Why Don’t Sanders Supporters Care About the Russia Investigation?

Discussing Trump’s ties to Putin could give us a chance to raise the issues that matter most to us: corruption and inequality.


Comments: 231

  1. More to the point, why don't Democrats generally care about an illegal sale of uranium to Russia by the Obama administration, alleged to have occurred in return for Russian contributions to the Clinton Foundation?

    After many months of investigation, we still have nothing that sticks to Trump on Russian cahooting. But we know that the Uranium was sold to Russia, we know that such a sale was illegal, and we know that The Clinton Foundation received contributions, through whatever channels, from the Russians. So, nobody on the left regards that as curious?

    I guess that it's lucky that Republicans in this instance don't need Democrats to open such an investigation. Isn't it?

  2. There is nothing illegal about the uranium sale itself nor does anybody with expertise in the area claim it is. The accusation of illegality is about a supposed quid pro quo. There is no evidence of that especially since the sale was approved by two handfuls of agencies unconnected with the Clinton Foundation, the supposed quid in this matter.

  3. Every country with a concern for air, water, energy, medicine has given tens of millions to the CF. The scientists doing collaborative research may answer some of the questions that keep nations alive. Russia, all the desert nations, Asia, USA, etc have a stake in sharing the newest findings from the best minds. So, if a group pays Bill about the same fee they were paying W (Mr. Malaprop), Condi, Laura Bush, Powell, et al, big deal. They all get paid to talk, and you can hear most of the usual Clinton talks on you-tube - 'educate your women', 'create economic opportunities for women', share information on rising seas, depleted fisheries,, etc..... You ought to get out of your pajamas, put on a suit, and attend one of the global six figure events.

  4. I think virtually everybody in the center and to the left of the center is VERY interested in the Russia investigation, but are smart enough to know this thing is not going to play out as fast as a 7-game playoff series or a TV talent show.

  5. "[V]irtually everybody in the center and to the left of the center is" NOT "very interested in the Russia investigation" I speak as a 61-year-old Bernie supporter (and a lawyer 37 years in practice); one who did not vote for either HRC or Trump (the first time in 41 years of voting I did not vote for the Republican or Democratic presidential candidate).

    Boris and Natasha Badinov, as bad as they are, did not snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, that was HRC and the DNC. Americans have not only illicitly involved ourselves in the elections of other sovereign nations, but when that didn't work we set about literally killing people to achieve regime change. This whole business of the Russians interjecting themselves into our election is like Capt. Reneau in the movie "Casablanca" declaring that he is shocked, shocked, to find out there is gambling going on in the back room at Rick's Cafe while just then being handed his evening's winnings at the roulette table.

    And, yes, it is a distraction without end. There is real work to be done.

  6. The article is informative, except for the title. Bernie Sanders continues to get a negative tone from the NYT. The Russians are doing to the U.S. what the U.S. has done to many countries over the past few decades (including Russia). However, most U.S. voters view this issue through a tribal lens. It is ignored if you're a Republican, and it's not OK if you're a Democrat. Not at all good for the country as a whole.

  7. This is only an issue if you believe the US a real democracy, which it is not. We're a deeply flawed democracy. But, let's not let facts get in the way of media spin and political narratives. Ignorance is bliss they say... http://bit.ly/democracy-index

  8. Sorry but I have to take exception to the dismissive tone that because this country may have influenced other countries elections. When have we EVER had a president that was elected with the help of a hostile foreign power? When have we ever had a president that surrounded himself with people who have gotten caught lying about ties to a hostile foreign power? When have we ever had a president terrified of having his taxes disclosed? This is far more serious then anything this country has faced.

  9. There’s a simple reason. Bernie refuses to finalise his FEC filings from his 2016 run (or release his tax returns; and, no, one partial year doesn’t cut it — but that’s another matter).
    The FEC flagged thousands of suspect overseas donations, that Bernie doesn’t want to explain.
    There is also the matter of $10million in dark money from a single DC zip code over a single 24-hour period, that Bernie also doesn’t want to explain.
    He benefitted greatly from the Russian meddling, and now won’t be transparent about his campaign finance.
    Connect the dots.

  10. Citations, please.

  11. Hmmmm re Lisa an Australian who has inside info re Bernie Sanders? I think this smells of disruptor-Julian Assange type interference. I suggest foreigners keep out of US politics....and we should keep out of theirs. Not every politician lives in the sewer and is on the take you know.

  12. How about this reason: Bernie Sanders isn't and wasn't a member of the Democratic Party. He joined to run in 2016, he left when he lost in 2016. It's insane that everyone, NYT included, neglects to mention this extremely significant factor in mitigating Democrats' enthusiasm for Sen. Sanders.

  13. Please don't generalize. I voted for Sanders in the primary and just as determinedly for Clinton in the general election, and I care very much about the Russia investigation.

    It's only fair, however, to ask why the writer and complainants like him don't care about the (non-existent) investigation of home-grown interference in our elections (plural).

    I would argue that voter suppression in all its forms did far more to deliver victory to Republican candidates all the way down the ticket than did Russian interference.

  14. The Russians were a key tool, paid for by Dark Money such as Mercer, to discourage people from voting. Not the only tool, but a key tool.

    Billionaires don’t waste money on advertising that doesn’t work.

  15. True, voter suppression is rife across the US. It was selectively used by Hillary in the primaries and certainly by the republican factions in the general using crosscheck. And all this fraud isn't new. Here is a rare documentary from a few years back, which will never be shown on mainstream. http://bit.ly/stealing-america

  16. Right, the deliberate actions of the Gop are insults to our democracy.
    Voter suppression, and they admit it.
    Voter ID laws, with false excuses of voter fraud.
    Closing of polling places to make voting harder for citizens.
    Gerrymandering that manipulates districts to win power.
    This is the planned undermining of our democracy.

