Slashdot Mirror


Top DNC Staffers Leave Following WikiLeaks Email Scandal (usatoday.com)

An anonymous reader writes from a report via USA Today: Following the leak of nearly 20,000 Democratic National Committee emails and the resignation of DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, several more staffers are leaving their positions. USA Today reports Amy Dacey, the chief executive officer of the DNC, Luis Miranda, the party's communications director, and Brad Marshall, chief financial officer, are all leaving the DNC. The statement announcing the staff changes praises the outgoing aides and makes no mention of the email issue. "Thanks in part to the hard work of Amy, Luis, and Brad, the Democratic Party has adopted the most progressive platform in history, has put itself in financial position to win in November, and has begun the important work of investing in state party partnerships. I'm so grateful for their commitment to this cause, and I wish them continued success in the next chapter of their career," said Donna Brazile, the party's interim chairwoman. Some of the leaked emails from party staffers depicted officials favoring now-Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton over Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders during their primary campaign.

31 of 424 comments (clear)

  1. Um, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When you fire the entire executive staff for rigging a primary, wouldn't it be a good idea to invalidate the results of the primary? Just saying. I mean that would seem prudent.

    1. Re:Um, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hopefully, election day will be a beautiful sunny day.
      I would like to spend it playing tennis.
      Pity the fool that wastes it in an American voting booth.
      Pretending they participate in representative democracy.

    2. Re:Um, by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 4, Funny

      Worst. Haiku. Ever.

      --
      This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    3. Re:Um, by Jhon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's not just about rigging the primary. Have you READ the emails? They are full of racist and misogynistic references.

      Talk about hubris and hypocrisy...

    4. Re:Um, by Xenographic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You didn't read them, did you?

      Half of the recent protests/panics/etc. were staged by DNC staffers, which one might note is how they get away with being racists without media rebuke. They held a clandestine fundraiser with the Washington Post that their own lawyers disagreed with. They funneled all the DNC money straight to Hillary and it never mattered what the voters wanted. They'll call your CEO and demand apologies from any media type that dares call them on any of their BS.

      But no, go on, rant about irrelevant nonsense and just ignore the fact that they are effectively above the law at this point.

    5. Re:Um, by cdrudge · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because apathy will contribute to the situation so much more.

    6. Re:Um, by HiThere · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Despair isn't actually the same as apathy.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  2. No chance they'll be indicted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "Thanks in part to the hard work of Amy, Luis, and Brad, the Democratic Party has adopted the most progressive platform in history, has put itself in financial position to win in November, and has begun the important work of investing in state party partnerships."

    You mean the money left over after they gave all the donations to Hillary's campaign, violating FEC rules?

    1. Re: No chance they'll be indicted by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, progressive has always meant "I'm smarter than everybody else in the world and therefore my political opinions bring about progress, and anybody who disagrees with me on any subject at all is wrong just because of the fact that they aren't as smart as me."

      As I've mentioned before, progressive is a label that many groups have applied to themselves in the past, including (but not limited to) prohibitionists and Nazis.

    2. Re: No chance they'll be indicted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, progressive always meant this (pick up a dictionary and take a civics class):

      adjective
      1. favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, especially in political matters:
      a progressive mayor.
      2. making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc.:
      a progressive community.

      As you've mentioned, it doesn't mean anything. Anyone can claim a specific item/label/statement; it doesn't make it true. It is completely disingenuous to use the adjective of "progressive" and attach it to things you don't like so you can demonize the word. Try again.

    3. Re: No chance they'll be indicted by TooManyNames · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm smarter than everybody else in the world ... and anybody who disagrees with me on any subject at all is wrong just because of the fact that they aren't as smart as me.

      I bet [your strawman] works great with conservatives and other people with severe intellectual challenges.

      Much as I hate logical fallacies, such as the one put forward by the GP, you -- and you in particular -- perfectly illustrated their claim. I mean, it's really quite amazing.

