We were only 3 votes short on the 60 needed to retain the sanctions against Deripaska.

[pnwmom]

With Bernie, we would have only been 2 votes short.

So why didn't Bernie even vote on it? His could have been the deciding vote -- he couldn't have known that it would fail anyway.

I want to know what his justification was. This seems to be a part of a pattern for him -- he voted against the Magnitsky act, too -- and I don't understand it.

[dalton99a]

1. Maybe he had a bathroom emergency

triggered by debate on Russia sanctions - like an allergic reaction

[FirstLight]

2. Me neither....

It's not a comforting stance...is he making a statement or what...not ok....

And fwiw , I was a big Bernie supporter....lately, notsomuch....

[BigmanPigman]

3. There was a thread earlier with 300+ replies about the reasoning,

his voting history, and other info is there. It was helpful to me anyway.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211680139

[MrsCoffee]

7. His reasoning is beyond lame. Again and again on Russia.

He told us to ignore Russia’s hacking and interference. That it was just a “distraction”. Given his votes, combined with his refusal to show his tax returns and his campaign strategist’s close ties to Russia, people have a right to be seriously concerned.

The only ones buying his flimsy excuses are those that will buy anything from him.

[Cha]

4. He could have done both.. his "sexual harassment" meeting

and at least a "symbolic rebuke" against Russia.

But, as you make a very good point.. he couldn't have known how close it would be.

It was a very important vote for our Democracy against Russia who Screwed with our 2016 "election".

Senate Democrats' effort to block Trump move on Russia sanctions fails

The sanctions resolution from Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, which required 60 votes to proceed, was defeated in a 57-42 vote. Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders missed the vote.

But the result still represented a symbolic rebuke of the Treasury Department's decision in December to lift the sanctions on the companies tied to Deripaska, a Kremlin ally. Eleven Republicans joined with Democrats to support Schumer's resolution, arguing that the Trump administration erred in deciding to lift sanctions on Rusal, the world's second-largest aluminum producer, as well as EN+ Group and JSC EuroSibEnergo.

Wednesday's vote came one day after Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin went to Capitol Hill in an effort to ease Republican senators' concerns about the sanctions plan. He failed to convince those 11 Republicans who broke with Majority Leader Mitch McConnell later Tuesday to vote with Democrats on Schumer's resolution.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/16/politics/senate-democrats-sanctions-russia/index.html

The only one to miss the vote was Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. He was meeting with women who had accused his 2016 presidential campaign of sexual misconduct, his spokesman, Josh Miller-Lewis, told CNBC.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/16/senate-democrats-vote-to-block-trump-from-lifting-russia-sanctions-fails.html

Link to tweet

[dalton99a]

18. Absolutely

[ProudLib72]

35. That tweet needs its own thread if it doesn't have one already

Less than an hour at the meeting for which he absolutely had to miss the vote.

[Cha]

69. So no excuses. I've been

posting it around as much as possible.

[ecstatic]

5. I think he's compromised. If he runs again, I don't think it'll be by choice. Nt

[MrsCoffee]

8. I had considered the first part of your post, but not the second.

But now that you mention it, I’m not nearly as sure as I was that he would not run again.

[honest.abe]

9. Do we even know if he supported the Democrats position on this issue?

Did he make any statements?

[Tom Rinaldo]

11. I believe he voted with Democrats on the procedural measure the day before to bring it to a vote

I say that because I read that all of the Democratic coalition save one voted for that, and that was the vote that Gillebrand missed.

For the record I do not accept the presumption that some here are making that there is no way Bernie could have known in advance if his vote might not have made the difference in the outcome. I do not know enough about the inner workings and relationships among Senators to be certain either way. It is not a large body of people, and only a handful of Republican Senators don't start out hardwired to support whatever McConnell demands of them.

[honest.abe]

12. Its still not clear to me what his position was on this issue.

Voting for bringing it to a vote doesn't suggest anything about his position.

[Tom Rinaldo]

13. Actually it literally "suggests" what his position is.

The votes on the two measures I believe correlate exactly (or nearly so if not exactly) for all of the Senators. Those voting one way on the first measure voted the same way on the second. But you are right that that in itself does not firmly establish his position, unless he made specific floor remarks during the debate.

