Bernie Sanders and Sanctions

[Garrett78]

Sanders has a history of supporting sanctions, but he has voted against certain pieces of legislation on account of not wanting to endanger the nuclear agreement involving Iran and Russia.

And then there's this:

The fact that Bernie Sanders (I-VT) voted against the so-called Magnitsky Act of 2012 imposing targeted sanctions on Russian oligarchs to punish the Putin regime for human rights abuses is often cited as “proof” by liberal conspiracy theorists that Sanders was somehow culpable in the Kremlin’s targeted effort to damage the candidacy of Hillary Clinton as part of their broader attack on the 2016 U.S. election.

What liberal conspiracy theorists won’t tell you is that Sanders was joined in voting nay by Carl Levin (D-MI), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), and Jack Reed (D-RI) none of whom stand accused by anyone of being Russian stooges.

What liberal conspiracy theorists won’t tell you is that the Obama administration opposed the Magnitsky Act. The administration flip-flopped only after the sanctions were attached to a bill normalizing trade relations with Russia, hence the bill’s official name: The Russia and Moldova Jackson-Vanik Repeal and Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2012 (H.R. 6156).

What liberal conspiracy theorists won’t tell you is that Sanders voted for a second, more robust version of the Magnitsky Act in 2015.

Much more at link.

[TwilightZone]

1. Your source is...some guy's blog?

His conclusions re: Magnitsky are just suppositions, as he clearly indicates in the text.

[Garrett78]

2. That Sanders supported a more robust version is not a supposition.

Nor is the fact that several other Democrats and the Obama Admin. opposed the legislation.

[TwilightZone]

6. That doesn't explain his vote on the 2012 version.

As as the author noted, he's just making an educated guess as to the reasons because Sanders has never indicated why he voted no.

[Garrett78]

14. Sanders and other Dems who also voted no on various pieces of legislation have given reasons.

For instance, Sanders has said he supports sanctions in many instances but didn't want to threaten the very important nuclear agreement.

This is so transparent. Nobody at the time tried making these outrageous implications about Sanders, Whitehouse, Reed or other Dems who voted 'no'. People are desperately trying to make political hay.

[TwilightZone]

20. "Nobody at the time tried making these implications "

False. The four people who voted no on it did take flak and Levin had to provide his reasoning, which was that he didn't think it went far enough and should be extended to worldwide, basically pass the Senate version of the bill instead of the House.

"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.”"

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

As for the 2015 version, it didn't become law and was rolled into the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 bill, which Sanders voted "no" on.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/s2943

[Garrett78]

32. Taking flak and implying some conspiracy involving the Russian government are not one in the same.

Not even close.

[lapucelle]

3. Why does that blogger keep referring to "liberal conspiracy theories"?

[TwilightZone]

4. Because he's a Sanders supporter.

The site's logo:

?w=76

Certainly an unbiased observer, eh?

[sheshe2]

13. LOL!

Thanks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Cha]

19. Totally Unbiased .. gmafb

[Garrett78]

5. Because right wingers clearly aren't the only ones who engage in conspiracy theorizing.

For cryin' out loud, we're seeing it right now on DU.

People are slamming Sanders for not making public a classified intelligence briefing and then cherry-picking votes of his, so as to suggest some conspiracy involving Sanders and Russia. Numerous examples of liberal conspiracy theories as we speak right here in this forum.

[lapucelle]

8. BS didn't say it was a "classified intelligence briefing".

Where did you hear that? Did the blogger say that too?

Sanders told reporters Friday after The Post’s report was published that he received the briefing “about a month ago.” Asked why he did not disclose the briefing publicly, Sanders replied, “Because I go to many intelligence briefings which I don’t reveal to the public.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/bernie-sanders-briefed-by-us-officials-that-russia-is-trying-to-help-his-presidential-campaign/2020/02/21/5ad396a6-54bd-11ea-929a-64efa7482a77_story.html

[Garrett78]

10. I think it's a given that "intelligence briefings" are classified.

There's a reason why Intel didn't just give a press conference.

[sheshe2]

18. The info is already public knowledge

...if anyone bothered to read the Mueller Report. What happened then is happening again.

Bernie and Trumps campaign were both mentioned in that report as being aided by Russia. Did you not read any of the report?

(Volume I, Part IV, pgs. 146-147, 166-167, 173)
— Karoun Demirjian

2:30 p.m.: Russian interference sought to boost Bernie Sanders in 2016, report says
The report provides a fresh look at allegations that the Russian-based Internet Research Agency not only interfered in the 2016 campaign on social media on behalf of Donald Trump but also to help Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Internal IRA documents “referred to support for the Trump campaign and opposition to candidate Clinton,” according to the report. While much of this section of the report is redacted, it cites directions to IRA operators not to harm Sanders.