      --
      "Is not a sentence" is not a sentence. Well damn.
    4. Re: No chance they'll be indicted by JosephDoeden · · Score: 3

      Yes, but sometimes the progressive party is also the majority.. like on health care, LGBT rights, drug reform, prison reform. Liberals win on all the major platform points.. so it's accurate to call them progressives in the sense they are pushing the majority will of the people of american AND the majority will of liberals in America. Sometimes the people who think they are right.. actually are and you can crunch the number and often find patterns to let you know if this is true. In the case of American it does seem true because all out allies have more liberal programs which we refer to a progressive. It's a pretty solid bet that we too will be going the direction of the rest of the world and not against it, even if we are last to adopt, we are still going to adopt mainstream global principles. The US is no longer the island of do whatever it wants. It's one of many big players in the global market and without us the market would go on. We don't make 95% of the worlds electronics or have the significant leverages in major technology. It's likely we will get a major edge back as the world moves away from foreign labor to automated labor. It's still a net loss for jobs, because that's the future of the global economy no matter how you cut it. Jobs will not scale up against automation and rising population. They just won't. We always knew that would happen anyway.

  3. F-mail by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Funny

    Rumor is they'll stop using all email and switch to smoke signals. Elizabeth Warren is an alleged expert on that tech.

  4. Now they'll suffer the humiliation... by Nova+Express · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...of being forced to take high-paying jobs with the Hillary campaign, the Clinton Foundation, or being hired as big-money lobbyists for the numerous Fortune 500 companies and foreign potentates who have donated to Clinton.

    What a rough fate...

    --
    Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)

    http://www.lawrenceperson.com/

  5. Clinton Foundation by ebonum · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The real reason to have the Clinton Foundation: Give these people USD500K a year jobs while they wait for this to blow over.

  6. Re:Thats nothing by Tablizer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Both parties having Yuuuuge communication issues: Dems plagued by email, Trump by his mouth.

    It's like a boxing match between a quadriplegic and a blind dude.

    Sad sad sad.

  7. Keep on insulting, it's all you got by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Wait until the RNC completely collapses after the disaster Trump has brought to the party. Now he is saying that the election is going to be rigged. This casts doubt on the entire electoral process in the US. What a scumbag. He needs to quit to save himself from further embarrassment.

    I dunno, looking at the way the DNC violated FEC rules in order to beat Sanders, it wouldn't surprise me to hear that they paid to rig the elections.

    Remember those Trump protestors? The ones starting fights at Trump rallies? DNC paid staffers.

    Remember Trump making his hats in China? Complete and total fabrication.

    Remember all the lies, hatred, and general bad mouthing he spews? Mostly made up.

    The Democrats are spewing a deluge of lies and misdirection at Trump, because it's all they got. Trump beats Hillary on pretty-much every political position, and the voters know it.

    Keep with the insults, we need the public to get tired of this and see it for what it really is: the last ditch efforts of a morally bankrupt campaign.

    (Here's a good one that was top news yesterday: Trump having a conversation with the devil. Republicans should totally start throwing insults back at Clinton, because that's what the election is all about!)

    1. Re:Keep on insulting, it's all you got by fustakrakich · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Vote for Johnson, *The name you know*

      Let the chips fall where they may, and don't let the democrats guilt trip get to you... Their "purity" shtick is a hell of a lot more shameful than anything by the "Bernie Bros".

      Your conscience and character will remain intact, in fact better than those who demand you play the charade their way.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  8. And this just in by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 3, Interesting

    And this just came in.

    Apparently the Clinton foundation took in tons of donation money in return for letting the Russians get access to advanced technology.

    From that article:

    “The Clintons, they get their donations and speaking fees in the millions of dollars. The Russians get access to advanced US technology. The tech companies [that participated in the reset, including Cisco, Intel, Microsoft] get special access to the Russian market and workforce.

    “But the American people get nothing. In fact, we get a rival — Russia — with enhanced technological capabilities. At best, that makes them a tougher competitor [in legitimate commerce],” Schweizer said.

    “At worst, they get a more robust military, with technologies that we helped develop, and that can be sold to our enemies.”

    Sad.

    1. Re:And this just in by 110010001000 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Oh lets see who made those allegations:

      "Peter Franz Schweizer (November 24, 1964) is an American author and right wing political consultant. He is the president of the Government Accountability Institute (GAI) and a former William J. Casey Research Fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution.[1] He is also Breitbart News Senior Editor-at-Large.[2]"

      Oh and lets see what he found:

      "Schweizer concedes he found no “smoking gun” evidence that any of the donors who poured cash into the Clinton coffers actually were promised, or received, any State Department favors in return."

