Please rec if you're OK with the DNC violating their own impartiality rule.

[Scuba]

Other threads suggest a lot of members are OK with this. Please rec if you think such rule can be violated if it's for a good cause, or provide other justification if you feel it's OK for other reasons.

[jonno99]

1. Only losers complain about the rules...

[Scuba]

2. You forgot to rec.

[jonno99]

7. Sorry - the sarcasm was meant to be implicit (per the norm, I was too clever by half).

[Scuba]

8. Thanks.

[Peregrine Took]

102. Good one! n/t

[awake]

4. This is not about the rules

It is about DWS breaking the rules and endangering Hillary because of her lack of believing that Hillary could win with out DWS trying to tip the scales. DWS has and is hurting Hillary she need to go so that we all can move on and elect Hillary.

[Scuba]

6. ^^ This right here ^^

[jonno99]

10. Agreed (see my #7). nt

[Cooley Hurd]

11. Hopefully her resignation is being written as we speak...

Worst.DNC.Chair.Ever.

[notadmblnd]

14. Thank you, so many do not see it that way.

[sufrommich]

16. The only people "endangering" Hillary are the

useful idiots who will glom onto anything to bring her down.

[awake]

24. With "friends like DWS who needs enemies?

DWS is a useless idiot who's action has endangering not only Hillary but the whole party.

[sufrommich]

27. I don't give two shits about DWS. She's been used as an

excuse to de legitimize any win by Clinton since the beginning of the primaries by the same crowd that's now jumping into bed with Putin and Trump. Fuck them.

[Grey Lemercier]

126. I CANNOT rec this ^^^^^^ More! Well said

[R0ckyRac00n]

17. This is my take

as well.

"It is about DWS breaking the rules and endangering Hillary"

[PatSeg]

31. That is an excellent point

Actually Wasserman Schultz's "help" is rather insulting to Hillary. I think Debbie's position went to her head and she was playing god.

[WolverineDG]

69. So now we're throwing DWS under the bus in order to "save" HRC?

Damn. It's Lani Guinier all over again.

[awake]

77. No DWS has put herself in the gutter by how she mishandled her job

While I am sure she thought she was helping Hillary she was actuality hurting her.

[nolabels]

141. Thinking about hands, ever notice how difficult it was to wash one without the other

Kinda, just saying

[Silver_Witch]

127. Oh my how the tide turns...

was fine during the primaries. now that light is shined we need to get rid of DWS.

[book_worm]

3. Yes, I think the DNC chair should have been impartial and evenhanded.

I don't think any of it really changed the outcome of the primaries, however. Just like taking away the Super Delegates won't change who won the most delegates from the primaries themselves.

[HereSince1628]

5. There isn't an emoticon for sweeping things under the rug,

So, let's just and listen to

[liberal N proud]

9. Do you want a President Trump?

Obsession over this will get you that very thing.

It has been dealt with, your arch-nemesis isn't speaking. This party needs to focus on saving the country from Trump.

[Scuba]

13. This isn't about Trump. It's about cleaning up the DNC.

[notadmblnd]

15. So we can put you in the yes column?

[Cooley Hurd]

25. Is there a "lalalala-fingers-in-ears" column?

Seeing an awful lot of that this morning.

[anneboleyn]

39. Exactly. Faux and CNN are blathering about this ENDLESSLY. This is the last thing we need.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

46. We are not obligated to cover for people who cheat against us. They are obligated to not cheat.

[renate]

100. yup

Making excuses for DWS seems like saying IOKIYAD.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

73. No and I'm even less interested in politicians who operate with the M.O. that...

...not getting caught in a lie is the same as telling the truth. Influencing elections is the job of the voters. I read that on December 12, 2000.

[Demit]

12. I suppose it's a technical violation, but it doesn't appall me.

Bernie Sanders became a Democrat only so he could run under a major party banner, and get all the bennies of that. That was a pragmatic and calculated choice on his part, and I don't blame him for it. But I can see how longtime Dems might be inclined to favor their own. I'm not shocked to find out that they did.

I haven't read anything about it, but is Bernie going to stay a Democrat now, do you know, or will he be switching his party affiliation back to what it was for the entirety of his political career?

[awake]

18. Any one who thinks it is ok to attack another's religion should never be running this party

[LongtimeAZDem]

38. I'm an atheist, and after his January 21st interview, I said that Sanders could not

be elected. I wasn't attacking his religion; I was stating a political fact.

