[smadge]

I think it is pretty unreasonable. As you note, there is no technical reason to deny the Bernie campaign access to their data. The Bernie campaign has fully indicated they want and are willing to cooperate with a third party investigation into the data breach, which would require investigating both campaigns, the DNC, and NPG VAN. Given they are already willing to share everything they know about the incident, there is absolute no legitimate reason for the DNC to intentionally sabotage the campaign.

[slg]

There is no technical reason, but that doesn't mean there is no reason. Sanders campaign may have violated rules. The DNC has thrown them in jail without bail in hopes that it gets things resolved quickly. I have no problem with that. If the DNC drags this process out that would be a very different story.

[smadge]

It's way too early for the DNC to take punitive actions against any campaign. They shouldn't do that until there is evidence that data was misused. Currently there is no evidence, and I doubt any will appear.

[mrgordon]

There is a reason we don't normally throw people into jail without bail...

[morganvachon]

Actually we (in the U.S.) do, if the charges are serious enough or if the suspect is a flight risk. It varies by jurisdiction, but in general misdemeanor charges have pre-set bonds, and usually felony warrants will have a bond set by the judge at the time the warrant is issued, though for serious charges the warrant may be issued with no bond set.

[mrgordon]

Thats why I said "normally"

[dragonwriter]

It appears that the DNC violated rules by cutting off access in violation of the contract (until the Sanders campaign sued on that point, at which point a resolution was almost immediately reached.)

[nimblegorilla]

Seems pretty unreasonable to me. It's pretty obvious that the DNC would not have taken access away from Clinton if the situation were reversed.