Let Me Address This Ridiculousness Surrounding the DNC Email Hack ‘Controversy’

In my writing I mention the term “confirmation bias” quite often. If you’re unaware of what that means, it’s basically defined as the tendency for people to seek out information which confirms something they already want to believe. It doesn’t matter if that information is factual, or even logical, just as long as it feeds into whatever preconceived notions they already have.



Well, an example of confirmation bias was never more prevalent than when a new round of hacked DNC emails were made public, with some Sanders supports claiming these “prove the primary election was rigged against Bernie.” Shockingly, nobody has shown a specific action (at least any that were credible) where the DNC did anything that actually led to Clinton winning a state (and don’t even give me “voter fraud” — if you believe that, then just stop reading this). The main thing many will mention is the number of debates, which really doesn’t make a whole lot of sense considering they added more and Sanders never saw any “bump” in polling results based on these events. In fact, after one of these added debates Sanders went 0-5 (FL, NC, OH, MO, IL) and after the New York debate he wanted, he was soundly defeated there, as well.

Out of the emails I saw Bernie Sanders folks upset about, one was absolutely disgusting and inexcusable. It was from DNC CFO Brad Marshall, who seemed to suggest playing up Sanders’ religion (or perceived lack of religion) might be a good strategy:

It might may no difference, but for KY and WVA can we get someone to ask his belief. Does he believe in a God. He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage. I think I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist.

Not only is that email pathetic, but Marshall should be immediately let go. While I understand politics is sometimes a bit of a “blood sport” where you contemplate any and all angles at times, Democrats are better than this — period.

But the rest of these emails are mostly a whole lot of nothing when you factor in context.

One was Debbie Wasserman Schultz (who I can’t stand, by the way), who wrote on May 21st that Sanders “isn’t going to be president”:

This is a silly story. He isn’t going to be president.

She was responding to an email someone had sent her asking if it was worth mentioning to CNN that, even though Sanders had promised to remove Schultz if elected, her term was over the day after inauguration when a new DNC chair would be elected anyway.

This was written on May 21 — when Hillary Clinton had a commanding (practically impossible to overcome) lead and the only people in the country still saying Sanders might be the nominee were people in his campaign and his supporters. Around that time he would have needed around 68 percent of all remaining delegates to have caught up to Clinton. So, while I know some people want to make a big deal out of Schultz saying this, she wasn’t wrong when she said it. At that point, there was practically no way he was going to win enough delegates to become the nominee.

Then there was an email Schultz wrote on April 24th where she said that Sanders had “no understanding of” the Democratic party:

Spoken like someone who has never been a member of the Democratic Party and has no understanding of what we do.

First, until this election, he hadn’t been a member of the Democratic party, so that’s factually accurate. Also, this was in reply to an email concerning Sanders’ comments to CNN’s Jake Tapper where he attacked the party and claimed he wasn’t being treated fairly — citing the debate schedule. Keep in mind that this was sent after the New York primary, when practically everyone but his campaign and his supporters knew the race was all but over. I know that’s not what Sanders supporters wanted to hear at the time, but that was just the reality.

Another email had Schultz contacting Chuck Todd addressing Morning Joe co-host Mika Brzeninski who was calling for her to step down (as was I), without ever actually speaking to her or allowing her to give her side of the story. She then said it was pointless to talk to her because Brzeninski had already made up her mind:

She’s already served as a judge and jury without even bothering to talk to me. Not sure why I should trust having a conversation with her would make any difference. Or that she even matters, to be frank.

While I agree that Schultz is awful, and probably should have stepped down, this email doesn’t have much to do with Sanders at all.

At one point Schultz called Sanders’ campaign manager Jeff Weaver a “damn liar” in response to comments he had made regarding the rather embarrassing spectacle that took place in Nevada in May:

Damn liar. Particularly scummy that he barely acknowledges the violent and threatening behavior that occurred.

While I hesitate to defend Schultz, a lot of people weren’t too thrilled with the Sanders campaign basically saying they don’t condone violence — but the party sort of brought it on themselves. Even Samantha Bee lit into the Sanders campaign’s response. Heck, even ultra-liberal Mother Jones called Sanders out for refusing to really apologize for what happened, with his campaign putting most of the blame on party leadership. This was a pretty bad moment for the Sanders campaign, one to which they didn’t respond well.

And, I’m sorry, but I’ve maintained for a while that a big reason why Sanders struggled in some states is because of Weaver’s attitude. At times I referred to him as the left’s version of Karl Rove.

But other than that, those are about the only emails I’ve seen mentioned in many of these pro-Sanders groups, social media accounts and articles claiming that these “prove” the DNC was working against the Vermont senator.

Well, they don’t.

Let’s not forget that a big part of Sanders’ campaign was built upon bashing Schultz, the Democratic party and creating this victim mentality of “we’re going up against the establishment machine.” Then when you look at these emails (aside from the pathetic one about his religion), they’re mostly responses to other emails addressing something Sanders or his campaign had said about the Democratic party.



Plus they were all written in late April and May, when the race was pretty much over.

By the way, I would like to point out that his religion was never used against him. So, while that one email was, indeed, awful — clearly the party never took it seriously. Just because Marshall is a bottom-feeding fool for suggesting it, that doesn’t mean the party endorsed the idea.