[honest.abe]

15. Yes, that's true but I would prefer to have him make a statement to confirm.

Not sure why he doesn't do that.

[FreepFryer]

10. Un-American. (n/t)

[Autumn]

14. Damn shame he missed it if being two votes short would have guaranteed the sanctions

against Deripaska. New rule or just the usual? Don't really need an answer on that.

[BannonsLiver]

43. YOu seem happy the vote failed.

[Autumn]

48. Nope. Bemused at the outage that Bernie was elsewhere and wasn't there to cast a vote

on a bill that had no chance of being passed. Well to be clear bemused and not surprised at the outrage. Had he blown off sexual misconduct victims from his previous campaign to vote on the bill that was never going to pass the outrage would have been the same. Turtle would never have allowed a vote unless he knew the votes were there for it.

Bernie BAD! Same shit different day. YMMV

[yardwork]

51. It had an excellent chance of passing. Bernie helped ensure that it failed.

[Autumn]

53. Turtle would never have allowed a vote unless he knew how the votes were going.

Bernie was one of three. What magic would have made the other two votes go the way you wanted it to go? 3-1 is still 2.

[yardwork]

54. Two votes is very close. Lots of room for arm twisting.

Like it or not, Sanders' not bothering to show up for this vote is going to hurt him politically. As it should.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

63. Mitch is an asshole, but he's good at his job.

He knew how the votes were going. There was precisely zero room for arm twisting.

[Autumn]

67. Keep hoping but it won't. People know that there was no way this would have been

brought to a vote if Mitch didn't have it in the bag.

[BannonsLiver]

65. So much woe

Poor Bernie.

[Autumn]

66. No, not poor Bernie. I'm sure the outrage doesn't mean shit to him

or to most of the people who supported him.

[BannonsLiver]

68. The phrase "doesn't mean shit to him" definitely fits here.

[Autumn]

71. Yes it definitely does fit here. nt

[harumph]

16. I supported Bernie in the primaries - but this not showing up

is VERY questionable. I didn't really care for his rationalization of the (peripheral) IMO
issues surrounding his no vote (re: Magnitsky).
In no way will I be supporting his primary candidacy this time around - in the case
he chooses to run. With everything we've experienced in the last two years, it's certainly not
crazy to wonder if might be compromised in some way. If you're basically honest, but compromised for
whatever reason, the decent thing to do is step out of the game to spend more time with family b/c you realize
you cannot possibly serve honestly. You don't double down.

[NurseJackie]

17. It remains unclear how he would have voted anyway.

Considering his voting history of opposition to ANY Russian sanctions, it remains unclear how he would have voted anyway.

I think this was an intentional absence so that he could avoid the appearance of hypocrisy (ie: reversing his previous stances) and so that he could avoid the appearance of doing something that CLEARLY benefits Russia at this critical moment in our history (ie: voting with the GOP to lift the sanctions).

But, honestly... I think it's fair to say that for all practical purposes: silence = approval. This was an ALL HANDS ON DECK moment! Would his vote, or his presence helped to sway three other Republicans? Win or lose, every vote counts.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

19. So you think he would have been the ONE person

to vote differently than the procedural vote to bring it to a vote? That's a pretty bold claim.

He knew how the vote was going to come out.

[NurseJackie]

20. As I said previously: It remains unclear.

I stand by my other observations, questions and analysis.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

23. Like everyone else. He would have voted the same way as the procedural vote.

Unless you have some evidence to the contrary (your observations and "analysis" don't count), seems like people are just looking for another reason to hate Sanders. He knew how the vote was going to go. He's not an idiot.

[NurseJackie]

26. Aw...

seems like people are just looking for another reason to hate Sanders.

(your observations and "analysis" don't count)

[Cuthbert Allgood]

29. So you don't have anything to indicate he would be the ONLY one to vote differently?

And, seriously, the has lost any value for you. You might want to find a different trick. And won't count.

[NurseJackie]

32. ...

And, seriously, the has lost any value for you.

Clearly not. Much is revealed to me when it bothers you enough to try an discourage me from expressing my amusement.

And won't count.

My analysis "doesn't count". My opinions "don't count". My waving smiley emojis "don't count". That's fucking hysterical!!!!

