The Democratic National Committee capitulated late Friday night after a lawsuit was filed by the Bernie Sanders campaign over access to a voter database.  In a post-midnight dispatch, CNN reported:

A deal has been reached between the Bernie Sanders campaign and the Democratic National Committee to allow the campaign to regain access to voter files, Sanders' spokesman Michael Briggs told CNN.

Bridget Johnson of PJ Media explains:

As promised, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the Democratic National Committee on Friday night.

The 12-page complaint charged breach of contract over DNC leadership deciding to yank the Sanders' campaign's access to the invaluable voter database after a vendor created a security hole that a Sanders staffer -- who has since been fired -- peeked into.

It notes that at the end of the October, Sanders and the DNC signed an agreement regarding access to the data -- with the understanding that the DNC must “use security measures, with respect to the Campaign Data, that are consistent with good practices in the data processing industry" and “take all measures necessary to protect the secrecy of, and to avoid disclosure and unauthorized use of” confidential information.

The security hole opened on Wednesday by a software update from vendor NGP VAN was resolved in four hours. Sanders' now-former data director, Josh Uretsky, told MSNBC he was only looking at the data "to document and understand the scope of the problem so that we could report it accurately."

NGP VAN -- which in 2008 turned inappropriate information over to the Clinton campaign in what was said to be another glitch -- said that even with the bug one campaign would not be able to export the data of another campaign -- contradicting DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), who told CNN that Sanders staffers "not only viewed it, but they exported it, and they downloaded it."

Sanders' camp confirmed in the lawsuit that "staffers who viewed the Disclosed Information were not able to save or copy the Disclosed Information due to restrictions and controls in the NGP VAN software."

Yet the DNC suspended access by the Sanders campaign to its voter database, an essential tool for primary campaigning.

An incredible rift has opened up.  Former senator James Webb, who earlier withdrew from the primary contest, characterized the DNC, headed by Clinton ally Debbie Wasserman Schultz, as being “an arm of the Clinton campaign,” and a key union supporter urged Sanders to run as an independent:

RoseAnn DeMoro, executive director of National Nurses United, said splitting from the party could be the only response if access to crucial voter information is not restored.

“If he doesn’t get access to his voter list, what choice does he have?” she said, stressing she was speaking in a personal capacity, not the union. “I think that’s crossing a lot of people’s minds if the process is so rigged.

“Personally – and I can’t speak for the organisation on this – if I were in his situation I can’t see that I would have any choice,” added DeMoro, whose union was the first to endorse Sanders. “If he is denied access to his voter base, what choice does he have? If the process in the Democratic party is this rigged, how can he be loyal?”

The DNC’s capitulation forecloses this – for now – but the bitterness remains and is not confined to the Sanders side.  The Clinton campaign has used the harshest possible language:

Brian Fallon, a Clinton campaign spokesman, called into CNN tonight [Friday], very angry about the reported 24 separate intrusions by the Sanders campaign. He said this was a clear “act of theft, stealing data from the Clinton campaign,” and Sanders isn’t living up to that “different kind of campaign” he promised.

“They were very productive,” Fallon told Wolf Blitzer. “They were like kids in a candy store, Wolf. They had about 40 minutes where they ran wild.”

He called the lawsuit “an act of chutzpah” and said the Sanders staffers attempted to save some of the data locally.

And now, Debbie Wasserman Schultz faces a petition to remove her from the DNC chairmanship.  The Huffington Post notes that DWS has always been a “loyal Clintonista” and that she’s now abusing her position to be a shill for Hillary.  The HuffPo reports:

Wasserman Schultz is committing political malpractice and should be removed. (snip)

Her latest travesty is being prosecutor, judge and jury, imposing the death penalty on Bernie Sanders' campaign for, at worst, a minor misdemeanor which hasn't even been proven.

On Thursday, Bernie Sanders had the best day of his campaign, receiving the endorsement of the 700,000 member Communications Workers of America, the grassroots Democracy for America, and surpassing 2,000,000 individual contributions.

