DNC vs Sanders. Is the DNC right to block Sander's access to DNC voter data?

No, it's like saying if a woman is lying in the park with her legs spread open for three months, one day, someone is going to look.

That's irrelevant for assessing Sanders's culpability. If I leave my apartment's door unlocked and you come in and steal my cookies, that's still breaking and entering.

Mitigate does not mean absolve. If documents you should not access are left out in the open and you read them your wrongdoing is vastly less severe than if you break into the data store to get it.

How is it supposed to kill it? What can't the Sanders campaign do that it could do if it had access to its account?

Isn't this the donor contact lists?

I guess I should send money tonight and my address.

Culpability is not binary and there are differing degrees of guilt. Your analogy again doesn't make sense. This was an apartment he paid to access and some of the information he should not access was lying around in the open.

It was indeed inappropriate access to data but there was no break in involved. To use your apartment analogy they had permission to be in but not to look at your mail, and then you left your mail open all over the apartment.

Choosing to peruse some of it is wrong but it is simply not analogous to a break in.

This cuts both ways, if you do not think this data is significant then the wrongdoing is less significant too.

If Sander's is not harmed by this then neither was Hillary.

Without these donor lists the campaign is guaranteed to lose, perusing Hillary's lists for less than an hour was wrong but this is a death knell to the campaign if he doesn't gain access quickly.

Meanwhile Bernie Sanders is trending at #1 in San Francisco. And holy **** it is ALL people condemning the DNC and Hillary - and finding ways to help Bernie.

#1

If you're such a stickler about analogies, let me refine mine as follows: This was an apartment building within which Sanders and Clinton had each rented an apartment. The building's incompetent janitor left both apartments' doors unlocked. The Sanders staffers opened Clinton's door, entered Clinton's apartment, and stole Clinton's cookies. Clinton's staffers did nothing to Sanders's apartment.

This is still breaking and entering by the Sanders staff. And until the affair is cleared up, the DNC is still justified in keeping the Sanders people out of its apartment building.

No, it is NOT breaking and entering. I will give you 1000 dollars if that legal instrument is applied here (no conviction necessary, even if it is merely charged). It will not be because this is nothing of the sort. I'm not even sure if any crime was committed.

OK, I'll buy that as long as you know that the so-called incompetent janitor was really on Clinton's payroll with the secret purpose of getting Sanders evicted, and when Sanders noticed Clinton's door ajar, he immediately asked the janitor to lock Clinton's door.

The janitor lied and said he would, snickered about Sanders' earnestness with Clinton over cocktails that day, and bet Clinton $1000. one of Sanders' excitable staffers would take the bait within three months.

Using this analogy, the Clinton campaign should be suing the DNC and perhaps the Sanders campaign.

If I represented the DNC or Sanders' campaign as an insurer, I'd be making calls to the reinsurers to make sure there was enough coverage on hand.

Whether or not the doors are locked, people are not entitled to go into other people's homes to steal things.

Thieves are arrested and charged for stealing things from unlocked homes and cars pretty regularly - if they are found with stolen goods.

Quite a surprising hardline conservative stance from this source. When and why did you turn so hard of Sanders? i remember you were quite excited about his entry in the race.

I don't think it's considered breaking and entering. It is, however, theft. The value of the cookies determines the level of the charges.

"Breaking" and entering requires damage in entering. I suppose the term you're looking for is trespassing....

The big problem is that the DNC is not an unbiased referee. I don't see a conspiracy, but I also don't see them as a fair arbiter either. Is anyone at the DNC being fired for their mistake in this?

The games being played by the DNC to downplay the debates to benefit Hillary is infuriating to me.

I still think Sanders is an interesting candidate who has potential to make a difference to the overall US presidential campaign.

At the same time, I am not blinkered as to what appears to have happened.

That does not reflect any kind of conservative or Conservative position.

This kind of digital issue does not lend itself well to physical comparisons of entering someone's house at all but I have never argued that they acted in the right, only that these comparisons to crimes are hyperbolic an do not apply.

Hillary would love for any criminal charge to arise from this, it would turn the PR for this situation entirely in her favor so there is significant motivation for her campaign to pursue legal recourse. But I do not expect even a charge of "data theft" to be made here.

These guys were wrong but they aren't breaking and entering wrong, or raping wrong etc. This all started with Lash saying that the fact that they did not break into the system and that it was left open to them (after they warned them that it was open) mitigates their wrongdoing and it absolutely does.

She was not saying that it means they did nothing wrong just that the fact that the vendor left the data open to all makes this a much less degree of wrong than if they had broken into a secured system.

This isn't an apartment. This is a shared refrigerator.

If I leave cream in my refrigerator at work, someone might use it. They shouldn't... but they might.