      Trump supporters are abject morons.

  9. Not so much the email hack, but what it revealed by dfenstrate · · Score: 4, Interesting

    .... such as a sham primary, extensive money laundering to get around contribution limits, racist commentary on various groups, condescension towards unions, and so on.

    --
    Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
  10. Too little, too late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Wasserman Scultz's "resignation" was smug and facile. She and her cronies had already achieved their mission of handing the nomination to Hillary on a platter. And there was Hillary praising her and promising to reward her and ongoing role.

    Only fit punishment is expulsion from the party and rehosting the convention. To let Hillary keep it is to let her keep stolen goods. Sure, maybe she would have got them anyway, but they weren't Wasserman Scultz's to give to her.

    The whole thing is a disgrace but the DNC elite will make sure Hillary gets to the stolen goods. It's too bad Hillary is only facing Trump because she's so disliked any half-decent Republican would whip her ass in the polls.

    1. Re:Too little, too late by fustakrakich · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's too bad Hillary is only facing Trump...

      Yeah, pretty convenient, huh? You'd think it was almost planned that way as part of the tag team with the republicans. To make sure the two worst possible candidates would face each other, and help keep congress from getting too lopsided and preventing the democrats from using republican "obstruction" to break their platform promises (rotating villain). They almost blew it in 2008, but the "blue dogs" saved the day, and they were able to toss a few seats in 2010 to bring it back closer to the 50/50 ratio to keep the gridlock game running right up to today. No, no, it's nothing like that at all, everything was on the up and up, perfectly legitimate. Politics is the most honest business there is.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    2. Re:Too little, too late by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      The Daily Show pointed out that we have the two luckiest presidential candidates ever: they're both running against the only opponent they could conceivably defeat.

    3. Re:Too little, too late by DarkOx · · Score: 4, Interesting

      2007/8 was politically a long time ago. A great deal of the landscape has changed even since 2012. Hillary has changed her position on pretty much every major policy point under debate this cycle since that time.

      Hillary herself has made lots of missteps and been embroiled in multiple scandals since then. She has been forced to take accountable policy position as Sec of State many people in both parties disagree with, unlike being able to duck votes in the Senate. She was not especially successful at state. I think most Americans feel our foreign policy at least where the middle east is concerned and that is what is most visible to most people has been lacking. Finally I don't think she is as sharp as she used to be. She handled Sanders in the debates pretty well but he was probably a soft opponent everywhere except on certain economic issues where he was very passionate and his ideas more thoroughly developed; all said she won but without a lot of really good lines. You see that because non of the footage made it to political ads.

      Frankly I don't think the Hillary of today would stand a chance against the Obama of 2008. I would actually expect it to be a blow out.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    4. Re:Too little, too late by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sorry, but Hillary hasn't beaten anyone. She ran basically unopposed for NY Senator, couldn't beat a junior Senator / Community organizer in 2008, and had to cheat to win this year against a communist / socialist.

      At least Trump beat over a dozen others, some of them in the pockets of the Republican Elites. Not that I am going to vote for him.

      Of course, Hillary does have something we haven't seen in a Presidential Candidate in over 100 years ... a vagina. Now, if that makes her qualified ....

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    5. Re:Too little, too late by tomhath · · Score: 3, Interesting

      She ran basically unopposed for NY Senator... and had to cheat to win this year

      She cheated in the Senate election the same way she cheated this year. Only difference was nobody called her out that time.

  11. In other politifact news by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 3, Informative

    Remember all the lies, hatred, and general bad mouthing he spews?

    Yes I do. And the Pulitzer-Prize-winning site Politifact confirms the extent of his habitual lying.

    Here's politifact dilligently checking Jeff Sessions' comment "there are about 350,000 people who succeed in crossing our borders illegally each year,".

    [politifact:] The number of immigrants illegally in the country is staying the same or getting smaller. We rate Sessions’ statement False.

