Did Bernie send out a fundraising letter making false claims of a "reported" attack against him?

[ucrdem]

Or is there actually evidence of such an attack?

[JonLeibowitz]

1. Sure looks like Politico thinks there is evidence and stands by their story.

See: https://twitter.com/blakehounshell/status/688554894710718464

To answer your question: No.

Unrec.

[ucrdem]

3. So there's evidence of such an attack?

Can you post it?

[JonLeibowitz]

4. I just did. Politico was reporting on a planned attack. Are you confused by this?

[ucrdem]

5. You posted a link to a tweet with no evidence of anything.

[JonLeibowitz]

7. Well, in case you missed the story...

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/clinton-surrogate-to-demand-sanders-release-medical-records-217880

And Politico stands by the story, as the tweet shows. Is your question whether it is ethical to fundraise off of reporting?

[ucrdem]

11. The only quoted sources in the story are Sanders campaign officials Michael Briggs and Tad Devine.

And other than their rather dubious claims there's no evidence of anything.

[JonLeibowitz]

18. There were unnamed sources. John Podesta also commented. #HillaryFail.

[ucrdem]

27. But no evidence. And the named sources were Michael Briggs and Tad Devine.

Fancy that.

[cali]

107. Then why did Podesta publicly tell Brock to stand down?

[ucrdem]

108. Because Politico published a rumor. nt

[cali]

111. That makes no sense. Why didn't he just deny it? The campaign works directly with

Brock

[ucrdem]

118. Brock did deny it and says this:

[merrily]

156. Who believes Brock? First he was an anti-Hillary gun for hire, now he's a pro-Hillary gun for hire.

Spare us.

[merrily]

155. John Podesta is not evidence when it comes to Hillary's campaign and surrogates? ok. nt

[George II]

147. That's only "evidence" that politico thought something might happen. It didn't happen. So...

....politico was wrong but is too stubborn to admit.

The "demand" never happened and there is no evidence that it was even planned. It's as simple as that.

[2pooped2pop]

75. Too bad you missed it

It was great fun. What appears to have happened is that the Hillary side decided to question Bernie's age and health. Then it became a much bigger deal that Clinton has had two brain aneurisms, has a family history of stroke and is on a lifelong treatment of a blood thinning medication that can cause brain bleed and death. So it would seem that feeling like they may have opened the wrong can of worms they acted like they knew nothing about it and supposedly rebuked the "responsible" party stating something like after all this is a race for the presidency not about medical records.

Extremely funny. However for myself and I'm sure many others, the questions about Hillary's fitness to run let alone win the presidency is now in deep question.

As for Bernie he said only that there was a supposed question on his health and encouraged people to ask Hillary to keep to the issues.

1) I'm sure that many are going to claim that Hillary knew nothing of the plan to raise question to Bernie's age. I say bullshit on that.
2) Bernie did not attack her own health as he should have. The planned attack against Bernie was real or someone wouldn't have needed to be told to back off.
3) her health issues may be a game changer.

[ucrdem]

77. The only named sources of Bernie's claim of an attack are his own campaign operatives

Michael Briggs and Tad Devine. There is no other evidence that Brock was planning an attack on his age. And that's the only point I'm making.

[2pooped2pop]

79. Then why did they call Brock off publically? You don't do that when nothing happened.

Nice try though. And it still leaves Hillary's health issues out there. She sounds very high risk to me.

[ucrdem]

90. The rumor happened. nt

[2pooped2pop]

92. so Brock got in trouble

For starting the rumor? I don't see that as much different.

[ucrdem]

94. Once it got out it would need a swift response, yes,

whether or not it was true. And seriously, there's not a chance in hell that Brock or anyone in the Clinton campaign would consider such an idiotic attack.

[2pooped2pop]

96. Lol

You keep telling yourself that but I don't think anyone will believe that.

[Kalidurga]

98. Hillary's attack on Bernie over single payer says otherwise.

[ucrdem]

100. Are you talking about Chelsea's remarks?

If so she wasn't attacking Bernie on single payer, but on his readiness to abolish ACA and other hard-fought programs.

[Kalidurga]

104. No I am talking about Hillary's and her double down.

And I could care f'all for ACA if it is replaced by single payer or medicare for all.

