how low did he actually go? The news keeps coming out and it is not pretty.

seems to be hopes that Russia would defeat Hillary Clinton and other Democrats.

Of course he must have hoped he would somehow magically end up president, but in what universe would that have happened? Russia and our own major seditious forces were throwing the government to corrupt pro-business conservatives, not anti-business democratic socialists.

There really is no lower to go in this ruthless rule-or-ruin behavior, only a question of whether any illegality was involved.

That is one thing we definitely do NOT need or want.

he's an object lesson now. These are dangerous political days, and the electorate desperately needs to wise up. Voters taking new look at what happened in 2016, knowing what is and will be coming out, would not be a bad thing.

Support seemed to be dropping away before all this came out, though. His "revolution" was always significantly smaller than a venal press found profitable to claim, augmented by an almost never mentioned spoiler contingent of temporary conservative support in 2016.

Over 2017 he was being mentioned here less and less, and calling for Franken to resign didn't help any. Supporters did rally to attack Joe Kennedy when some of Sanders' more romantic followers joined the "Oh-Joe"ers, but I suspect they were holding place for his movement more than him.

And regarding that, over the last year since the election, at least two splinter groups that I've seen have broken away and formed around their own agendas, and their web sites mention him seldom if at all. They're looking for new leaders to follow in 2020.

He said he also shared his findings with “someone on [Barack] Obama’s national security staff” just before the election.

"Sanders said a staffer passed information to Hillary Clinton’s aides about a suspected Russian troll operation." But its evident that's not true. The staffer actually contacted a Super PAC supporting Clinton, but Super PACs are prohibited from working directly with a campaign and probably even prohibited from communicating with the campaign.

So, that staffer did not pass information to Hillary Clinton's aides.

As for sharing this with someone on Obama’s national security staff just before the election, he had the information in September, the election was in November. "Just before the election" was obviously too late.

....at whatever level, is not the discussion. But still, Mattes himself says that he learned of the incursion in September but didn't contact the Obama administration until "just before the election". That's a long gap. And it's been revealed now that Mattes never contacted the Clinton campaign.

The premise of the OP, and I'm using the article's headline, is "Sanders promoted false story on reporting Russian trolls". Saying that Mattes contacted the Clinton campaign is simply not true. Even Mattes acknowledges that.

When the volunteer, John Mattes of San Diego, said he communicated with the Clinton campaign in local press accounts, he was confusing it for a super PAC supportive of Clinton.

...he didn't communicate with the Clinton campaign, Sanders is still saying that he did, which is the point of the article.

I'm pretty sure that FEC laws prohibit candidate campaigns from communicating with Super PACs. I'm not 100% sure, however.

Edit: I did find this which indicates that candidates are not permitted to communicate with Super PACs:

https://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/01/13/7866/rules-against-coordination-between-super-pacs-candidates-tough-enforce

Rules against coordination between super PACs, candidates, tough to enforce

Your post blames Hillary and Barack.

Do you really NOT know why Barack didnt go public with this?

Anything Bernie might have known was unofficial, lacking the intel gained from our spy agencies.

He did NOT do.

....that's not the point of the article or the OP.

Sanders isn't being "blamed" for something his campaign did or didn't do. Please read the article again, thanks. It is pointing out that although Sanders' campaign didn't contact the Clinton campaign, he's still saying it did and taking credit for something he knows didn't happen.

that didn't happen. He needs to be held accountable for that.

"Sanders said that his campaign had shared information with the Clinton campaign about suspected Russian anti-Clinton trolls on a campaign Facebook page. But Weaver later acknowledged that the Vermont senator had no firsthand knowledge that this had happened.

Weaver said Sanders based his remark on an article published by NBC’s San Diego affiliate over the weekend about a campaign volunteer who claimed to have conducted his own investigation and brought the findings to the Clinton campaign in September — an assertion flatly denied by a former Clinton campaign aide."

"A guy who was on my staff … checked it out and he went to the Clinton campaign, and he said, ‘You know what? I think these guys are Russians,’” Sanders said. Weaver said Sanders had not verified the information in the article himself before stating it as fact.

