Post removed

[Scuba]

1. No, no. It's not the fault of those who did wrong, it's the fault of those who told ......

... and those who were pissed off.




Read it right here on DU.





.

[Triana]

3. Yea. I see that. Been reading it here all weekend.

[Darb]

13. Is Bernie a Democrat?

Since when?

So hundreds and hundreds of thousands of man (and woman) hours spent working for the Democratic Party by thousands and thousands, even millions of people that joined the Party and helped them every way possible for years upon years upon years, and they should all drop to their knees and give the newcomer socialist everything he demands without even a whisper of discontent?

Give me a fucking break. Sanders used the Democratic Party to get his message out, without them he is a fart in a whirlwind, and all you guys are doing is whining.

Please, just vote Rump and get it over with.

[MichiganVote]

30. On paper. Not much else.

[annavictorious]

16. Do you have any evidence of wrongdoing?

So far there's an email between two DNC employees floating a very stupid talking point that was never used, a reference to DWS calling Jeff Weaver an ass and a liar after he accused her of a crime, and a DNC press person talking to Jake Tapper about Ted Cruz.

And people who claim they have some kind of moral high ground let Rapey Julian play them over this nonsense.

[Scuba]

19. Yes, they violated the impartiality rule.

[annavictorious]

23. An assertion is not evidence.

In what way was the clause violated? Who violated it? How? When?

"Do you have any proof that he broke the law?"
"Yes, he broke the law."

There's something lacking in that argument.

[Triana]

25. Read the leaked emails. Then, read Article 5 Section 4 of the DNC Charter ByLaws

It's not rocket science.

Too lazy to read does not equal "no rules broken"

Sitting there with your eyes squeezed shut also does not equal "no rules broken".

http://s3.amazonaws.com/uploads.democrats.org/Downloads/DNC_Charter__Bylaws_9.17.15.pdf

It's not an "assertion". It's fact.

It's not a "conspiracy theory". It's right there in black and white.

WTH do you think she resigned for?

BECAUSE SHE AND THE DNC VIOLATED THEIR OWN CHARTER BYLAWS.

[Scuba]

26. Here's the rule, and here's how they violated it ...

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

1. The DNC’s communications director was eager to point out negative angles for Sanders stories

Luis Miranda, the national communications director for the DNC, is seen in two separate email chains briefing reporters with both Politico and the Wall Street Journal. In one email thread with Politico’s Daniel Strauss, Miranda told Strauss that he would “point out… some of the issues” with Sen. Sanders’ DNC committee appointments “off the record” with Strauss to help him write his story.

...

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

They're supposed to be running an impartial primary, not feeding the press negative info about one candidate while helping another. That's a violation of the impartiality rule and can easily be interpreted as defrauding DNC donors who were promised a fair process.

[dflprincess]

29. It never fails to amaze me how the Third Way types

can rationalize anything and make it all Bernie or his supporters fault.

[Scuba]

31. They always blame the left when our side loses. Always.

[dflprincess]

37. That's so true

even though, at least where I live, it is the left that does most the heavy lifting for the party at the local level and turns out for both on and off year elections.

[MADem]

2. Clinton IS a private citizen, a former cabinet member, running for office.

It's not her "fault" if some people within the DNC structure preferred her.

Trying to make this about Clinton and attaching "blame" to her is agenda-laden.

[Triana]

4. I didn't say it was Clinton's fault.

Read what I wrote carefully again.

I said it was DWS/DNC's fault, not Hillary's.

She will be hurt by it though.

By trying to f*ck Sanders, the f*cked her too.

Idiots.

[revbones]

6. "preferred her" is a bit of a euphemism and falls short as a description. nt

[MADem]

9. No, it's not a euphemism. They preferred her.

There were two choices, and they preferred her over her opponent.

I'm not trying to be polite or circumspect in using the expression--the fact is that there were many people, in and outside the DNC, who saw Sanders as an acceptable alternative to Clinton--but simply not the BEST candidate. There were a lot of people who would have taken either without too much agita--but they simply PREFERRED Clinton.

By the same token, there were also die-hards on both sides, but they were (and in some cases, still are) a vocal minority. The primaries are over, though, and eventually the people doing this will come to understand that agita makes no difference in the big scheme.

[revbones]

14. I meant as a description for the situation.

They preferred her and took actions to help her. Your description stopped short of the misdeeds.

[annavictorious]

18. What actions were taken?

[MADem]

20. The misdeeds of individuals are not Clinton's fault.

The repeated attempt to make an association between these two matters is something I find curious.

It's as bad as saying that because a group of white supremacists supported Sanders, that it's Sanders' "fault" that they supported him.

He isn't an official in any white supremacist group, not by a long shot. He doesn't control the dumb behavior of minor people in an organization. He is not accountable for their views and doesn't endorse them.