Quick question though: If everyone’s friends and family could see the texts, emails or hear the comments you’ve said about them, their families, friends or things they’ve said and done — would they be too happy with everything they’d hear?

In private correspondence not meant to be made public, we all sometimes say things that, if cherry picked by those who don’t like us, could be used out of context to paint us in a rather unflattering light.

There were thousands of emails hacked… and a grand total of what, 5 or 6 were made into a “big story” that “proves” the DNC was working against Sanders — all toward the end of the primary?

I would like to point out that the DNC did add more debates like he wanted (they didn’t have to), the party also made sure he was on the ballot in New Hampshire (legally he could have been kept off) and Washington D.C. (they made sure a filing issue was resolved).

Let’s also not act as if just because people are supposed to be impartial, that they really are. While Bernie Sanders registered as a Democrat, he wasn’t one until just this past year. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton has been a loyal member to the party for decades, and wasn’t spending a large part of her time campaigning vilifying it to galvanize support. Clearly there were people who’ve worked with the party most of their lives who weren’t exactly thrilled that they had a Democratic candidate (sometimes unfairly) painting them as “the enemy” as part of his campaign’s strategy.

It’s just human nature to have a little more loyalty to someone who’s been on “your side” for decades vs. someone who’s new to the game, who also happens to be bashing the party for which you’ve spent a good part of your life working and defending.

But the truth is, this wasn’t “rigged” against Sanders. The reason why Bernie Sanders lost is because he couldn’t win the minority vote — especially the African American vote. I ran the numbers from every single state and you could essentially predict who would win each state based on what type of election (primary vs. caucus) and by looking at the racial demographics of the state.

Hillary Clinton won 76 percent of primaries, while Bernie Sanders won 86 percent of caucuses. When it came to the average racial demographic breakdown of the states each won, they came out like this:

Hillary Clinton’s 28 wins:

  • White 64%
  • African American: 16%
  • Latino: 14%

Bernie Sanders’ 22 wins:

  • White: 78%
  • African American: 5%
  • Latino: 8%

If the election were really “rigged,” results wouldn’t have been relatively predictable based on the type of election the state held and racial demographics.

Bernie Sanders lost because he won mostly white states which were often very small, and couldn’t win many primaries — it didn’t matter whether or not they were open or closed. It wasn’t because the primary was rigged, or because a few people in the DNC weren’t his biggest fans. A Democratic candidate is not going to win the nomination by losing out on the over 50 vote; the female vote; the African American vote; the Latino vote; and mostly winning smaller states.

His campaign was amazing, reaching shocking levels of success, but he came up short — just like Hillary Clinton did in 2008, despite the fact that the party clearly wanted her to be the nominee over President Obama.

Even though he lost, his success forced the party to adopt many of his ideas. His impact on the party not only pulled it further to the left than it ever has been, but he made Hillary Clinton a much better candidate. So, while he didn’t win the nomination, in a lot of ways, he still won the battle of ideas by making sure many of the policies he wants enacted and supported by the party became part of its platform. As a result, we now have what Bernie Sanders himself has called the “most progressive platform in the history of the Democratic party.”

There are many ways to “win” in politics. He didn’t become the Democratic nominee, but Bernie Sanders was still victorious in numerous ways which have been a betterment for both the Democratic party and the nation as a whole.




Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • andreas

    That’s why the leaks classify this as part one of three. Hard to judge the picture of DNC and Hillary bias without the other two parts of the Leaks.

  • Timothy Dannenhoffer

    So their attempted rigging had little effect? And yes, ignorant minorities and old ladies F’d up a no brainer Democratic primary. I’m not voting for the Wall Street corporatist just because stupid people made her my only real option. Now my vote will only be a statement and it’s going to Jill Stein.

    • dmh44

      “Ignorant minorities”? You sorry racist punk. You’ve been flagged.

      • Daniellerramos

        <<o. ★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★:::::::!be589p:….,…..

      • Timothy Dannenhoffer

        MOST minorities ARE ignorant in matters of politics. Nina Turner, a VERY intelligent black woman said that most blacks voted for Hillary out of primarily “brand loyalty”. For most it had very little to do with the candidates policies but most to do with name recognition. That’s a fact. That’s pathetic. And to state it is not racist – but to not state it over fears of being called a racist is just not being entirely honest.

      • Rich Kingdon

        “Now my vote will only be a statement and it’s going to Jill Stein.”

        And the statement is “I’m going to stomp my feet and throw a tantrum because the guy I liked lost, and I don’t care what may happen to the nation because of it!”

        YOU’RE the problem, pal. You’re ignorant.

      • N8SLC

        Integrity is more important to some people than to others.

      • Rich Kingdon

        Yeah. Of course, STILL HAVING A NATION is important, but you made sure everybody on Facebook knew you were VOTING WITH INTEGRITY, BY GOLLY! Give me a fucking break.

      • N8SLC

        Still have a nation? You’re such a Drama King.

      • WendyLynne

        Integrity is all good and well when Emperor Trump takes office

      • N8SLC

        After his speech last night, I’ve decided to follow Bernie and help get Clinton elected. That said, you’re going to have a hard time if you expect everyone to make the same decision to compromise their integrity.

