Bernie Sanders & Russia election interference

[Ten oz]

It was a huge week of confirmations regarding Russia's interference into the 2016 election. Intelligence officials testified before the Senate and called the evidence that Russia interfered incontrovertible. Not deep state Obama hold overs but Trump appointees like H.R. McMaster and Dan Coats. Then the Mueller investigation laid out indictments naming names and outlining how it was done. 

It turns out part of Russia's strategy to help Trump was to bolster Bernie Sanders. Social media accounts were created and professional Russian trolls sought to aide Bernie Sanders campaign. I find this to be an interesting revaluation,not a surprising one, because since the election Sanders and his supporters have continue to push for him to have more of a leadership position in the Democratic Party. In lieu of the fact he was the beneficiary of Russia propaganda should he take a step back now? Does it diminish the lefts ability to complain about Trump receiving help from Russia if they continue to support Sanders who apparently did the same but to a lesser degree? 

 

"The social media accounts run by the Russian defendants supported Trump and independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Clinton's chief primary rival for the Democratic nomination, the indictment alleges. In addition to Clinton, Russian accounts also denigrated Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, who challenged Trump for the GOP nomination. "

https://www.npr.org/2018/02/16/586500591/grand-jury-indicts-russians-linked-to-interference-in-2016-election

[iNow]

43 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

In lieu of the fact he was the beneficiary of Russia propaganda should he take a step back now?

NO COLLUSION!

Kidding aside, I’d say no. Unless his staff knowingly tried to garner Russian help or crush an investigation into it, I’d say he’s fine. He also strikes me as the type of guy who can approach this honestly and say, “I acknowledge we may have benefited from Russian trolls seeking to defeat Clinton, and we’re going to take steps X, Y, and Z on any future campaigns to ensure any victories we secure are fair and equitable and properly address the problem of Russian election interference.”

48 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Does it diminish the lefts ability to complain about Trump receiving help from Russia if they continue to support Sanders who apparently did the same but to a lesser degree? 

Not in and of itself, but definitely if they’re obstinate and pretend it never happened. Authenticity and mature acceptance of the facts matters here IMO.

[Ten oz]

18 minutes ago, iNow said:

Kidding aside, I’d say no. Unless his staff knowingly tried to garner Russian help or crush an investigation into it, I’d say he’s fine. He also strikes me as the type of guy who can approach this honestly and say, “I acknowledge we may have benefited from Russian trolls seeking to defeat Clinton, and we’re going to take steps X, Y, and Z on any future campaigns to ensure any victories we secure are fair and equitable and properly address the problem of Russian election interference.”

There's 2 sides to the coin the way I see it. On one side it is impossible to quantify how successful the propaganda was. No one can say definitively they would have voted any different or felt any different about a single candidate had the interference not accorded. On the other side of the coin every objective the Russians had were successfully met. I assume this is the catch 22 underlying all good propaganda and or marketing. Outside looking in one would assume we've been manipulated into feeling the way we do. Inside looking out we aren't convinced.

Hillary Clinton lost be a hair. She won the popular vote by 3 million yet lost the electoral vote by like 10 thousand or something. Sanders received 750 thousand write in votes and who knows how many Sanders supporters just didn't vote at all. Sanders and his supporters (I voted Sanders in the Primary) certainly didn't help matters and certainly behaved as Russia encouraged them to. Add that to the facts Sanders isn't even a registered Democrat and will be 79yrs old on election day in 2020 and I think it is best Sanders takes a step back. I am not implying he should resign but rather should stop jockeying for a leadership position and another presidential run. His action well meant or not have been counterproductive to everything he claims to care about. Let other people (Warren, Newsome, Booker, Harris,etc) take center stage moving forward.

[Phi for All]

3 hours ago, Ten oz said:

There's 2 sides to the coin the way I see it. On one side it is impossible to quantify how successful the propaganda was. No one can say definitively they would have voted any different or felt any different about a single candidate had the interference not accorded. On the other side of the coin every objective the Russians had were successfully met. I assume this is the catch 22 underlying all good propaganda and or marketing. Outside looking in one would assume we've been manipulated into feeling the way we do. Inside looking out we aren't convinced.

I'm not so sure you can't quantify it. Is there a way to assess the content of the pro-Sanders propaganda? Was is lies that helped him, or was it simply higher exposure to his platform and speeches?

We've seen the type of anti-Hillary propaganda used by the Russians, and most of it sounded more like the GOP wrote it. "Trump wants to stop the terrorists, and Hillary wants to make it easier for them to get in the country." The Russian propaganda always assumed her guilt despite multiple GOP-led investigations failure to find any actionable wrongdoings.

