He asked for a chair to sit on and cut it short ..You could tell something was wrong

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-10-02/bernie-sanders-treated-chest-pain-cancels-campaign-events

and announced the truth in a Friday night news dump.

Sid

Why wasn't the Sanders Campaign straightforward with the public, instead of concealing for THREE DAYS the fact that he had indeed suffered from a heart attack?

Why wouldn't they be forthcoming and honest from the very beginning? The BS campaign was reporting "no heart attack" as if it were fact, but it wasn't. Why didn't they just say "too early to tell" or "we don't know yet" or words to that effect?

Now that the precedent has been set... now that we know what to expect... (and now that we know the TRUTH is TOTALLY OPPOSITE from what they told us) I'm afraid that I will now (and forever more) have a VERY DIFFICULT TIME in being able to trust any news at all that comes from them.

All I'm saying is... they should have been honest, direct, transparent and forthcoming FROM THE VERY BEGINNING... but they weren't. And that's a shame. The BS campaign has totally lost my trust on this matter. I can't believe anything they say when it comes to this subject.

The medical assessment had already been made. The truth was being withheld. They new he had had a heart attack, but false information was being presented instead.

Not a conspiracy. Just dishonesty.

he would stay in the campaign before he told his supporters what he was going to do. It is not our frickin right to decide when a patient relays health information, and waiting 3 days is not dishonest. Please stop with berating our candidates by calling them dishonest and liars.

They didn't even bother to say "we don't know" or "it's too early to tell". The official campaign line was that he did NOT have a heart attack. That is dishonest.

American voters deserve to know the truth. They were withholding the truth and instead they rushed to start feeding us false information. Even Jane got in on the effort with her embarrassing impromptu "press conference". She recited the talking points just fine, but anyone watching her body language and paying attention to how she was shaking her head "no" while saying "he's fine"... well... that's her "tell" right there.

Gladly! When the campaign decides to actually be forthcoming and honest... when they decide to tell the truth about things like this... then I'll happily stop pointing out that they're being dishonest.

PS: I never called the candidate a liar. I have consistently referred to the campaign. Please stop making false accusations about me. (Thank you.)

Instead of heart attack they would have said it was just heartburn.

Or gas.

Do you have a link for that? Because all I remember seeing is the info about the stents, and no confirmation OR denial of whether it was a heart attack.

Meanwhile, your suggested alternate answers ("They didn't even bother to say 'we don't know' or 'it's too early to tell') would probably actually have been lies.

I can understand not wanting to release the full diagnosis before having some handle on the prognosis.

... and even Jane's awkward performance in her sidewalk interview, playing down the deadly seriousness and acting as if it's nothing worse than coming down with the flu and pretending that it's over now, he's cured and having a grand time. (He may indeed "feel better" but he's not cured and the disease, damage and danger still exist.)

And personally, I don't think saying you had two stents inserted after after coming to the ER with chest pain sounds at all not serious, regardless of whether or not there had actually been a heart attack. It's obviously and inherently serious! And there's nothing unusual about being optimistic or putting on a brave face in such a situation. I'd also suggest that Jane may have been looking at it from the perspective of being his wife, not from the perspective of a campaign spokesperson. But either way, I haven't seen a lie.

Then you're not looking hard enough.

THAT is what would have been dishonest, since they presumably knew quite quickly (Sanders and his wife would have known within hours.) What they did was more honest than what you suggested.

Lie by omission? In this case, that's eye of the beholder. How much detail are we entitled to, and when? As I said, I can understand not wanting to release the full diagnosis before having some handle on the prognosis.

There are lots of women who don't tell people they're pregnant especially if there's a health issue and they're not sure how it's going to go. OMG, lies of omission, liars all!

Even public figures are allowed a certain about of privacy and discretion about what to say when it comes to their medical concerns. And we had to wait a whole three days, my god, the man should be hanged!

The extremes some will go to to find ways to bash Bernie...

Nobody is "bashing Bernie" But I am seeing all sorts of "extreme" contortions to defend the campaign for not being forthright and honest with the public and for their unnecessary delays and for pretending as if his serious disease is "no big deal" and as inconsequential as the flu.

Not really. People deserve to know the truth and shouldn't be misled.

Yes we did. It's not like they didn't already know. There's no good reason to delay that long unless they're trying to figure out how much they can get away with NOT telling the American people, and how best to spin-it, and to portray it as being little more than the flu, or heat-exhaustion, or dehydration.

Nobody is saying that.

Irrelevant.

I guess I just have higher standards. I would hope that the campaign of anyone hoping to be our party's nominee for President would have (or demonstrate) those same standards of honesty and being forthcoming with the truth... especially for a matter as deadly serious as this.

If they didn't know, then that's what they should have said. If it was too early to tell, then that's what they should have said. --- But they didn't. They didn't even bother to ask for more time.

I agree with you there.

Which is why...

Since, as you say, "it's not like they didn't already know," all those other responses you suggest would have been wrong. Worse than what you're calling lies of omission, those would be lies of commission.

As for the rest, we'll just have to disagree as to whether there was any ethical necessity for him to have released more detail more quickly.

" Former Ohio state senator Nina Turner, a prominent supporter of Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vermont) in the Democratic primary race, said: "People get sick. . . . It's OK not to feel well. It's all about the coverup."

Clinton's aides readily acknowledged Monday that they took too long in revealing the candidate's whereabouts and medical condition. But they did not second-guess Clinton's decision to stick to her schedule, and they argued there was no expectation that she reveal the diagnosis any earlier because the pneumonia had not affected her public activities until Sunday.

"She didn't see a need to tell people if she was going to continue her schedule," said Jennifer Palmieri, Clinton's communications director. "She felt well enough to keep going. Power through. But obviously that didn't work out."


https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/ct-hillary-clinton-health-20160911-story.html

about the true nature of the episode is not the same thing as making a "medical assessment".

1. It's a pretty big deal to have a heart attack. You have to deal with that first.
2. Until they had an answer about how to go forward (is he taking time off? Is he dropping out? Is he attending the debate?), they probably didn't want to talk about anything.
3. The immediate thought might have been no heart attack, and then further testing came along.


I'm not surprised that they didn't say heart attack right away.

I wonder if the rest of the event went on as planned.

It wasn't a closed door fundraiser..... It was clear he was feeling bad

event for donors only. The location was unannounced to the general public and known only to the donors who paid for tickets.

https://www.facebook.com/events/390361015225570/


https://secure.actblue.com/donate/oct1vegas

That folks are hyping as a heart attack?
Or was it a full blown ICU heart attack?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/04/us/politics/bernie-sanders-hospital.html

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bernie-sanders-heart-attack-presidential-candidate-leaves-hospital-2019-10-05/

snip===================================================================


snip===================================================================


https://www.vox.com/2019/10/5/20899985/bernie-sanders-heart-attack-stent

I heard he had the heart attack after he was shown the bill for Medicare 4 All.