[JonLeibowitz]

80. +100. I'd only add that your description of the events were hilariously put and I was ROFL reading!

[2pooped2pop]

97. Ty

[bvf]

99. Excellent summary of a huge fumble. n/t

[Tanuki]

112. You are misinformed. Clinton has not had "two brain aneurisms[sic]", or even one brain aneurysm.

She did have a blood clot, not IN the brain, but in the vein BETWEEN the brain and the skull, and this was successfully resolved by treatment with a blood thinner. The clot resulted when she fell and struck her head while dehydrated from a stomach virus. I hope this clears things up for you. I know many were confused by Karl Rove's unfounded allegations of "brain damage." I am always sorry to see Democrats become unwitting carriers of right wing propaganda and smears.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/31/politics/hillary-clinton-hospitalized/index.html

[ucrdem]

122. Good catch.

Thanks!

[2pooped2pop]

130. I read it off of her letter

From her doctor. Of course I didn't contact her doctor to see if that was the correct letter. I followed a link here on du posted by one of her supporters trying to prove that she released a medical report. If I find it again I will post it.

[Tanuki]

131. You did NOT "read it off her letter from her doctor." You made it up

or copied it from someone else who made it up. Stop lying about this. She did NOT have a brain aneurysm!

[2pooped2pop]

132. please don't call me a liar

Like I said I followed a link from a Hillary supporter right here on du, trying to prove that Hillary released her records. I assumed the site was ok since one of your own Hillary supporters posted it.

If I can find it, I will post it. Prior to reading it I called her condition blood clots, which by the way also can lead to stroke. And clots are treated with coumadin. Blood thinner.

But keep your name calling to yourself please.

[Tanuki]

133. Don't post false information aimed at slandering someone, and nobody will call you a liar. n/t

[2pooped2pop]

138. here's one

I don't know if this is the same one I read it from but this link was posted also by a Hillary supporter. So, an apology will be expected. You called me a liar.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/hillary-clinton-medical-records

[Tanuki]

139. What is it that you imagine I would apologize for? You made a bogus claim

in multiple threads, including this one, that HRC had suffered two brain aneurysms. After I corrected your error, you doubled down and claimed that you read it in a letter from her doctor. As I said above, you did not read anything about one, much less two aneurysms in any such letter. You either made it up or copied it from someone else who did. Once you had been provided with accurate information both by me and Liberal Arkie, the honest thing to have done would have been to delete the false information from your posts, but you have not done that. There is nothing about aneurysms in the link you just posted, so I am not sure what your point was in acting like you are owed some sort of apology.

[2pooped2pop]

140. you accused me of being a liar

a trait I have noticed among several Hillary supporters. Yes I got it wrong on aneurysms but I am sure I saw that somewhere or would not have changed it from blood clot.

I guess I will be ok that you are going to be one of those Hillary supporters that squawk liar liar, show me show me, but refuse to look anything up to see the truth. ok then. I thought so anyway.

I gave you the link to the letter. aneurysms and clots really have similar results making her, in my opinion, a high risk.

I had used the term blood clot prior to one of the Hillary supporters linking to the letter.

blood clot, aneurysm, still stroke stroke. HIGH RISK!!

[Tanuki]

141. You are proving my point. I actually did look up the information, which is how I was confident

in challenging your false assertion that she had experienced "two brain aneurysms." I had already looked up the letter and was well aware of what it did and did not say. Perhaps you were confused by some of the big words the doctor used in her letter. If so, bless your little heart. Perhaps this will teach you to look things up so you don't embarrass yourself. Then you won't be reduced to dismissing factual information as "squawk." It's lamentable that you don't seem to have a very high regard for truthfulness and accuracy in your posts. Speaking of which, now that your odd gambit of asking for an apology for being correct has failed, are you going to delete the false information you posted in multiple threads about Clinton's medical history? I can only imagine the outcry that would ensue if a Clinton supporter were to pull a similar stunt when Sanders" medical history is released.

[2pooped2pop]

142. No clots often result in anuersym so I'm fine with leaving my posts

I believe your accusation of list was about whether I saw the letter. Now you say you saw the letter. So again, an apology is owed but I won't be expecting it. I guess I could delete my posts when I get that apology.
Good day to you.