On Friday, Wasserman Schultz suspended the Sanders campaign's access to its own data in the DNC database, making it impossible for the Sanders campaign to contact potential voters only weeks before the crucial Iowa Caucuses and New Hampshire primary. As I write, the Sanders campaign has been forced to go into Federal Court to get back its data, creating a fight that can only hurt the Democratic Party.

Sanders' offense? A breach in the DNC's voter database managed by a private contractor hired by Wasserman Schultz, which allowed a handful of Sanders campaign staff to get a peak at Clinton voter data for two hours. There's no evidence that they did anything untoward with the data and the breach was quickly closed.

No matter. Wasserman Schultz crippled the Sanders campaign and virtually invited the press to question Sanders' honesty and integrity at Saturday's Democratic debate. Few doubt that Sanders is one of the most honest politicians in the nation. But Wasserman Schultz managed to pour dirt over him.

But the gripes don’t end there.

And speaking of the debate, why did Wasserman Schultz schedule it for the Saturday night before Christmas, at one of the least-watched times on television, virtually guaranteeing low ratings?

As I previously wrote, the DNC under Wasserman Schultz wants to guarantee that as few people as possible actually watch the Democrats' own debates!

Hillary's campaign wanted as few debates as possible to prevent her lesser-known opponents from getting free television exposure. DNC limited debates to six, compared to 26 in the 2008 campaign that nominated Barack Obama, and 12 Republican debates this campaign season.

So far, more than 68 million viewers have watched the Republican debates while less than 24 million people have watched the Democratic debates.

Wasserman Schultz may think she's protecting Hillary by denying her Democratic opponents the chance to be seen by more voters. But whomever the Democratic nominee is, she's guaranteeing that during this primary season, far more people get to hear the Republican message than the Democratic message. The Republicans have used the debates to ramp up the fear factor in the American public, which is likely to help them in the general election, even as the Democrats have largely remained on the sidelines and Obama's approval ratings have plummeted.

And if Hillary wins the nomination but Bernie's millions of supporters feel he's been treated unfairly, many will stay home on election day, making it more like the Republicans will win.

If Hillary is the nominee and loses to the Republican candidate, Wasserman Schultz's "hide the Hillary strategy" will have contributed to the Republican victory.

Wasserman Shultz's strategy of putting her heavy thumb on the scales to help Hillary is almost as bad as the Republican strategy of suppressing the vote.

In any case, it's political malpractice. Wasserman Schultz must go.

Apparently, quite a few progressives agree.  Move On has a petition to remove DWS here.  And Democracy for America has a petition demanding that DWS grant the Sanders campaign access to its voter data here.  As of this writing, the Move On petition was rapidly amassing signatures, and it appeared likely they would achieve their goal of 40,000 in short order.

Here are a few comments on their petition page, where people who sign can write a few words of discontent:

Washerman-Schultz is blight to the DNC and the Democratic Party. Arrogance, unfairness, a lack of integrity, and political malfeasance are "business as usual" for her. Democrats like her are pushing me to leave the Democratic Party and become an Independent for the first time in my life. She needs to be removed forthwith.

This one’s a real kicker:

She has been in too long and needs to GO! Wasserman-Schultz is a FAILURE! Bring Howard Dean back!

And here’s a threatening one:

Her actions and motives clearly show she is better suited to head RNC. We suggest she go there following her dismissal.

No!  We don’t want her!

Here’s a Republican who jumped into the fray:

As a Republican, this is one of the craziest peope [sic] that could have ever been put into this position. Please replace this nutbag with someone who is not as dumb, but yet easily beat down in every way, shape, and form.

I’m guessing this person is a Bernie fan, as many of them quite likely are.

The party is obviously being exploited. I can not [sic] longer support this party AT ANY LEVEL without a change in leadership and direction!

This person is so ticked off he or she decided to remove the last letter of her last name.  That’ll show her!

Schult, is horribly shady, and malfeasant, and corrupt, and must go.

If you need a bit of a chuckle, head on over to Move On, skim the comments, and perhaps join the “movement!”