If the Russians simply broadened Sander's audience, and allowed him on his own to sway more voters with his message, we can at least say those voters weren't deceived the same way they were with Clinton. Is there an example of pro-Sanders Russian influence that was lying about him? 

[Ten oz]

14 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I'm not so sure you can't quantify it. Is there a way to assess the content of the pro-Sanders propaganda? Was is lies that helped him, or was it simply higher exposure to his platform and speeches?

The hacks definitely energized Bernie's base is a way which was detrimental to Clinton and provided Sanders longer staying power. The hacked materiel were not lies but they were illegally obtained, a crime was committed, and people played fast and loose with what was in the emails. 

25 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

The Russian propaganda always assumed her guilt despite multiple GOP-led investigations failure to find any actionable wrongdoings.

 Also assumed her guilt in cheating Sanders out of the nomination. 

29 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

If the Russians simply broadened Sander's audience, and allowed him on his own to sway more voters with his message, we can at least say those voters weren't deceived the same way they were with Clinton. Is there an example of pro-Sanders Russian influence that was lying about him? 

Clinton receive 3.6 million more physical votes than Sanders in the primary yet the DNC hacks perform and disseminated by Russia let many Sander supports with a feeling of being defrauded. I my opinion Sanders currently uses that sentiment to get preferential treatment within the Party. There is a tangible sense he is owed an ongoing apology. Meanwhile he isn't even a party member. It is a dynamic I cannot see existing had Russia not interfered.  

[iNow]

They also acted in support of Jill Stein, specifically in MI, WI, and PA, where Stein happened to win more votes than the number by which Hillary lost to Trump. 

[Ten oz]

5 minutes ago, iNow said:

They also acted in support of Jill Stein, specifically in MI, WI, and PA, where Stein happened to win more votes than the number by which Hillary lost to Trump. 

That is a good point. As a side not Stein requested had recounts in all 3 of those states but unfortunately we never got them. 

[LaurieAG]

Isn't this just another form of Astroturfing which just means you are being "hoist by your own petard"?

“Astroturfing,” first coined by U.S. Senator Lloyd Bentsen of Texas in 1985, is when companies or even individuals mask their motives by putting it under the guise of a grassroots movement. Whether by using misinformation or literally paying people to buy their hamburgers, astroturfing is used to generate publicity and sway public opinion, all while the people orchestrating the movement act like they had nothing to do with it.

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/astroturfing-grassroots-movements-2011-9#exxon-mobil-was-behind-a-youtube-video-spoofing-al-gores-an-inconvenient-truth-1

[Ten oz]

6 hours ago, LaurieAG said:

Isn't this just another form of Astroturfing which just means you are being "hoist by your own petard"?

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/astroturfing-grassroots-movements-2011-9#exxon-mobil-was-behind-a-youtube-video-spoofing-al-gores-an-inconvenient-truth-1

I feel like this impacts liberals differently than conservatives. With liberals being more pro change and conservatives more pro tradition (simple version) liberals are more likely to let the wolf in sheep's clothes have a set at the table in the name of equality and fairness. Conservatives don't really care about carpetbagging or astroturfing  provided the message pleases them. Conservatives know what they want and any group that is willing to preach to the choir is good as another. I don't think the authenticity of a movement matters unless it changes people allegiances . The Tea Party movement, for example, was a fake grassroots movement but ultimately only acted to re-energize those were were already ultra conservative in the first place. It didn't seek to change minds much as motivate those who already agreed. The Sanders movement was different. Sanders supporters were made to feel disenfranchised in hope they would not vote. It worked because fairness and inclusiveness is typically associated with liberalism.  Propped up movements more negatively impact liberals because liberals believe they need to be considerate of them and make adjustments to do so. It is an effect way to make liberals waste time, energy, and money spinning in circles rather than moving forward.

Whether it is a lone floorboard our a critical pillar the foundation of Bernie's rise and influence was supported by those who sought to use Sander as a wedge. In my opinion Sanders needs to sit down and somberly ask himself if his rise in stature and influence has helped or hurt the policies he advocates for. Sanders criticized both Clinton and Obama for being too moderate;look at what we have now. I agree with Sanders on many issues. I believe his views on banking are terrific. That said I believe it is time for Sander to back others and stop asserting himself as a leader. He should be motivating his supporters to get excited about Warren or Harris and not the potential of him running again. 

[Raider5678]

IMHO if we didn't have political parties, it would have been much harder for any collusion to happen in the first place.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but most of the Russian Collusion appears to have been trying to split the democratic party supporters between Hillary and Bernie.