And she is still at high risk with her history, her meds, and her genetics.

[Tanuki]

143. Nice try. You aren't doing your credibility any favors with this

Anyone can look at this subthread and reach their own conclusion. Again, I can only imagine the reaction around here if someone makes up crap about Sanders' medical history, claims it was in his doctor's letter after getting called out on it, and then tries to weasel out of it by throwing shade on the person who set the record straight and feigning wounded umbrage.

[2pooped2pop]

148. My credibility with you?

Lol. Look we both know you were out of line. You are not big enough to admit it so we will just say goodbye. I know you can't quit without getting in the last word, so go ahead. Enjoy it. And once again, this conversation is over.

[Tanuki]

151. The truth will always have the last word. As to the conversation being over,

maybe this will teach you not to start something you can't finish.

[bettyellen]

152. fine with leaving up inaccurate bulshit after being proven wrong- that's awesome.

now we know.

[2pooped2pop]

154. I'm putting more up

Blood clots and the genetics of stroke and heart disease coupled with long term or life long coumadin treatment is a very very serious concern that more should be aware of.

[bettyellen]

158. LOL, thanks for your concern. You;re going to hate the clamor for Sanders medical records....

and probably not be self aware enough to realize you helped bring it on.
Any conversation about the candidates "vitality" will leave you pretty upset is my guess. Have at it if you must.

[2pooped2pop]

159. Where have you been

Hillary's team opened that can of worms already and that's how all of her medical problems came out. Then they quickly shut it down realizing they were on the losing end. I' d put up Sanders health to Hillary's any day.

You should probably be more up to date on what's going on before you try to intimidate people.

[bettyellen]

161. I heard she was accused of some of her people thinking of using Bernie's records - and I guess that

is enough for you to peddle as having happened? Seriously, go away.

[2pooped2pop]

162. Go away? Is this your forum now?

No one prodded you to reply to me. You guys are getting desperate or is it deja vu?

And yes, I'm absolutely sure that Hillary knew nothing of that planned attack because that's how she rolls right? In the dark Andy aware? Mhm.

[bettyellen]

163. the attack didn't happen. but your speculation- as if it did -is fucking amusing.

[2pooped2pop]

164. Mhm

[2pooped2pop]

136. blood clot fine with me

Still very serious and hers according to the link below was potentially life threatening. http://abcnews.go.com/Health/hillary-clinton-blood-clot-life-threatening-medical-experts/story?id=18101213

[Le Taz Hot]

121. This morning. Hillary Clinton.

Inside Politics. Came out of her mouth. Just heard it.

[cherokeeprogressive]

2. Ask John Podesta.

[ucrdem]

6. Here's what Brock says:

Anything else?

[Fawke Em]

8. I didn't realize fundraising when you opponent makes a lame attack

was "bad."

In fact, I kind of thought that your base defending your campaign was what naturally happens.

[ucrdem]

13. What lame attack?

Can you point to one?

[JonLeibowitz]

19. Playing dumb won't cover up the stupid your candidate just committed.

[ucrdem]

38. Please post the evidence and skip the sermons, thanks. nt

[haikugal]

56. Who made you King? Arrogant much? You're acting the fool.

If you have something to say get on with it.

[Trajan]

12. Brock Schmock ...

Drizzle Drazzle Druzzle Drome ... Time for this one to go away ...

[Kelvin Mace]

14. And John Podesta told Brock to "chill"

So, I am guessing that the story is true.

[ucrdem]

20. Yes but where's the evidence of such an attack?

So far we have Michael Briggs and Tad Devine pointing to their red badges of courage and that's about it in the evidence department.

[Kelvin Mace]

47. Well, why would Podesta, who in on HRC's staff

Slap Brock down unless he was up to something?

[ucrdem]

51. Because he was responding to the Politico article. nt

[cali]

114. That is not how it's done. You don't give credence to something false

[ucrdem]

120. Well or badly, he had to do it fast and that's how he did it. nt

[GeorgeGist]

149. Not very smart.

[Segami]

17. David is a rodent.

[ucrdem]

22. That's not evidence of an attack either. nt

[cali]

113. Proven slimy piece of dogshit liar Brock. Up to his same old vile tricks.

[ucrdem]

123. Vile tricks I'll give you. But who sued the DNC? And wikipedia?

It wasn't Brock.