      • WendyLynne

        It’s not a compromise if we continue the revolution. Just because the USA declared independence on July 4 1776, independence took time. We will get there but we will suffer enormous setbacks if trump ends up in the White House. Ourrevolution.com

      • Timothy Dannenhoffer

        They cheated stup!d. And establishment Democrats are NO DIFFERENT than Republicans when it comes to working class people crushing, trickle down, laissez faire thievery economics. They ARE NOT good in any way fool. You’ll wake up to this fact sooner or later maybe.

        OK pal?

      • dmh44

        The statement IS racist, flat-out, because you you used a stereotypical generalization (MOST minorities). This African-American male who voted for Bernie is telling you once again that you are a sorry racist punk who, unfortunately, is an example of a small but vocal subset of white privilege corrupting progressives. You’re getting flagged again.

      • Timothy Dannenhoffer

        You read it and wept and that still doesn’t make it not true. Nina Turner, an informed, intelligent black woman called the majority of blacks voting for Hillary over Bernie “brand loyalty” voters. Is she racist?

        Knock off your butt hurt nonsense and be among the informed, then you can rest and know that I am not talking about you.

        But if you are ignorant you are ignorant, and calling me a racist won’t change that.

      • dmh44

        You’re digging yourself a deeper hole. You stated that “MOST minorities ARE ignorant in matters of politics”. You can’t run away from that. Then, you get more stupid by pointing out the opinion of ONE African-American woman about why most blacks voted for Hillary. Good lord, that’s as bad and as racist as stating “some of my best friends are black”. Also, you idiot, this isn’t about you talking about me. This is about you slandering “MOST minorities”, whether I’m included in that or not. Shut up while you’re behind.

      • Timothy Dannenhoffer

        In YOUR eyes I’m digging in deeper because you’re a biased black man. Do you think 80% of African Americans went for Hillary over Bernie in the deep south and inner cities, putting him in a hole which he could not dig out from, because they were so damn enlightened and well informed? Please stop – you’re embarrassing yourself – and you’re offending me. The only thing I did was point out the uncomfortable truth. It just bothers you because it’s true. Blacks and old ladies desperately needing the first vagina president buried Bernie – the guy that SHOULD have won. It was a no brainer and people managed to get it wrong.

      • dmh44

        Well, I’m trying to offend you. And I’m definitely not embarassing myself. You are in your own reality, where a person who makes racist generalizations can call someone else biased. And, you still don’t get it. I haven’t said a word about your opinion on the primaries. That’s not what this is about. This is about your blanket generalization of minorities, which is racist in and of itself, separate from the subject at hand, you dumb fuck.

      • Timothy Dannenhoffer

        Quit your whining and admit that the sheer number of minorities that voted for Hillary over Bernie make my case. I’m not trying to be offensive but it’s one of those instances when stating the facts may offend a little. I frankly don’t give a **** when the vast majority of minorities vote for Democrats over Republicans – that makes perfect sense – but for them to have voted in such large numbers for the name brand / probably corrupt Republican in Democrat clothing over the guy that spelled out just how bad things are..that takes a WHOLE LOT of ignorance.

        And tell me something – and don’t wash over this last part –

        Why did you vote for Bernie?

        What are your thoughts on why 80% of blacks went with Hillary over Bernie?

        A little bit of honesty buddy.

      • Rich Kingdon

        A little bit of honesty? I wish I could show your tirades to Bernie, who I truly believe would tell you he didn’t want racist assholes like you on his team.

      • Timothy Dannenhoffer

        Yeah, I am sure Bernie was thrilled with, and never puzzled by, 80% of blacks going for Hillary, for no explicable reason whatsoever.

        You too can F off now pasty white guy.

      • Timothy Dannenhoffer

        You must have taken tremendous pride in being lovingly referred to as Hillary’s “firewall”, huh?

      • dmh44

        See above, dumb fuck.

      • Rich Kingdon

        “Nina Turner, an informed, intelligent black woman called the majority of blacks voting for Hillary over Bernie “brand loyalty” voters. Is she racist?”

        OOH! CONGRATULATIONS, REPUBLICAN! YOU FOUND YOUR “TOKEN”. Sit down and shut up.

      • Way2GoSassy

        He is a far cry from being a progressive.

      • dmh44

        Amen to that. I just blocked him.

      • Way2GoSassy

        Probably a good move!

  • Willow C. Arune

    I find nothing wrong in these e-mails. They are between advocates of a common cause, expressing personal thoughts during a major election. Any thread on FB would be as bad or worse, and certainly a glimpse into GOP e-mails would contain comments far worse. This is normal in a partisan campaign. And just why do Dems have to be purer than pure? You really think the GOP types are nto worse? These were released IMO to get Bernie supporters to vote for Trump or not vote. The purpose? To help Trump get elected. Do you really think that is a better solution?

    • Rich Kingdon

      You find nothing wrong with a committee that is supposed to be in favor of all candidates in their party deciding to do whatever they can to knock one of them out? Are you freaking kidding?

      • AfterMe_TheDeluge

        No matter what he’s giving lip service to nowadays, Sanders is not now, nor has he EVER been a Democrat. And if this is what you call “deciding to do whatever they can to knock one of them out”, you’re an idiot. Less than a dozen emails out of thousands is NOT “whatever they can”.
        Don’t you ‘Bots EVER grow up?