Clinton is not an official in the DNC, either--though come next January, she will be the party head.

[revbones]

24. I didn't mention Clinton did I?

I was only commenting on your saying that they "preferred her" as it seemed to indicate that was all that happened.

[MADem]

33. We aren't talking about Queen Elizabeth in this thread.

There's an attempt to "associate" -- which can be regarded as a euphemism for "blame" in this context -- Clinton with a couple of bozos at the DNC who wrote a couple of intemperate emails.

Who's shopping this lame meme, I want to know? Why is this line being pushed, when HRC is not a DNC official and has no control or clout over what they choose to do?

This whole line of attack--and that is what it is, an attack-- sounds like it's right up Trumpvarich's alley.

[dflprincess]

27. How true. I'm sure there was no collusion.

[annavictorious]

5. I don't see clear violations.

A lot is being made of one email between two employees in which they come up with terrible anti Sanders talking points concerning his secularism. The talking point was never used. DWS was not a party to this email.

I haven't seen anything else besides a reference in an email to DWS calling Jeff Weaver an ass and a liar after he accused the DNC of using the money they were raising as an illegal slush fund.

And the there's the email between Jake Tapper and a DNC press person in which Tapper asks for dirt and the DNC guy starts dishing on...Ted Cruz.

Looks to me at this point like the left got played by Assange.

[bettyellen]

8. Not do I .... But hater going to hate with faux passion

[BlueCaliDem]

7. Bullshit. I, for one, won't whitewash Putin's hand in this when liberals everywhere are pinpointing

the hacking of the DNC - and never the RNC - to Russian-backed hackers.

As for the DNC violating its own impartiality clause - how much of those "damaging for Bernie" schemes were put into practice?

How about NONE.

How many of those "damaging for Bernie" e-mails were written by Sanders' chosen nemisis, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz?

How about NONE.

What's the evidence that Putin is using a divide-and-conquer to harm the Democratic nominee in favor of his anti-America puppet, DumbTrump?

PLENTY.

How Putin Weaponized Wikileaks to Influence the Election of an American President

Putin's Puppet

If you're so worried that damage is being done to the Democratic Party of the Democratic Party nominee for president, perhaps you need to step back and look at the part you're playing in this Putin-orchestrated scheme.

[annavictorious]

10. Bravo!

So busy being all self-righteous that they don't see they're being played.

[BlueCaliDem]

17. Thank you, annavictorious. I can't believe what I'm reading all over DU. This piling-on of DWS

is getting out of hand, and people are so rabid about it that they've totally lost sight that they're being played.

No wonder so many people outside of the U.S. operate under the false belief that all Americans are one can short of a six-pack. Times like these, when we can't appear to discern who the real enemy is, feeds into that false narrative.

And I'm so sick of it.

[Triana]

28. Uh-huh. Putin's the problem. The Russians are the problem. I am the problem.

Whiners are the problem.

EVERYBODY is the problem.

EXCEPT DWS and the DNC and their sabotage of Sanders' campaign. (secretly or otherwise).

As I said, had they followed their own charter bylaws/rules, the exposure of the emails would have hardly been noticed - there'd have been nothing to see.

Keep pointing fingers.

It's on their head (DNC/DWS).

Not Putin, or whiners, or me, or the Russians.

If that's not true, why did DWS resign? She was never particularly well thought of as head of the DNC anyway even before the primaries. If you doubt that, look back at posts here on DU (and NOT just mine).

Methinks thou dost pointeth too much.

[BlueCaliDem]

36. Methinks thou dost whineth too much.

So you fit right in with the group in your first sentence.

Of course, Putin has got nothing to do with any of this. Those damn tech experts - what do they know, huh? I mean, it's not like Putin doesn't want to dismantle NATO, is it? What was I thinking!

I've pointed out the weak-links in your argument and even presented links, but you choose to ignore them because they don't fit the narrative of hating on DWS. This is a wide-net scheme coming from Moscow, but nah...it's the omnipotent DWS' fault. All of it.

Can lead a CDSer to facts, but you can't make'em think.

[Triana]

40. Stop projecting. n/t

[MichiganVote]

42. An email with no action took down a candidate? Couldn't have had much going on.

[Loki]

11. The only thing that hurt Bernie

was his miserable campaign. When you illegally hack into information from Clinton's voter data base, you might wonder why it could have pissed off some people. They didn't revoke his ability to run as a Democrat, although I would have. He ran a campaign that didn't win and even if people were discussing this in emails, I fail to see how he was affected by that. He lost. She won. This smearing of DWS is just what Putin/Trump/Assange ordered and you can see how easy it is to fool people. You bought their shit,, hook, line and stinker.

[Triana]

34. That's not even the point. She'd probably have won even if they didn't try to sabotage him.

The point is they were NOT impartial between both primary candidates. Their own damn bylaws say they should be "evenhanded and impartial" and they weren't. DWS wasn't.

