Fired Sanders Staffer Claims He Was Only Trying To Document Security Vulnerability

Last updated on September 25th, 2023 at 01:51 pm

Read: Samuel Alito Is The Insurrectionist Threat To Democracy On The Supreme Court

Fired Sanders campaign staffer Josh Uretsky said that he accessed the Clinton voter file data in an attempt to document fully the scope of the security problem so that it could be accurately reported to the DNC.

Video:

Transcript via MSNBC’s Steve Kornacki:

STEVE KORNACKI, HOST: So let me — let me start with this.

Apparently from what we’re told and from the — the documents that NBC News has been able to obtain here, a lot of what went on here is actually very traceable, very trackable. And what we’re — what we’re able to see from these documents is that people from your campaign, for over 40 minutes, were able to access — were able to look at, search, and make copies of Clinton supporter lists from her side of the wall.

What is the justification for doing that?

JOSH URETSKY, FORMER BERNIE SANDERS CAMPAIGN STAFFER: So I want to talk — first of all, I was doing data and not digital, just to not conflate things there.

So I guess what I want to say is that we knew that what we were doing was trackable and we were trying to create a clear record of a problem before reporting it, so that we were — so that we could make sure we weren’t crying wolf and so that we understood the extent of the exposure of our data to the other political entities (INAUDIBLE)…

KORNACKI: I’m sorry, are you saying you wanted…

URETSKY: (INAUDIBLE).

KORNACKI: — you wanted to be able to prove to the DNC that you were able to access files from Hillary Clinton?

URETSKY: We had to assume that our — that our data was equally exposed and, you know, updated reports through then show that it was. And we just wanted to — you know, we wanted to document and understand the scope of the problem so that we could — so that we could report it accurately…

KORNACKI: But I’m trying…

URETSKY: — both to…

KORNACKI: — I’m trying to figure out…

URETSKY: — both learn…

KORNACKI: — when you’re — when you’re saying document the extent of the problem, does that mean you wanted to go through everything that Hillary Clinton had and you wanted to see if she had anything you had?

URETSKY: No, what I mean is that we could see that — we could see that there was a problem in security and so we wanted to create a record on the — on their system without taking any data for our own purposes to (INAUDIBLE)…

KORNACKI: But you…

URETSKY: (INAUDIBLE)…

KORNACKI: — but this was…

URETSKY: — there was involvement (INAUDIBLE)…

KORNACKI: — if this was traceable and trackable, you were making copies of her — of her voter lists, weren’t you?

URETSKY: The — I guess you could phrase it that way, but we never — we never — those — the systems were all in the vote builder van system, the vote builder DNC system. It was all within their — their custodianship if that makes any sense. So we didn’t, at least to my knowledge, we did not export any records or voter file data that were based on those scores (ph).

And so, yes, we did — we did establish proof that there was a problem so that — so that, A, we understood what that problem was, and, B, we could accurately report that up the chain. And that did take us some time to figure out…

KORNACKI: But what — the problem, besides the farewell being down, what are you able to establish by going into her voter file?

I think that’s the confusing part to people here. If you went into her voter files, if you searched them, if you — if you copied information from them, it basically sounds like you’re telling me you’re committing — crime is a strong word here, but you’re committing the misdeed to prove it’s possible to commit the misdeed.

URETSKY: Well, no, because we didn’t actually like use it for anything valuable and we didn’t take custodianship of it. Like we didn’t — it’s like the equivalent of, I guess, you know, like the analogy maybe would be, you know, somebody — somebody leaves the front door open for the fifth time. You know, this was not the first time — this wasn’t the first time that van made a mistake like this. But somebody leaves the front door open, and you left a note inside the front door saying you left the door open.

And then maybe you went and checked the side door, too, to make sure that door was closed.

This is an ugly story that keeps getting uglier. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. The Sanders campaign was trying to document a security problem, but instead of accessing the data on their own, they would have been better off to get someone from the DNC, and the vendor go through the system in real time while the error was happening.

If they had shown the vendor and the DNC the problem while it was happening, there would be no doubt about their intentions. The DNC should return the data that belongs to Sanders back to the campaign.

The bigger problem here is that the DNC has a security issue with their data. None of this would have happened if the system worked properly. The fault here rests with the vendor and those who hired them.

The competency of the vendor and the system should trouble all Democrats, and if the DNC knowingly continued to use a vulnerable system then this isn’t a Clinton versus Sanders issue, but a problem at the DNC.

Jason Easley

Jason is the managing editor. He is also a White House Press Pool and a Congressional correspondent for PoliticusUSA. Jason has a Bachelor’s Degree in Political Science. His graduate work focused on public policy, with a specialization in social reform movements.

Awards and  Professional Memberships

Member of the Society of Professional Journalists and The American Political Science Association