      • BG (unintelligible yelling)

        Apparently some of them don’t. They are like spoiled children who pout when they don’t get their way.

      • Rich Kingdon

        Well, holy crap. So this is nothing, just a little smoke, no fire, WHAT THE EVERLOVING HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU? I have posted here that I will be falling in line and voting for HRC because she’s not Trump. That’s the best you’re going to get. If that’s not good enough for you then I suggest you GFY, smug little asshole.

      • AtoZ

        This is how you treat your peers and those that ‘you wish to unite in the party and vote for HRC’? By calling him a child and rejecting Sanders as a Democrat; WHEN THE PARTY ACCEPTED HIM AS A DEMOCRAT.

        Sanders embodies what it is to be a Democrat much more so than the Democratic Party today. Everything from Glass-Steagall to Civil Rights Sanders has been on the right side, whether or not some anonymous internet troll decides to wave it all off.

      • infidel

        Did you even read the article above?
        Or do you you have some special perceptive super power we don’t know about?
        Yeesh!

      • Rich Kingdon

        Yeah. I read the article. Holy shit, I guess HRC could walk down 5th Avenue and kill someone and you’d still have your nose up her ass, just like the Trumpeters do with him. Jesus, that’s scary as all hell.

      • Sorry, false equivalency

      • John Cross

        Sure, because sending a nasty email is EXACTLY like shooting a guy on 5th avenue.

      • “supposed to be in favor of all candidates”? Sanders is a DINO exploiting the Democratic Party. It’s called the DNC for a reason. Sanders used Democrats because he knew he wouldn’t get anywhere as an Independent.

      • Mike Bacon

        That’s ridiculous, Hillary would never kill anyone herself. She’d pay someone else to do that. At least be reasonable

      • Frank Sheeran

        > Hillary would never kill anyone herself. She’d pay someone else to do that. At least be reasonable

        And remember according to the conspiracy theorists, she’s killed a BUNCH of people and left no evidence whatsoever. If you ask me, that’s pretty cool. That’s the kind of ruthlessness and attention to detail I’d like to see in the oval office.

      • Frank Sheeran

        > deciding to do whatever they can to knock one of them out?

        Hi Rich. I don’t think they were doing “whatever they can” to knock one of them out.

        For instance, 100s of articles a day were written during the primary, right? Over 5 months that’s tens of thousands, right? Wikileaks shows that DNC gave reporters an explanation of why some Sanders choices for committees were bad in TWO cases.

        I think if DNC were trying to knock Sanders out, they would have given information out about him not for 2 articles but for 200 or more.

        They also didn’t have to help him get on the New Hampshire and DC ballots, but they worked hard to do so.

        They also didn’t have to add more debates, but they did so on his insistence.

        Otherwise, most of the mails showing bias show bias not against Sanders per se, but against people attacking the DNC. For instance, one lady was making tweets attacking DNC that were inaccurate and taking quotes out of context to make them look bad. She then bought tickets to a tiny DNC fundraising dinner. There were a couple internal DNC mails wondering whether it’d be dangerous to let her attend–wouldn’t she record it and take more things out of context to make more attacks? In the end they decided to let her attend though. In many cases like this, it seems DNC’s not biased against someone for being a Sanders supporter, but for attacking the DNC. And the bias seems quite mild compared to the attack that it was in response to. I grant the DNC shouldn’t have any bias at all in its actions, and in the case I’m discussing, ultimately it didn’t. But is it bad for the DNC to wonder if this is going to lead to unfair attacks that weaken the party? As a party member I’d kind of like them to defend themselves to some extent, even though I also want them to be totally fair in their actions.

      • Frank Sheeran

        > You find nothing wrong with a committee that is supposed to be in favor of all candidates in their party deciding to do whatever they can to knock one of them out

        Hi Rich. I don’t think the DNC was anywhere near doing whatever they could. For instance:

        — DNC had no legal requirement to help Sanders get on the New Hampshire and DC ballots, and he had no legal right to be on them, but DNC worked to make that happen. Hillary got no such help, and this project cost Hillary votes. If the DNC was trying to maximize Hillary’s margin of victory, I think not doing this would have been the right place to start.

        — the leaks show DNC staff contributing improperly to about five articles across the five months or so of campaigning. During this 150 day period, there were, what, 100 articles a day written about the primary? WaPo famously did 18 pieces just on Sanders one day! But let’s say 15,000 articles total. Why wouldn’t a DNC doing everything possible to knock Sanders out have connived to bad-mouth him in, say, an article a week instead? Or an article a day, or ten? They had a war chest of $61 million, thanks to Hillary Victory Fund, so they could have hired an army of bad-mouthers.

        — the leaks don’t seem to show actual vote fraud; wouldn’t coordinating ballot stealing and so on be part of the attack you describe?

        — they turned off access to a database for one day, to get him to respond to their requests to mail in important reports of some kind. Couldn’t they just leave the database access off for good? After all, Sanders wasn’t paying for its cost, the Hillary Victory Fund was. There’d be an argument for Hillary getting sole access.

        — the leaks show one horrible idea: someone asking if they could drill down on Sanders’ religion to cost him votes among religious voters. Nothing was done about this horrible idea. If they were doing whatever they could to knock Sanders out, I suggest they’d actually go forward with that idea, and probably many more such attacks.