There's no evidence that Marshall was asking for the question to be asked publicly; he said, "can we get someone to ask his belief?" For the reasons he stated, it was a completely valid question. To say that he "appeared to suggest finding a reporter" is an unsupported supposition on the part of Snopes.

You're seeing an attack because you want to see an attack.

[anneboleyn]

41. Exactly. It was not an "attack" -- it was a point that atheists do not get elected in the US

[Grey Lemercier]

124. Kyrsten Sinema (double points for bi-sex!), Barney Frank (double for gay!) Pete Stark, Jesse Ventura

[awake]

42. Evening questioning a candidates religion has no place in my party

[LongtimeAZDem]

43. That's suicidally naive

As an atheist, I've been a fan of Sanders for a long time, because he was always one of the "he probably is one" people in office. The signs were there, but he kept his head down.

When he gave the interview in January, I was dismayed, because he had thrown it away. The Republicans didn't respond, they filed it away for the the GE. If Sanders had captured the nomination, they would have rolled it out full force, and the "atheist socialist" would have gone down in flames.

To think that such an issue should be ignored by the party is naive nonsense.

[DLevine]

54. I think you are the one being naive.

Bernie would have destroyed Trump. In any case, if the DNC were to start implementing a religous test for its candidates, they might as well be Republicans.

[LongtimeAZDem]

59. Oh, please; look up how many times the term "Jesuit" has been used on DU in the last few days (nt)

[zappaman]

134. Lol!

[DLevine]

45. Should we have a religous test for our Dem candidates?

You know, a lot of people didn't think a black man could be elected president.

[awake]

48. Let alone one with a name like Barack Husain Obama

[LongtimeAZDem]

55. And we proved them wrong, but we had data to support it

We had the polling that showed we could elect an African American. Also, in 2008, Romney's Mormonism was a liability to him, and that helped us. That's just the way it is.

Polling has consistently shown, for years, that two specific types of candidates were opposed by the majority of the electorate: socialists and atheists.

We might, and that is a big might, have been able to mitigate the socialism angle, through policy arguments. But you can't argue religion on policy.

Do I LIKE this? Of course not. But what I like, or how I think things should be, have absolutely no bearing on the realities of presidential politics.

I'll be happy when humans have grown beyond the need for such primitive superstition, but until that day, we'll deal with electoral reality.

[notadmblnd]

19. Democrats wern't complaining about his democraticness over the 25 years he voted with them

Democrats in congress never went over to Bernie and said- since you are not a "real Democrat" we'd appreciate if you not vote with us. No, only when he decided to run as a Democrat was he not Democrat enough.

[Demit]

68. No. A more telling point is that he never joined the party, in all those 25 years.

Why, if he had such democraticness, did he not go to the Democrats in Congress and say, "I want to be a Democrat"?

Because he wanted to be something apart. And only when he wanted the benefits that running for president as a Democrat would give him, such as full access to the ballot in 50 states, did he pragmatically decide to actually become one. I expect that after the election he will go back to being a Democratic Socialist, or an Independent, or whatever his former affiliation is officially called.

[bluedigger]

21. A technical violation is missing a report date.

This is a violation of principle.

[dragonlady]

20. Can't rec this

Sorry.

[MyNameGoesHere]

22. Ok if you do this for me first.

Please list where the DNC violated those rules. Not what you see in emails but actual documented examples where the rules were broken.
I'll make it easy for you. Remember if your going to charge someone it has to be on what they do, not how they think or feel. A good example would be that they gave Clinton information of a Sanders "scandal" and didn't provide that to the Sanders camp. That was an example not a factual incident. So calm down. If you come up with anything then let's talk. If not you're just fighting what has been a lost cause since March of 2016.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

[liberal N proud]

28. ^^^^^This^^^^^

[Scuba]

33. These are actions, not opinions ...

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

[MyNameGoesHere]

90. No they are discussions in an email

Where is the factual example of this put into execution?

[Scuba]

93. Miranda offered to help the press smear Bernie. That's violating the impartiality rule.

[creeksneakers2]

107. Most of the actions at your link

are just DNC people working to defend themselves against Sanders smears.

[Scuba]

109. No, they're not.

[creeksneakers2]

125. I'll go through them

Number 1 was planing about a defense against Sanders smears about not enough of his people on the committee and DNC unfairness about the subject.