[Segami]

10. Check with John Podesta....

John Podesta
‏
@johnpodesta

.@davidbrockdc:

Chill out. We're fighting on who would make a better President, not on who has a better Physical Fitness Test.

[ucrdem]

15. That's not an attack on Sanders. nt

[JonLeibowitz]

21. LOL! No, but it is a repudiation of Brock's planned attack! This isn't hard to understand. Try it.

[ucrdem]

24. But I have seen no evidence of such an attack.

So it looks like Podesta got rolled.

[JonLeibowitz]

29. That may be what it looks like to you.

I of course marvel at the mental process that led you to such a thoughtful conclusion.

[ucrdem]

34. I've seen no evidence, and the claims come from Sanders campaign operatives Briggs and Devine.

What conclusion would you like me come to?

[JonLeibowitz]

40. Any conclusion not relying on your baseless assertion that Politico fabricated the story wholecloth.

[madfloridian]

39. Let me explain this clearly.

Brock was going to attack Bernie over his medical records. Luckily John Podesta with the Hillary campaign told Brock to chill.

So yes something nefarious was planned and Podesta stopped it.

[JonLeibowitz]

41. *Brock dropped it. Though it is possible that Podesta knew all along, that would be speculation.

Of course, this poster is not actually interested in what really happened, as all the comments here show.

[draa]

54. Well that's been clear from their first comment.

What I find funny is Politico and John Podesta and both lying while the GOP scum turned political opportunist David Brock is the one telling the truth. David Brock, a man who John Podesta wouldn't flush from his toilet for fear it wreck the house. Yes, that David Brock.

[JonLeibowitz]

57. I don't understand -- how is Brock telling the truth? Seems like Podesta/Politico agree he is lying.

[draa]

62. Brock is lying. I doubt John Podesta would lie, even to protect Clinton.

I also doubt he's publish a tweet that wasn't even based in fact. That's just not John.

His tweet said all I need to hear. He's an honest man and if he says that something was about to happen then I believe him. Especially over a shitstain like Brock.

edit: lol, I reread my previous post and I could have been clearer with what I was trying to say. Hopefully you get a better understanding with this comment.

[JonLeibowitz]

66. Oh right. I didn't detect the sarcasm directed at ucrdem in your first post.

Absolutely, the whole episode is darn amusing. I'm just surprised certain surrogates have chosen to keep this issue alive by trying to smear Sanders with "opportunism". If I were them I'd let the issue be forgotten as it is certainly not advantageous to Team Weathervane.

But I won't stop them from shooting themselves in the face.

[draa]

76. It because right now Clinton is running a reactive campaign instead of a proactive campaign.

Sanders is dictating nearly every aspect of the discussion. Every time she says something about Bernie the media eviscerates her and he raises record cash. He's like the Teflon Don. Nothing sticks and the attacks usually backfire.

She also keeps trying to attack a position of strength from a position of weakness. That never works.

Whether in war or in politics (both are quite similar in tactics) you don't attack your enemy's strength. Not unless it's your last resort anyway. Now, it might be possible that she's desperate and she sees no other choice but as Sun Zhu said, if the enemy gets to your gate you've lost the battle. Right now Bernie is at the gate and she's on the attack. Too bad for her the attacks will likely fail because she ignored him for too long.

[ucrdem]

67. Okay I can no longer resist saying .... Show me the money.

[JonLeibowitz]

69. You will be able to see it on the air in NH & Iowa. Your campaign's missteps paid off for us!

THANK YOU!

[draa]

81. Alright, here you go.

[JonLeibowitz]

83. You forgot.

[Kalidurga]

103. I should be mad at Cuba Gooding Jr for that...

That clip is why I went to see a stupid chick flick instead of the sports drama I was expecting.

[ucrdem]

44. Can you post any evidence of this attack? Thanks! nt

[madfloridian]

46. I just did. LOL

https://twitter.com/johnpodesta/status/688519121064054784?lang=en

They are playing it out on Twitter.