    • spiper

      We don’t even need a glimpse into GOP emails. They said up front at their convention things that any political party would have been ashamed of a few years back.

      • Dolores Cruz

        so true and they get a pass – why? I just can’t understand it but, I truly hope that Hillary will be our next president. She has spent her life in public service and that is held against her? She probably had aspirations to the presidency since she was a little girl – and that is held against her? I see her as a very strong woman, a hardworking woman, a woman who managed to hold her head up high through a horrible, time of extremely public humiliation because of her husband’s actions and that to me shows true and strong character. I truly believe, after weighing it all, and I believed this very early on, she is highly qualified to hold the office of the President of the United States of America.

  • Kirk Linn

    Still waiting on Donald Trumps Taxes Wikileaks?

    • Good point! Of course, Wikileaks, the Russians, Trump, Putin, Glenn Greenwald, etc., are somehow all in this together. I’ve heard that Trump owes some Russian big shots millions of dollars. What’s all that about?

      • Irenemlopez4

        <<o. ★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★✫★:::::::!be437p:….,……….

      • John Cross

        Now THAT’S a debt you do not walk away from. Trump may be wearing a Mexican Necktie pretty soon. No wonder he wants secret service protection, but it won’t work.

  • Compassion

    Why did Wikileaks ONLY target the DNC? That is a question that should be answered first.

    • capncrunk

      Wikileaks can only release stuff they’re given. They probably haven’t been given a trove of RNC emails to release.

      • tjuarez

        Right – because the Russians don’t have any interest in hacking the RNC since they already have their nominee advancing their interests for them.

      • thisisbasil

        LOLOLOL deflect to some cold war shit. Is this what we’ve become?

      • yep

      • Lux N0va

        You really think the ex-kgb agent Putin has left the cold war behind?

      • thisisbasil

        I don’t think he wrote those emails. In fact, I know he didn’t write those emails… or do what those emails indicate.

      • Cue Miller

        Just keep watching, sonny. There’s more to this than we might imagine.

      • strayaway

        If Russia was interested in hacking the DNC and did so as you suggest, Russia could have also hacked Hillary’s illegal server. That makes the DNC as careless as Hillary. Imagine turning our national security over to these people.

      • infidel

        Not really.
        You have not been paying close attention, but there was no evidence of such a thing happening.

      • strayaway

        “Today, Friday 22 July 2016 at 10:30am EDT, WikiLeaks releases 19,252 emails and 8,034 attachments from the top of the US Democratic National Committee — part one of our new Hillary Leaks series.” -wikileaks

        “Hillary Clinton’s Email Was Probably Hacked, Experts Say” is the title of a NY Times article of 7/4/16

        Guccifer, a hacker, testified that he had hacked Mrs. Clinton’s email and found evidence that other parties had already done so.

        I responded to two posters, who like some other Democrats, are suggesting that Russia had something to do with the information wikileaks obtained because Russia like Trump better than Hillary. I pointed out what FBI Director Comey pointed out that Hillary was extremely careless with national security information that could have consequently wound up in the wrong hands. The unsubstantiated argument that Putin provided this information to wikleaks, if true, only makes a better case that Hillary and Democrats are unfit to be entrusted with national security because of incompetence and in Hillary’s case violtion of the law.

      • DisquisTL

        There are two Guccifers. The one who claims to hacked the server is not the one currently in Federal custody; that one is Marcel Lazăr Lehel.

        The one claiming responsibility for the DNC hacks is another person who uses the name Guccifer 2.0 (so as to avoid confusion with 1.0 — not really working out as planned.

        Here’s 2.0’s WordPress site: https://guccifer2.wordpress.comhttps://guccifer2.wordpress.com

        And there is also a Twitter feed.

      • Frank Sheeran

        Russia could have also hacked Hillary’s illegal server.

        Well, you have to assume they’re hacking everything. By far the biggest leaks at Wikileaks weren’t from privately-run servers but government-run servers. For instance, had Hillary been using the govt mail system, its possible that her mail already would have been leaked by Snowden or Manning. As it is–yes, may well have been hacked, but we don’t know it yet. We DO know that govt servers have been hacked.

        Also, the server itself wasn’t illegal at all. Some of the usage of it could have been–about 100 emails had snippets of unlabelled classified info in them. However most of those were sent TO Hillary, not BY her, so it seems kind of hard to blame her for other peoples’ indiscretion. In turn she forwarded or responded to at least two of those, so in effect she WAS sending a mail with a snippet of classified info, which is definitely illegal. There’s the question of whether that’s worth punishing though. The CIA/NSA director himself said its impossible to tell what’s classified just by looking–he got a birthday card that was actually top secret. And there’s no way to know if she actually even read the mail before forwarding it. Finally, she had to turn over copies of work correspondance to the govt in “a timely manner” so the govt could answer Freedom of Information queries. She took two years to do so. The law doesn’t give a firm time limit, but I think she took way too long on this. But again, this isn’t a case of the server being illegal, but her getting the mail back to govt records too slowly. (AND her staff deleted about 2-3% of the work mails accidentally, which is also illegal, but again, it wasn’t the server that made them illegal but that someone deleted something.)

        > That makes the DNC as careless as Hillary. Imagine turning our national security over to these people.