“Main idea: Use any opportunity to criticize Hillary [Clinton] and the rest (except Sanders and Trump — we support them),” quotes the report.
Allegations of the pro-Sanders strategy by Russian influencers came up in 2018, when the Justice Department charged 13 individuals and three companies with interfering illegally.

More: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mueller-report-russia-investigation-findings/2019/04/18/b07f4310-56f9-11e9-814f-e2f46684196e_story.html

[Garrett78]

24. We're talking about a particular intelligence briefing. Not just the topic of Russian interference.

Sanders has been very clear about his opposition to Russian interference.

[lapucelle]

34. No it isn't a given that intelligence briefings are classified.

And if it were classified, BS would have simply said so.

https://work.chron.com/types-intelligence-briefing-24111.html

https://www.npr.org/2020/02/20/807947951/house-intelligence-briefing-stating-that-russia-favors-trump-reelection-angers-t

[TwilightZone]

9. "classified"

What's your source for that claim?

The briefing given to lawmakers last week was classified. I've seen nothing indicating that the personal briefing given to Sanders last month was also classified.

[Garrett78]

11. There's a reason Intel didn't just make a press conference.

"Intelligence briefings" = classified

Especially when a foreign adversary is involved.

The people disputing that obvious reality are the ones who are spinning.

Biden, Sanders, Klobuchar...it doesn't matter; this is a no-brainer.

[TwilightZone]

17. So, no source, other than the assumption that it had to be classified.

Got it, thanks.

[Garrett78]

26. If you want to believe...

...that intelligence briefings, particularly those involving a foreign adversary, aren't considered classified, then have at it. It's absurd, but whatever floats your boat.

[lapucelle]

36. BS called it an intelligence briefing. He didn't say it was classified

If the Washington Post or any other news source revealed classified information when they wrote their stories, that would be an even bigger story.

Even Trump isn't looking for a "leaker".

[UniteFightBack]

16. I'm sorry but the questions about his no votes on sanctions go way back. nt

[Garrett78]

27. He and other Dems (Whitehouse, Reed, etc.) have voted no on some and yes on others.

[TwilightZone]

7. And because he doesn't want to be taken seriously.

Mission accomplished.

[ancianita]

12. Do you have a link to prove his history of voting in support of sanctions?

Maybe he doesn't believe any country should be sanctioned. I don't recall him every saying that, however. I haven't found any votes for sanctions that he's taken, which is why I ask.

[TwilightZone]

15. He supported a bill for sanctions that was rolled into another bill, which he voted "no" on.

He, along with the rest of the Senate, supported the 2015 Magnitsky Act. That bill didn't become law and was rolled into the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, which he voted "no" on.

Edit to add links:

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/s284

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/s2943

[ancianita]

21. Thanks. I'll check it out. I'd have voted down all those NDAA's myself. They need to be broken

down into clean bills for up-or-down votes.

[TwilightZone]

22. Unfortunately, that's how pretty much everything goes in Congress.

They're apparently too lazy to vote more than a handful of times. Maybe they get finger cramps or something.

As for the NDAAs, everyone knows they're going to pass, so any "no" votes are basically symbolic protest votes. I agree that it would be much better to stop dumping unrelated bills together (and adding a zillion amendments, for that matter) so the process isn't so screwed up and opaque.

[ancianita]

25. No, they play games in building bills.They need to stop that practice and create clean bills. Period

[Garrett78]

29. Agreed.

It's one of the many examples of dysfunction and downright corruption in our system of governance.

[ancianita]

30. Every single mish-mashed bill is the politicizing of the people's business. Pelosi must stop it.

As a new House rule. It will set a good example for the corrupt snobs of the Senate.

[Garrett78]

23. Here are a couple:

He voted yes on the 2015 Magnitsky Act: http://classic.maplight.org/us-congress/bill/114-s-284/8112670/total-contributions.table

He voted yes on the Iran Libya Sanctions Act, and later voted again to extend it: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/104-1996/h250.

And he's publicly called for sanctions on Russia but, again, didn't want to endanger the nuclear agreement with Iran.

He's also said Saudi Arabia should be sanctioned, especially if the Saudi government killed Khashoggi.

"I think one of the strong things that we can do is not only stop military sales, not only put sanctions on Saudi Arabia, but most importantly, get out of this terrible, terrible war in Yemen led by the Saudis," Sanders said on CNN's "State of the Union."

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/14/politics/bernie-sanders-saudi-arabia-cnntv/index.html

[ancianita]

28. Awesome. Please. You'd do DU and DPF a real solid by making this an OP. It will calm everyone down.

This is the kind of homework that makes DU a good place to learn.

[Garrett78]

31. No, it won't, sadly. That's what I was trying to do with this thread and the one about...

...intel briefings being classified (a no-brainer, no matter which candidate we're talking about).

But people are desperate to make political hay. A lot of folks have flat-out lost their minds.

[ancianita]

33. Do you mind if I give it a try? I'm used to taking flak for my posts.

[Tom Rinaldo]

35. K&R n/t