Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Scuba

(53,475 posts)
Mon Jul 25, 2016, 12:57 PM Jul 2016

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

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.
54 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Think the leaks are a "nothingburger"? Former DNC Chair Ed Rendell: "Serious" "Truly violates" (Original Post) Scuba Jul 2016 OP
Ed loves his own voice. Always has. Loki Liesmith Jul 2016 #1
Odd, I heard on DU we were to blame the Ruskies. Marr Jul 2016 #2
Ed Rendell always wants to be the center of attention. MohRokTah Jul 2016 #3
"inappropriate" is the scale of things here, hence, the nothingburger. unblock Jul 2016 #4
One can make a case that fraud was committed against DNC donors who were told ... Scuba Jul 2016 #5
that requires quite a lot that's not close to being proven at this point. unblock Jul 2016 #12
You're right about one thing. You're not a lawyer. Scuba Jul 2016 #14
lol. you can't even verify that. unblock Jul 2016 #17
Actually, it is fraud when they skirt their internal rules. Exilednight Jul 2016 #44
i'm not arguing that fraud doesn't exist in the law for non-profits. unblock Jul 2016 #45
There's enough evidence to warrant a full scale investigation Exilednight Jul 2016 #47
i think this is a really difficult case for a donor. not, perhaps, for bernie, if he wanted unblock Jul 2016 #54
you dont have to love everyone on your team to fight like hell mopinko Jul 2016 #6
Ed Randell... Nuff said Egnever Jul 2016 #7
Yeah, what would the former DNC Chair know about it anyway? Scuba Jul 2016 #9
He would. Know enough to recognize a story that would get him air time Egnever Jul 2016 #11
Under the bus. Got it. Scuba Jul 2016 #13
I pretend anyone who disagrees with my premise is simply throwing people under the bus as well. LanternWaste Jul 2016 #16
Long long ago Egnever Jul 2016 #18
Here's your clown telling you to sit down and shut up Egnever Jul 2016 #19
your Hillary Hatred Hysteria is going into overdrive Skittles Jul 2016 #21
Are you saying Hillary orchestrated the DNC's blunders? I sure didn't. Scuba Jul 2016 #25
I'm saying it's your sole motivation for carrying on and on Skittles Jul 2016 #26
I'm motivated by lots of things. In this case, it's cleaning up the DNC. Scuba Jul 2016 #27
Post removed Post removed Jul 2016 #8
"Berniestans"? Scuba Jul 2016 #10
Post removed Post removed Jul 2016 #15
who? Skittles Jul 2016 #20
Ed Rendell says whatever will get him the most attention. TwilightZone Jul 2016 #22
Strange Stuff here Cordy Jul 2016 #23
Um, no on point one and no on point two. However, "something strange" does often apply to me. Scuba Jul 2016 #24
Was this the last thing you hinged on? joshcryer Jul 2016 #28
I have no idea what "hinged on" means. Scuba Jul 2016 #29
Seems to be the final gasp before the nominee is officiated. joshcryer Jul 2016 #30
This isn't about Bernie or Hillary. It's about cleaning up the DNC. Scuba Jul 2016 #31
Getting rid of caucuses and superdelegates would be a start. joshcryer Jul 2016 #32
Dismissing the problems as "gossip" isn't the answer. Scuba Jul 2016 #33
That's an accurate characterization. joshcryer Jul 2016 #34
Sorry, but it's much, much worse than gossip. Scuba Jul 2016 #35
Believe what you will. joshcryer Jul 2016 #36
Well, here's what Snopes has to say ... Scuba Jul 2016 #37
Kim LaCapria is not credible. joshcryer Jul 2016 #38
Fucking with our elections may be a joke to you, but not to me. Scuba Jul 2016 #39
And yet you can cite nothing more than gossip. joshcryer Jul 2016 #40
I did cite lots more than gossip, but your ears are closed. Scuba Jul 2016 #41
No you didn't. joshcryer Jul 2016 #51
Another year's worth of DNC emails to come unc70 Jul 2016 #42
There's no joy in "I told you so." Scuba Jul 2016 #43
Also hacking not limited to reading emails unc70 Jul 2016 #49
And once again, which particular emails are making you upset? Squinch Jul 2016 #46
Fixation is a terrible thing joeybee12 Jul 2016 #48
in my local county party i am the one who ran the bernie caucus dembotoz Jul 2016 #50
Welcome to Florida politics. Baitball Blogger Jul 2016 #52
Vegan nothing patties rjsquirrel Jul 2016 #53
 

Marr

(20,317 posts)
2. Odd, I heard on DU we were to blame the Ruskies.
Mon Jul 25, 2016, 12:59 PM
Jul 2016

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

unblock

(52,075 posts)
4. "inappropriate" is the scale of things here, hence, the nothingburger.
Mon Jul 25, 2016, 01:01 PM
Jul 2016

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

(53,475 posts)
5. One can make a case that fraud was committed against DNC donors who were told ...
Mon Jul 25, 2016, 01:03 PM
Jul 2016

