2016 Postmortem

merrily

(45,251 posts)

130. Ruthless, my ass. Put "your damned if he does, damned if he doesn't" away.

Reply to pnwmom (Reply #34)

Fri Dec 18, 2015, 08:55 AM

Dec 2015

We can all see right through it.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

172 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Bloomberg: Sanders campaign has fired its National Data Director, Josh Uretsky, [View all] pnwmom Dec 2015 OP

Of course he did. Imagine the pissed off people if he didn't. madfloridian Dec 2015 #1

Of course he acted in a way that could subject him to criminal charges? pnwmom Dec 2015 #2

Well, let's see the DNC charge him after they were warned months ago. madfloridian Dec 2015 #3

This wasn't some low level staffer. This was the National Data Director pnwmom Dec 2015 #4

Then let the DNC powers that be charge him criminally. madfloridian Dec 2015 #5

Don't you mean it wasn't some low level staffer but the SOS? artislife Dec 2015 #16

Focus, Art ... focus. n/t 1StrongBlackMan Dec 2015 #143

Puhleeze! JDPriestly Dec 2015 #46

If all Josh Uretsky did was make a mistake, why didn't they ask for his resignation? pnwmom Dec 2015 #56

People who make huge mistakes in the job for which their expertise merrily Dec 2015 #128

Business 101. If a mistake is made that makes the news, someone has to fall on the sword. LiberalArkie Dec 2015 #151

Look how much this mistake cost the campaign! A Presidential campaign! Try costing an merrily Dec 2015 #152

I'm not certain this was a criminal offense ... 1StrongBlackMan Dec 2015 #145

So if you see the bank left their back door unlocked, and you tell the police about it, pnwmom Dec 2015 #8

Ok this is fucking stupid. Please fix. Ed Suspicious Dec 2015 #132

What about the analogy is incorrect? n/t pnwmom Dec 2015 #133

LOL ... 1StrongBlackMan Dec 2015 #146

There is a huge difference between ... 1StrongBlackMan Dec 2015 #142

No, he didn't do anything clearly illegal like storing top secret classified information jfern Dec 2015 #6

There is no evidence that she ever stored then-classified information on her home computer. pnwmom Dec 2015 #7

Classified information is classified regardless of marking. JonLeibowitz Dec 2015 #104

What does that have to do with anything? It wasn't marked classified or in actuality classified pnwmom Dec 2015 #113

It has everything to do with everything, for those whose eyes aren't wide shut JonLeibowitz Dec 2015 #114

It has nothing to do with this case because this information wasn't considered or marked pnwmom Dec 2015 #117

It is your post that is filled with nonsense. JonLeibowitz Dec 2015 #126

It was NOT classified at the time (marked or unmarked). It was RETROACTIVELY classified. pnwmom Dec 2015 #135

Please don't engage the deflection ... 1StrongBlackMan Dec 2015 #147

LOL! beam me up scottie Dec 2015 #9

Another phony analogy! Clinton wasn't breaching R B Garr Dec 2015 #10

The Bernie campaign reported the problem months ago jfern Dec 2015 #11

The DNC didn't make them run searches from R B Garr Dec 2015 #13

Ran searches how? Did they just happen to run a search when the data was available? jfern Dec 2015 #15

It's in one of the articles in another thread R B Garr Dec 2015 #19

It didn't say anything about them purposefully searching Clinton campaign information jfern Dec 2015 #20

They fired their National Data Director and said what he did was wrong. pnwmom Dec 2015 #22

They probably fired him to try to move on from this rank idiocy jfern Dec 2015 #23

Why did Weavers call him a "low level staffer"? That doesn't seem very honest. n/t pnwmom Dec 2015 #28

LOL R B Garr Dec 2015 #27

The vendor says the access was inadvertent. jfern Dec 2015 #29

Then why does the Sanders campaign say that what their National Data Director pnwmom Dec 2015 #30

They decided it would be easier to just cut their losses jfern Dec 2015 #32

Sounds pretty ruthless that they would smear a guy who did nothing wrong. pnwmom Dec 2015 #34

Ruthless, my ass. Put "your damned if he does, damned if he doesn't" away. merrily Dec 2015 #130

But running searches from multiple accounts R B Garr Dec 2015 #31

What does running searches mean? jfern Dec 2015 #33

LOL again. R B Garr Dec 2015 #35

ahhhh VanillaRhapsody Dec 2015 #127

Do you have a link for that? Because what I've read was that searches were run. pnwmom Dec 2015 #37

Here jfern Dec 2015 #38

I think the "inadvertently" applied to the NGP -- not the 4 account users who pnwmom Dec 2015 #40

Who knows, but they fired him either way so it doesn't really matter jfern Dec 2015 #42

You don't think it matters if he improperly accessed her data and got fired for it? pnwmom Dec 2015 #45

In terms of the rest of the campaign, no jfern Dec 2015 #48

Well, the campaign thought it was so important they FIRED him, instead of asking pnwmom Dec 2015 #53