    Al Gore on CNN - “ Our democracy has been hacked by big money long before Putin hacked our democracy.”

    Collusion is a dirty word. Instead, in truly Orwellian double speak, our unlimited corporate donor dominance on our politics is renamed 'free speech' protected by our constitution---by our own Supreme Court.

    So, NY Times, when will your op ed page give us a column about our real home grown, legalized "Collusion" between our lawmakers and the corporate mega donors who tether our govt to their subsidies? No columnists talk about this cause/effect underlying our distorted politics.

  17. While I respect vanden Heuvel and Chomsky, they do not speak or stand in for the diverse array of Bernie supporters. I was one of those supporters. I care deeply about this investigation. I appreciate the ways in which this op-ed highlights exactly why we should all care.

  18. “Why Don’t Sanders Supporters Care About the Russia Investigation?”

    Why doesn’t the media care that there is a vast amount of evidence that indicates votes totals are being manipulated in our elections?

    Why would computerized election fraud be out of the realm of possibility when we have overt manipulation: voter suppression, gerrymandering, big money, and a stolen Supreme Court seat?

    Statistical and pattern evidence from exit polls indicate official vote counts are not legitimate. Exit polls are the international gold standard. Our State Dept. uses exit polls to verify elections in other countries. A discrepancy above 2% raises a red flag and an investigation and recount follow. It has led to elections being overturned in the Ukraine, Serbia, and Georgia.

    Vote counting has been outsourced to secretive, right-wing companies. The ballots, memory cards, and source code are off limits to the public, the candidates, and in most cases election administrators. Recounts and audits have been rigged or stopped – the latest example being the three recounts requested by Jill Stein. Lawyers for Trump and the Secretaries of State went to court to stop them and they succeeded. The system has been set up for concealment.

    Uncounted – Computer Security Expert Bruce O'Dell
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ai_971yvwBY

    O’Dell: “I see the same patterns that I'm trained to detect and prevent in the financial services industry running rampant in the election services industry."

    (cont’d below)

  19. Hillary didn't steal any Bernie votes. We voted for her because she's been working for families, social justice, workers since the 60's. Voter suppression in the South and West only aided Trump. The primaries were transparent and Berniebots need to grow up. Thanks for Trump.
    We hate him and he's giving us a Yuge tax break.

  20. Winchestereast,

    Stephen Spoonamoore gets it: "This is not a Democrat/Republican [general election/primary] issue. This is a democracy issue."

    Republican Stephen Spoonamore, Computer Security Guru, Election Theft with Voter Machines
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BX6vcoIZdA4

    "If you actually care about a constitutional democracy where every person actually votes, that the vote is validated, and the people who end up in office are reflected on the basis of the way people voted you care about this issue. If you don't want people to vote, and if you don't want people's vote to count, you want to rule without owning it by a mandate, then you are very supportive of Diebold.

    "We've had numerous elections in this country now where you use Diebold election machines. What happens with the vote is way off: 5, 10, 12 percent from the actual polling. These statistical numbers are impossible and the problem is Americans must come to the realization that there are people in this country who want to steal elections and we must stop them."

    Authoritarian governments count their votes in secret, not democracies.

  21. Please, get over it. Hillary was explicit in her statement that she did not need Bernie's supporters. Yes, she did say that. It is a measure of her arrogance that she did and a measure of her followers' myopia that they seem not to remember it. So, she doesn't need us when she thinks she is winning, AND she blames us when she loses. Nice trick there, trying to have it both ways.

    As far as I can tell, the majority of Bernie voters did vote for Hillary - well, actually we voted against Trump, even those who voted third party. Does that get acknowledged? No, Her supporters continue to snarl and sneer at us the same way they did all through the campaign. Remember this: you can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar. You need us more than we need you, so stop it with the vinegar. It doesn't serve your own ends

  22. Because of the ease of world trade, of travel and of moving cash from country to country, the new robber barons have few boundaries that they cannot fly over in first class. One reason Trump's harangues about that Wall are galling, beyond wasted money, and the insults to many decent but desperate people who walked across our boundary with Mexico -- if you have a lot of money, it doesn't matter who you have robbed.

    Klion is correct - the influence of oligarchs with "plundered fortunes" on our own country is destabilizing, and the ability of the wealthiest to move and hide their fortunes with relative ease mocks the concepts that led to the founding of this country.

    The hysteria of the McCarthy era and decades of institutionalized fear of the USSR seems to have been replaced by utter cynicism by most of our political elites - Bernie not being in that bunch - about where their money comes from. Whenever there's big money there's influence, we know it, and we either reform the system or watch the Plutocrats plunder.

    Katrina vanden Heuvel IS right that the obsession on proving a specific Russian-Trump connection is myopic. If it is proven, Dems still must develop political support and power, and a convincing working agenda, to preserve social and financial safety nets and reduce wealth inequality.

    If Trump were to be driven out of office at 4AM tomorrow, by 9AM it would be business as usual. Same donors, same lobbyists, same influences.

  23. I was a Sanders supporter who also voted for Clinton in the general election. I do care deeply about Russian interference, and I hope that Robert Mueller finds the evidence to bring Trump and his minions down. I also hope that the Congressional committees complete their reports with recommendations to prevent or at least reduce the likelihood of interference in 2018 and beyond (though the partisan politics I have seen in the hearings make me doubtful this will happen).

