Think the leaks are a "nothingburger"? Former DNC Chair Ed Rendell: "Serious" "Truly violates"

[Scuba]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hacked-emails-cast-doubt-on-hopes-for-party-unity-at-democratic-convention/2016/07/24/a446c260-51a9-11e6-b7de-dfe509430c39_story.html

“Myself and other Democrats who were Clinton supporters, we have been saying this was serious. It truly violates what the DNC’s proper role should be,” said Edward G. Rendell, a former DNC chairman and former Pennsylvania governor.

“The DNC did something incredibly inappropriate here” and needed to acknowledge that, Rendell said.

Please make room under the bus for Ed.

[Loki Liesmith]

1. Ed loves his own voice. Always has.

It's just his way. No harm no foul.

[Marr]

2. Odd, I heard on DU we were to blame the Ruskies.

Oh, and the left, of course. But that goes without saying.

[MohRokTah]

3. Ed Rendell always wants to be the center of attention.

IT is a nothingburger, just like Rendell.

[unblock]

4. "inappropriate" is the scale of things here, hence, the nothingburger.

some people (the media, certainly) are acting as if crimes were committed, or that this in any way compares to the horror that was the bigoted mess in cleveland.

fine, it was "inappropriate".

compared to everything else going on, yes, it's a nothingburger.

[Scuba]

5. One can make a case that fraud was committed against DNC donors who were told ...

... the DNC would act impartially.

[unblock]

12. that requires quite a lot that's not close to being proven at this point.

- exactly what did they do (not just talk about doing, but actually do) that was damaging to impartiality
- exactly how damaging were those actions to impartiality
- were those actions countered by any actions that were not impartial in the other direction
- did it have any material effect on the outcome of the process
- and i'm not a lawyer, but there's probably more

generally speaking, non-profits don't get charged with fraud for this sort of thing. at worst, you see exactly what's happening, the head of the non-profit steps down.

it's not fraud every time a non-profit skirts its internal rules.

[Scuba]

14. You're right about one thing. You're not a lawyer.

[unblock]

17. lol. you can't even verify that.

i could be a cagy lawyer maintaining a lay online image to reduce the risk of disbarment.
or i could just be a liar

but go ahead, ignore the rest of the post and stick with insults.

[Exilednight]

44. Actually, it is fraud when they skirt their internal rules.

Let me give you an example: If I say I am raising money to accomplish x,y and z, but instead used it to fund a,b and c, that is fraud.

If I give a billion dollar donation to npr and explicitly state that they use it for funding Fresh Air, but instead use it to fund All Things Considered, and they agree - that is not only fraud it's a felony.

Non-profit are run by different laws than a for-profit corporation.

[unblock]

45. i'm not arguing that fraud doesn't exist in the law for non-profits.

i'm arguing materiality and facts not in evidence.

non-profits violate internal rules *all the time* in ways big and small.

few such violations amount to actionable fraud.

[Exilednight]

47. There's enough evidence to warrant a full scale investigation

Where people could start to be interviewed and depositions taken. Many of the emails also show DWS using DNC resources for her own primary election, which is against DNC rules, also against FEC law.

Did Debbie set the debate schedule to favor Hillary?

Did anyone from the DNC attempt to leak the story to the media? (Whether it was actually printed is irrelevant)

Were Hillary and Bernie camps given equal access to DNC resources?

Were funds spent to promote candidates? If so, how much was spent on each candidate?

Etc ... etc ... etc...

This will never happen on such a large scale, but if a donor had resources and time it would quite messy and very very expensive.

