Reminder; The "Putin helping Sanders" info was classified and leaked anonymously.

[jg10003]

The important points in original Washington Post story:
1] Members of congress of both parties received the same intelligence briefing as Sanders and trump.
2] No member of congress, including Sanders, publicly discussed it because it was classified.
3] Someone, we don't know who, leaked it to the Washington Post for reasons unknown.
4] After the information was published, Sanders addressed the issue appropriately.

From the original Washington Post story;

U.S. officials have told Sen. Bernie Sanders that Russia is attempting to help his presidential campaign as part of an effort to interfere with the Democratic contest, according to people familiar with the matter.

President Trump and lawmakers on Capitol Hill also have been informed about the Russian assistance to the Vermont senator, those people said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive intelligence....

The disclosure of Russian assistance to Sanders follows a briefing to lawmakers last week in which a senior intelligence official said that Russia wants to see Trump reelected,.....

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

[SamKnause]

1. Thank you.

[krissey]

2. Not appropriately. He said he didn't care and would address when President. THAT is not appropriate.

I wnat to know if thye know how he is being helped. $?

[jg10003]

9. what would you like him to say, without revealing classified info?

The investigation is probably still going on and revealing details could be counter-productive.

[krissey]

16. We are aware and addressing it and actually do it. I do not trust him at all.

More so as time goes by and we hear this. I want to know where his money is coming from. He is getting large donations and no transparency.

[NJCher]

22. show us proof of the large donations

where?

I want to see a link.

[pnwmom]

25. He's been getting large donations through Our Revolution, a dark money org he set up.

This is from the Associated Press

https://apnews.com/345bbd1af529cfb1e41305fa3ab1e604

Shadow group provides Sanders super PAC support he scorns

WASHINGTON (AP) — Bernie Sanders says he doesn’t want a super PAC. Instead, he has Our Revolution, a nonprofit political organization he founded that functions much the same as one.

Like a super PAC, which is shorthand for super political action committee, Our Revolution can raise unlimited sums from wealthy patrons that dwarf the limits faced by candidates and conventional PACs. Unlike a super PAC, however, the group doesn’t have to disclose its donors — a stream of revenue commonly referred to as “dark money.”

Now, with less than one month to go before the Iowa caucuses, Our Revolution appears to be skirting campaign finance law, which forbids groups founded by federal candidates and officeholders from using large donations to finance federal election activity, including Sanders’ 2020 bid.

SNIP

Our Revolution has taken in nearly $1 million from donors who gave more than the limits and whose identities it hasn’t fully disclosed, according to tax filings for 2016, 2017 and 2018. Much of it came from those who contributed six-figure sums.

[NJCher]

39. this was discussed on NPR

and it was described as being nothing more than an assortment of the usual type of donor. In the program, they discussed it as something that might even be scrapped because it serves no purpose.

But above and beyond that, let me point out to you that your point is oxymoronic. What wealthy interests want Bernie in the presidency?

Please, go right ahead. Tell me what private interests are going to benefit from Bernie being the president?

Banks?

Insurance companies?

Investment bankers?

Wall Street?

Big sports franchise owners?

Oil companies?

Do you seriously think these people would bankroll Bernie?

Oh! OK, here's one: I'll bet you'll tell me that the powerful group of small organic farmers is in Bernie's PAC.

[pnwmom]

48. In the past, Russian oligarchs have funneled huge donations through Republican super pacs

and donors.

And we just learned today that Russia is still supporting Bernie's campaign -- we just don't know how.

I don't know what radio show you heard on NPR, but Our Revolution should be transparent about its donations. It's a disgrace that they aren't.

[Demsrule86]

87. And this pac can accept international donations. He has not been transparent on who these

contributors are.

[Dream Girl]

78. They will benefit because it will insure Trump is re-elected

That is the end game. Please open your eyes

[W_HAMILTON]

26. Here you go:

...

Like a super PAC, which is shorthand for super political action committee, Our Revolution can raise unlimited sums from wealthy patrons that dwarf the limits faced by candidates and conventional PACs. Unlike a super PAC, however, the group doesn’t have to disclose its donors — a stream of revenue commonly referred to as “dark money.”

...

Our Revolution has taken in nearly $1 million from donors who gave more than the limits and whose identities it hasn’t fully disclosed, according to tax filings for 2016, 2017 and 2018. Much of it came from those who contributed six-figure sums.

It won’t have to publicly reveal its 2019 fundraising until after this year’s presidential election. And money it raises between now and then won’t have to be disclosed until the following year.