    But if all Democrats do is oppose Trump and support these investigations, without devising a meaningful, progressive message that holds corporations accountable for the financial and environmental damage that they do or building a strong agenda to reduce income inequality and roll back the corrosive effects of money in politics, it won’t matter how robust the country is against foreign meddling. There will be nothing to defend.

  24. I am a Sanders supporter. (And yes, I voted for Clinton in Nov. 2016.)

    I care deeply about the Russia investigation. I have confidence in Mr. Mueller, and am patiently awaiting the results. I have no illusions that this investigation is guaranteed to end Mr. Trump's presidency (despite the mounting evidence of improprieties of people within his campaign). The most important outcome of this investigation will be an understanding of how foreign nations (including Russia) can influence U.S. elections - which all Americans of both parties should be concerned about.

    The answer to countering Mr. Trump is at the ballot box - in 2018 and 2020.

    But we must all acknowledge that Mr. Trump legitimately won the election in the electoral college. And we, as a nation, must look in the mirror and seek to understand why. The Russian interference in the election (especially on social media) certainly had an impact. However, I have not seen evidence (and hope this is not the case) that actual votes at polls were tampered with.

    Far too many Americans were, and continue to be, ready to fall hook, line, and sinker for propaganda, disinformation, convenient scapegoats, and conspiracy theories. This is clearly true on the right. But the left is not immune to this either.

  25. Most reasonable thing I've read since November 8 2016. Agree on all points.

  26. We don't have to acknowledge that Mr.Trump "legitimately" won. Have you ever heard of voting machines and their eminent hackability? We know the Russians accessed voter registration and vote count databases. If you have a state where the vote count was illegitimate and hacked, then the electoral goodies are invalid.

  27. These days the stakes are so great and there is so much to care about that any reasonable person must pick their battles.

    If you find it convenient to believe that Trump is the only problem facing us, then I guess trying to nail him for collaborating with Putin makes sense.

    If you doubt that conclusive evidence will ever emerge or that, even if it does, impeachment by a Republican dominated Congress is unlikely, you might reasonably decide to care more about some other issues.

    Katrina vanden Heuvel gets it right when she says, “Focusing on Trump’s ties to Russia alone will not win the crucial 2018 midterm elections, nor will it win meaningful victories on issues like health care, climate change, and inequality that affect all of our lives.”

  28. Who says the resistance is "focusing on Trump's ties to Russia alone?" I and others can, and do, pay attention to more than one topic.

  29. Okay, fair point (though I'm a Sanders supporter who cares very much about the Russia investigation), but the real question is "Why don't Republican members of Congress care about Russian meddling in our election, and why are they suddenly all wound up about the Clinton Foundation?"

    Given that these people are the ones who can really do something about this issue, I think the focus needs to be on them.

  30. The far left and the far right (i.e. the Republican party) are not terribly different in most every regard. The political spectrum in this country is less a spectrum and more of a broken circle, with the far left and right virtually touching in terms of policy extremes such as embracing Russia. More importantly, both extremes are deeply antithetical to what this country has been and should be in the future.

  31. Good heavens, MJL, where do you get your faux news? This is nuts.

  32. First, name even ONE person "on the left" who "embraces Russia."

    Second, there is NO "far left" in this country. At all. Period.

  33. The headline implies that Bernie supporters are heretics for not "believing" in RussiaGate.

    Despite what the pundits say, his supporters are no more a cult or a monolithic entity than are the supporters of other politicians.

    Plus, not all leftists in this country are even Sanders supporters. There are plenty of people who think his ultimate function as a candidate was to herd disaffected people into the Democratic Party and into the voting booth for Hillary.

    So please, credit the so-called heretics with a little nuance and ability to think critically. Speaking only for myself, and based on the evidence so far, I do think that Trump and his kin and associates had some pretty seamy dealings with Russian oligarchs, not least because the high-end Manhattan real estate empire at the center of their world is a prime place for foreign tycoons park and/or launder their money. I hope the Mueller investigation, like the Paradise Papers, opens many cans of many worms.

    Do I think that Putin literally "hacked" the presidential election, or swayed undecided voters through the placement of some truly cheesy Facebook and Twitter ads? No. And frankly, the Democrats' complaints that "Russia" is sowing social divisions in the US is laughable on its face. This red-baiting trope has been going on for about a century now. How about they take a good long look at the manufactured wealth inequality in this country, and admit that the big money which controls them is the real Enemy Within?

  34. And once again Ms. Garcia earns her green check by telling it like it is.

    You know she’s right.

  35. I can't speak for other Sander's supporters, but quite frankly, I personally am very concerned with the Russian meddling. If there is anything to the uranium deal that was illegal, then let the truth be known. So far, there's no definitive facts other than what I consider innuendo. On the other hand, the Russian meddling has been been determined to have occurred by not just 1, but 17 US intelligence agencies. I just don't see the correlation between those 2 separate incidents. As long as Mr. Trump remains in his current role, he will do everything in his power to prevent any further sanctions against Putin. Where there's smoke, there's fire, and the interesting theory that Putin has something over on Trump could very well be true.

  36. I’m a Sanders supporter and I care about the Trump/Russia investigation. I also care about Medicare for all and I care about the outlandish concentration of wealth in this country and in the world.