Number 2 is private comments that had no influence on the outcome of the elections. The comments were made in response to an attack and threats by Sanders.

Numbers 3 and 5 are defenses against Sanders money laundering smears against the DNC.

Number 4 is just normal fact checking by a reporter before submitting his story. There's no indication the story had anything to do with Sanders.

Number 6 is a defense against a reporter using the Sanders smear that the DNC played favorites.

Number 7 is a defense against a potential fight with Sanders.

Number 8 is about planning a potential collaboration with Hillary, not about an actual collaboration.

Number 9 was a defense against attacks against DWS from Sanders supporters.

Most of these are about defense. I don't agree that Bernie should have been allowed to smear the DNC through his entire campaign and if the DNC defended themselves they were cheating.

[Scuba]

129. Number 1 is planting anti-Bernie stories in the press.

Debbie's resignation confirms the severity of the problems being exposed.

[creeksneakers2]

130. In response to anti-DNC stories Bernie planted in the press

The resignation doesn't prove anything. This is all a distraction against what is supposed to be a great week for the nominee. Its much better to to whatever possible to get it out of the way.

[Scuba]

131. So you don't think cleaning up the DNC is important?

[creeksneakers2]

132. If they had done something wrong it would be.

[Scuba]

136. So why did Debbie resign again?

[creeksneakers2]

138. Asked and answered

[msanthrope]

23. Apparently Bernie is just fine with it....he eschewed faux outrage....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141528839

[DLevine]

29. I missed the part where he's "just fine with it."

He wants DWS replaced.

[msanthrope]

36. I think DWS will step down when she thinks it is time to. nt

[truebluegreen]

88. And her judgment is to be respected! Not.

[awake]

30. Yes Bernie still is backing Hillary, this is not about Hillary

It is about how DWS is the worst thing for our party. By the way Bernie still wants DWS to go;
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141528649

[msanthrope]

37. Eh. The Party seems to like her just fine. She will step down when she's ready. nt

[awake]

40. Me thinks not "the party" seems to have removed her from being seen on stage this week

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2284001

[msanthrope]

47. Marcia gavels in and out.....and I suspect we will be seeing quite a bit of DWS

here though.

[awake]

49. Check again she has been replaced

Debbie Wasserman Schultz not presiding over Democratic convention
http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/22/politics/dnc-wikileaks-emails/index.html?adkey=bn

[msanthrope]

53. Yes.....that why I wrote "Marcia." nt

[awake]

61. Sorry for missing that I miss read that post

I hope for the good of the party (and so the press no longer has a bone to chew on) DWS stays out of sight this week.

[Chathamization]

26. People should probably be paying more attention to the party organization.

The state parties can also be a mess. Our party here broke their bylaws and delayed elections for two years (stayed on for 2 years after their terms were to expire, for no particular reason). They also had some pretty bad impartiality violations.

When they were finally up for reelection, they were challenged by a solid group of progressives that but a lot of work into campaigning. And the old guard that had shredded the bylaws were almost all reelected. People just don't care. I doubt many people here could tell you who they voted for in the last party elections.

We shouldn't be surprised that the national and state parties are such messes when no one seems interested in reforming them.

[PatSeg]

34. What state was that?

[Chathamization]

52. D.C. N/T

[PatSeg]

63. Thank you

I wonder how common that is. I don't think most people pay that close attention to such things.

[Chathamization]

81. Stuff like that seems to get almost no press coverage

I only remember a few articles at the time, and when I just did a google search I couldn't find anything (though you can still see the 6 year gap if you look at the elections on the board of election site). It's kind of like how many news outlets reported that Debbie Wasserman Schultz was appointed by Obama (she was elected by DNC members, and you can find the video of the vote on CSPAN). The state of the party often gets bemoaned, but little attention seems to be paid to what's actually happening.

[PatSeg]

85. Not enough bling

for the media evidently. People aren't interested until there is a perceived scandal. I'm suppose I would overlook such a story myself.

[DirkGently]

32. Bookmarked. n/t

[Faux pas]

35. No Rec

from me.

[geek tragedy]

44. The primary is over. Are you on our side against Trump?

If not, why are you here?

[Scuba]

57. Both.

[sofa king]

50. A message to our trolls

This message is not directed to the overwhelming majority of DUers who think and write for themselves, here.

