Does anyone know what Bernie's reason was for being one of only 4 Senate votes

[pnwmom]

against the 2012 Magnitsky Act?

I've tried googling for the answer without success.

The Magnitsky Act, formally known as the Russia and Moldova Jackson-Vanik Repeal and Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2012, is a bipartisan bill passed by the U.S. Congress and President Obama in November–December 2012, intending to punish Russian officials responsible for the death of Russian lawyer Sergei Magnitsky in a Moscow prison in 2009.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/112-2012/s223

[virtualobserver]

1. The people who voted against it wanted it to be broader....to apply to other countries.

it was watered down from the original version.

[pnwmom]

3. Are you sure you're talking about THIS bill? I'm not talking about the recent one

where Bernie was one of only 2 to vote against it.

[virtualobserver]

5. yes, the four who voted against were Levin, Whitehouse, Reed and Sanders

Carl Levin said this.....

Levin said yesterday that he opposed the bill because the human-rights language wasn't broad enough.

"The Magnitsky language before us is not the Magnitsky language adopted by our Finance and Foreign Relations committees. Their Magnitsky language applied the same sanctions to human rights violators wherever they might be – whether in Russia, or Syria, or Sudan, or North Korea, or China, or in any other country," he said of the legislation to require that human rights violators in Russia be identified, denied U.S. visas, and have their U.S. assets frozen.

"Applying the sanctions contained in this bill solely to Russians, as the House version does, not only diminishes a universal value. Because it adds a political twist, it will stoke a nationalistic response in Russia," Levin argued. "If this bill does not apply the same rule to all human rights violators, if it singles out Russian human rights violators, President Putin will no doubt appeal to the nationalistic passions of many Russians by saying that our bill isn’t aimed at protecting human rights, but is aimed at Russia. We should not hand President Putin that argument."

https://pjmedia.com/blog/obama-praises-pntr-with-russia-but-not-russian-whistleblower/

[VermontKevin]

7. I agree with him in principle, but not in substance. I think his vote was wrong.

[virtualobserver]

8. it is the difference between a well thought out Democratic proposal.....

and a poorly thought out Republican proposal. Similar to the current sanctions bill.

[VermontKevin]

9. I think the current sanctions bill is a good idea. So did every Democrat in the Senate.

[virtualobserver]

10. reasonable persons can disagree on that.

[VermontKevin]

11. You find Rand Paul reasonable?

[virtualobserver]

12. sometimes he is, yes.....most of the time he isn't.

[Ninsianna]

24. Has Bernie explained his vote on the Magnitsky bill or this one?

I understand Carl Levin's position, but has anyone even asked Bernie about his two votes? I'd like to hear it in his own words.

[virtualobserver]

25. In 2012, people did not ask Bernie Sanders to explain his votes.

The recent votes were explained. He did not want to blow up the Iran deal. John Kerry expressed similar sentiments.

[Ninsianna]

26. In the 5 years since, 2 of which he spent in the spotlight and in the current

atmosphere, no one has bothered to ask him about his previous votes?

If he didn't express anything back then, isn't it a bit of stretch to say someone else expressed similar sentiments? Similar to what exactly?

I'm just curious as to why. He's been on various shows, has no one bothered asking him in his nearly nightly appearances?

[virtualobserver]

28. Not a stretch at all on the recent vote...quite clear

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/336494-kerry-new-iran-sanctions-may-be-dangerous



also quite likely that Bernie agreed with Levin on the Magnitsky bill.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/271455-senate-passes-russia-trade-bill

Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) voted against the trade bill.

Levin said Wednesday that he would have preferred that the Senate vote on its version of the bill, which included the sanctions worldwide, rather than just affecting Russia.

“I don’t understand why we’re not taking up the Senate version and applying these standards universally,” Levin said on the Senate floor Wednesday night. “The only answer I can get is that the House might not pass the Senate version. Well, we should do what we think is right.”

"Do what we think is right" sounds like a position that Bernie would take as well.

[Ninsianna]

31. Since you're attributing to Bernie what people who are not Bernie have said,

it's clearly a stretch.

What does Bernie have to say for himself and why doesn't anyone ever ask him about his own votes?

[virtualobserver]

34. Bernie agrees with Kerry

https://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-statement-on-iran-and-russia-sanctions


The stretch would be to believe that Bernie wasn't in agreement with Carl Levin.

Bernie votes his conscience.

[Ninsianna]

36. You seem to be trying to link two seperate votes, by inserting Kerry.

The stretch is thinking that this makes any sense. You have nothing stating what Bernie's reasoning was.

Bernie doesn't seem to be explaining anything, nor does he seem to be very effective. He doesn't explain his vote, and his followers just basically say whatever they wish to justify his actions.

Since he didn't bother explaining why he made this vote and NOBODY ASKED HIM, it's weird how his conscience works. Was this just grandstanding, did he say anything in debate?