  37. My experience with supporters of Bernie Sanders was that many were quite invested in discrediting HRC even after she was assured the nomination. The first batch of Podesta emails that became a media circus at the DNC forced the resignation of Debbie Wasserman Schultz and a few others. It became further fuel for the true believer's fire. Many praised Wikileaks and had trouble criticizing the growing evidence of Russian interference. People were, and still are, responding to the Russian/Wikileaks/Trump disclosures based on seeing what they want to see. I have little confidence that Mueller's report, regardless of its ultimate quality, will change many minds on the right or left. It is the narrative that matters to the most ideologically inclined.

  38. @rdelrio
    Unfortunately- everything [politically and legislatively] has been stripped away from us as citizens- and the only thing left to fight over is ideology. Some mighty slim pickens...

  39. So none of the admissions of Donna Brazile matter? This is the problem with supporters of HRC, hysterical blindness to the flaws in their candidate, also the reason for the "Russian meddling" investigation. Face up to the fact that she is a bad candidate who ran a lousy campaign, and is also true to whatever conviction dredged up by poll research. Her insincerity is not lost on the voters, that is, those who can still be objective.

  40. And you, of course, have no such biases, if I might infer?

    Of course, in my own experience as a Sanders supporter, I somehow find myself capable at one and the same time of being greatly angered not only by Russian meddling in our political process (btw, they were buying just as many ads and devoting just as many shills to stir up liberal/left/progressive rage as to the conservative/right/alt right) as we are by the clear evidence raised by Donna Brazile and the authors of 'Shattered' of a Clinton campaign not only hopelessly corrupt and the definition of anti-democratic but also "led" by an incompetent, triangulating wind-sock of a candidate who rode her own husband's sexist coat tails into that position in the first place.

    You rigged the system. You controlled the money. You manipulated the DNC and the "debates". You are LIKE the Russians and Trump yet we are supposed to embrace you since you might be the "lesser" of five evils (I'm throwing in China and N. Korea)?

    Go read 'Listen Liberal' by Thomas Frank. Then preach to those of us who still have unstained hands.

  41. I was a strong Sanders supporter. When he did not prevail I supported Clinton, as did Sanders. I was very concerned about Trumps’s affinity fir Putin right from the get-go and am astounded at an American who eas not.

  42. These are interesting points, and additional good reasons for concern about Russia's influence in American business and politics. But for the left not to consider election interference itself anything to worry about - irrelevant, overhyped, a convenient excuse for Clinton's loss - is bizarre to me. The Russians seem to have succeeded in their mission to sow discord and division not only because those on the right don't want to believe they've been played, but because those on the left don't want to believe THEY'VE been played either.

  43. There are so many reasons this is not really taken all that seriously by so many on 'the left'. First, Russia attempting to meddle in US politics has been going on for generations now, as has US attempts to meddle in Russian affairs. It's not new; it's hardly even news. And in context of the US track record of regime change and illegal wars, it truly is 'laughable', as Chomsky says. Furthermore... The fact that the 'Russians' were trotted out so quickly and efficiently after the 'hack' (or leak, as classified by Wikileaks) seemed such an obvious attempt to cover up the details of the emails, which suggested that the Democratic Party process was skewed in favour of Clinton... Which has now been utterly proven to be true. PLUS the fact that even President Obama said that even if Russia HAD meddled, they did not affect the result. And then of course there are the many instances in which the government has outright lied to implicate a foreign power (Iraq, Vietnam, North Korea, etc.) So many reasons not to take this thing at face value.

  44. You’re choosing to believe Trump over our intelligence agencies. The Russians have done well.

  45. There are even more reasons to question and discard the arguments made by your post as Russia's 'attempts to meddle' was methodical and weaponized by psyops and troll farms still operating in comments boards throughout the media. If you know how to trace web ID's and source code this is pretty obvious. Obama has since walked back his comment that "Russia did not affect the result." Chomsky still thinks Russia is a leftest theology and not a Mafia state kleptocracy that Putin used to steal his $200B nest egg comprised of the the assets of the Russian people stolen by Russian oligarchs and organized crime and then appropriated in large part from them by Putin and those loyal to Putin.

  46. I disagree with the assertion "MG" from Toronto makes, and reject that he has the slightest authority as "speaking for" or being a "spokesperson" for the articulating "the left." That phrase is almost tantamount to declaring you're a Bannon supporter. Or asserting that "You're not a racist" (which "those people" always seem to be accusing you of).

  47. Why are Sanders supporters constantly being criticized for imaginary misdeeds? The Democratic party needs to have a vision to offer voters not merely the anti-Trump alternative. This is a judgment call that reasonable people can disagree on, not cause for attack.

  48. It's just the headline that strikes that petty accusatory note. Mr. Klion's argument does not.

  49. I don't understand what this has to do with supporters of Senator Sanders. Unless it's just another opportunity to stamp your feet and blame them for everything that's happened in the past 18 months.

    There are a lot of Americans of all political leanings that are very skeptical of the Mueller investigation. We certainly support the effort but many of us are not holding our breath anticipating an earth shaking outcome. The guilt or innocence of the parties involved is irrelevant when you have no faith in the process.

    The real question is why aren't Americans as a whole up in arms that our electoral process is so clearly vulnerable to foreign interference? I'm hearing a whole lot of "Lock Her/Him/Them Up!" but not so much as a whimper about securing the electoral system.

  50. BC, Isn't the reason we're not hearing anything about securing the electoral system directly related to our current president and his enablers denying - or ignoring, in the case of the enablers - that there's an issue? Lots of people who don't have control of the levers of power are eager to address these systemic weaknesses, but with the current administration engaged full-time in deflecting and diverting attention from the issue, it's pretty hard to get anything meaningful done.