Now, everybody knows they weren't.

The suspicion was there, with all the dirty business at polls and caucuses etc. Now, there's proof that there was something to it from the top and not just some overzealous local political operatives or whiney Sanders supporters.

It's unacceptable behavior by the national party and their leader.

if it wasn't there would be no need for her to resign.

And NOW they want UNITY and that's going to be even harder.

Hoo boy.

DNC/DWS totally screwed Clinton and the party. I don't think Clinton had anything to do with it - not blaming her. This will hurt her though.

It was needless and stupid.

And sorry but it's not Putin's fault. Or mine. Or "whiners". Or the Russians. Or Poland's.

It's all on DWS and DNC national.

[Loki]

43. So hacking Hillary's data base was "no big deal" really?

Thought so.

[msongs]

12. please list all the ways it "is going to hurt us in November." tahnks! nt

[NanceGreggs]

15. Don't hold your breath ...

... waiting for a reply.

[Triana]

38. It's in the OP. Read it again.

First, unsquinch your eyes. Get your hands off your ears. And can the sophomoric sneering.

[Lars39]

22. She should have immediately stepped down

as soon as Hillary announced her 2016 candidacy. Being Hillary's 2008 campaign co-chair should have excluded her from DNC leadership if impartiality was the goal.

[Triana]

39. EXACTLY. n/t

[UTUSN]

32. What hurts the party and HELPS drumpf is this

[NanceGreggs]

35. The DNC ...

... allowed Bernie to run as a Democrat, despite his demeaning of the Party for decades. They could have simply said no - but they didn't. So explain to us how "unfair" they were.

Bernie continued to denigrate the Democratic Party throughout his campaign. His campaign stole HRC's computer data - and his response was to sue the DNC. So enlighten us all as to how "fair" Bernie was to the organization that handed him the resources he needed to run.

Exactly HOW did the DNC violate its own impartiality clause? By two coworkers expressing their distaste for someone consistently denigrating the Party he was allegedly running for? Where did that distaste turn into ACTIONS that showed favouritism?

Bernie set himself up as "me v them". That was HIS position, not the DNC's nor the Party's. And you really wonder why individuals within the DNC expressed their personal opinion that the guy who was calling their Party "corporate whores" wasn't the guy they wanted to see as that Party's candidate?

More to the point, exactly how many voters do you think read Wikileaks, or take their spew seriously?

You say you're not re-fighting the last primary - and yet that's exactly what you're attempting to do. Bernie LOST - and emails between coworkers at the DNC had nothing to do with it. DWS had nothing to do with it. Wikileaks had nothing to do with it.

As for your opinion that DWS should not be allowed to participate in the Convention, MY personal opinion is that the man who repeatedly demeaned the Party he was allegedly running for should be barred from speaking at the Convention.

DWS has demonstrated her loyalty to that Party - Bernie Sanders has repeatedly expressed his disdain for the Party. So tell us all how HE deserves a place at the party's Convention while she doesn't.

I predict my post will last a matter of minutes - I will be accused of "re-fighting the primaries", and my post will be deleted. Sadly, the juries are still full of people who post their anti-Dem bullshit on "another site", but maintain their membership here in order to shut down any discussion that doesn't blame the DNC, DWS, HRC, or the Party as a whole for Bernie's election loss.

[Loki]

44. That's just it Nance, there is nothing that was done to Bernie except he lost.

I really didn't know that DWS was so all powerful. I haven't seen one reply as to how it hurt him, not one.

[dembotoz]

41. as a local county chair i worked very hard if there was a primary to be fair to both sides would

have expected same from the dnc

this is not complex this is basic shit

basic training wheels shit

we heard whispers about the dnc but at some level you are supposed to trust them.......

but now the whispers have a voice...the dnc fucked bernie
may they rot in hell

[Loki]

45. What exactly was done? Links please.

We had elections and primaries in which both competed, and he lost. I did not hear one disparaging remark by anyone connected with the Democratic Party here in Missouri made about either candidate. You just keep replaying the primary over and over but haven't once come up with a description of any underground effort to put his campaign in the dumpster. The only troubles have arisen from states that have had voter suppression institutionalized by the Republican's in charge of those states. We known that for a very long time, but people keep re-electing these governments, so nothing gets done to change this. I know that, and I've seen it in it's very earliest form when McGovern was running for the Democratic nomination against Richard Nixon. Thank Karl Rove for that, remember him?

[luckylefty77]

46. Hillary was probably going to win that primary anyway. They didn't do any of the

stuff mentioned in the messages and didn't need to. This hurt the party and Hillary. People aren't really looking at the big picture here- Putin wants Trump to get elected because he'll be easier to manipulate. Trump will be Russia's puppet so the Russians hacked the DNC.