Glenn Greenwald: DNC IS A FULL-ON, Not-Pretending-Anymore PRO-Clinton Arm

[Segami]

Glenn Greenwald ✔@ggreenwald

Does anyone at this point doubt that the DNC is a full-on, not-pretending-anymore pro-Clinton arm?

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/677977144530763776 …

5:23 PM - 18 Dec 2015

The Hill ✔@thehill

Sanders aide slams Saturday Dem debate: "I guess Christmas Eve was booked"

http://hill.cm/z2oshvO

5:22 PM - 18 Dec 2015

Jim Webb ✔@JimWebbUSA

Good for Bernie. The DNC is nothing more than an arm for the Clinton campaign.

http://cnn.it/1Pe06yQ

2:08 PM - 18 Dec 2015

[merrily]

1. K and R. My only regret is that I have but one rec to give to my country on this OP.

[restorefreedom]

9. well done, merrily!

tossing in a little history AND making your point. kudos!

[merrily]

11. Catching what I tossed was well done, restorefreedom!

[restorefreedom]

14. why thank you! i shall toss in

a bit of cartoon history for you!


https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=thank+you+goofy+gophers&view=detail&mid=7973249AC2A962A063AE7973249AC2A962A063AE&FORM=VIRE1

[merrily]

15. LOLOL! Thankyew. Very well done, indeed!

I used to think tossing one's cookies was unpleasant. Now, I see it can be highly enjoyable. I love when I learn something new on DU!

[restorefreedom]

16. heh heh. i think with everything going on,

we should toss our cookies and get moments of levity wherever we can find them!

[merrily]

17. A separation of church and state, secular Amen! to that!

[restorefreedom]

23. ! :)

[democrank]

2. I have a question...

For those Democrats who approve of absolutely anything Headquarters does, do you really think the Saturday before Christmas is the best date for our debate? Wouldn`t it have been more reasonable to select a date when there would have been a higher probability of a larger audience?

And, which Democratic candidate stands to benefit the most from Ms. Wasserman Scultz`s ( Hillary`s 2008 campaign co-chair) choice of this date?

[Proserpina]

7. Oh, I think DWS fixed that problem, though

I'm betting a record number of Xmas parties will feature the debate as the main entertainment.

[l.o.o.s.e.e-2]

57. ^ This!

[reformist2]

3. Love the joke about Christmas Eve being booked as a time for their debate!

[ctsnowman]

48. X 1000

[stonecutter357]

4. things aren't looking good for the Sanders campaign.

[tecelote]

12. Unhinged you have become. Get a grip. You must.

Things are looking worse for the DNC.

There will be an independent investigation.

The vendor should have locked everyone out before compromising the firewall. This is not the first time common security protocol was not observed. And, more than just Bernie's campaign had access. One suspicious act does not cancel out the others.

The vendor should have been fired. Gross negligence on his part shows gross incompetence on the DNC's part.

Bernie did the right thing when he discovered the breach. He reported it. They tried to shoot the messenger but he turned out to be tougher than expected.

Bernie. The honest one. He is.

[l.o.o.s.e.e-2]

58. "The vendor should have locked everyone out before compromising the firewall"

Take the network offline in the wee hours of the morning so as to have minimal impact on the campaigns, apply patch/upgrade/"whatever they wanna' call it", run your tests for integrity, and then go back online.

Done.

[tecelote]

62. Exactly.

Easy to do and no worry about unwarranted access.

[JackInGreen]

77. But that wouldn't help hill would it?

Get your priorities in line...

[Gore1FL]

38. With the Democratic Party self-sabotaging, it isn't looking good for Hillary or O'Malley either.

It's weird that the DNC has so little confidence in Hillary that they are willing to overtly pull out the stops for her.

[fleur-de-lisa]

66. My thoughts exactly!

[stonecutter357]

5. Glenn Greenwald: is into spying now ?

[Sun_q]

6. An attempt to understand our DNC predicament. Please comment or criticize.

Because something is happening here
But you don’t know what it is
Do you, Mister Jones?