  51. Recognizing that "our electoral process is clearly vulnerable to foreign interference" is the key issue, but ignoring the specific involvement of Russia in the election of Donald Trump is a willful failure to understand what happened. This is a coup of kleptocrats, and we have to stand against it.

  52. BC - should Mueller discover that the Trump camp intentionally, or thru their deep ignorance, somehow "let the Russians in", or their agents...its a place to truly start and drill into the where, whats and hows.

    One of the big frustrations for those of us who get-it, is that those who dont, don't understand what hacking is, how it truly harms, and how problematic it is the naivete, and apathy of so many who dont understand or IMO, dont want to understand.

    Your/others lack of trust is mostly unfounded, and as such clouds your vision.

    A very small minority think, or hold out a great amount of hope the investigation is likely to drop a bomb on the Admin. Most are seeking some charges that can help undermine, and take out a few of the key players. Forexample, discrediting and undermining Pence and his "I dont know nut'n" stance. Now he's as uniformed as he claims.

  53. Sanders understands that it is not enough to be against Trump. He understands that we need to build a positive vision of our American future -- which is why he's not rehashing last year's election, but proposing strong policy initiatives that show what the Democrats could stand for if they shed their allegiance to corporate power.

    For the record, Sanders and his supporters are *not* against the Russia investigation. On the contrary, we want the Russian interference with the 2016 election fully investigated along with possible Russian collusion with Trump's campaign. At the same time, we are skeptical that this investigation alone will stop the danger posed by Trump. Our problems will not cease even if a smoking turns up that conclusively links Trump to Putin to hacking to tit-for-tat deals. Why? Because the best-case post-impeachment scenario features a smarter, or less impetuous Republican administration headed by a more dangerous man named Pence.

  54. But no one is saying that "this investigation alone" will solve all our problems with Trump. You are falling into a trap. We can look into collusion and interference without ignoring other issues. Believing that we cannot means we will do nothing about either.

  55. It's not just a "Russia investigation" - it's an investigation into Foreign Corrupt Practices, and Trump's international money laundering business, along with his open baldfaced conflicts of interest and flaunting of Emoluments prohibitions. Pence is just as guilty as Session of provable perjury. A good deal of the Saunder's discounting, then, winds up coming across as a form of regressive denial and guilt over throwing their vote to self-promoting drones like Stein, aka the Nader denials post Gore 2000, saying "Gore would have been equally bad." Bad as Iraq? I don't think so.

  56. I think if they admit there was interference it means they did not have legitimate grassroots groundswell support.

    Note I do not believe this is true (I voted for Bernie in the primary and was very excited by his campaign and the movement), but I think just like Trump can't admit it because it would undermine his victory, the left can't either because it would justify their loss.

    My dear friend is constantly disputing the idea that Russia interfered, excusing or denying it with a couple of different ideas:

    1) it's a smokescreen/not true at all/not to the extent that "they" say
    2) the US has done terrible things, why don't we care about them

    I don't understand either of these denials and I fear that the post-truth era Trump has helped along (it was always there, simmering) has infected far deeper than we imagined. Facts are facts, and Russia did interfere. Democracy is at stake. Yes, other factors are at play (voter suppression, for one) but that's no reason to deny the obvious.

    Glenn Greenwald, Julian Assange, Jill Stein, and others who promote the idea that Russian meddling is insignificant have done a real disservice to my friend and many others.

  57. I'm not sure they are promoting the idea that Russian meddling is insignificant as much as they are promoting the idea that our election process is suspect due to a number of reasons. The Russians are only one factor in many. That doesn't mean it's insignificant, but that the real problem is elsewhere. We need honest accurate fair elections where everybody is allowed to cast their vote.

  58. Greenwald, Assange, and Stein also were witting and unwitting pawns in the Putin/Mercer gambit, and have functioned under the senile apprehension that there is anything vaguely 'left' or 'progressive' in the thugocratic kleptocracy of Putin's Russia.

  59. The "real lesson of the Russian scandal" is that the Democratic party will do anything but admit its betrayal of the public interest in favor of its large donors, which has not gone unnoticed by voters.

    Voters who support Sanders' positions are not likely to achieve their goals by devoting their energies to Russian facebook posts, denouncing Russian kleptocrats or working to "clean up the influence of foreign lobbying on Washington" when American corporate lobbyists work tirelessly to destroy what remains of American democracy.

  60. Mueller's​ investigation will uncover anything relevant regarding Russia's interference in our past election. If Trump was involved his team will handle it through our legal system. We've been down this path before with Nixon and history tells us that a full investigation takes a few years. Patience is a virtue.

    Congress seems to be investigating how Russia used social media sites to divide us. Hearings are being held. Time will tell if anything meaningful comes from these hearings about how we can prevent interference going forward. The US isn't exactly innocent when it comes to interference in another countries elections so the constant complaining can feel a little hypocritical.

    We have bigger issues on the home front that needs to be addressed. Inequality, lack of affordable housing, the increase in healthcare costs, traffic, lack of funding for our public schools, concerns about climate change, our failing infrastructure and the list goes on. Our political leaders should be able to multitask and come up with solutions to our issues but so far neither party seems to have a plan.

  61. "Time will tell if anything meaningful comes from these hearings about how we can prevent interference going forward. "

    The GOP isn't looking to secure our elections. They are looking for tips on how to manipulate it more effectively. Russian may have done a few things they haven't thought of yet.

  62. There is a political party with a plan, and they have a leader.

  63. If we don't protect our electoral system, the other issues will be beyond our influence, much less control. To ignore or downplay the Russia investigation seems a political reaction to me, avoiding the reality of how we ended up with a Trump presidency.