PS:

[Cuthbert Allgood]

34. It doesn't count toward toward actual evidence that he would vote differently.

See how it work?

It's my opinion that he would have voted the same way. There. Done.

[NurseJackie]

37. His voting history does not support that argument.

It's my opinion that he would have voted the same way.

His voting history does not support that argument. So, do you believe it's fair for someone to say that your opinion "doesn't count" either? See how that works?

[Cuthbert Allgood]

38. So where are the votes where he voted differently than the procedural vote

when every other vote was identical to the procedural vote? I'll wait for that list.

That was the whole point of my putting my opinion in there. It doesn't count. The actual, real evidence I have is that 100% of all other senators voted the same as their procedural vote. Which indicates two things. 1. Sanders knew how the vote was going to go. 2. He would also have voted the same way since there is no evidence to the contrary.

But, I'm interested to see your list of votes where Sanders was the only one to vote differently than his procedural vote.

[NurseJackie]

39. False equivalence and irrelevant. His feelings (and voting history) on Russian sanctions...

... are well known and well documented. I'm not the idiot you take me for.

But, I'm interested to see your list of votes where Sanders was the only one to vote differently than his procedural vote.

You're interested in nothing of the sort. Compared to the voting record and statements in opposition of Russian sanctions, the arguments you're making are very weak.

In the end, this was an ALL HANDS ON DECK moment. People deserve to have truthful answers and explanations to the questions being asked. I, for one, will continue to ask them.

PS:

[Cuthbert Allgood]

40. Do you think they didn't know what the vote would be?

Of course they did. This was not an all hands on deck moment. He wouldn't have changed the outcome. Nobody voted differently than expected. You are manufacturing a crisis moment in his voting.

[NurseJackie]

41. No I'm not.

You are manufacturing a crisis moment in his voting.

No I'm not.

This was not an all hands on deck moment.

Yes it was.

He wouldn't have changed the outcome.

I disagree. That's very weak justification for not voting. I have to wonder what other MORE COMPELLING reason there may have been for missing a vote. These are valid questions that people are legitimately curious about. People deserve honest answers.

[scheming daemons]

21. Careful... the Bernie fans are out for blood and trying to get people banned...

....who have the nerve to tell the truth about this.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

24. Did the rules change and Sanders is not "protected"?

But you forgot the quotation marks around "truth." There is no indication he would have been the only single person to not vote the same way as the procedural vote.

[scheming daemons]

25. Since he didn't vote... All we have is his past voting record on issues related to Russian sanctions

And it isn't a flattering record.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

27. Actually we have his vote on the procedural vote on this measure.

And everyone else voted the same way as their procedural vote. Do you have some magical evidence that he would be the ONE person to change his vote? Beyond your conspiracy theories?

[NurseJackie]

31. It's a procedural vote. It means he approved of the PROCEDURE to move forward, nothing more...

It's a procedural vote. It means he approved of the PROCEDURE to move forward, nothing more can be inferred.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

33. Let me repeat. Do you have ANY real evidence

that he would be the ONE person to vote differently than the procedural vote. No? Then you have nothing.

[NurseJackie]

36. Oh, good god. I'm not stupid. GMAFB!

[BannonsLiver]

45. There's nothing about him they won't defend.

Remind me where I’ve seen that dynamic before.

[NurseJackie]

46. I think it's safer if I didn't.

Remind me where I’ve seen that dynamic before.

I think it's safer if I didn't. But I can assure you that we're on the same page and that we have very similar thoughts.

[yardwork]

50. Sanders didn't show up to vote when it mattered.

His non-appearance speaks volumes.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

56. It didn't matter.

Would I have rather he showed up? Yes. If for no other reason than to avoid the optics of it.

But nothing about this vote was a surprise. Everyone knew how it was going to come out. Look at the procedural vote. It is exactly the same as the final vote.

[yardwork]

59. Sanders must have a very good reason for his consistent votes on Russian sanctions.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

62. Wow

Don't we have actual problem people to deal with without creating some conspiracy theory? This feels one step away from "he's a communist." Oof.

[NurseJackie]

30. Nonsense!

There is no indication...