I’ve been trying to describe my outrage at the the current state of aftairs. I just can’t articulate why this all feels so dirty. So sordid. I’ve never had my tires slashed but still the metaphor comes to mind…

I’m posting on this website in the hope that we might be able to better understand just what, really, is going on. I’ve tried to parse this mess, and think that I might have the beginning of an understanding why everything’s upside down, and I’d very much welcome your opinions.

The difficulty for me begins with the fundamental cognitive dissonance caused by (A) acknowledging that Sanders campaign staffers accessed material that they shouldn’t have, most likely theft by any legal definition, while at the same time (B) complaining that we (Sanders’ campaign) are being punished unfairly for it (essentially DWS line), but still (C) how could the DNC data security be so lax to begin with?, so (D), um…what just happened.

I hyperventilated for a while — for this I recommend watching any of the interviews with Killer Mike until you remember why we care in the fist place— and then began to think about the situation in the context of “entrapment,” or perhaps an “attractive nuisance” (although the latter is a legal concept that applies only minors)…

I know. Sounds strange. Bear with me for a moment…

I heard Uretsky interviewed on MSNBC and heard him referred to by the Campaign as one of a few “20 year olds” and it occurs to me I might very well know this kind of guy. He’s difficult to relate to in a casual conversation, he has a difficult time managing the usual social graces, but he is *exactly* the guy you want to talk to at tech support. He loves systems and he loves data. Encryption is a math puzzle long before it’s a social concern. He probably believes that the pros of a more transparent world outweigh the con sand I’d bet green money he’d stumble telling you just which Star Trek episode makes this point best.

I’m arm-chair profiling to point out that he is exactly the guy who would click through *any* internet link that seems interesting. Or maybe just distracting; that’s what a data guy does!

So here’s where I’m at: I believe the Clinton campaign would *know this* — and really here I have to pause a moment to ask why there’s so much drama surrounds Clinton’s online data anyhow — and they would know that this kid would cross the security line the moment the firewall was dropped. New internet is new catnip.

Of course downloading Clinton’s data is wrong, it’s immoral and unfair play, and probably by also theft, but I’m getting distracted by the publicly *meaningless* Uretsky instead of focusing on the publicly *meaningful* Clinton.

The public narrative has now turned to our “poorer selves”, our “worser natures.” Bernie calls us to get of the couch and get involved, which is very much a call to our *better* selves, the selves that want to make proactive change, and also for me the self that is more difficult to rouse since I once did all 5 seasons of Breaking Bad front to back in 7 days. Really.

So here, then, is my current conspiratorial (?) theory: The waters have been muddied. The ethics aren’t black and white and we’re more frustrated instead and less inspired. Yes, we’ve all got dirt under our fingernails, and we’re all imperfect people . The world is dangerous, and San Bernadino, and Donald Trump…

And this is where Hillary lives.

Thoughts?

[DFW]

8. A word of caution

Noting (correctly, as I see it) that the ethics aren't black and white IS a good way to get your rhetorical tires slashed on this site, no matter whom you support (I'm still on the fence). I've had it happen so often, I just walk to get where I'm going. It's probably only a matter of time before the DU Inquisition slashes my ankles anyway.

[davidpdx]

28. I'm glad to see someone is not jumping to conclusions

[DFW]

70. Jumping to conclusions

That is one almost sure fire way to make sure you are right 50% of the time AT BEST. I've been connected to DC politics way too long not to have realized that by now, even from the other side of the Atlantic.

[moobu2]

10. Why because they wouldn't let BErnie Sanders steal Hillarys contact list

without some consequences? It's more like the ends justify the means to Bernie Sanders.

[Perogie]

22. Grow up

[merrily]

26. I think I love you!

[paleotn]

36. uninformed much? Or should I say low information voter? (nt)

[stonecutter357]

37. +1

[Gore1FL]

39. Your constant use of smilies is impressive!

I am totally sold.

[stonecutter357]

52. how do you fill about the

Sanders campaign improperly accessed Clinton voter data?

[Gore1FL]

59. The same way I felt about filegate?

I'm not giving a pass to the data breach. No proprietary information was taken. The staffer was fired. The same thing happened to the baseball Cardinals, too. Fortunately, MLB didn't force the Cardinals to forfeit games.