  64. There are many problems and concerns about a Trump presidency for working Americans. We should work to alleviate all of them with urgency. One of them is the fact that someone antithetical to their welfare was elected president quite possibly through the assistance of a foreign enemy. This can never be allowed to happen again. It is fundamental to the welfare of all Americans that what happened is fully investigated..wherever it leads. We cannot ignore or minimize theft of our sovereignty. To do otherwise is unthinkable.

  65. As a Sanders supporter, I care about any foreign actor trying to influence our elections. I also, by the way, care about the US doing the same thing at home (e.g., voter suppression) and disrupting elections abroad.

    That said, I don’t believe that Russian interference is the reason Clinton lost. She didn’t need their help. She was quite capable of losing the election on her own.

  66. Clinton won the popular vote and lost the electoral vote by 70,000 in the three critical swing states of Michigan, Pennsylvania and Michigan. Sanders was being set up by the Mercers with amplification by the Russians for a similarly vicious attack concentrating on the divisions he sowed and the college bankruptcy controversy Bannon had loaded ready to go. Who knows what Wikileaks would have manufactured and doctored on Sanders and issues from Cuba to funds delivered to Sanders through hedge fund cutouts to take out Clinton? The Sanders coalition now has the Democratic party moving to the left, universal health care, and the core staffing at the DNC reflect that movement. It should learn from being gamed and fed false flags by the Russians, as the saying goes, "fool me twice . . ."

  67. Isn’t it amazing that a candidate can win the popular vote of We the People by nearly three million votes and still be ridiculed for “losing”?

  68. One has to wonder how many comments purporting to be in support of Sanders aren't logging in from Breitbart. Since only two of the Bernie Sanders supporters I know voted for someone else (one Stein, one Trump with many post-vote-regrets).

  69. "“Inequality, corruption, oligarchy and authoritarianism are inseparable.”

    I strongly agree. But authoritarianism can take many forms, for example like Democrats who are anti-trump in persona.

    Inequality, corruption, oligarchy all grew during the Obama years, although the authoritarianism was presented with a warm, friendly personality.

  70. Democrats and Republicans are more focused on fighting ideological wars. Real was is corruption in system that does not give a fair chance to outside ideas that can only be represented by a candidate that is not from either party. In addition, both parties control debate rules via election commission (made of 4 Dems + 4 Reps) that does not allow outside ideas to show day-light during discussion. When that happen, we independents might care about Russia/Clinton. Otherwise, it's a blatant disrespect to your democracy by hyping up people about non-issue. Make fellow Americans fight ideological war, so politicians can continue that shenanigan and backroom dealing.

  71. I think most people outside of the 37% of the electorate that is loyal to Trump is supportive of the Mueller investigation. Those who are not content to ride along with the vague agenda and messaging of Schumer, Pelosi, and Feinstein, and the shadowy influence of Clinton aligned PAC's, however, are concerned that the Democrats are much too sanguine about the results of the investigation being a magic bullet in the war to recover from the assault on democracy and justice being waged by the Republican administration and legislative majority.

    Russian meddling in our elections and sources of information is bothersome, but it is not nearly as troubling as the voter suppression, tamper-prone election machinery, gerrymandering, propaganda, corporate influence, and government administration by corporate shills that is taking place domestically.

    When the Democrats start taking those matters seriously instead of playing along as the Republican-lite brand of quietly corrupt companions to GOP usurpation of the public will, I am sure they gain the support they find lacking for their party. But instead of blaming the Bernie supporters for not falling in line with their weak and corrupt bag of tricks, perhaps they could ask themselves what is stopping them from focusing on the issues that are eroding the power and security of the 90% of the population that cannot afford to fill campaign coffers with gobs of money.

  72. "Russian meddling in our elections and sources of information is bothersome, but it is not nearly as troubling as the voter suppression, tamper-prone election machinery, gerrymandering, propaganda, corporate influence, and government administration by corporate shills that is taking place domestically."

    Russian meddling is just as troubling as the domestic factors, because we can't know the extent of it's effectiveness.

  73. How about they are both serious, and related hand in glove with the moral turpitude that enables Republican indifference to the security of our elections, foreign corrupt influence and opioids pumped into our nation from Afghanistan as well as Big Pharma (The Sackler family's Purdu & McKesson Industries and other players).

  74. David Klion conflates two issues: Russian interference in the 2016 election, and the Russian-money-related corruption of the kleptocratic Trumpsters. The corruption of the Trump crowd is a real and serious matter. The Russian election interference in 2016, if real, was pretty ineffectual. I say, "if real," because, as seems to be forgotten, in that oft-quoted January intelligence report on the subject, the NSA said it had only "moderate confidence" in the conclusion. In governmentese that means "no confidence." If indeed they were the ones who revealed Debbie Wasserman-Schultz's emails about how she did in Bernie, well, that was something we should have known. No one has charged that the documents were anything but genuine. The Clinton party is in effect arguing that if only they had been able to hide the truth longer from their fellow Democrats, then more of them would have voted for Hillary. The fault lies not with the Russians but with the Clinton crowd. Katrina vanden Heuvel, Masha Gessen, Noam Chomsky, and Glenn Greenwald are not naive about Russia. They are intelligent enough to distinguish between what is important, and what amounts to an unwillingness to face the reality of the 2016 election..