Sorry, but that is the exact same thing. nt Live and Learn Dec 2015 #61

Resigning and being fired are very different things, and if an employee hasn't done pnwmom Dec 2015 #71

No they aren't. You are wrong again. nt Live and Learn Dec 2015 #75

Message auto-removed Name removed Dec 2015 #125

The DNC was warned months ago by the Bernie campaign. madfloridian Dec 2015 #12

It says there will be an investigation, which R B Garr Dec 2015 #17

In such a "neutral" setting.... madfloridian Dec 2015 #18

I think that if the DNC wants to completely alienate Bernie voters, it will continue to cut off JDPriestly Dec 2015 #39

Here is the real story: JDPriestly Dec 2015 #47

Wouldn't it be something if the investigation shows that Hillary's team had access, used it and Live and Learn Dec 2015 #62

The real story is not the vendor. R B Garr Dec 2015 #158

Ooooohhhhhh VanillaRhapsody Dec 2015 #77

The staffer was fired jfern Dec 2015 #78

SO? VanillaRhapsody Dec 2015 #80

KIck&REC while I read this.. Thank you! Cha Dec 2015 #14

Be sure you read this: JDPriestly Dec 2015 #49

Come on, JD ... 1StrongBlackMan Dec 2015 #148

LOL Why would you need this when you were so sure Hillary would win anyway? Live and Learn Dec 2015 #63

If you think its funny BS campaign is totally locked out of access to the DNC computers.. Historic NY Dec 2015 #21

Maybe they'll find out the Clinton and O'Malley campaigns did the same thing. pnwmom Dec 2015 #25

DWS knows that MOM isn't a threat to HRC's coronation. Bernie is! Feeling the Bern Dec 2015 #36

Where? VanillaRhapsody Dec 2015 #129

Here is what they are investigating: JDPriestly Dec 2015 #50

Have you ever done any phone banking, murielm99 Dec 2015 #55

There was probably a label portal, segmenting off the data ... 1StrongBlackMan Dec 2015 #153

Not funny at all and it totally illegitimizes any Hillary victory. Live and Learn Dec 2015 #64

Why would the firing of a dishonest Bernie employee "illegitimize" a Hillary victory? n/t pnwmom Dec 2015 #72

Seriously? If it were Hillary, you would be fine with it? Live and Learn Dec 2015 #74

If what were Hillary? No one's accusing Bernie of anything. pnwmom Dec 2015 #79

Now you are denying your own accusations? Live and Learn Dec 2015 #86

What are you talking about? Where did I accuse Bernie of anything? pnwmom Dec 2015 #92

You're babbling leftynyc Dec 2015 #144

Because? ??? n/t 1StrongBlackMan Dec 2015 #154

First it was a "low level staffer" ProudToBeLiberal Dec 2015 #24

No. It was probably a low level staffer who actually might have seen the data. But the National JDPriestly Dec 2015 #41

If they reported the breach months ago... joshcryer Dec 2015 #44

Either sloppiness or intentional breach on the part of the DNC and/or its vendor. JDPriestly Dec 2015 #52

The system absolutely is at issue. joshcryer Dec 2015 #54

Most of this seems plausible, but pnwmom Dec 2015 #76

It still remains how much data was "got" if any. joshcryer Dec 2015 #89

Very sensible. merrily Dec 2015 #137

Uretsky says he did a lot more than simply view it. But it was all in a good cause. pnwmom Dec 2015 #149

if it was caused by a new patch, how was it reported months ago? 6chars Dec 2015 #107

It sounds like the firewall goes down when a patch goes out. joshcryer Dec 2015 #110

I suspect you are correct. n/t 1StrongBlackMan Dec 2015 #155

+1000 nt Live and Learn Dec 2015 #65

Bloomberg reported that it was Uretsky, the National Data Director, not some underling, pnwmom Dec 2015 #73

+1 uponit7771 Dec 2015 #121

+1 uponit7771 Dec 2015 #120

The National Data Director surely knew what he was doing was wrong. SunSeeker Dec 2015 #26

Maybe not. Maybe the Clinton data was provided to the Sanders campaign in error and the JDPriestly Dec 2015 #43

"Searches were run from four user accounts while data from Clinton's campaign was exposed"... riversedge Dec 2015 #58

Generally a user assumes that searches they do are authorized. This was a security failure on the Live and Learn Dec 2015 #66

ha ha. Blame others is silly. The Director did the snooping FOUR times. Simple as that. riversedge Dec 2015 #87

You are making things up. Simple as that. nt Live and Learn Dec 2015 #88

If it was a simple error, why did they fire the Director and make him leave in disgrace? pnwmom Dec 2015 #95

Asked and answered a multitude of times. Please re-read my previous replies tp refresh Live and Learn Dec 2015 #99

I read them. I saw no answer. n/t pnwmom Dec 2015 #100

+1000 nt Live and Learn Dec 2015 #70

If it was the vendor's error, why did they fire their own National Data Director pnwmom Dec 2015 #84