But if you don't, then I think that some of you are blissfully unaware of what just happened:

* Foreign nationals appear to have committed an act of espionage in order to influence a Presidential election. The President is our Commander-in-Chief, the civilian director of our national defense, so the email theft almost automatically becomes an act of espionage, if the Russians are involved.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

* There is powerful circumstantial evidence which suggests that not only was the Trump campaign aware of the coming email leak, but that they compensated the Russians for it by removing language from the Republican platform calling for aid to the Ukraine.

http://www.voanews.com/content/proposed-gop-stance-on-ukraine-sparks-controversy/3429297.html

Not a lawyer, here, and not a counterintelligence official, either, but if any of you are being paid to write here, and you were directed by your masters to use this disclosure for the Trump campaign or against the Democratic Party, well, let's just say that you need to think very, very carefully about what you are doing.

Imagine a bright red line being drawn down from Vladimir Putin, through Donald Trump's campaign, to Roger Stone's cut-outs, to your PayPal account. If that red line touches you, you are not working for anyone in the middle of that line. You're working for the guy at the top. If you are, turn yourself in, right now.

That is the kindest possible advice I can offer to those of you who are, and believe me when I say that you don't deserve my advice.

[Scuba]

58. Who says it was Russians? Could have been the Trump campaign that hacked the DNC.

Or countless others.

[sofa king]

92. The Clinton Campaign manager said it was the Russians.

Clinton’s campaign manager, Robby Mook, said on Sunday that “experts are telling us that Russian state actors broke into the DNC, stole these emails, [and are] releasing these emails for the purpose of helping Donald Trump”.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/24/clinton-campaign-blames-russia-wikileaks-sanders-dnc-emails

If the Trump campaign paid for this by removing the Ukraine language in the GOP platform, it's the darkest possible form of espionage, in which a candidate is acting as a foreign agent.

[Scuba]

94. Of course he did. Did you think he was going to say it was Wall Street?

[sofa king]

96. If he did, and he were lying...

... That could be considered a matter damaging to the national security. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the Clinton campaign understands that quite well, while the Trump campaign almost certainly does not.

[Scuba]

97. I've seen no evidence that the DNC was hacked by Russians, and only Russians. I've seen lots ...

... of attempts to discount the content of the emails by suggesting that it was Russians.

That shit doesn't flip my flapjacks.

[sofa king]

98. Fortunately,

I am pretty sure your flapjacks ain't in it. Someone fucked up real bad, and this is now a matter so much larger than any one of us that it is going to affect the course of our nation for generations to come. I recommend that you think very carefully about that, and that's about as much as I need to say about this, I think.

We're all going to see for ourselves how this shakes out.

[NastyRiffraff]

104. NOBODY has said it was Wall Street

Or did you hear something nobody else did? OTHER than from Twitter, Facebook, RW sites, etc. please.

[Scuba]

105. And no one has proven it was Russia!

[NastyRiffraff]

108. And when, exactly, did I say it was Russia?

But strawmen are always popular!

[hrmjustin]

51. It is time to move on.

[MohRokTah]

56. I thought the primaries were over, so why keep fighting them?

[boston bean]

62. Does mean that they can't think one candidate is being an ass? nt

[Scuba]

64. It's not about opinions, it's about actions.

[boston bean]

66. and what actions are you meaning?

[Scuba]

67. This, for starters ...

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.

[boston bean]

70. He thought there were problems with the DNC committee appointments. He can't say that? He can't

believe that.

Hell, Bernie and his cohorts were screaming all over the media about her appointments.

[Scuba]

71. He's supposed to be impartial, not feeding the press lines that hurt one candidate.

[boston bean]

74. He has no need to be impartial about DNC committee appointments.

[Scuba]

76. Take off the blinders.

[boston bean]

78. they are

[creeksneakers2]

115. That's after the nominee was evident

and is just another example of the DNC defending themselves from Sanders smears and then being accused of playing favorites.

[Scuba]

116. That was before the convention began, before all primaries were conducted.

[creeksneakers2]

120. The DNC is not required to engage

in Sanders followers fantasies.

[Scuba]

121. No, but the rules require DNC members to be impartial ...

... in the interest of fairness and democracy.

[lillypaddle]

65. Like a dog worrying a bone

sure gets tiresome.

[hobbit709]

72. Should be enough beef for a grand BBQ with all the cows being had.

[Loki Liesmith]

75. Recced!

[Scuba]

80. Rationale?

[Motley13]

83. Name an election that the politics haven't been dirty

this is mild compared to the past, at least the dems, so far.