If there had been no parties, there perhaps could have been an additional conservative candidate that would have opposed Trump on the conservative side of things, while Hillary and Bernie opposed each other on the liberal side of things.

 

[Ten oz]

8 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but most of the Russian Collusion appears to have been trying to split the democratic party supporters between Hillary and Bernie.

Nope,there are other threads outlining what "most" of it was about. Supporting Sanders was just a tiny piece in achieving that agenda. This isn't a Russian Collusion thread however.

[Ten oz]

“In many respects, what Mueller’s report tells us is not new to us,” Sanders, a U.S. senator from Vermont, said. “We knew that they were trying to sow division within the American people. In my case, it was to tell Bernie supporters that Hillary Clinton is a criminal, that Hillary Clinton is crazy, that Hillary Clinton is sick — terrible, terrible ugly stuff — and to have Bernie Sanders supporters either vote for Trump or Jill Stein or not vote at all.”

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/2018/02/20/bernie-sanders-mueller-indictment-hillary-clinton-2016/356453002/

[Ten oz]

@swansont as we have learned from the Mueller indictments Russia not only hacked individuals and campaigns but they actively supported individual candidates. Bernie Sanders was one of those candidates Russia helped. So the hacked material indirectly helped Sanders but there was purposeful help as well.

Quote

And the Internet Research Agency also kept a list, the indictment says, of the more than 100 real U.S. people it had contacted to help with its recruitment efforts, logging their political views and what they had been asked to do by the Russian operation.

The social media accounts run by the Russian defendants supported Trump and independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Clinton's chief primary rival for the Democratic nomination, the indictment alleges. In addition to Clinton, Russian accounts also denigrated Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, who challenged Trump for the GOP nomination. Link

I think there is a strong case that can be made that the Russian propaganda in support of Sanders against Clinton was successful. A study found that 12% of those who supported Bernie Sanders in the Primary ended up voting for Trump. That is a huge number considering how different Trump and Sanders were on the issue vs Sander on Clinton. I think the notion that Clinton and the DNC cheated Bernie Sanders, a notion Sanders has gone along with, accounts for most of that 12%. Russia instigated the hacks and specifically released the material they did to help create that narrative. Sanders and his supporters accepted that narrative and ran with it. 

Quote

Fully 12 percent of people who voted for Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., in the 2016 Democratic presidential primaries voted for President Trump in the general election. That is according to the data from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study — a massive election survey of around 50,000 people. Link

I don't feel Sanders has owned any of this. Owned that some of his success in 2016 was aided by Russian propaganda designed to undermine Clinton and help Trump. Rather Bernie Sanders continued complaining about the DNC , pushed for changes to the primary process, and has remained a presence of criticism of the DNC through even the mid terms commenting on what he feels the DNC should and should not do.

Quote

 

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said Wednesday morning that DNC Chair Tom Perez’s endorsement of New York governor Andrew Cuomo for that state’s governorship was “absolutely” a mistake.

“To endorse one candidate over the other is not what the chair of the DNC should be doing,” Sanders said during an interview with the Washington Post. Link

 

If elements on the left aren't identifying the Russian influence that helped Sanders or interested in doing anything about it I think they lose the moral authority to an extent when it comes to Trump. Clearly what Trump did was worse, what Trump did was illegal, but Sanders has exercised very poor judgement on the matter.   

[swansont]

Quote

Right, but I am not accusing anyone of a crime. Also both campaigns to include surrogates were briefed in August. I already provided a link for that. So by August, at the latest, everyone knew what was happening. 

OK. I was misremembering the time line.

 

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

 

I think there is a strong case that can be made that the Russian propaganda in support of Sanders against Clinton was successful.

Yes. What does this have to do with what we were discussing? (The hack benefitting democrats, so they have “blood on their hands”) Helping Sanders hurt Clinton. Clinton is a democrat. Sanders is not.

[Ten oz]

6 minutes ago, swansont said:

Yes. What does this have to do with what we were discussing? (The hack benefitting democrats, so they have “blood on their hands”) Helping Sanders hurt Clinton. Clinton is a democrat. Sanders is not.

Sanders caucuses with Democrats, endorses Democrats, has a leadership position with the Party, and received millions of votes from registered Democrats in the 2016 Primary. I am a registered Democrat and I voted for Bernie Sanders in the 2016 primary. I always vote further to the left I can during the primaries. Say Sanders is not a Democrat in a conversation about public perception is semantics in my opinion. 

Consider the recent Roger Stone indictments. They contain information about his contact with Julian Assange. 

Quote

 

Special Counsel Robert Mueller has fashioned another detailed timeline of events in his Friday indictment of longtime Donald Trump ally Roger Stone. The 24-page document uses code to identify many of the people and organizations involved, but several of their real identities seem clear.