Taken from: https://apnews.com/345bbd1af529cfb1e41305fa3ab1e604

[SunSeeker]

32. The other candisdates should bring this up in debates. nt

[NJCher]

40. hey thanks!

For providing the same article for the third time.

What else ya' got?

[W_HAMILTON]

41. So, you already knew the answer to your question and yet you still asked it?

You apparently knew the exact anonymous six-figure donations that were being referred to and yet you tried to play dumb about them -- very disingenuous tactics.

[NJCher]

42. because they were described as

innocuous by the NPR report, I did not consider them in the same light as PAC donations by bankers, Wall St., etc.

A structure such as Bernie's PAC could still exist that is not serving a function. That is because this is a very focused campaign and I seriously doubt anyone has time for details such as disbanding a PAC.

If the NPR report is correct, they should disband it so they can kneecap ridiculous claims like this, you know, the kind that defy common sense.

So, uh, can I get an answer to my question about what big interests are backing Bernie?

[W_HAMILTON]

43. Yes, we get it, you will come up with whatever excuses necessary to explain away the behavior.

Sanders and his supporters basically define """corrupt money""" as money that hasn't been given to Sanders -- nice set of principles you guys have there!

It's not a movement -- it's a following.

[NJCher]

44. no, that is not the case

and the "corrupt money" can be determined if you just cite the big-money interests, like I asked in my post above. You can't answer it, can you?

Instead you'll discount an honest response and twist it into a psychological maneuver. I do understand that's what it takes to get you through the night.

[W_HAMILTON]

45. We don't know who the hell made the donations -- that's the point.

Sanders's founded Our Revolution to be a dark money organization that can hide its donors from the public. Tell us, though, how many "grass roots" salt of the Earth types have the capability of donating six figures to a political campaign? Hmm?

[NJCher]

47. I see you have to resort to throwing loaded terms around

"Dark money." It makes me laugh.

You will not slime Bernie because that is precisely what Bernie stands for: not being beholden to big money interests.

Now, if I had to speculate, the PAC may have been formed for the few people with the money who support these goals. Every now and then you do run across a "60 Minutes" story about millionaires who agree America is in trouble because of our compromised election system. There are a few people who do fall in that category and if Bernie's campaign did not have that option available for them, they would essentially have to turn that money away.

Bernie is not compromised to big money interests. He does not take their money. I wish all the candidates could say that.

[MontanaFarmer]

80. It could be oleg deripaska's money in there.

We don't know. In light of this reporting, Sanders should tell us where it came from. Otherwise, he's no better than trump WRT Russian aid.

[pnwmom]

49. You heard some unidentified people discussing this on NPR who apparently have gotten

their facts wrong, because this wasn't just an empty PAC. There have been large amounts of money passing through it, well beyond 2016.

And since it is DARK MONEY, we don't know what big interests might be funding it. But it could be almost anyone with an interest in giving Trump what they perceive as a weak challenger in the general.

[NJCher]

51. I seriously doubt that

They didn't say it was an empty PAC. They just said it wasn't a PAC in the sense of other PACs.

as you can see, unlike the other candidates, Bernie is not short on money. Never has been. He doesn't need to take funds from such sources and he wouldn't. If exposed, it would completely negate an entire lifetime of what he's worked for.

Sorry, no sale.

[pnwmom]

54. You asked for a link and I gave it to you. Now where's your link supporting your idea

that there's no problem with the Our Revolution funding, despite the formal complaint filed by Common Cause, an ethics in government organization?

https://www.commoncause.org/press-release/common-cause-files-complaint-against-pro-bernie-sanders-group-our-revolution-for-violating-soft-money-ban/

Today, Common Cause filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) alleging reason to believe that Our Revolution, a nonprofit political organization established by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) in 2016 and now supporting his 2020 presidential campaign, violated the federal ‘soft money’ ban. Sen. Sanders has been a longtime critic of super PACs and so-called “Dark Money” groups. The complaint documents that Our Revolution has solicited contributions explicitly to elect Sanders president, received contributions far in excess of the applicable $5,000 contribution limit and spent funds in connection with federal elections, including current voter mobilization efforts supporting Sanders in Iowa.

Under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, an entity directly or indirectly established by a federal candidate or officeholder is not allowed to “solicit, receive, direct, transfer, or spend funds in connection with an election for Federal office” unless the “funds are subject to the limitations, prohibitions, and reporting requirements” of federal law.