  75. Curious that you conveniently forget that it was the DNC that put Bernie on the ballot. Since he was not a Democrat there was no demand from the Democratic party grassroots that he be a candidate. What the DNC did was to promote Bernie by giving him a platform of equal stature with the most admired woman in the world
    Bernie didn't win the nomination because Democrats didn't want him as our candidate. And knowing what most of us do about Bernie and about the way Republicans win, we thought he would have lost massively. There is also no reason to think that the same Trump/Russian collusion would not have operated in the same way and probably with worse results had Bernie been the candidate You might want to keep that in mind for the future.
    Hillary basically ran on Bernie's economic message and that was because his goals are mostly Democratic Party goals. So there is either no reason to think that is a winner for Democrats or there were antipathies and bigotries that affected the outcome. And, unless you accept misogyny is legitimate, they would have held for Bernie too. My personal opinion is that the demands of Bernie's young supporters were a huge turn-off. They might want to rethink that.
    Many of Bernie's supporters were promoting Russian lies themselves so naturally do not want to admit being duped.

  76. The January 2017 report by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence concluded that the U.S. intelligence community has high confidence that Russia interfered--not "no confidence." Russian interference is continuing, including on social media, and this interference is a direct threat to our democracy. We know that Guccifer 2.0 is the online persona of Fancy Bear, a GRU hacking team--this isn't speculation at this point.

    Regardless of who the Democratic candidate is in 2020, you can be sure that Putin will intervene on Trump's behalf. That should be a problem for every American. As another commenter said, you can't govern if you're not elected.

  77. Hillary was attacked by the GOP, as expected, and by Russian meddling. Bernie was attacked by the Clinton campaign and the DNC. Really, which is worse? They were both trying to influence the outcome. Neither should be allowed. Period.

  78. 1) Because anyone who is not completely caught up in Trump mania this seems to be much ado about nothing.

    2) All sorts of people and countries try to manipulate American voters. We should be more concerned about the Koch brothers meddling with our elections than Putin.

    3) This is almost entirely based on claims by US intelligence services which have been known to be both dishonest and incompetent in the past. There is no reason to trust them as a source, much less trust news reports based on anonymous claims.

  79. 1) This isn't "Trump mania." It's about the sovereignty of our election. That you don't think it's a big deal doesn't mean it isn't a big deal.

    2) Good lord. You cannot ignore attacks on our country just because other undermining forces are also at work. We can walk and chew gum at the same time.

    3) Yeah, no reason to trust anything. Up is down. Nothing matters. Congrats, the truth is dead propaganda has worked on you.

  80. Ah yes, let’s ignore the findings of our intelligence agencies and take Mr. Trump’s word for it. No doubt his obsequiousness toward Putin is based on sincere admiration and nothing else.

  81. " No doubt his obsequiousness toward Putin is based on sincere admiration and nothing else."

    Given Donald Trump that seems perfectly plausible. As for ignoring our "intelligence agencies", what we should ignore is the information they are leaking to the media.

    First, because they are not only our "intelligence" agencies, they are also our propaganda agencies. So anything they say is colored by what they want the world to believe.

    Second, because they are incompetent. There is no reason to believe they really know who is behind the hacking any more than their claims about anything else. The folks running these agencies are many of the same people who told us Saddam had weapons of mass destruction based on the flimsiest of information. These are also the agencies who have been responsible for giving a army private free access to sensitive state department memos, a contractor access to a wide variety of sensitive intelligence, had an employee able to spend years stuffing his closet with vital secrets including some revealing its most powerful and sensitive hacking tools and it had those tools spread all over the internet.

    Third, as Senator Schumer famously warned, you shouldn't pick a fight with the intelligence agencies because they have a lot of ways to get back at you. Trump picked a fight with them and we should be very suspicious of the information they are selectively sharing about his Russian connections. They are very good at political propaganda.

  82. First Bernie supporters were racists, then they were sexists, then they were all against Hillary in the general. I’m sorry Klion, I have never met a Sanders supporter who doesn’t think Russian involvement is important. That includes myself and all of the many Sanders supporters I have met and talked to . Maybe you are confusing Sanders supporters with House and Senate republicans. Is this another false accusation of Sanders supporters from the Democratic party? Is this article going to be used to justify blocking progressives out of the party?

  83. Unfortunately, I have met many Sanders supporters who don't think it is important and who seem to be terribly naive about it all. And even more who are Sanders/Stein supporters. Some think it is just an excuse from Clinton, many are bitter, some so distrustful of our own government they would almost rather believe anyone else and some push RT and other Russian outlets and fake pages as much as many supporters of President Trump do.

  84. "I have never met a Sanders supporter who doesn’t think Russian involvement is important...."

    Oh man, I have, Mark. Friends of mine. I will chalk this up to good old Midwestern decency (because none of them have been local), but there are plenty of them, sorry to say.

  85. Really. How many you have met?

  86. The writer accuses some on the left (Sanders, Vanden Heuvel, Chomsky) of missing the bigger point about Russia while the writer himself misses the bigger point about Russia.

    And what they all are missing is what the Republicans have learned and honed to a fine art: you can't govern if you don't win elections first.

    To that end the Democrats' focus on Russian meddling in our elections should be a far greater concern than ANY of the domestic economic issues the far left believes should be of primary focus.

    If anything, they should be embracing Hillary who said she supported a $12 minimum wage (agreeing 80% with Sanders's call for a $15 one) and who said the day after her loss that the integrity of the election was intact.

    Well, I guess even Hillary can be wrong once in a while.

  87. The writer does NOT accuse Sanders of missing the point. In the last paragraph he quotes Sanders speaking "the real lesson" and says that Sander's supporters should get with that program.

