this candidate, who is now in office. Interestingly, while being the Party's guy, when asked why he did not use NGP/VAN, he would only say, "that was my decision". Yet he's in bed with the party. Strange decision. The program was useless to us, and they would not refund the money either, knowing we could not access it. There is much more too this, nationwide I believe, now.

[ViseGrip]

76. Some Bernie supporters wonder how Hillary got their contact info after October security breach

Some Bernie supporters wonder how Hillary got their contact info after October security breach
cross thread on DU
http://jackpineradicals.org/showthread.php?584-On-FB-in-quot-African-Americans-for-Bernie-Sanders-2016-quot-Clinton-emails-Bernie-supporter


On FB in "African Americans for Bernie Sanders 2016" Clinton emails Bernie supporter
René Upshaw? to African Americans for Bernie Sanders 2016

11 hrs •

How does this happen?
....
Carolyn Breedlove
And then there's the interesting fact that lots of people who have never in any way contacted or solicited the Hillary Clinton campaign, in fact have unsubscribed from DNC mail due to Debbie Wasserman Schultz's corrupt regime, in fact have -- on the contrary -- donated only, directly, to the Sanders campaign, have since the earlier downing of the NGP VAN firewall in October 2015 started receiving direct email from Clinton.
Inquiring minds would really, really like to know HOW she obtained our addresses. Hm? You know the computer experts' analysis of the most recent, highly publicized (by the DNC) dropping of the firewall specified that when down, all the data was visible to any of the campaigns. The same was true before.

----------

This... is just the beginning, folks....


http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251930942

[Uncle Joe]

86. After the selection of 2000, this is especially tragic coming from a Democratic Congressperson

from the state of Florida, one would think Schultz would have a greater respect for democracy.


Thanks for the thread, CorporatistNation.

[ViseGrip]

87. The races or should I say primaries in Fla, are all run just as you are seeing now.

[CorporatistNation]

89. Be Advised, The Democratic Presidential Primary.. IS The General Election

This IS by design as witness the klown contest in the Republican arena. It is important to recognize this and consider policy agendas and who is likely to be good for your needs and who is not.

[ViseGrip]

90. Bernie is the only candidate with integrity, plans, and tells us how they will be paid for.