    Let's go see what Wikipedia says about illegal immigration:

    [DHS, from Wikipedia] Numbers of new illegal immigrants per year crossing the border illegally are not directly countable, and are estimated from the number who are caught trying. For FY 2015, DHS reported 337,117 apprehensions. [3] Using an estimated catch rate of 33%, the number crossing without detection would be 510,000 per year (337,000 / 0.67).

    So, he's basically citing DHS numbers and being conservative, yet Politifact determined it was "false".

    Additionally, note that the previous paragraph is not in the current version of the Wikipedia article, it was removed *after* Sessions' speech!

    I took the trouble to look at the edit history right after the speech (wondering myself how many illegals come into this country each year), and noted that the page had not been substantially edited in over a month, and that paragraph had been there for quite a long time.

    So I don't really see Politifact as a neutral observer any more.

    I mean, they didn't even *bother* to look at Wikipedia pages that are available when they write their results!

    What other things do they get wrong, and do they have a hidden agenda?

  12. Dig for the truth! by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Remember all the lies, hatred, and general bad mouthing he spews?

    So, yes, I do remember his extensive bad-mouthing of many people over the past 9 months or so. Thanks for asking.

    You're remembering the press reports, not what he actually said.

    Dog down to the truth - you'll get there eventually.

  13. Bernies revolution is dead ... by drnb · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When you fire the entire executive staff for rigging a primary ...

    They are being rewarded not fired. Like Debbie Wasserman Schultz has already done, they are probably moving from the DNC to Hillary's campaign, and ultimately on to positions in the Clinton administration. Like Tim Kaine, another former DNC chair who has supported the Clintons for many years.

    Hillary's been nominated, the DNC's main work is done. The important folks move on to the presidential campaign. The less important folks stay behind at the DNC and work on state and congressional stuff. These people are leaving on schedule. Washerman Schultz had to leave a few days ahead of schedule, nothing more.

    They fear no repercussions for any of this since Bernie's followers will be good little Democrats and vote for Hillary in the end. That is all that matters. The revolution is dead despite Bernie's claims to the contrary. He got on board with Hillary so he will not lose the committee positions and other advantages he has in the Senate. To go against her would mean he would be ostracized, so he plays ball. He talks of the platform, platforms never mean a damn thing. They are just symbolic appeasements for the fringe elements of the party. Always has been, now Bernie's revolution joins those ranks.

    A Hillary victory means everything Bernie fought for was for nothing, everything Hillary and company did vindicated. Hillary and the party machine will have forgotten Bernie in a matter of days, any pain or embarrassment he caused fading by the day, soon to be forgotten. Soon to be remembered as nothing more than a defeated tough opponent. What he stood for forgotten, just that he was somehow a "tough opponent", no one remembering precisely why.

  14. Re:Not so much the email hack, but what it reveale by Uberbah · · Score: 4, Interesting

    He lost in absolute numbers

    Because the primary was rigged. A laughable number of debates compared to 2008, and scheduled to air at times guaranteed to have few viewers. A primary schedule front-loaded with conservative southern states (most of which would never vote for Hillary in the general) to give the conservative candidate an early claim to "frontrunner" status. And that was right out in the open, before any of the DNC's outright ratfucking was revealed.

    No, there was no chance. There never was

    That's what Hillbots said in 2008, too. Sanders has a solid record and his positions are popular with far more voters than Hillary. Whereas Hillary's record is solid shit, and her positions are unpopular with voters. But hey, waddya know - when you start with the Mt. Everest of name recognition, have the banks/media/neocons/party bosses all lined up behind you - it is possible to beat a senator that most Americans had never heard of eight months ago!

    At least Bernie was big enough to realize that however much he might personally dislike Clinton, she remains by a wide margin a better presidential candidate than Trump.

    Hillbots keep saying that too, but the Dem candidate is no lesser evil, not this time. Trump attacks the Iraq war as a stupid idea; Hillary replicated it in Syria and Libya. Hillary loves the TPP, Trump does not.

    And every attack that can be made against Trump can be thrown right back in Hillbot faces. He's a racist? So is she - superpredators and deporting children - to the country she helped overthrow - to "send a message to their parents". He's corrupt? Cattle futures, pay-to-play with the Clinton Foundation, Goldman Sachs speeches, and so on.