[unblock]

54. i think this is a really difficult case for a donor. not, perhaps, for bernie, if he wanted

a *candidate* who got the short end of the impartiality stick might have a case if the rules under which the candidate decided to invest time and money weren't properly followed. if the dnc took actions that unfairly affected bernie, he would have an easier time proving material damage. if the suspicions turn out to be true, bernie could argue that he was defrauded, though so far it seems he isn't inclined to pursue such a case (and it would be rare for a politician to do so).

a *donor*, on the other hand, would be hard-pressed to show material damage. contributions to the dnc go to a large variety of purposes; the primary process is just one of them. moreover, it's not clear how the donor is damaged or defrauded if there were minor examples of bias. sure, if the entire primary process were a complete sham, then yes, sure, that would be fraud. but there's quite a long distance between, to take your example, setting the debate schedule to hillary's advantage and a complete sham.

[mopinko]

6. you dont have to love everyone on your team to fight like hell

to win the contest.
sort the rest out after we win.

[Egnever]

7. Ed Randell... Nuff said

[Scuba]

9. Yeah, what would the former DNC Chair know about it anyway?

[Egnever]

11. He would. Know enough to recognize a story that would get him air time

Past that ed doesn't know jack shit.

He has been clowning for too many years to take him seriously anymore.

[Scuba]

13. Under the bus. Got it.

[LanternWaste]

16. I pretend anyone who disagrees with my premise is simply throwing people under the bus as well.

I pretend anyone who disagrees with my premise is simply throwing people under the bus as well. It certainly allows the bias in our narrative to appear more oppressed.

Got it part II.

[Egnever]

18. Long long ago

The fact you give that blowhard credence because he agrees with you says a lot

[Egnever]

19. Here's your clown telling you to sit down and shut up

I can do this all day with this jack ass. You want to hold him up as some paragon of virtue be my guest but he is still a clown.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511923424

[Skittles]

21. your Hillary Hatred Hysteria is going into overdrive

give it a rest

[Scuba]

25. Are you saying Hillary orchestrated the DNC's blunders? I sure didn't.

[Skittles]

26. I'm saying it's your sole motivation for carrying on and on

ENOUGH already

FOCUS ON TRUMP

on edit, never fucking mind, done with you too, for good - I DETEST sore losers

[Scuba]

27. I'm motivated by lots of things. In this case, it's cleaning up the DNC.

But thanks for trying to impugn my motives instead of addressing the real problem.

[Scuba]

10. "Berniestans"?

[Skittles]

20. who?

[TwilightZone]

22. Ed Rendell says whatever will get him the most attention.

This is nothing new. I wouldn't put too much stock in what he says.

[Cordy]

23. Strange Stuff here

You were once a Hillary fan, but since the DNC did the dirty, you blame Hillary because she benefited and do something strange or another. Got it!!

[Scuba]

24. Um, no on point one and no on point two. However, "something strange" does often apply to me.

[joshcryer]

28. Was this the last thing you hinged on?

Because it's just not working out that way.

[Scuba]

29. I have no idea what "hinged on" means.

[joshcryer]

30. Seems to be the final gasp before the nominee is officiated.

Seems like, indeed, this was the intent of the email leak.

But it appears to have failed miserably.

Note the context: your post is from two days ago, since then Ed said that the DNCs efforts were "ineffectual." As I argued before, the emails that were worrisome came out after Clinton had already shored it up.

[Scuba]

31. This isn't about Bernie or Hillary. It's about cleaning up the DNC.

[joshcryer]

32. Getting rid of caucuses and superdelegates would be a start.

Worrying about some people gossiping in emails after a candidate got a mathematically superior lead, not so much.

Especially when the originators of the hack were state actors from a foreign country that your Presidential opponent supports.

[Scuba]

33. Dismissing the problems as "gossip" isn't the answer.

[joshcryer]

34. That's an accurate characterization.

Much to the disappointment of the Russian hackers.

[Scuba]

35. Sorry, but it's much, much worse than gossip.

[joshcryer]

36. Believe what you will.

I just pity it at this point. Pure pity.