Jerome Corsi, a conservative conspiracy theorist and Stone associate who relayed WikiLeaks updates to Stone, has acknowledged being Person 1.

Randy Credico, a comedian and radio host who has known Stone for more than a decade, matches the description of Person 2. Credico didn’t immediately respond to a call seeking comment.

Steve Bannon is the high-ranking Trump campaign official in early-October emails with Stone, according to a person familiar with the matter. Bannon didn’t respond to a request for comment.

Organization 1 is believed to be WikiLeaks, headed by Julian Assange.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-25/roger-stone-timeline-puts-trump-s-wikileaks-ties-in-focus

 

Julian Assange was treated very well by the left for years. As mentioned early Bill Maher had Julian Assange on his show in August of 2016. I could be wrong but I have never seen Bernie Sanders disavow Julian Assange but I have seen on numerous time where Julian Assange has claimed Bernie Sanders was cheated out of the Democratic Nomination. On a superficial level I can see how it appears like partisan politics as usual that anyone would care that Roger Stone was corresponding with Julian Assange yet don't care Michael Moore was doing the same. 

Of course there are key differences like Michael Moore wasn't part of Clinton's campaign and Michael Moore didn't help coordinate any leaks. What Stone did was criminal and what Michael Moore did was not. I am merely commenting on perception. Often in life perception colors reality. Democrats palled around with Julian Assange too. No amends have been made on the left for any of it and it looks like Bernie Sanders probably runs again. I think it is problematic. That is just my opinion though. I am not accusing anyone on the left of a crime.  

*Most of the sites I could link showing Julian Assanges speaking out in support of Bernie Sanders are sites I consider trash which is why I didn't link anything. I can provide links if you have questions or doubts about that. 

[swansont]

18 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Sanders caucuses with Democrats, endorses Democrats, has a leadership position with the Party, and received millions of votes from registered Democrats in the 2016 Primary. I am a registered Democrat and I voted for Bernie Sanders in the 2016 primary. I always vote further to the left I can during the primaries. Say Sanders is not a Democrat in a conversation about public perception is semantics in my opinion. 

I have voted for democrats, independents and republicans. People have called on a few Republicans to caucus with the Democrats, rather than just pay lip service (and furrow their brows) to their concerns about the current administration. They haven’t, but doing so would not make them Democrats.

The fact remains that Bernie is not a member of the Democratic Party, and there are plenty of people on the left who know this.

 

[Ten oz]

8 minutes ago, swansont said:

I have voted for democrats, independents and republicans. People have called on a few Republicans to caucus with the Democrats, rather than just pay lip service (and furrow their brows) to their concerns about the current administration. They haven’t, but doing so would not make them Democrats.

The fact remains that Bernie is not a member of the Democratic Party, and there are plenty of people on the left who know this.

 

I don't disagree with any of that. My broader point is about overall public perception regarding Russia Interference. Sanders ran for the Democratic nomination. Sanders might run for it again. I think standing on stage shoulder to shoulder with Bernie Sanders diminishes any Democrats ability to criticize Trump for collusion. Bernie Sanders was part of that game too. It is why Trump never attacked Sanders. Why Sanders was the one person on the left Trump said nice things about. 

Quote

 

Donald Trump said Bernie Sanders has been "treated very badly" by the Democratic party and should run as an independent on Wednesday's broadcast of Morning Joe. Trump says he is "going to be taking a lot of the things that Bernie [has] said and using them" in a general election fight against Hillary Clinton. Trump praised Sanders, calling his speeches "very good material."

Link

 

 

[swansont]

21 hours ago, Ten oz said:

I don't disagree with any of that. My broader point is about overall public perception regarding Russia Interference. Sanders ran for the Democratic nomination. Sanders might run for it again. I think standing on stage shoulder to shoulder with Bernie Sanders diminishes any Democrats ability to criticize Trump for collusion. Bernie Sanders was part of that game too. It is why Trump never attacked Sanders. Why Sanders was the one person on the left Trump said nice things about. 

You are entitled to your opinion of Sanders and your own perception of him. But he is not a democrat, and many democrats are keenly aware of this.

They are aware of some, of not all, of the points in this thread

https://twitter.com/scarylawyerguy/status/1089199340084695041

They didn't ask him to get on the stage.

 

[Ten oz]

10 minutes ago, swansont said:

You are entitled to your opinion of Sanders and your own perception of him. But he is not a democrat, and many democrats are keenly aware of this.

They are aware of some, of not all, of the points in this thread

https://twitter.com/scarylawyerguy/status/1089199340084695041

They didn't ask him to get on the stage.