Lincoln/Douglas
Kennedy/Nixon
Jackson/Adams

ck some here

http://www.neatorama.com/2008/01/28/5-nastiest-us-presidential-elections-in-history/


This is just the nomination, so considering we are dealing with the maggot, its bound to be up there in nastiness, that is all the maggot knows.

[malaise]

84. Howard Dean said almost the same thing n/t

[Hell Hath No Fury]

86. I appreciate the effort, Scuba.

I truly do. Ethics are for irrelevant and old-fashioned. For some.

[ismnotwasm]

87. Of What violations do you speak?

A handful of media-promoted, usually posted out of context, emails? By Wikileaks? The same wikileaks that has entire pages devoted Hillary Clinton?

[Scuba]

89. The DNC isn't denying that the emails are authentic.

[ismnotwasm]

106. Of what violations do you speak?

[Scuba]

110. The impartiality rule....

Some violations shown at ...

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

[ismnotwasm]

139. Of what violation do you speak?

[Scuba]

140. Go to the link

[LWolf]

91. Rules schmules.

What, are you one of those fools who think integrity matters?





For the cognitively impaired:

[Will Morningstar]

95. Well, I am, for what it's worth.

My cousin served on the DNC for over two decades. The organizing committee must be like Caesar's wife--not only pure, but seen to be. (Yes, Melania. I wrote this. Honest.)

At the same time, the Trump/Putin "Hack-sis" must not be rewarded. Let DWS pass the gavel, yet keep her post till end of term?

[NYC Liberal]

99. Gee, the DNC didn't enthusiastically embrace an independent who has trashed the Democratic Party

and its members for years, and called for the sitting Democratic president to be denied re-nomination. I'm SHOCKED!

You want DWS to quit? Ok, fine. But as long as we're talking about rules, the DNC should implement a rule that requires any candidate seeking the Democratic nomination for President to have been a registered Democrat for at least 6 years before declaring their candidacy. We should also end open primaries.

[TCJ70]

101. They aren't supposed to embrace anyone...

...that's the point of impartiality.

[NYC Liberal]

103. And Sanders wasn't supposed to access Clinton's voter database.

[TCJ70]

112. And he was held accountable for that...

...despite informing the DNC that it happened and firing the perpetrator. If only we expected similar standards from the party leaders...

[NastyRiffraff]

114. BINGO! n/t

[TCJ70]

122. Also, we never found out what kind of access the Clinton campaign had to Sanders stuff...

...did we? Curiouser and curiouser in light of recent events...

[Cary]

111. We have a critical election to win

It would be nice if more people understood that and acted accordingly. You will have the rest of your life to disrespect DWS, after Drumpf is defeated. You don't have to be so "concerned" at this very moment.

[Scuba]

113. I can do more than one thing at a time. I'll bet you can too.

[Cary]

117. You and and I both know what you're doing

[Scuba]

119. Trying to clean up the DNC.

If you think you know differently, your mind-reading capabilities are fatally flawed.

[Cary]

123. Right. And I have a bridge in New Jersey to sell you

[aikoaiko]

118. All the more reason for HRC to publicly demand DWS resignation and get it. so that we can move on.

That is if you are really concerned about winning the election.

[Rex]

128. Funny the same people telling you to move on are the very ones that rec'd

a divisive thread, but that was about Bernie so that was okay to do. The double standards by some here are sad to watch.

[still_one]

133. You have a point, however, there are also some people who post at a supposed progressive Hillary

hating site, where every vulgar name is hurled at Hillary, and others who support her, and I would think if those at that other site post here, that would represent the same hypocrisy you are talking about

[Rex]

135. Well I said that anyone at this point NOT voting for HRC never planned to vote Dem in the first

place. We all know there are only two options, vote or not vote it is not rocket science. If those other people (funny how a few groups of people ran off to build nasty websites away from DU, acting all pious now but anyway) want to pretend to call others hypocrites and play like they are saints. I say whatever, doesn't fool me at all.

And it is the same folks that made sure META went away, funny that. Same crews, same groups.

[still_one]

137. I really wasn't referring to anyone specifically, and I agree with your sentiments. As for the OP,

it is a moot point since DWS will resign after the Convention. Which for several reasons was a good thing, among the most primary reason, she was not a good Chairperson. There are other reasons also