According to Our Revolution’s tax returns showing contribution amounts but not contributor names, data compiled and first reported by the Associated Press, from 2016 to 2018 Our Revolution raised almost $1 million dollars from contributors who gave in excess of the applicable $5,000 contribution limit, including multiple contributions of between $100,000 and $300,000. Our Revolution has not disclosed any of its contributors to the FEC, as required by federal campaign finance law.

“Americans expect and deserve to have our campaign finance laws enforced and they expect political organizations to abide by the law, regardless of their political views,” said Paul Seamus Ryan, Common Cause vice president for policy and litigation. “The facts surrounding Our Revolution, including its founding by Sen. Sanders, its receipt of six-figure contributions, its failure to disclose donors to the FEC, and its political spending in Iowa and elsewhere, point to a clear violation of the federal soft money ban. Common Cause is a nonpartisan organization and we work to hold power accountable regardless of party affiliation or policy positions. It is critically important that the soft money ban be enforced, or outside groups founded by candidates will become a commonplace means to evade contribution limits and disclosure requirements.”


To read the FEC complaint against Our Revolution, click here.

[uponit7771]

53. Something smart and useful, he didn't ... he said nothing.

[Ghost Dog]

46. The BBC did some investigative journalism, by asking the Facebook

Corporation about this (yes, I know, radical!).

... Facebook said it has not seen any evidence of Russian assistance to Mr Sanders' campaign...

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51582025

This is the only reference to 'evidence' I can find in reports on this.

[krissey]

60. FB that owes billions to IRS, refuses to do anything about lying Republican ads?

That "source" doesn't mean much. Nothing about FB suggest they can be trusted.

[Ghost Dog]

62. True. So where's the evidence?

Without evidence, it's just some US spooks visibly interfering by briefing anonymously to the WP. Advising people to beware of this happening is one thing; asserting without evidence that it is happening is quite another. If there is trolling in social or other media by Russian state actors there should be evidence of this and no reason to classify it - the opposite, in fact: disinformation needs to be called out.

[krissey]

64. Why are you assuming no evidence?

[Ghost Dog]

65. I see none presented.

And I see no good reason why any such evidence would need to be hidden.

[krissey]

67. Right, why did they decide it needed classified? Why did Sanders decide we didn't need to know?

Why did Sanders just a couple days ago suggest it was the Russian bot pretending to be his supporters cause chaos and problems when he already knew Russia was helping him?

We will have to wait to see. Sure would help if Sanders himself would share some of that transparency he so often rants about.

Then he can also give us the Medical records that he said he would absolutely give us before a first vote because it was the only fair thing to do.

[True Blue American]

72. Much like Trump.

[krissey]

73. More and more. Hear about pointing finger in face of NBC guy and yelling about how unfair they are

to him? What Democrat behaves like that? None.

[True Blue American]

75. I have

Seen too much anger, rage ,fist pumping, finger pointing to last me the rest of my life.

I want a calm, intelligent, common sense man or woman leading.

[True Blue American]

68. Thanks

Thinking the same thing here.

[krissey]

69. That would almost be like Fox News saying that really, they are fearful of Sanders running against

Trump. Really.

[True Blue American]

71. Some source

I am trying to find out how to get off Facebook. It is rotten and corrupt to the core. So is Twitter, but at least they do not flood your IPAD.

BTW, new IPad yesterday. It is amazing, compared to my old one.

[krissey]

74. Is it Twitter that said they would just stop political ads at a point because they can't stop lying

ads and misinformation?

And glad you like the new Ipad. Lol. Enjoy. Always fun.

[True Blue American]

76. If Twitter did, I admire that.

Now,if they would dump the lying,hating,revengeful Twitterer in Chief. They would get my applause.

[krissey]

77. Ya, lol.

[onetexan]

66. Lol good point. BS addressing it when president is rich

Just like he'll release his medical records when president
Fox watching the henhouse.

[krissey]

70. I will release medical records before the first vote, it is the right thing to do.

Such blatant disrespect for the people he asks for a vote from. Only Trump would get away with this.

[5X]

3. finally, someone gets it. n/t

[uponit7771]

4. Sanders could've denounced Russia's helping him without disclosing classified information. No, I'm

... not seeing a good reason why Sanders didn't tell Russia to go to hell a month ago.

[Garrett78]

6. He did. In the January debate. And he's told them to go to hell on many occasions.

[uponit7771]

10. No, telling outside involvement to go to hell helping his or any other persons campaign. There

... was a way to carefully craft a denouncement as to keep himself covered at the leastr.

