I doubt Sanders was at liberty to say anything about the FBI briefing until it became public.

[Garrett78]

An FBI briefing of that nature would surely be classified. I don't know why anyone would expect the Sanders campaign to have made an announcement.

Candidates and members of Congress are told all sorts of things we never learn about, barring investigative reporting.

Russia is all about causing chaos, confusion and infighting. That's the objective. I'd suggest we not play along.

[rzemanfl]

1. Wouldn't Bernie have said this instead of you? n/t

[Garrett78]

3. He did. I just watched his response for the first time. It was the very first thing he said.

He said, "I receive lots of intelligence briefings that I don't share with the public."

As does every other member of Congress.

[rzemanfl]

5. "Don't" and "can't" are different things. n/t

[Garrett78]

6. Oh good grief. Newsflash: there's a massive amount of information we know nothing about.

Every member of Congress gets briefings that only become public when there's a leak.

Anyway, I like how you've shifted the argument.

You: Why didn't Sanders say that?

Me: He did.

You: Oops, I better parse words.

[rzemanfl]

9. If you had watched what Bernie had said before you posted....

no, wait, it's my fault, right?

[Garrett78]

11. You're the one who asked why he didn't say anything about the briefing being classified.

Apparently you hadn't listened to or read what he said.

I hadn't had a chance yet, as I just got home from work. Lo and behold, the first thing he said was exactly what I suspected, which is that he's not in the habit of sharing classified briefings.

[rzemanfl]

12. I read his statement, which said nothing about it. n/t

[rzemanfl]

15. So you based your post on what you suspected and I based mine on what I read

from Bernie. Good to know.

[Garrett78]

17. I don't know which statement you're referring to, but the fact is it was the first thing he said...

...in response to the question about why he didn't tell the public about the briefing.

Here's the video: https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2020/02/21/bernie-sanders-russia-interference-raw-sot-vpx.cnn/video/playlists/this-week-in-politics/

[rzemanfl]

18. Thank you for the link.

[rzemanfl]

23. This is the video I saw-

Link to tweet

[Blue_true]

2. You are desperately spinning.

Bernie could have asked the FBI to brief the other campaigns if what you claim is remotely correct. Did he? It doesn't look that way. He remained silent on information that was vitally important to the other campaigns and voters.

[Garrett78]

4. Every member of Congress receives numerous intelligence briefings that aren't made public.

That's not spin. That's par for the course.

We have no idea what other members of Congress, including those running for president, may or may not know.

[Blue_true]

7. Ok, now that it is public, Warren, Klobuchar and Gabbard have so far

said nothing about being briefed. If it was confidential like you seem to claim and ALL three were affected by it, why haven't they come out and said "we were briefed as members of Congress a month ago"?

You keep spinning the hole deeper.

[Garrett78]

16. Why would they do that? What purpose would it serve?

Maybe they were briefed, maybe they weren't. I suspect they weren't, because the more people that know, the more likely there is to be a leak.

There are briefings meant for every member of Congress and the president. There are also briefings that aren't.

You're making much ado about nothing.

Be it Sanders or Biden or Klobuchar or any other candidate, I'd feel no different about this. It's really a no-brainer.

[Blue_true]

19. Well for one, you keep claiming that Sanders acknowledged it because

it had become public. Why wouldn't the same dynamics apply to Warren, Klobuchar and Gabbard? Why is Bernie opening up right because the info became public and the other three being wrong to do the same?

[Blue_true]

21. Can you provide everyone a link to Bernie's statement on what and when

he was told? Thanks.

[rzemanfl]

24. Poster did, see above. Thanks for asking.

I cannot find Bernie's Twitter news release.

[BlueIdaho]

33. Sanders was briefed

Because it was his campaign that was being directly impacted. It’s true that Congress members receive top security briefings - but that is not why he was briefed.

The only members of House and Senate that have been briefed to date are Intelligence Committee members.

Bernie’s briefing was necessary because the Intelligence community had specific information that there are ongoing efforts to meddle in his campaign.

[democrattotheend]

8. I was thinking the same thing nt

[CalFione]

10. spin, spin, spin

[Garrett78]

13. It's not spin. It's completely normal. Every member of Congress would tell you the same thing.

I hadn't watched the video clip of Sanders's response when I started this thread. But I watched it a few minutes ago and it was as I expected. Sanders sort of chuckled at the question and immediately said something to the effect of, "I get lots of intelligence briefings that I don't share with the public."

Every member of Congress would tell you that's par for the course, guaranteed.

[CalFione]

14. This was a little bigger than your average intel briefing

He owed it to the other campaigns to tell them.

[uponit7771]

22. +1, Sanders owed it to America to denounce outside involvement the second he found out. He could've

... been very generic in the denouncement and not intimated anything related to the intel briefing.