My biggest concern is that the DNC had a security issue they knew about and didn't fix. My second biggest concern is the over-reaction. My third biggest concern is this is one in a long list that demonstrates both incompetence and bias on the part of the DNC. They need new, competent, leadership. We can't, as a party, divide ourselves to the point where we can't win, despite the odds being ever in our favor.

But go ahead and post smilies. I am sure that will fix the problem. The searing rhetoric that the "1000 words" of those pictures burn through all need for research, reading for understanding.

Maybe if the DNC put smilies on their systems, they'll be secure in time for the general election!

[stonecutter357]

63. it must drive you crazy not being in control.

keep

[Skidmore]

13. Glenn Greenwald?

The Libertarian tool? That Glenn Greenwald?

[merrily]

20. Good plan. Just go ad hom. Don't address substance.

[Skidmore]

25. Honest response.

I have no respect for him and really don't give a tinker's damn about his opinion on anything.

[merrily]

27. Not sure I agree that going ad hom without addressing substance is really an honest response.

[Skidmore]

31. Why should I respond to Greenwald?

I don't care for the man and I don't see the need to respond to another attempt on his part to undermine Democrats.

[merrily]

32. I didn't realize that Greenwalk was the OP, but see Reply 30.

[bigwillq]

18. K and R

[Progressive dog]

19. Libertarian Glenn seldom misses a chance to attack Democrats,

so that's not a surprise.

[merrily]

21. See Reply 20.

[Progressive dog]

29. If I was replying to substance,

I would address substance. Glenn is a member of a RW fringe group, who will even spin thefts by Bernie's campaign as a reason to attack the DNC.

[merrily]

30. That you were not replying to substance was quite obvious. Senator Jim Webb (D).

But, what would he know? He was only a Democratic Party Presidential candidate himself not that long ago. And Greenwald and Webb are by far not the first people to have made this same claim. Any honest person with a brain would have to agree with what Greenwald and Webb are saying about the DNC.

BTW, your allegation of theft is bs.

[Skidmore]

33. Okay. I read it.

Still don't see the need to respond to people whose agenda is to undermine the Democratic party.

Oh. There was a theft.

[Progressive dog]

34. So Webb (an actual RW Democrat) agrees with Greenwald.

That's not a surprise and certainly not substance. Substance would be like factual stuff, not like an opinion from Libertarians or their ilk.

[merrily]

41. Yes, but as my post said, they are far from the only ones making this claim and the truth of the

claim has long been obvious to anyone with a brain. Pierce wrote about it a good while ago. Huffpo has an article out now.

Who do you think you're fooling?

[Progressive dog]

47. Seven billion people in the world, and Webb and Grenwald

aren't the "only ones making this claim." I hope that was intended to be humorous, because it sure wasn't a real argument.
BTW When did the HuffPo learn to write?

[merrily]

50. As previously asked (rhetorically), whom do you think you are fooling?

[Progressive dog]

53. Why do you think that" rhetorical" question has anything to do

with a discussion about Greenwald's opinion?

[zeemike]

35. Is that really true?

Or are you just channeling McCarthy?...holding up a paper saying I have a list of Libertarians and his name is on it.
I keep hearing this meme but have never seen the membership card in the libertarian party produced...just the assertion that if GG supported one thing Paul did he was one.

[Progressive dog]

44. Glenn has been trying to deny being a libertarian for a long time now,

but a lot of Democrats disagree with him. Even if he isn't, he sure isn't a Democrat. He did write for CATO and it's Koch funded predecessor.
If you don't understand what McCarthyism is, you probably should not bring it up. Libertarians actually get elected to office in the US, unlike McCarthy's communists who were blacklisted by most employers and jailed.

[zeemike]

65. Well I don't think you understand what McCarthyism is.

McCarthyism is smearing people with allegations of being a member of something that they themselves have declared to be an evil thing.
And some people who wish to shut up people who say things they don't like invent the evil category like Libertarian to put people in to accomplish that...that is what McCarthy did and it has nothing to do with the results of it...being banned. The objective is to shut people up by discrediting them...which is the same here.

[Progressive dog]

75. NO McCarthyism is way beyond just smears

BTW How many communists have ever been elected to Congress?