 

I never claimed Sanders was a Democrat. I have been saying that in my opinion Bernie Sanders behavior along with that of many others on the left weaken public perception regarding the severity of Russian interference.  It is a fact Bernie Sanders is a registered Independent. I am not stating otherwise. 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

I never claimed Sanders was a Democrat. I have been saying that in my opinion Bernie Sanders behavior along with that of many others on the left weaken public perception regarding the severity of Russian interference.  It is a fact Bernie Sanders is a registered Independent. I am not stating otherwise. 

You keep blaming democrats for stuff Bernie did.

[Ten oz]

26 minutes ago, swansont said:

You keep blaming democrats for stuff Bernie did.

Due to our 2 party system politics are generally filtered through a binary paradigm. Left vs right, Conservative vs Liberal, Red vs Blue, and etc. In the context of how the general public feels about the Russian interference I don't think Sanders not formally being a Democrat matters. Sanders represents Left, Liberal, and blue much as anyone else.

As for what Democrats have done related to Bernie Sanders: They gave Sanders a leadership position in the caucus, Link.  Democrats made changes to super-delegates as a concession to Bernie Sanders and his supporters, Link. The DNC Chairman Tom Perez went on Tour with Bernie Sanders, Link. 

In my opinion Democrats share much of the blame. A crime was committed against them (the DNC) and against this country's election process. While Bernie Sanders was not responsible for that crime he took advance of it. Rather than rebuking that behavior Democrats embarrassed Sanders. It sends mixed messages. Should the base be upset about the crime (Russia hacked the DNC and leaked embarrassing information in a coordinated attempt to make Bernie Sanders a victim to weaken Hillary Clinton campaign) or should the base accept Bernie Sanders was a victim and make changes to the process so things are more fair in the future? 

While I understand both things can be true I do not believe both things are true. The Democratic Primary process was the same when Clinton lost to Obama. It was not a new process. Bernie Sander new exactly what he was signing up for. Also as your have accurately stated Bernie Sanders is not a Democrat. So it only makes logical sense the super-delegates would select a party member in a party primary, duh. Democrats capitulated to Bernie Sanders on this issue in my opinion rather than made their case which is why I am blaming them for things Bernie Sanders did.

 

[Ten oz]

@swansont sadly I saw Huckabee Sanders make an argument today about the general media and WikiLeaks which mirrors our discussion some. 

Quote

she denied that the White House and Trump had any contact with WikiLeaks, and brushed off the possibility that Trump would issue Stone a pardon. When asked whether working with WikiLeaks should be considered a crime, however, she went a step further. “I think every single outlet that you all represent looked for and searched for information that WikiLeaks was providing,” she said. “Most of you reported on that information. I think you’re just as accountable as anybody else in that process.” In other words, if seeking information from WikiLeaks is a crime, the media is full of criminals. Link

For the record this really upsets me. It is a massive false equivalent. It is Trump's campaign (Stone, Manafort, Cohen, etc) who broke the law. Committing felonies is not the same thing as reporting on felonies. It just fustrates me that better judgement wasn't shown. It leaves the door open to criticism and helps enable bold face liars like Huckabee to make disgusting generalizations. 

Edited January 29, 2019 by Ten oz

[swansont]

10 hours ago, Ten oz said:

@swansont sadly I saw Huckabee Sanders make an argument today about the general media and WikiLeaks which mirrors our discussion some. 

For the record this really upsets me. It is a massive false equivalent. It is Trump's campaign (Stone, Manafort, Cohen, etc) who broke the law. Committing felonies is not the same thing as reporting on felonies. It just fustrates me that better judgement wasn't shown. It leaves the door open to criticism and helps enable bold face liars like Huckabee to make disgusting generalizations. 

I agree it’s a false equivalence. The media are not subject to campaign-related laws in the same way as campaigns are. 

[Ten oz]

5 minutes ago, swansont said:

I agree it’s a false equivalence. The media are not subject to campaign-related laws in the same way as campaigns are. 

Do you agree that their behavior was unhelpful? 

Polls related to the Russia investigation appear to show a more even split than on Trump approval itself. I think that is crazy considering the number of indictments and guilty pleas. Russian interference is a provable fact at this point yet polls beneath partisan issues of disagreement like direction of the country, Trump's approval, and blame for the shutdown. 

Quote

Finally, asked if special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election has given them more doubts about Trump’s presidency or not, 45 percent of Americans said yes, while 48 percent said no. Link

Anyways, I will let this conversation go. Thank you for participating. I don't think I really have anything left to add and am just rehashing.