Nonsense! One's previous voting history is an important and valid indicator. Things like that can't just be dismissed as if they never happened. It's very easy to conclude how people feel about certain issues based on their voting history. And, when someone has a consistent voting history on a specific matter, it's reasonable to conclude that they wouldn't change their opinion overnight... that would risk accusations of hypocrisy. But, on the other hand, it's fair to say that voting with the GOP could be hazardous too.

These are fair questions and observations and people deserve to have honest answers. All I'm saying is that it serves no good purpose to try and silence people who legitimately want to know the truth.

[BannonsLiver]

44. +1

I can vouch for that.

[Turbineguy]

28. Luckily for the Russians,

we have plenty of traitors.

[BannonsLiver]

42. And Bernie couldn't be bothered.

What a surprise.

[question everything]

47. Will this finally convince the loyalists here that he is not one of us?

Not a Democrat, never been a Democrat, actively campaigned against Democrats and we will never know how many of his supporters stayed home or voted for Trump.

[JCanete]

64. what? no. Actively campaigned for democrats. A vote that was inconsiquential since the bill would

not pass. If he wanted credit for having voted for it without any actual action occurring he could have simply done so. There's nothing at all to gain from abstaining from that vote only to be chastised by those who want to pretend to some pro Russian conspiracy. Nobody gets called to fall on their sword before they actually need to fall on their sword.

So, in essence, this shows not a god damn thing.

What we will never know is how many more people registered as democrats and then went on to vote for Clinton because of a spirited primary. We do know the numbers of people who voted for Sanders and then for Clinton, which again, (why do I have to keep repeating this), was the exact same margin as Clinton voters who voted for Obama, and MORE Clinton voters voted for McCain than Sanders voters voted for Trump.

We will never know what feeling like you are handed your candidate to you without any say in the process(no viable primary opponent) would do to excitement and turnout. Ultimately, people got engaged early and had a stake in the race. That is valuable going into the GE, not the opposite.

But none of that probably matters to posters here, so carry on.

[yardwork]

49. Bernie Sanders is consistent on this. He doesn't support sanctions against Russian criminals.

[lark]

52. He is a supporter of the NRA which gets all their $$ recently from Russia.

????????

[Joe941]

55. Not a big deal. He is a busy guy.

[pnwmom]

57. Right. Like he was too busy to notice all the problems his campaign had with sexual harassment.

"Just a little bit busy" he said.

[yardwork]

60. I guess that's the talking point.

[yardwork]

58. It's his job to show up for votes in the Senate. His only job.

What he does on his own time is his business. He's required to show up for votes in the Senate.

[Joe941]

61. Missed votes happen all the time. Is this a new standard?!

Or is this just a shot at Bernie?

[Cha]

70. Every Vote Counts.

Link to tweet

Especially "symbolic rebuke" votes against Russia.. who screwed with our 2016 election.

But BS, who was just down the street, couldn't be bothered.

The meetings, which stretched for almost a full day, began near Capitol Hill on Tuesday evening and picked up after the full group convened for breakfast on Wednesday morning.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/01/16/politics/bernie-sanders-sexual-harassment-campaign-meeting-2020/

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=11682589

Senate Democrats' effort to block Trump move on Russia sanctions fails

The sanctions resolution from Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, which required 60 votes to proceed, was defeated in a 57-42 vote. Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders missed the vote.

But the result still represented a symbolic rebuke of the Treasury Department's decision in December to lift the sanctions on the companies tied to Deripaska, a Kremlin ally. Eleven Republicans joined with Democrats to support Schumer's resolution, arguing that the Trump administration erred in deciding to lift sanctions on Rusal, the world's second-largest aluminum producer, as well as EN+ Group and JSC EuroSibEnergo.

Wednesday's vote came one day after Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin went to Capitol Hill in an effort to ease Republican senators' concerns about the sanctions plan. He failed to convince those 11 Republicans who broke with Majority Leader Mitch McConnell later Tuesday to vote with Democrats on Schumer's resolution.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/16/politics/senate-democrats-sanctions-russia/index.html

The only one to miss the vote was Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. He was meeting with women who had accused his 2016 presidential campaign of sexual misconduct, his spokesman, Josh Miller-Lewis, told CNBC.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/16/senate-democrats-vote-to-block-trump-from-lifting-russia-sanctions-fails.html