[wisteria]

28. Really?

I must of missed all those denouncements.

[calimary]

50. You're not the only one, wisteria.

Somehow, I missed all those other denouncements, too.

[Garrett78]

63. You must have. For instance, here's what he told Face the Nation in July of 2018:

“I will tell you that I was absolutely outraged by his behavior in Helsinki, where he really sold the American people out. And it makes me think that either Trump doesn’t understand what Russia has done, not only to our elections, but through cyber attacks against all parts of our infrastructure, either he doesn’t understand it, or perhaps he is being blackmailed by Russia, because they may have compromising information about him.

“Or perhaps also you have a president who really does have strong authoritarian tendencies. And maybe he admires the kind of government that Putin is running in Russia. And I think all of that is a disgrace and a disservice to the American people. And we have got to make sure that Russia does not interfere, not only in our elections, but in other aspects of our lives.”

[Autumn]

85. I wonder why our Democratic leadership has been so silent on this. Especially since it's been leaked

I would think they would be doing the leader thing and let us all know and they would join in denouncing Russia with Bernie. Yet they have been silent since this leaked. That's curious to me.

[W_HAMILTON]

29. That's a lie.

He said that Russians were hurting his campaign by being responsible for the toxicity well known among his supporters when, in fact, he was briefed that Russians were HELPING his campaign.

[SunSeeker]

34. Bingo. nt

[uponit7771]

55. +1

[Garrett78]

61. Not a lie, but it wasn't at the debate. It was around the same time, though. Here's the WAPO story:

Sanders Just Defended Biden Against Russian Interference

[W_HAMILTON]

96. From the transcript of the last debate:

SANDERS: …

And let me say something else about this, not being too paranoid. All of us remember 2016, and what we remember is efforts by Russians and others to try to interfere in our election and divide us up. I'm not saying that's happening, but it would not shock me.

Taken from: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/full-transcript-ninth-democratic-debate-las-vegas-n1139546

He blamed the Russians for the behavior of his toxic supporters when, in fact, he was briefed that the Russians were trying to HELP his campaign.

[wisteria]

27. I agree with you.

[uponit7771]

56. This is false, Sanders could've kept the denouncement generic and kept out classified info but told

... the outside involvement that AMERICA will not put up with it.

I don't see how America was helped with his silence in the end

[Garrett78]

5. Great post. Not that most folks here will care. It's all about making political hay.

Sanders is the new frontrunner. Therefore, he's the new target. If someone else becomes the frontrunner, guess what's going to happen?

It's all about disinformation and chaos. This is modus operandi for Putin's Russia.

[DanTex]

8. +1

[Hoyt]

7. The point is that Ruskies want Sanders as Dem nominee. There's no good way to spin that.

[Cha]

19. You're right.. the spinning isn't working.. not for

lack of trying.

[David__77]

11. So what does the document say, anyway? Can people read it?

Is it released now? Does a document even exist?

[musicblind]

12. Was it classified? I read sensitive intelligence, but didn't think that meant classified.

I assumed if it were classified intelligence they would have called it that.

I'm not saying you're wrong, you might be right, but are there any reputable sources that specifically call the information classified?

[uponit7771]

58. No it was not classified and it looks like Sanders was briefed privately

[Autumn]

88. Was Democratic leadership brief? I would think they would be. If so why are they remaining silent?

[uponit7771]

89. Sanders could've denounced Russia's helping him without disclosing classified information. No, I'm

... thinking this is a bad move by Sanders.

[Autumn]

90. My question was. Was Democratic leadership briefed about this? Bernie goes after Russia

very often. Maybe that's why. I just want to know what Dem leadership has to say about this. I've found nothing yet.

[uponit7771]

91. What difference would that make? It was Sanders who should've been livid at the involvement in his

... campaign to any degree and generically said something not congress.

[Autumn]

92. What Democratic leadership says about this makes a big fucking difference.

I want to know what Nancy thinks is going on. Not what a bunch of people yell and whine about on their keyboards.

[uponit7771]

93. True, we'll see ... I don't think this ends here

[Autumn]

95. I don't think it does either This is some serious shit, not just Bad Bernie.

[Aaron Pereira]

13. #3 is what I'm most curious about.

Someone had a motive to release classified information clearly for the purpose of influencing an election. Who would want to damage Sanders electoral prospects enough to risk jail time?