[ucrdem]

50. That's a rebuke, not evidence. nt

[George II]

146. And you know that how? There was no attack and none was planned.

[artislife]

16. And they twist faster and faster in the wind....nt

[Mike__M]

55. Could make you dizzy

if you weren't able to convince yourself of the plausibility of your denial of the either the twisting or the wind.

[Le Taz Hot]

119. Christalmighy I swear some are being paid by the post.

I'd hate to think the poster actually believes these inanities.

[JonLeibowitz]

23. I think it is fair to say that this thread is a massive #HillaryFail.

[ucrdem]

25. I asked for evidence of an attack. So far there isn't any. nt

[JonLeibowitz]

26. There is reporting by Politico, with no denial from anyone but Brock (a confirmed liar).

A major editor at Politico called Brock out as a liar on Twitter. Podesta chided Brock on twitter.

Not enough evidence?

[ucrdem]

30. No evidence whatsoever, no. Just rumors issued from the Sanders campaign. nt

[JonLeibowitz]

32. And a member of the 4th estate. Don't forget that! n/t

[Truprogressive85]

35. They dont get lol

John Podesta works for HRC why would he tell Brock is there were not threats.

Feb 1 could not come fast enough

[Segami]

28. Massive!

[ucrdem]

31. If Hillary pulled a stunt like this we'd be hearing about if for the next twenty years. nt

[JonLeibowitz]

33. That's why she had her surrogate David Brock try to pull the stunt. Unfortunately it backfired. n/t

[ucrdem]

36. Except there's no evidence to support such a claim.

Which strongly suggests that the rumors are coming from the Sanders campaign. Which, to borrow a phrase from Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver, would be "desperate and vile."

[JonLeibowitz]

37. HAHAHAHA!

I hope you don't actually believe what you're saying!

That would truly give me the sadz.

[ucrdem]

42. I'd like to believe the very best.

But sometimes reality rhymes with witch.

[Segami]

43. Thats why Hillary surrounds her campaign with rodents like Brock...

she uses them as disposable attack dogs.

Then her campaign (Podesta) deflects the outrage by playing the adult in the room and publicly chastises Brock....


Old school good cop, bad cop tactics.......massive fail!

[ucrdem]

45. That's a comforting theory but the facts say otherwise. nt

[Segami]

49. Sure, sure....Podesta, suddenly decided

to publicly slap Brock on the wrist for something that never was in the works?....

[JonLeibowitz]

59. It appears the Hillary surrogates here have gone off the deep end

I guess it matches their candidate's approach.

Not a one of the "arguments" I have seen in HRH's defense today has come close to rational.

It is all very amusing however.

[ucrdem]

63. But still no evidence that Brock was planning to attack Sanders on age. Which would be inane. nt

[JonLeibowitz]

73. We owe you nothing. Your demands are just that. Your ignorance of the Politico story--not my problem

[ucrdem]

74. We've established that there is no factual basis to the rumors floated in the Politico article.

Thanks.

[JonLeibowitz]

82. Not even close! In your dreams, perhaps. Not in reality.

[nxylas]

85. It's like talking to a birther

Of course there is no evidence that could possibly convince you.

[snoringvoter]

125. You established. The rest of us has already confirmed the attack.

Go on, keep on trying. It's so cute when you do.

[GeorgeGist]

150. The royal We it appears.

I think you look foolish.

[ucrdem]

48. So far, no evidence of this attack has been published or posted, and Brock has denied it.

And the only named sources claiming there was such an attack in the original Politico article are Michael Briggs and Tad Devine from the Sanders campaign:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/clinton-surrogate-to-demand-sanders-release-medical-records-217880

[underthematrix]

52. sounds a little like the data breach drama

[ucrdem]

53. Yep. Tomorrow Weaver will be claiming they raised a million dollars in one day!

And no one will be the wiser. Or admit to it anyway.

[ljm2002]

126. Thank you for your comment

[still_one]

128. You mean the Rovian strategy

[TDale313]

58. Oh ffs.

The report was certainly out there. Maybe it was a trial balloon, maybe Brock overstepped his bounds. The Clinton camp certainly reacted like the info that they intended to go there came from their end. Geez- the mental gymnastics it takes to turn this into the Sanders camp doing something shady is fucking incredible.