[Scuba]

37. Well, here's what Snopes has to say ...

http://www.snopes.com/2016/07/25/what-we-know-so-far-about-wikileaks-dncleaks/

Unquestionably, the e-mails demonstrated that the DNC operated as an arm of the Hillary Clinton campaign, planting information in the media to flatter Clinton and damage opponent Bernie Sanders. The revelations were particularly damaging because the DNC was obligated to behave neutrally, and had repeatedly denied the demonstrated favor toward Clinton existed.

...

While it’s impossible to know whether systemic pro-Hillary Clinton bias at the DNC was decisive in the 2016 Democratic primary race, we now know beyond any doubt that such a bias not only existed, but was endemic and widespread. DNC officials worked to plant pro-Clinton stories, floated the idea of using Sanders’ secular Judaism against him in the South, and routinely ran PR spin for Clinton, even as the DNC claimed over and over it was neutral in the primary.

[joshcryer]

38. Kim LaCapria is not credible.

A handful of emails out of nearly 20k emails, and all after May.

Absolutely a joke of epic proportions.

She spends too much of her time attempting to debunk the clear Russia connection. Using none other than Wikileak's twitter account as "proof."

Oh no, the Russians did it: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/all-signs-point-to-russia-being-behind-the-dnc-hack

Anyone who dared wait a day to open their mouth and take a step back and analyze could've figured that one out.

'ol Kimmy will be doing an edit on her Snopes article and will likely wind up having to do many more edits as the DNC Hack turns out to be a Russian psyops as it clearly is.

[Scuba]

39. Fucking with our elections may be a joke to you, but not to me.

The source of the emails is not at issue here; the content is.

[joshcryer]

40. And yet you can cite nothing more than gossip.

Literally gossip in a handful of emails.

Serious business. Way more serious than literal Russian espionage supporting a candidate who is our nominated opponent who ... supports them.

A much much bigger deal than some snark some idiot writes in an email that actually never went anywhere.

[Scuba]

41. I did cite lots more than gossip, but your ears are closed.

[joshcryer]

51. No you didn't.

And you know you didn't. And you know I'm telling the truth that you didn't. And you know that nothing you have provided means shit on the scheme of things.

Pretend all you want. You and I both know the actual truth.

[unc70]

42. Another year's worth of DNC emails to come

Brazile and others have said that the hackers were inside the DNC for over a year and that they expect more DNC emails to be released soon. I assume Brazile has seen more emails than have been released so far and that they are damaging.

Rendell is likely to know many details of what is going on and the cleanup that is required.

I think the odds are that we will see a lot more emails before November, likely including missing ones from SOS Clinton and ones from the Clinton Foundation.

[Scuba]

43. There's no joy in "I told you so."

[unc70]

49. Also hacking not limited to reading emails

From the way the hacks of the DNC systems are described, the problems go far beyond just reading or making copies if emails. It sounds like they had access and control of the internal network. Most everything could have been exposed.

I suppose we won't know if they got into Clinton's servers until they start releasing more emails.

[Squinch]

46. And once again, which particular emails are making you upset?

Just because Rendell is being a tool doesn't mean you have to.

[joeybee12]

48. Fixation is a terrible thing

So is the mindset that everyone needs to think like you or you're unhappy

[dembotoz]

50. in my local county party i am the one who ran the bernie caucus

this bernie bunch were ALL new to our local party.

don't give me bullshit blather about them not being real dems....the could and and should be if made to feel welcome...


what does not help is when the public face of our party pulls crap like the emails....

[Baitball Blogger]

52. Welcome to Florida politics.

DWS didn't do anything ethically that isn't business as usual around this state. If you don't like it nationally, please do more than just extend an apology. They go by the premise that it's easier to apologize than to ask for permission.

[rjsquirrel]

53. Vegan nothing patties

I bet if I hacked any company's email and selectively released thousands of messages takenmoutmof context you'd find embarrassing things. People say stupid things on email.

It's a private political party, not an institution of government.

Nothing with a side of bullshit.