        Actually, I think they all learned a very strong lesson from this. Both problems have nearly (or still may) cost her her election, her job, her dream. If anything I expect she’ll be more careful about security than anyone else we could elect at this point.

      • strayaway

        According to Wikipedia, “sensitive information should be considered and handled as classified even if not marked as such.” It turned out that secret and top secret material was included in Hillary’s email. She should be treated as any other government employee who did the same thing. What lesson did Hillary learn when Wasserman was booted from her role as DNC head? Answer: none. Hillary hired her. Secretaries of State are expected to protect national security rather than jeopardize national security while learning on the job.

      • John Cross

        Frank gave a very comprehensive answer, but of course that means nothing to Treacherous Trumpolini supporters. That’s why I stopped dealing with you people as if you were rational.

      • strayaway

        Frank provided the interesting and correct case that if Hillary had used the State Department computers as she was legally required too, they too could have been hacked. State Department computers have been hacked so Frank made my point that under the Obama administration national security has been lax.

        Its been fun watching Democrats obfuscate by trying to kill the messenger Putin, instead of dealing with the content of the leaked emails. Maybe Putin deserved a Pulitzer Prize.

      • Frank Sheeran

        > State Department computers have been hacked so Frank made my point that under the Obama administration national security has been lax.

        Things like computer security are handled by career professionals that don’t really change much with politics. With the huge exception of Clinton’s mail server (and Powell and Rice before her) I’m not sure we should fault the president too much. Remember the budget’s made by a Republican congress each year. If enough wasn’t spent on IT Republicans probably have some share of the blame.

      • strayaway

        Obama spent $10T that we didn’t have and is actively encouraging Syrian refugees and illegal ‘children’ to come here at huge expense. So it isn’t that there wasn’t the money. He spent it and borrowed more. This is about priorities. As Commander in Chief of armed forces, he is expected to assist in providing for the common defense. If Hillary was using State Department computers as she was supposed to, any successful hacking would have been blamed on our government instead of being Hillary’s fault.

      • Frank Sheeran

        > Obama spent $10T

        Again, the budget is made by congress, which is Republican-controlled. The president’s power basically is to agree to it or refuse to sign it and shut down the govt.

        > So it isn’t that there wasn’t the money.

        If you’re saying Republican congress could have borrowed a bit more, and spent it on better computer security, I wouldn’t disagree.

        > Syrian refugees and illegal ‘children’ to come here at huge expense.

        No, the US is #32 biggest receiver of Syrian refugees, with 7,123 as of this month. 14 countries have taken 10x that. Four have taken 100x that. What do you think this huge expense is anyway, netting their costs vs. their lifetime tax contributions?

        > If Hillary was using State Department computers as she was supposed to, any successful hacking would have been blamed on our government instead of being Hillary’s fault.

        You mean, blamed on Republicans in congress who didn’t budget for better security? Yeah, probably. Who cares who takes blame? The key point is that everyone involved learned their lesson on this.

      • strayaway

        Too many Republicans are puppets of the sam corporatist paymasters as Obama and the Clintons. I agree! I wrote that Obama spent $10T we didn’t have proving that his priorities, were not providing for the common defense. Congress did fail to reign in and sufficiently punish Obama for violating his oath of office. (“I just took an action to change the law.” -Obama) Article 1, Section 1 doesn’t allow presidents to change laws.

        Taking in Syrian refugees is generally a poor idea based on their behavior in Europe, cost, and humanitarian reasons. By definition, refugees need refuge. The do not need to learn English and be brought up to western standards of living. They need to be available to help rebuild their countries when the shooting stops and are less likely to want to do so if spirited away to Europe or the US. It has been costing $13,500/person/year on average for every man, woman, and child brought in as immigrants from the middle east for their first five years here ($14,000 in Germany, and $22,000 in Norway for comparison). We already have lots of unskilled labor about to be replaced by technology. We don’t need more. By comparison, the UN takes care of refugees for one tenth that cost in adjacent countries. My humanitarian suggestion is to end the warmongering Hillary/Obama policy of trying to overthrow Assad so ISIS can be crushed and the flow of refugees would end and refugees could go home to Syria and rebuild it. Meanwhile the US could contribute less money to UN Refugee camps to take care of more refugees than we are spending on a smaller number here. There would also be a military savings. Sweden, by the way, calculates that 20,000 additional people are dying per year now that Sweden has diverted money from foreign aid programs to save lives abroad to taking care of its refugee population.

      • John Cross

        Very good, but pearls to swine, my friend.

      • John Cross

        LOL. Russia hacked the DNC but never hacked Hillary’s server? So I guess it was safe ALL ALONG. Thats because Hillary was SMART and had an expert put it in. Gee, what a great reason to vote for her over the Traitor Trump.

      • strayaway

        I didn’t say that Russia did or didn’t hack Hillary’s computer. Democrat believe Russia hacked the DNC computer and I mentioned that “Hillary Clinton’s Email Was Probably Hacked, Experts Say” is the title of a NY Times article of 7/4/16 and theat FBI Director Comey said that Hillary’s computer could have “could have consequently wound up in the wrong hands.” My point was that both Hillary and the DNC failed to secure their computers.

    • brycelindsey

      because the GOP didn’t manipulate votes.