...Mattes ultimately said that the people he "went to" wasn't the Clinton campaign at all, he went to a Super PAC that supported Clinton. That Super PAC was, by law, prohibited from communicating with the Clinton campaign. Plus, Mattes said he told the Obama administration "just before the election", which would not be in September.

Seems we're getting different stories from different people unaffiliated with either the Clinton campaign or the Obama administration. Wonder why?

So, no one from Sander's campaign contacted anyone about Russian manipulation of elections?

Or did a non paid staffer contact both Clinton and Obama? Or did an unknown secret Bernie supporter contact them... I give up.

I don't understand what everyone is all worked up about considering Bernie Did Not win. You don't cheat to lose. You know who really made out like a bandit from Putin rigging our elections? Trump.

...also contacted someone in the Obama administration.

He did not contact the Clinton Campaign about this. It's all in the article. What brought this up this week is that Sanders has said twice that his staffer told the Clinton Campaign about the Russia manipulation. That is not true.

I don't know if Sanders cheated or not, but the fact that he lost is not relevant to what his actions might or might not be prior to his loss.

It's more likely that the winner cheated. If you busy yourself with investigaing all the losers, you will rarely find the true cheat. Do you think Hillary was involved with the Russians too or involved in some sort of cheating in the elections? She lost too, so maybe she should be investigated? Maybe we should have investigated Al Gore for cheating like W, since he lost. How about we investigate Kerry for his loss?

See what I mean about winners more likely to be the cheater.

Sanders called Hillary Clinton out by name in an interview he gave this past Wednesday. He made a claim that has now proven to be false, or "confused" if you want to be kind.

Sanders himself created this scrutiny of his own words this past week.

John Mattes of San Diego, said he communicated with the Clinton campaign in local press accounts, he was confusing it for a super PAC supportive of Clinton.

He also doesn’t know why Sanders is taking all the credit. “I’m going to send him a bill for my back pay,” Mattes joked.

Presidential campaigns can't just get "confused" about the difference between a Super PAC and another candidate's campaign. This is crucial.

What an embarrassment.

to me.. is that the story came out.

Luna

right, Cha?

Yes we did.

What was going on

Thanks

We shouldn't believe what he says?

Now they look like 76 year old senators and give interviews. Astounding.

Disney should get in touch with them for their president's exhibit.

These are things Bernie said in the last several days.

Initially in an interview with NPR in Vermont. There is audio of that interview. He has made additional statements since.

It is a developing story and people are talking about it and journalists are reporting it.

Doesn't seem you've actually followed the story at all.

I want to yell at him: If you plan on running in the Dem primaries again, join the Dem Party now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

several times they were the only ones to report something.

a Vermont radio station. Politico isn't the only source for reporting what Sanders said.

Politico doesn't seem to have checked out this "lawyer-researcher's" bona fides. Just more devisiveness. Dems should be focused on winning the midterms, not yet again refighting the 2016 election. The Democratic caucuses in Colorado are scheduled for March 6th. That's what I'm focused on.

ago. In the interview he blamed Clinton for not stopping Russian Bots, which as you know is a ridiculous thing to say. Additionally he said someone from his campaign contacted Clintons campaign about bot activity. Apparently that is incorrect.

This is not a "rehashing of 2016" by Du'ers. This is a developing story in Feb 2018, based on an interview Sanders gave to Vermont NPR a few days. I am sorry if you are uncomfortable with people and journalists fact checking.

You can find the interview online.

A lot of the above strikes me as petty.

WHILE CITIZENS CLASH
THE 1% TAKES THE CASH

who went on tv and the radio and blamed it on Hillary.

Politico: Bernie blames Hillary for allowing Russian interference

The senator and his top political adviser also denied Mueller's assertion that Russian actors backed his campaign.