... the DNC would act impartially.

unblock

(52,075 posts)
12. that requires quite a lot that's not close to being proven at this point.
Mon Jul 25, 2016, 01:08 PM
Jul 2016

- 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.

unblock

(52,075 posts)
17. lol. you can't even verify that.
Mon Jul 25, 2016, 01:21 PM
Jul 2016

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

(9,359 posts)
44. Actually, it is fraud when they skirt their internal rules.
Tue Jul 26, 2016, 07:34 AM
Jul 2016

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

(52,075 posts)
45. i'm not arguing that fraud doesn't exist in the law for non-profits.
Tue Jul 26, 2016, 07:37 AM
Jul 2016

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

(9,359 posts)
47. There's enough evidence to warrant a full scale investigation
Tue Jul 26, 2016, 07:48 AM
Jul 2016

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

(52,075 posts)
54. i think this is a really difficult case for a donor. not, perhaps, for bernie, if he wanted
Tue Jul 26, 2016, 03:23 PM
Jul 2016

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

(69,938 posts)
6. you dont have to love everyone on your team to fight like hell
Mon Jul 25, 2016, 01:03 PM
Jul 2016

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

 

Egnever

(21,506 posts)
11. He would. Know enough to recognize a story that would get him air time
Mon Jul 25, 2016, 01:08 PM
Jul 2016

Past that ed doesn't know jack shit.

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

 

LanternWaste

(37,748 posts)
16. I pretend anyone who disagrees with my premise is simply throwing people under the bus as well.
Mon Jul 25, 2016, 01:18 PM
Jul 2016

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

(21,506 posts)
18. Long long ago
Mon Jul 25, 2016, 03:35 PM
Jul 2016

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

 

Egnever

(21,506 posts)
19. Here's your clown telling you to sit down and shut up
Mon Jul 25, 2016, 03:40 PM
Jul 2016

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

(153,076 posts)
26. I'm saying it's your sole motivation for carrying on and on
Tue Jul 26, 2016, 05:40 AM
Jul 2016

ENOUGH already

FOCUS ON TRUMP

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

 

Scuba

(53,475 posts)
27. I'm motivated by lots of things. In this case, it's cleaning up the DNC.
Tue Jul 26, 2016, 05:45 AM
Jul 2016

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

Response to Scuba (Original post)

Response to Scuba (Reply #10)

TwilightZone

(25,401 posts)
22. Ed Rendell says whatever will get him the most attention.
Mon Jul 25, 2016, 11:15 PM
Jul 2016

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

Cordy

(82 posts)
23. Strange Stuff here
Mon Jul 25, 2016, 11:23 PM
Jul 2016

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

(53,475 posts)
24. Um, no on point one and no on point two. However, "something strange" does often apply to me.
Tue Jul 26, 2016, 05:33 AM
Jul 2016

joshcryer

(62,265 posts)
30. Seems to be the final gasp before the nominee is officiated.
Tue Jul 26, 2016, 05:51 AM
Jul 2016

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.

joshcryer

(62,265 posts)
32. Getting rid of caucuses and superdelegates would be a start.
Tue Jul 26, 2016, 06:38 AM
Jul 2016

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

(53,475 posts)
37. Well, here's what Snopes has to say ...
Tue Jul 26, 2016, 06:59 AM
Jul 2016
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

(62,265 posts)
38. Kim LaCapria is not credible.
Tue Jul 26, 2016, 07:07 AM
Jul 2016

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

(53,475 posts)
39. Fucking with our elections may be a joke to you, but not to me.
Tue Jul 26, 2016, 07:12 AM
Jul 2016

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

joshcryer

(62,265 posts)
40. And yet you can cite nothing more than gossip.
Tue Jul 26, 2016, 07:20 AM
Jul 2016

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.

joshcryer

(62,265 posts)
51. No you didn't.
Tue Jul 26, 2016, 08:17 AM
Jul 2016

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

(6,106 posts)
42. Another year's worth of DNC emails to come
Tue Jul 26, 2016, 07:27 AM
Jul 2016

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.

unc70

(6,106 posts)
49. Also hacking not limited to reading emails
Tue Jul 26, 2016, 07:53 AM
Jul 2016

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

(50,881 posts)
46. And once again, which particular emails are making you upset?
Tue Jul 26, 2016, 07:41 AM
Jul 2016

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

 

joeybee12

(56,177 posts)
48. Fixation is a terrible thing
Tue Jul 26, 2016, 07:52 AM
Jul 2016

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

dembotoz

(16,779 posts)
50. in my local county party i am the one who ran the bernie caucus
Tue Jul 26, 2016, 08:02 AM
Jul 2016

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

(46,637 posts)
52. Welcome to Florida politics.
Tue Jul 26, 2016, 08:23 AM
Jul 2016

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

(4,762 posts)
53. Vegan nothing patties
Tue Jul 26, 2016, 08:25 AM
Jul 2016

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.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Think the leaks are a "no...