      • John Cross

        LOL. The entire GOP contest they were tying to block Trump. It just didn’t work, nimrod.

      • Compassion

        because the GOP didn’t manipulate votes. how do you know?

  • WendyLynne

    Notwithstanding the great observations raised in your article, to ensure party unity and the defeat of Trump, DWS should resign and apologize for allowing a bias culture to happen on her watch. End of story. Nothing left to stir up and full concentration on defeating republicans. What I notice often is where we don’t own it and move on, the media continue the conversation. Might I remind everyone of the circus around Melania’s speech. Had they come out immediately with the information later released it would not have been a headline for 2.5 days of a 4 day convention. Learn from mistakes and move forward. Keep the focus on the other message; democrats have the right way to continue to move the country forward. Right?!?!

    • Rich Kingdon

      DWS should resign because she’s DWS. I’m voting for Hillary because the alternative could actually truly bring about the end of our nation as we know it.

      • infidel

        That is good to know.

      • Rich Kingdon

        Didn’t say I was happy about it. but I’m too damned old to tilt at windmills…arthritis, you know. I don’t tilt as well as I used to.

    • Way2GoSassy

      She has already resigned, happy now? Donna Brazille will be the Interim Chair starting in the middle of the most important election in many decades.

      • Rich Kingdon

        Yes, I’m happy that a scumbag resigned. Any other questions?

      • Way2GoSassy

        No you pretty much answered the question of how much of a scumbag you are with your comment.

      • WendyLynne

        Actually, as someone residing in her district I will not be happy until she’s unemployed. Tim Canova for Congress!! A true progressive who cares about what his vot Es care about, not big business/donors

      • Way2GoSassy

        That is entirely your choice but one doesn’t have anything to do with the other.

      • WendyLynne

        Huh? Lol. She oversaw a corrupt organization. She doesn’t need to go back to congress. She should enjoy early retirement and we need to keep the focus on defeating Trump and continuing to move the country forward.

      • Way2GoSassy

        She wasn’t chair for the RNC,so, so much for that lie but I do agree whole heartedly that Trump cannot be allowed anywhere near the White House.

  • Mike

    If it’s OK to throw “confirmation bias” at Bernie supporters, then they can just as easily throw “willful ingorance” at the establishment Democrats who think these emails are being blown out of proportion or don’t hint at the party favoring Hillary and colluding with the media.

    Frankly, as an Independent, these emails show the Democrats are anti-democracy. They control the media (something the right recognized a decade ago) and will do whatever it takes to lush their agenda and favored candidate. This is an affront to the pillar of Western civilization. They are now no better than Trump.

    • rationalgrandma

      Downplaying? They Axed DWS. Two other points to consider: they were never acted on, and Jeff Weaver just said he wrote lots of hateful emails, too.

      • Mike

        Yes, downplaying.

        You mean the DNC chair who was immediately hired by Hillary? Are you even paying attention?

      • BG (unintelligible yelling)

        They threw her a bone to get her to step down now. That’s how it works.

      • Mike

        She could have easily been forced to resign without being “thrown a bone”.

      • Frank Sheeran

        > She could have easily been forced to resign without being “thrown a bone”.

        Agreed, Mike. I’ve read several news vendors’ “dozen worst email” lists and frankly they don’t look bad.

        And yet tens of millions of people are NOT drilling down to read the mails and make judgements. They’re just going by the screaming headlines. So they think DWS has thrown the election.

        What happened isn’t important. What people THINK happened is important. And the stink sticks to the party as long as DWS is seen to work with the party… which is why she should have been thrown under the train instead of getting a cool-sounding new job. Even if she was innocent. This isn’t the court of law, this is the court of public opinion. People who don’t know the details hate her, hate the DNC and will vote Green or Trump if DWS isn’t punished… and she isn’t being punished.

        (Even if I had DWS job, and I had done literally nothing biased, I’d still insist that they fire me just for the good of the party and nation.)

      • infidel

        Yeah – it’s all one big conspiracy.

        :/

      • Mike

        The DNC certainly are guilty of conspiracy.

      • you people seriously need to get lives.

      • Mike

        Yeah because this a completely unimportant event. It is totally not worthy of anyone’s time. Are you freaking kidding?

      • no

      • Mike

        Glad to know there are people out there who are fine with the undermining of democracy so long as it’s their party that’s doing it.

      • HSans

        Hillary Clinton, as is her right, has appointed DWS to head the Democratic Party’s 50-State Programme. Great choice.

      • HSans

        Jeff Weaver publicly promised to publish Sen Sanders’ taxes months ago. Still nothing. Why? What is he hiding? Why different rules for Secr Clinton?

      • Mike

        We’re clearly not talking about a standup guy. You ever consider that he lied?

    • Have any of you disgruntled Independents asked yourselves why Bernie Sanders didn’t run as a proud, banner-waving Independent? or Progressive? but, instead joined a party that he can barely disguise his ever-loving contempt for? (Clue: had something to do with wanting to win)

      • Mike

        It’s simply easier to be noticed if running as Dem or Rep, and it’s easily justified given our two parties both cover a broad spectrum and left and right poltical ideals. If Bernie had ran as a Democratic Socialist party candidate, he never would have gotten his message out there to the same degree.

      • Exactly. He used the party to improve his visibility and then got pissy about their level of support. Not very admirable, IMO.