Bernie Sanders on Wednesday blamed Hillary Clinton for not doing more to stop the Russian attack on the last presidential election. Then his 2016 campaign manager, in an interview with POLITICO, said he’s seen no evidence to support special counsel Robert Mueller's assertion in an indictment last week that the Russian operation had backed Sanders' campaign.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/21/bernie-sanders-trump-russia-interference-420528

out of Arthur Miller's play.

because how could he realize it? All Facebook "likes" look the same. Pretty sure Stein took the money knowing what she was doing. Pretty sure Sanders did not have a clue what was going on at the time and is absolutely shocked now. However, since many of us on the ground suspected that he was being groomed to be a potential third party splitter, he should have sensed it, too, meaning that he may not be smart enough or savvy enough about politics to be POTUS. Obama has smarts and savvy enough to spare. So does Clinton. In 2008, Clinton knew exactly when to pull the plug on her campaign and when and how to embrace Obama (by signing on as SOS) to avoid becoming a third party splitter.

So, the moral here should be Sanders was not smart/savvy enough to be president, not Sanders was not moral/pure enough to be president. Clinton was savvy/smart enough to be president, but all the president's men and women could not find a way out of the mess that McConnell, Putin, Ryan, FOX made because there was no precedent for dealing with something like that, just as there was no precedent for dealing with Pat Buchanan's Dirty Trick's campaign of 1972 until it actually happened.

You gotta hand it to Karl Rove. No college education,but he got away with stealing two elections. I think it is because he had the CIA(Bush Sr. loyalty) in his pocket. Never try to steal an election in this country unless you have the CIA in your pocket. Because the CIA knows everything you are up to.

Sanders is not a naive politician.

I saw the astroturfing myself, it was pretty obvious the split going on and the harmful narratives in play.... and I am not an elected representative.

From the article..

“No profile on Facebook, no history on Facebook, and to me what was striking is that to me these people were emerging out of the ground and all they wanted to do was join Bernie Sanders groups,” Mattes said.

He is saying something a little different now,

However he said in July that he and the campaign knew that Russia was behind the email dump etc., with the purpose of dividing Democrats,

http://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-emails-russian-hackers-kremlin-democratic-639292

BERNIE SANDERS SAYS 'IT'S NO GREAT SECRET' RUSSIA WAS TRYING TO DIVIDE DEMOCRATS AGAINST HILLARY
BY CHRIS RIOTTA ON 7/19/17 AT 4:54 PM

Link to tweet

does need to get his stories Straight.. and Stop Blaming Hillary.

Thanks for that, em

... very disappointing.

Sanders not showing his long form taxes and now this ... damn, she was climbing up a hill pushing a bolder and still got 3 million more votes.

and blame it on Hillary. That's inexcusable.

uponit yeah, everybody was attacking her.. but she still would have won without the Russian hacking and LIES from stein.

Tad Devine knew what he was up to at the time. A google search will pull up what he was saying back in April of 2016 that show he was savvy enough to understand damages could be done to Hillary in the GE. There’s a lot we need to consider this year, in 2020 and beyond.

The moral here is we have to be smarter and not allow ourselves to be played by dishonest tactics again.

the election is over and we know how the results came to be. Bernie represents, stands for and fights for many things progressives believe in. He advocates for all of us. IMO, it's counterproductive at this point to rehash this shit given everything else happening. it's divisive and likely draws in the trolls to further stir things up.

.. and disinformation agents either paid by russian intelligence or from the far right were happy to spread them..

or expected when bashing Hillary for attention before. This is what the Russians promoted. Finally people are being exposed and held accountable.

and the aftermath of the interview the last couple of days. It isn't a "rehash" of 2016, it a developing story in late February 2018.

do they think they're kidding?

Last edited Sun Feb 25, 2018, 12:34 AM - Edit history (1)

...and Sanders has been the loudest and most clear voice in opposing Russian election interference even though any suggestion that such interference was in support of his campaign is fake news.

It was deemed relevant here on DU.

other than not having complete facts and making assumptions while trying to tell an important story.

And I am a died in the wool Hillary supporter.