[Qutzupalotl]

18. To stop foreign influence in the election.

So we Americans can sort it out for ourselves. At risk of personal repercussions. That’s patriotic. That’s a hero.

[CentralMass]

31. The Bloomberg Campaign claimed it had 'very "damaging" info on Sanders the other day.s

[rockfordfile]

14. They should find out who leaked it, if true

[apcalc]

33. And thank them.

[TomCADem]

15. Yet, Knowing What He Did, He Then Lied...

...and blamed Russian bots for making threats against a union that did not support him. He knew otherwise based on the briefing, but decided to spread misinformation himself.

[Cha]

20. Of course

[HarlanPepper]

17. The only thing I care about is if it's true.

You don’t seem too interested in that part.

[EveHammond13]

21. Reminder. It's true.

[ucrdem]

23. Reminder: what happened in Iowa

Coincidence I'm sure.

[uponit7771]

57. THIS !!!! It seems like the timing has been left out of the narrative.

[wisteria]

24. This one was very different.

It was benefiting him. And, frankly, letting us know Russia was trying to help his campaign was not divulging any classified information. We all know Russia is interfering.
So, I don’t accept this explanation.

[apcalc]

30. So?

[blue-wave]

35. Hey! I've got a great idea!!

Last edited Sat Feb 22, 2020, 04:00 AM - Edit history (1)

Why don't we let someone like this run for President on the Democratic ticket even though they want a litmus test for all Democratic candidates and only use the party apparatus when it suits him? If candidates don't pass the test 100%, they get no support!! Don't you just love totalitarianism?

Then make sure that in the last election about 10% of said candidates supporters voted against the Democratic Nominee for President. Handing the election to the republiCON while all the CON's destroyed bits of democracy here and there throughout the PresiCON's term in office.

https://www.npr.org/2017/08/24/545812242/1-in-10-sanders-primary-voters-ended-up-supporting-trump-survey-finds

Gee I must be rocket scientist. No, just kidding. I'm a brain surgeon.

[RandySF]

36. I'm glad we found out.

[SunSeeker]

37. The Mueller Report also said Putin helped Sanders. nt

[radius777]

38. Good, voters need to know the truth.

Hillary's emails were a public issue, yet the Russian meddling that helped Trump (and Sanders to a lesser extent) was kept hidden in 2016.

The fact that Russia is #1 for Trump and secondarily for Sanders/Gabbard/Stein (all of whom have populist and isolationist beliefs, which Russia views as good for their expansionism) is not really news though to anyone who sees who the bots favor on social media, RT propaganda, etc.

[aeromanKC]

52. Bernie is done

The primary will go to the Convention and NO WAY the delegates will vote for a Putin endorsed candidate.

[uponit7771]

59. +1, good point ... especially if he pulls ahead quick. Sanders being upset at WAPO didn't help eithe

... there was no need for that comment and he could've kept themselves above the fray but it made it look like he was upset.

There's something wrong here, someone mentioned Iowa timing of the Russian "help"

[jmg257]

79. Link to it being classified? What i dont understand is why Sanders info would be

Last edited Sat Feb 22, 2020, 08:23 AM - Edit history (2)

Classified, but trumps info wouldnt be.

On edit: well trumps was...

Intelligence officials told lawmakers in a classified briefing last week that Russia is meddling in the election with the hope of getting Trump re-elected, according to officials familiar with the briefing.

Further edit: bernies may have been too:

Casca later sent out an email further making the case that Bernie was set up by Team Trump, noting that the briefing on Russia's efforts was “classified” and that Bernie had long warned that “Trump would use the federal government to help his reelection.

[duforsure]

81. Was this just another

trump engineered leak to provide distraction away from it coming out putin was helping him again? That is both trump and putins pattern they use. I do think this was .

[Autumn]

82. If that's true since this leak the silence of the Democratic leadership is deafening.

[NYMinute]

83. lol ... Sanders has known this for a a long time - like 5 years

[MrsCoffee]

84. Excuses are just as lame as Trump's.

Bernie needs to drop out.

[madville]

86. #3 is obvious

It was leaked on the eve of the Nevada primary to be used as a political weapon. By whom? Obviously someone wanting to use it against Sanders, for all we know it came from Trump's side and I have a theory about that. If the seed gets planted that the Russians are helping Bernie and he gets the nomination it will wipe out any weight to the Russian meddling argument since it would apply to both candidates.

[mcar]

94. Why isn't he calling for Senate investigations?

He is a member of the Senate.