[ucrdem]

60. Fine, post the evidence you're so sure exists, thanks. nt

[JonLeibowitz]

61. I'll do so when you provide some evidence for your baseless assumption that Politico lied.

[ucrdem]

64. In other words you don't have any. Thanks. nt

[JonLeibowitz]

68. The only way you would conclude that from my post is if you don't have evidence yourself.

Glad we cleared that up!

[ucrdem]

71. Thanks, we'll call you if we need you. nt

[JonLeibowitz]

72. You will get no assistance from me. I will never support Hillary Clinton for any public office.

[TDale313]

65. What evidence are you looking for?

It's been repeatedly pointed out to you that Politico was reporting what Brock had said the intention was. That's what the Sanders camp was reacting to.

[ucrdem]

70. Actual evidence that Brock was planning such an attack. ANY evidence. NOT rumors. Thanks. nt

[TDale313]

88. I don't know what to tell ya.

The reports were apparently based on sources in the Clinton campaign. No one's denying that. In fact, the reactions support that. Now, there are only a few options. The reports were true, and that was the plan. The reports were false, and either Politico or someone in the campaign lied (or it was a trial balloon of some sort)

In any event, seemingly reliable reports were out there that the Sanders campaign was reacting to. I would say reasonably, ymmv (in fact it clearly does) The very fact that the "hey, we're going there' was coming from the Clinton side *is* actually going there, even if that's the end of it. This didn't come whole cloth from the Sanders side.

I suspect this won't satisfy you, but those are the facts as they're known. It's also as much or more "evidence" than most news stories.

[ucrdem]

89. The named sources are Michael Briggs and Tad Devine.

This might seem harsh but if they're going to play games they're going to get caught.

[TDale313]

91. Done here, cause you're clearly just trolling at this point.

[senz]

78. Why don't you find something else to worry about?

[ucrdem]

87. Because injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

Remember?

[senz]

102. High-minded talk from a Hillary supporter?

[Mike__M]

84. I can understand this desire for real evidence

I myself am still wondering about the evidence
that Sanders is sexist
or that Sanders is racist
or that Sanders wants to eliminate health insurance for millions and millions
or that Sanders is not electable,
but since none of these accusations sticks, I don't obsess over it.
I also wonder if there's any evidence that there is any reason I should vote for the only one with a record of losing a primary race.

[silvershadow]

86. No. nt

[Juicy_Bellows]

93. 92 replies and not one rec...

Pack it in.

[ucrdem]

95. ... and still no evidence of an attack. nt

[JonLeibowitz]

101. It is both quite hilarious, and yet when you stop to think about it, also sad.

Somebody is actually thinking, or pretending to be thinking, what is written in this OP.

[riversedge]

105. They raised money off of a FAKE story! #Bernie campaign NOT honest to its voters!

Alex Seitz-Wald Verified account
‏@aseitzwald

New: Sanders team says they raised $250K tonight off David Brock healthcare story. "Once again, thanks team Clinton," Michael Briggs says.



Jill ‏@NooneOfan 17m17 minutes ago

Jill Retweeted Alex Seitz-Wald

They raised money off of a FAKE story! #Bernie campaign NOT honest to its voters!

[ucrdem]

106. So far that's what the evidence points to.

Kind of hard to believe but you know what? When they flew that helicopter over Bill's speech at the Iowa J-J dinner I didn't believe it at first and figured it was just a rumor. Then it turned out they not only did it, but were proud of it. So nothing would surprise me at this point.

[cali]

109. Bwahaha.

[R B Garr]

110. Thank you for stating the obvious!

I know that usually means a hide around here, so thank you.

That fund raising letter was as phony as it gets. Trump up the phony outrage and ask for money. Transparent as hell. Weaver is not a credible character.

[ucrdem]

115. Thanks!

Not that pointing out the obvious will change much but hope springs eternal ...

[R B Garr]

129. You are kind. Looks like playing the perpetual victim

is his campaign's strategy for $$$$$, so I have no hope in that changing. Bernie can't be vetted because-------poor Bernie! I'm so sick of the phoniness. Ugh.