Knowing full well why he was FIRED! Cha Dec 2015 #51

Ghost of Nixon on line one shenmue Dec 2015 #57

How in the hell is this anything like Nixon? Watergate was more like Hillary and Emailgate since the Live and Learn Dec 2015 #67

Wow.. Cha Dec 2015 #59

I asked upthread if anyone here murielm99 Dec 2015 #60

They notified the DNC that hired the vendor months ago. Not their job to notify the vendor Live and Learn Dec 2015 #68

I have to disagree with that. joshcryer Dec 2015 #94

Disagree. Communicating directly to someone you did not engage or choose is overstepping by a lot merrily Dec 2015 #140

Okay ... it's not the job of users to notify the vendor of ... 1StrongBlackMan Dec 2015 #157

You notify the agency in charge of the vendor, in this case (the DNC). Live and Learn Dec 2015 #165

Before or after you exploit the breach ... 1StrongBlackMan Dec 2015 #166

It uses special API keys as far as I can tell. joshcryer Dec 2015 #91

As I mentioned, murielm99 Dec 2015 #172

In other words, you will be happy to see Hillary elected at any cost, even illegitimately? Live and Learn Dec 2015 #69

No, the person who wanted a candidate elected at any cost appears to be pnwmom Dec 2015 #82

Jumping to conclusions and being judgemental without even knowing the facts are not progressive Live and Learn Dec 2015 #85

It is a FACT that the Bernie campaign announced Uretsky was fired pnwmom Dec 2015 #93

First of all, the news media often uses fired, resigned interchangeably. Live and Learn Dec 2015 #96

Bloomberg reported that Uretsky himself accessed the proprietary information. pnwmom Dec 2015 #101

And only Bloomberg has said that and they couldn't possibly know that. Looks like bad Live and Learn Dec 2015 #102

Did you miss the quotes around the words of the campaign spokesman, Briggs? pnwmom Dec 2015 #103

And that has what to do with Josh Uretsky? Nothing. nt Live and Learn Dec 2015 #105

You're funny. n/t pnwmom Dec 2015 #108

You're not. nt Live and Learn Dec 2015 #111

"It's funny 'cause it's true." Stephen Colbert. merrily Dec 2015 #131

CNN is now reporting that they were told it was Josh Uretsky. pnwmom Dec 2015 #118

And in this case, Weavers loses credibility for trying to pass this off pnwmom Dec 2015 #81

Ah yes.. right away Jim Weaver loses credibility by trying to disingenuously shift the blame. He's Cha Dec 2015 #97

+1 uponit7771 Dec 2015 #122

Integrity . orpupilofnature57 Dec 2015 #83

No integrity for the Sanders data Director. He saw the lid off the cookie jar and ate the riversedge Dec 2015 #90

Sanders himself said long ago he knew something like this would eventually happen DFW Dec 2015 #98

It is similar to Watergate in a computer world. Nixon tried to cover Thinkingabout Dec 2015 #106

It's nothing like Watergate, although it's interesting this talking point is being parroted. winter is coming Dec 2015 #109

IMO this is similar, though a clitch allowed access, a breakin allowed access in Thinkingabout Dec 2015 #115

He fired the person and that should be the end of the story. Vinca Dec 2015 #112

It was more than one person who saw the data uponit7771 Dec 2015 #123

Uretsky is saying that he got into the system to "create a record." pnwmom Dec 2015 #138

The DNC has already alienated a whole lot of voters and this isn't going to help. Vinca Dec 2015 #159

It turns out that all they're asking for is an "assurance" that they haven't retained HRC data, pnwmom Dec 2015 #160

But, according to the Sanders lawyer, without access to the computer data they can't prove anything Vinca Dec 2015 #167

He's insinuating that someone else COULD have breached their data pnwmom Dec 2015 #168

He suggested an independent review and I think that's the best idea. Vinca Dec 2015 #169

That definitely needs to be done. pnwmom Dec 2015 #170

The defence of the Sanders campaign in this thread is fucking unbelievable. upaloopa Dec 2015 #116

Exactly! nt arthritisR_US Dec 2015 #141

Wapo said it was a low level staffer.... Yeah right uponit7771 Dec 2015 #119

"Josh who? Some low level staffer. Never heard of him." - Sanders Campaign alcibiades_mystery Dec 2015 #124

From what I've read ... 1StrongBlackMan Dec 2015 #134

Yes. That was the correct thing to do. Once again, Bernie is reacting better pnwmom Dec 2015 #136

AND better than at least one of his continuing staffers ... 1StrongBlackMan Dec 2015 #139

Wow workinclasszero Dec 2015 #150

Firing the Data Director was the right thing to do and NGP VAN should fire those on their side Larkspur Dec 2015 #156

First mistake of Sanders campaign. Firing the guy. Implies guilt. EndElectoral Dec 2015 #161

The guy has already had an interview and admitted that he purposely pnwmom Dec 2015 #162

From the story... workinclasszero Dec 2015 #163

Thanks for spotting the updated info! That wasn't in the article when I posted it. pnwmom Dec 2015 #164

Good grief! McCamy Taylor Dec 2015 #171