[zeemike]

78. If it is beyond smears it is because you make it so.

Which in itself is a form of McCarthyism

.McCarthyism is the practice of making accusations of subversion or treason without proper regard for evidence. It also means "the practice of making unfair allegations or using unfair investigative techniques, especially in order to restrict dissent or political criticism."

And just because you changed the fear from Communism to Libertarians does not mean it is not the same method.

[Progressive dog]

79. "subversion or treason" HAh, I rest my case.

[rladdi]

24. With an open firewall, any candidate could have access to any information. it just so

happened that Bernie campaign was honest to the DNC. Yet, Debbie, the Chairwoman, hates honest, truthful people just like the GOP. So she blocked them out of there information. Debbie should resign or be fired. This is not the first time she has taken the spotlight from the candidates. I now suspect I would not support Clinton with the comments she has made. She sounds more like a Republiccan then a Democrat.
The software company has had previous issues, and had not fixed them. Debbie should have fired them and hired a competent software company. She chose not too. letting the problem linger and continue. Debbie is the real fault, not the Bernie or Clinton campaign.

[DanTex]

40. Hmm. So Greenwald thinks it's OK to steal data as long as it's Bernie doing it.

[Gore1FL]

42. Familiarize yourself with the details of the storie and try again. n/t

[DanTex]

43. Oh, I'm familiar. And I'm also familiar with why Greenwald gives Bernie a pass for data stealing.

[Gore1FL]

49. If you are aware of the whole story, then why wold you lie about it using half-truths?

Does not compute.

[DanTex]

51. Good point. That's why I'm not lying.

[Gore1FL]

55. If you spent your time researching rather than denying you'd have less exchanges like this. n/t

[DanTex]

56. Incorrect. There will always be uninformed Bernie fans saying the kinds of things you're saying.

[Gore1FL]

61. No You mischaracterized it.

You read "Does anyone at this point doubt that the DNC is a full-on, not-pretending-anymore pro-Clinton arm?" and tried to change it to "OK to steal data as long as it's Bernie doing it."

Why lie? One merely need scroll up to see what you wrote. It's your tittle and everything.

[DanTex]

64. No I didn't. Greenwald is obviously OK with the data theft. He's even attacking the DNC for it.

[Gore1FL]

67. Why not use his direct quote?

Oh, that's right, it doesn't fit your narrative.

Please proceed, governor.

[randome]

45. Where's Sid? Never mind, I'll do it.

Greenwald.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]All things in moderation, including moderation.[/center][/font][hr]

[RiverLover]

46. The Hill: "The long-simmering notion...that the national party is in the tank for Hillary....

The long-simmering notion among many grassroots liberals that the national party is in the tank for Hillary Clinton spilled into public view on Friday...

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/263784-dem-rivalry-take-nasty-turn

Greenwald isn't the only one reporting on this. The truth is going mainstream, finally.

[Segami]

73. As they should.....people have seen

first hand, the corruption of the Clinton camp, the DNC and DWS and their short-lived attempt to steal this primary from the people. The outrage is not manufactured, it is quite real and the Clinton campaign could be in for a rude blowback awakening.

[Jarqui]

54. Ain't that the truth

Democratic Nepotism for Clinton is going strong !!

[workinclasszero]

60. Glenn Greenwald: DNC IS A FULL-ON, Not-Pretending-Anymore PRO-Clinton Arm

Its about damn time too!

Why the hell would the DNC get behind a person that stole data from them and then turned around and sued them!?

[Sancho]

68. Likely the DNC is working hard for Hillary - as they should be - for a clear frontrunner!

Bernie is an outsider and pseudo-Democrat. I wouldn't expect the DNC to give him a break.

So, what's your point? Politics is a war.

Bernie's campaign was caught cheating. He should fess up to the investigation and move on.

It won't matter actually, because Bernie will not be the nominee.

[LuvLoogie]

69. The Bernie-Come-Latelies demand DNC leniency.

"WE are the REAL (not) Democrats (suck!)!"

[grasswire]

71. saw this last night

Right on!

[UglyGreed]

72. Sanders aide slams Saturday Dem debate: "I guess Christmas Eve was booked"

K/R that's a good line right there

[Doctor_J]

74. Not like greenwald to post something that everyone already knows.

I guess we'll excuse him this time.

[ucrdem]

76. LOL, natch. nt