      • Mike

        It’s absolutely admirable. It shows he’s pragmatic and realistic about the state of our politcal climate and system right now.

        Ron Paul ran as an Independent one election and was barely noticed. He ran as a Republican the next and became a household name. The level of publicity that is controlled by and directed toward the two major parties simply cannot be ignored if one is actually wanting to be President.

        The vast majority of Americans unfortunately do not do their due diligence in educating themselves about candidates both inside and outside of the major parties. And even fewer are brave enough to vote outside of either.

      • Josef Ferguson

        He didn’t “get pissy” about their level of support. He pointed out that they were constantly throwing up roadblocks where they had promised to remain neutral. These emails confirm it.

      • “These emails” confirm nothing. None of it ever happened.

      • Mike

        Yes, a lot of what’s in the emails happened. And the fact they were having conversations about harming Bernie and his campaign is more than enough to prove their bias.

      • OK, want to tell us more about stuff in the emails that HAPPENED? Of course the DNC was biased against someone USING their party to get more visibility. Do you think that Bernie & Co. weren’t biased against HRC? Naive.

      • Mike

        All of it actually happened. The emails aren’t fabrications. Intent here is just as important as the follow through.

        Of course Bernie and Hillary have biases, they’re running against one another.

    • Trump doesn’t seem to be having any problem getting media coverage from the media that Democrats “control.”

      • Mike

        Of course not. They have to cover their competion.

  • Angry Maude

    That’s the problem with the “news-ertainment” business and their false narrative that they are “Investigative Journalists” and new Social Justice Warriors and not in reality looking for ratings numbers and personal gain.
    I’m pretty sure it goes this way:
    1st You, the male “Investigative Journalist”, insert yourself into the story “Woodward and Bernstein” style by accepting illegally sourced information but without verifying where it came from or if it were true (Bernie’s Bros were more adept at pilfering from the DNC database than this person who stole thousands of emails to find 2 or 3 personal emails that detailed the dislike for Bernie the King Bro by the DNC and DWS and I’m quite sure King Bro Bernie had already seen them and this was just another attempt by a bitter has been sexist rabble rouser to “make” sure those “girls” got theirs and be relevant with your underprivileged spoiled gated community raised Hell spawn. )
    2nd, You inform the public before those personally involved that you are going to release the information you took from an illegal source and when asked not to release on air YOU STILL DO. (Anderson Cooper and Ambassador Chris Stevens’ private diary read on air.)
    3rd, You present the low level and highly personal information you have stolen as fact against your public and political victim(s) for personal hubris (exploiting a mentally ill Chelsea Manning like the Wikileaks freaks)Lastly, you are just like the hiding internet troll you sourced, you sit back and reap your sick LULZ because you are “smarter” than everyone else and your little game this time is sure to get get a madman elected as POTUS (just think of all the Social Justice Warrioring you will be able to exploit) because like these childish MRAs asserting their rights, you are just like them and really dislike women and minorities because you rightly believe THEY are better than you.

    • HSans

      Thank you, Angry Maud.
      This episode has me steaming. The Sanders campaign has not disclosed their interactions with the DNC and the way they demonised Rep Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.
      I’m looking for transparency from the Sanders camp. What are they hiding?
      Where are his taxes? Jeff Weaver promised to publish them months ago and still nothing. He seems to have lied and that is awful.

  • Russell Young

    You must have not read all of the emails of you can’t find anything egregious except the one about his religious beliefs.

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

    Those 9 are pretty damping.

    And it does make a difference whether states were open or closed primaries, most closed primaries excluded a large percentage of liberal independents from voting, which is the same demographic that will decide the general election in Nov. The sad part for the DNC is a majority of the liberal independents won’t ever vote for Clinton, myself included. Clinton can barely beat trump if at all. She will lose in the fall, all because the DNC ended up nominating a bad candidate that only a 1/3 of voters have a lack of brain power and moral compass to vote for her.

  • Be Human

    This “leak” was the last BernieBro shoot-yourself-in-the-foot tantrum once HRC announced that neither Sanders nor Warren would be Veep. You are correct that there’s nothing to see here. Anyone who thinks there is probably wasn’t going to vote for HRC anyway.

  • Arthro

    It’s so funny to watch liberals try to spin this. Denial. Disbelief. Delusion. Distraction. Conspiracy theories. Blaming the Russians. So funny. The only thing I haven’t heard (yet) is that this is George Bush’s fault. But, I’m sure that’s coming. Pathetic. By the way, If I was a Bernie supporter, I would be livid.

  • gymlock

    You say Democrats are better than this.

    Apparently not, but then you spend the rest of the article engaging in “confirmation bias.”

  • RalphEaton2011

    Don’t forget, many hacks are inside jobs.

  • Daniel J.

    Not a single mention of MSNBC or Politico in this article? The emails show, without even room for argument, that the DNC had control over the content of those organizations and pushed for pro-Hillary/anti-Sanders stories.

  • LTGray

    Good article. I spent a few days reading through the DNC e-mails related to Sanders and came to the same conclusion. Wish I’d seen this article and saved myself the effort, but it’s good to see confirmation.

  • Victor Angustia

    This article is “denial bias.” Claim8ng that guilt is not guilt because you support the guilty party.