[restorefreedom]

116. so now candidates are only allowed to fundraise

according to certain parameters?

ok, let hillary go first. she can give back all the money from the wall street investors, the big banks, and the pharm industry for starters.

[Warren Stupidity]

117. Oddly yesterday this board was full of Clinton supporters demanding medical records.

Now, it true Party Line fashion, that history has been erased and it is "what attack you talking about?".

Fabulous. I'm sure in your inner narrative this is all somehow squared away.

Let's get onto serious business, we have a war with Iran to cook up. Amirite?

[PowerToThePeople]

124. I think I will donate extra to the Bernie campaign today.

eom

[Punkingal]

127. Two word answer to false claims.....Hell No!

[Vattel]

144. The evidence is the Politico report and ultimately the claims

of the unnamed sources that report relied upon. Bernie's campaign relied upon that report. If the report turns out to be bogus, then his campaign, like Clinton's campaign, erred in believing that it was true.

[George II]

145. There was no attack. If there was, those "reporting" it would be able to provide evidence of it.

[napi21]

153. I doubt there was such an email. I receive all of Bernie's emails, and I sure never

got any like THAT! Plus, that just isn't Bernie's style.

[Babel_17]

157. Clinton campaign rebukes top ally

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clinton-campaign-rebukes-top-ally-david-brock

CHARLESTON, South Carolina – The Hillary Clinton campaign Saturday night publicly rebuked one of its top outside allies after reports that he planned to make an issue of rival Bernie Sanders’ health – reports he now denies. Meanwhile, the Sanders campaign said they would release a letter testifying to his health in coming weeks.

“Chill out,” Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta tweeted at David Brock, who runs several pro-Clinton groups. “We’re fighting on who would make a better President, not on who has a better Physical Fitness Test.” Politico first reported earlier Saturday that Brock was planning to go on TV to call for the 74-year-old Sanders to release his medical records.

I tend to think that the chairperson of the Clinton campaign had a good idea of what ally Brock was getting himself up to. And I especially think that when the chairperson of the Clinton campaign actually goes very public and says "Chill out". Smart move by Podesta, preempting another sleazy move against Sanders by Brock that the media would gleefully pounce on.

Brock seems oblivious to the fallout of his operations, he still seems determined to be acting as an operative. The last thing the Clinton campaign wants is to remind people that they have ties to the David Brock of old.

The sleaze he unleashed on Anita Hill is still a dark memory for many Clinton supporters who also supported/support Anita Hill. Brock apologized for that, but getting up to more sleaze could make people think that apology wasn't so sincere, and then wonder why the heck they're partnered up with him.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Real_Anita_Hill

http://www.amazon.com/Real-Anita-Hill-David-Brock/dp/0029046564

[Sunlei]

160. Not to me, I get all Bernie emails. Heres copy of the last one I got.

You’re invited: Important organizing rally with campaign staff in Houston.
(removed IDing info)

The Iowa caucuses are days away, and the latest polls show that Bernie may be poised to win an historic upset victory.

If that happens, Texans have to be ready to turn momentum into victory on March 1. Winning in early states isn’t enough to win this election. We have to follow through and build a much, much larger political movement to elect Bernie. We simply cannot afford to drop the ball in the Lone Star State.

March 1 is just over six weeks away, which means it’s crunch time. Building a voter contact operation at the scale necessary to win takes enormous investments of time and effort in the weeks before election day.

To take our campaign in Texas to the next level, we’re holding a series of big organizing rallies with campaign staff across the state – including one in Houston – where we’ll lay out our ambitious plan to win in Texas. To win, we need you. Can I count on you to join us?

Organizing Rally with Texas Bernie Staff - Houston:
Sunday, January 24ᵗʰ in Houston

RSVP to Attend
Politics isn’t a spectator sport – least of all when you’re a scrappy grassroots movement taking on the political and economic establishment.

This is serious: If you aren’t involved in the campaign yet, now is the time to join us. If you’re already organizing, we need you to dig in and work even harder.

Sign up for the organizing rally in Houston and help make history by winning Texas for Bernie on March 1.

In solidarity,

Sarah Slamen
Texas Field Director
Bernie 2016

[Luminous Animal]

165. Nope. David Brock fessed up

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511033114

[beam me up scottie]

166. Kick!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511033114