Someone claimed that a month ago the Sanders surge started ... I'm starting to feel betrayed, this doesn't look good for Sanders.

[JudyM]

30. Like Obama did?

[uponit7771]

20. Why didn't Sanders denounce outside involvement in US elections when he found out? He could've been

.. as generic as possible with the denouncement.

No example needed

[Garrett78]

25. He's denounced Russian interference on numerous occasions without exposing sensitive info.

He did so in January at the debate and in other venues.

In other words, he's done precisely what you're calling for: generic denouncements. Repeatedly.

[still_one]

26. I think you are right

[Hoyt]

27. Not issue for me. Question is why do they prefer Sanders? Can't think of good reason.

[gulliver]

32. They want Trump to win.

[Hoyt]

34. Exactly, and it ain't a good reason for us. Heck, it's not good if they want him.

[Garrett78]

35. I think the sole objective is to cause discord.

Russia will do anything to undermine any candidate who becomes the frontrunner. I'm sure Russia is aware of the perception that Sanders can't win, so they're going to exploit that for all it's worth.

I think that perception is false. I know you disagree and I respect your opinion. But that perception seems to be based largely on false assumptions about so-called independents, moderates, undecideds, etc. And the notion that 2018 was the result of Trump voters switching sides (stated repeatedly by a DU poster and echoed by others). I say false assumptions because of the following:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-moderate-middle-is-a-myth/

https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/what-everyone-gets-wrong-about-independent-voters/

https://www.vox.com/2016/1/22/10814522/independents-voters-facts-myths

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/11/10/18076872/trump-46-percent-solition

Regarding the first 3 articles, those who self-identify as such and such are all over the map ideologically-speaking and the vast majority of so-called independents are completely wedded to a particular party. It's a myth that there's this large mass of astute, consistent middle-of-the-roaders with some well-defined "moderate" ideology, who are just waiting to see which party will put up the most centrist candidate. Many people, especially young people, are starving to vote for someone who dreams big and will fight for a future that isn't filled with misery (many people recognize that that's where we're headed with the status quo, Trump or no Trump). From the first article: "Anybody who claims to have the winning formula for winning moderate, independent or undecided voters is making things up. Perhaps more centrist policies will appeal to some voters in each of these categories — but so will more extreme policies." Many of those so-called "extreme policies" poll very, very well.

As for the 4th article, what happened is we saw Dems break turnout records. It wasn't that Trump voters switched sides, or that anti-Trump Republicans came to our rescue in droves. That simply isn't what happened. So, what did happen? Well, for instance, every single major ethnic and racial group had a greater increase in turnout from one midterm to the next (in this case, 2014 to 2018) than ever before in US history. And the age group that had the greatest increase in turnout between 2014 and 2018 was the 18-29 age group (20% in 2014 to 36% in 2018). Yes, it's true that many moderates flipped districts (while some others lost statewide races for the US Senate). It's also true that some very progressive candidates got elected. We can have a more moderate candidate win a district while also having a very progressive candidate win a national election. Those aren't mutually exclusive events, especially at a time when the driving force in the US as a whole is an opposition to the status quo, a general sense that we're in grave danger and that the US is - in the words of Howard Zinn - "topsy-turvy."

So, yeah, I think Sanders can win states such as PA, MI, AZ, etc. Regardless of who our nominee is, I think it'll be a close election.

[mr_lebowski]

28. This is ridiculous criticism IMHO ...

He's supposed to come out and say ... what?

"Ladies and Gentleman I've learned that Russia is trying to help me in the Primaries. You know, like everyone already knows they did in 2016, seems they're doing it again. I didn't ask for them to do it, I want them to cut it out, but the rest of the Senate won't do anything about it!'

And then what?

IOW, what does anybody ELSE in the race do differently? Attack him and accuse him of welcoming it? Remind everyone he's a Socialist, just like Russia used to be? Remind everyone he's praised USSR? Question his loyalty to the USA?

The ones who don't go that route ... start saying, like everyone here does, that Russia is doing it because he's the weakest candidate against Trump?

So, everyone here expects him to undermine his own campaign and open himself up to all kinds of criticism ... Just because Putin made this decision ... against his wishes?

The outcome is basically ALL BAD for him, nothing good about it whatsoever. But in no way 'his fault'.

"But he NEEEEDED to tell us, because REASONS!"

AFAIC ... I don't blame him for saying 'fuck that'.

I also say ... we already all knew. We knew in 2016, and we knew the same would happen in 2020.

[Garrett78]

29. And that's what most here would be saying if it was any other candidate.

[JudyM]

31. Obama was excused for doing this, remember...

[comradebillyboy]

36. Cool story bro.