Saying that Carl Levin spoke for him in 2012 or Kerry did at a some point, and that's why he did something in 2017 really doesn't cut it.

If he's voting his conscience as one of TWO dissenting votes, he should be explaining it. But the silence seems to suggest that this is just a contrarian thing, and a political ploy.

I'd prefer it if people who claim to vote their conscience would explain why they chose to vote that way, that's what they usually do when it's a principled stance.

[Ninsianna]

40. I asked a question about what Bernie actually said, you stated that Levin and Kerry

spoke for him in 2012, for a vote taken in 2017.

I'm sorry you could not find evidence of an explanation or a principled stand, and that you are frustrated that you could not back up your claims, but the one wallowing in hate is not me.

The primaries are over, and one cannot hide behind such ridiculous accusations when an elected official makes a vote, that his followers insist is based on "conscience" but cannot or will not back that up with an explanation of what principle was at play.

Please cease the wallowing, the offensiveness and the inability to handle not being able to back up your points. Lose an argument gracefully, when you don't have facts, attacking me won't magically make them appear.

[R B Garr]

41. Great points!

Thanks for being so direct for a pretty simple question.

[Ninsianna]

43. Quite a lot of extremely thin skin and projection happening here.

[SunSeeker]

4. It makes no sense to vote no if that is the reason.

Sanders voted for Obamacare even though it was "watered down from the original version" (didn't have the public option). If he wanted it broader and thought a broader bill could pass, then he should have just introduced a broader bill. But in the meantime, you vote yes, so that we at least have something in place to punish murder of dissidents.

Got a link that shows Sanders' reasoning?

[VermontKevin]

6. There were a number of surprising no votes.

In historical context, I'm pretty sure Waters, Reed, Whitehouse, and Levin would admit their vote was a mistake. But then again, hindsight is always 20/20.

[virtualobserver]

13. In hindsight, it looks like Carl Levin was correct.

as he said "Because it adds a political twist, it will stoke a nationalistic response in Russia"

[leftstreet]

14. +1

[pnwmom]

15. As if Russia wasn't already a nationalistic kleptocracy? n/t

[VermontKevin]

16. Yes. One should not upset those who get stabby at the enforcement of civil rights.

[virtualobserver]

17. don't poke the bear

[pnwmom]

19. No, it's better to pepper spray a bear in the eyes. n/t

[virtualobserver]

23. I'm not sure how you do that metaphorically

[R B Garr]

18. The two votes taken together are very curious. nt

[NurseJackie]

20. I'm glad someone's brave enough to bring this up. It certainly deserves scrutiny.

I think that we also deserve answers to our questions.

[R B Garr]

22. We definitely deserve answers. A good start would at least

be his tax returns. That should be basic, and someone who makes so many assumptions about others should be accountable as well.

[rgbecker]

21. Bernie wanted to get the Russians to bankroll his campaign and

Throw their support behind his commie single payer healthcare plan.

It's so obvious, I can't believe you are even asking.

[klook]

27. LOL! Nicely played

Trashing thread.

[Bluepinky]

29. Here we go again, yet another trash Bernie thread.

Don't you all get tired of this?

[pnwmom]

30. Why do you think this question doesn't deserve an answer? It's not about bashing him.

I expect that he had a reason but I can't find it.

[Tom Rinaldo]

33. It's not your question pnwmom That was fair enough

It's more how some of "the usual suspects" have used it.

[stonecutter357]

32. K&R

[MaryLouisaWillis]

35. Bernie always has a reasonable sounding excuse someone makes for him, however

the truth is, he doesn't ever vote against Russia.

[George II]

38. And only two Senators voted against the current sanctions bill along with three Representatives...

...(five total in both houses)

Four republicans and one independent.

[R B Garr]

39. Exactly, the numbers are staggeringly lopsided.

That alone is a curiosity. But the two votes together look like a pattern. Since Russia is a huge news item lately, it's going to draw attention.

[Justice]

42. Sanders voted against bill b/c of Iran component - here is article

This article offers both support and criticism of Sanders' position.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernies-vote-on-sanctions-was-about-protecting-the-iran-deal-from-trump_us_597df7f8e4b0da64e879b55e

Here is his explanation:

In response to the criticism, Sanders tweeted: “I am strongly supportive of sanctions on Russia and North Korea. However, I worry very much about President Trump’s approach to Iran. Following Trump’s comments that he won’t re-certify Iran’s compliance with the nuclear agreement I worry new sanctions could endanger it.”

H.R. 3364 lumps Russia and Iran sanctions together, giving both parties incentive to ensure its passage. With Democrats eager to punish Russia for its election interference in order to put Trump in a bind, and Republicans unhappy with Obama’s Iran deal wanting to crack down on Iran, politicians on both sides had incentive to overlook potential problems with the bill."

[R B Garr]

44. This thread is about the 2012 Magnitsky vote.

It's in the OP.