... when it comes to whether or not he/she should be held accountable (or held to some minimum standard) when it comes to differentiating between statements that are true or false. An inaccurate statement (whether noble, or benign) is still incorrect and needs to be corrected.

I think that everyone can agree that it's often difficult to determine a politician's motivation for the things that he/she says, but a careful observer can get some clues to that by noting who benefits (and conversely, who doesn't). Is he/she saying things that put him/her in a more positive light? Are the things that are being said likely to put others in a negative light?

What I'm trying to say is that generally speaking, when it comes to experienced politicians, the honest answers to those questions (above) can be used as a reliable indicator when trying to determine what his/her political motives may be.

and screwed it up badly.

He should have screamed it from the rooftops over and over again until there was no doubt in the minds of his followers as to what was taking place.

The wishy-washy response he’s offered up since the indictments came out, and his laying it at Hillary’s feet was a recipe for disaster. One he set up himself.

... party over emails and bots.

Then he should've publicly said something and kept repeating it in a show of solidarity with dems but not trying to push Clinton.

He could've done both.

Sitting back and saying nothing when this is happening to her wasn't cool

like all the others.

particular slant to it now would it.

So Sanders, hearing about a volunteer in his campaign reporting information to the Clinton campaign says twice that a member of his campaign went to the Clinton campaign with information. He hardly took credit for it directly. He didn't say that he had contact with this person. If anybody is being given credit it is the guy who did this. Nor do I see a huge misrepresentation in mistakenly thinking this reporting had gone to the Clinton campaign, versus the Obama administration. Sanders is human and absolutely fallible. He may have too readily accepted the information he had as the person being active in the campaign. Hell, he may be deflecting and covering his own ass too, but this story does not have enough teeth to confirm that. This is as reported, a hit-piece.

... inform the Clinton campaign without confirming it?

Also he knew about the Russia meddling and didn't publicly and loudly come out against it.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1997120

like there was a misunderstanding about a pac supposedly associated with Clinton. That doesn't mean that's what this was and Sanders isn't using that detail to deflect on what he did or did not do, but it certainly is not enough information to convict him in the court of public opinion of doing so. As to what Sanders and his campaign knew, for the most part he suggests these are things he became aware of post primary, so he was not benefitting from them in any direct way at that point, not that I'm sure he was ever benefitting in a direct way. At the time of campaigning for Clinton it wouldn't have even been appropriate to publically focus on these attacks if that were not how the Clinton campaign itself was going about the issue.

The Clinton campaign and the Obama administration both made calculated decisions about how publically to make this issue, which makes sense to me. It would have sounded like making excuses for an eventual loss when all signs pointed to Clinton winning the presidency.

Statewide training. And yesterday folks still mentioned how Bernie supporters rejuvenated the local party..and he is still getting bashed here...lol

Thanks Bernie!

i would like to put it way way stronger, but alas do not want to get alerted

Did Bernie go above and beyond to increase turnout in WI? Do tell. Because whatever he did to help appears to have failed miserably.

http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/govt-and-politics/election-matters/why-did-wisconsin-see-its-lowest-presidential-election-voter-turnout/article_6dd2887f-e1fc-5ed8-a454-284d37204669.html

P.S. If you're going to call someone a liar, have the honor to state your claim -- alert system notwithstanding.

Bernie had for Randy Bryce this past week... they looked like Dems to me. Get over ur Bernie bigotry and smell the fucking coffee. Bernie remains a huge draw for Dems in Wisconsin.. he just is...

If Sanders' supporters wish to "move on" then perhaps they should ask the senator himself to stop bringing up Hillary.

can you imagine where we would be if people like sanders came out full throttle about this and other treatment of the presidential nominee the majority of democrats chose? I don’t know if I’m allowed to say this or not but I am so disappointed in my party for their selfish actions during 2016. It’s like everyone was out to hang their own star rather than keep their eye on the prize. Not one of them will ever apologize for it either. Truly disappointed 😞

be able to admit they are wrong and will continue to attack Democrats.

Selfish is right.