  88. What I’ve hear from listening to many of the pro-Bernie people mentioned in this article is not that they don’t care about whether Russia meddled, but more that they are suspicious the DNC-controlled media outlets are using it to avoid talking about reforming the party.

    Seeing as how the big reveal that Russia supposedly is responsible for was showing the world how biased the democratic primary was, I don’t think it’s unfair to steer the conversation towards the content and implication of that information rather than simply speculating about the motivations of the alleged source.

  89. Translation- there are Saunders supporters still litigating their primaries versus looking at the critical condition of our democracy under Trump.

  90. This article references only four leftist political writers to substantiate the sweeping assertion of the headline "Why Don't Sanders Supporters Care About the Russian Investigation?" I have no choice but ignore that assertion in lieu of more thorough polling.

    Most Americans regard Trump's infatuation with Putin as downright weird, but more than that, it is seriously ominous coming from the Commander in Chief who, by the way, publicly begged Russia to release any damaging information they might have on Hillary, a request that appears to have been granted via Wikileaks.

    Given that Trump Jr. has boasted of his father's extensive business entanglements with mega-rich Russians through the years, it is natural to ask questions: where are Donald Trump's loyalties? With the USA, or with his personal bank account? It is a legitimate question under these circumstances.

    But Trump adamantly refuses to release his tax returns and reveal business contracts, and I get the impression that Trump would rather be impeached than reveal that information.

    Paranoia? Conspiracy theories? You better believe it.

  91. This piece also distorts the positions and the arguments, particularly of Masha Gessen, that the author characterizing as supporting his views. He's completely wrong on that, missing Gessen's point that there are those using 'concerns' as an excuse to further restrict free political speech and curtail liberties. E.g. Trump calling for an special prosecutor to "look at the Russians getting control of Uranium One." A lie hiding inside a distortion, motivated by a deflection manufactured by a distraction over Trump's vulnerabilities to being indicted for multiple counts of violations of money laundering, The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, Emoluments clause, and obstruction of justice.

  92. TRUMP IS A RUSSIAN OLIGARCH!
    After his last bankruptcy 11years ago who but Putin & his kleptocrats could have financed him. It's obvious! Read investigative reporter, David Cay Johnston's work. "Follow the money" was a Watergate theme. I expect it's part of Mueller's playbook too, else why bring in the Enron heavy-hitting investigators?

  93. I can tell you why this Sanders supporter doesn't care about the Russia Investigation. It's not that I don't care about the Russia interference. It's that Russia is only a symptom of the problem I see.
    I care about the fact that we have a such poor infrastructure with respect to voting that our votes are certified accurate by people who never verify the accuracy of the counting sofware post-election so there's no way of knowing if it was right.

    I care about the fact that all statistical evidence I can gather points towards electronic voting machines being rigged. I care about the fact that in the Dem primary the voting machines in many states were rigged to HRC's advantage. I care about the fact that the Republican primary voting machines in many states were rigged against Trump. He won, whether by overcoming

    I care about the fact that tens of thousands of citizens in my state were denied their right to vote because Kris Kobach mandated the use of the flawed system to remove them from the registration rolls. A system that systemically removed citizens that were more likely to vote against Republicans than for them.

    Yes, I care about Russia. But the fact that we cannot accurately assess the vote counts in our elections is my main concern. Why the mainstream media is not leaves me mystified.

    ShowMeTheVotes.org

  94. Why you see the need to separate and prosecute the issues of Russian weaponizing disinformation and targeting the electoral board in concert and coordination with Cambridge Analytica/Mercers, from voting machine vulnerabilities in the primaries, comes across as a disconnect in your reasoning. So does your meandering syntax and elusive point about voting machines that delivered the primaries to Trump being 'rigged' against him. Your post sounds suspiciously like a lot of Bannonites who posed as the Saunder "supporters" who were really Trump supporters. That phenomenon along with the race and opioid trauma induced haze targeted the techies and the rust belter middle aged white men, blue collar and whiter collar alike from Ohio to New Hampshire, Wisconsin, to Michigan .

  95. Well, glad you want a secure voting system and want to stop voter purges, etc. But you want to know how many voting machines were "rigged to HRC's advantage"?

    ZERO.

    Bernie lost. He loses elections. Zephyr Teachout LOST. Prop. 69 in Colorado LOST. That guy who primaried Debbie Wasserman Schultz LOST.

    And keep in mind who it was who begged to go to Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio and Western Pennsylvania to campaign for Clinton because he could win the "white working class voters?" That was Bernie Sanders.

    He's a cancer.

  96. I'm not saying we should ignore the Russian interference or that it's makes no difference. I'm saying it's a symptom and the root cause is our shoddy election processes. It makes little difference to me whether it was the Russians or Karl Rove or the Koch brothers behind voting machine manipulation.

  97. The last paragraph says:
    “Inequality, corruption, oligarchy and authoritarianism are inseparable,” Mr. Sanders said in a recent address. “Around the world we have witnessed the rise of demagogues who once in power use their positions to loot the state of its resources. These kleptocrats, like Putin in Russia, use divisiveness and abuse as a tool for enriching themselves and those loyal to them.” For Americans who broadly share Mr. Sanders’s views, this should be the real lesson of the Russia scandal.

    That is ONE lesson.

    Another lesson is that we have TRAITOROUS AMERICANS (the Trump family is just one example) who will associate with anyone who will help them to scam the system at the cost of all of us, financially, politically, and socially.

    Those who say that we should pay more attention to the costs that the Trump administration is exacting in terms of the environment, our political system, and progress in our society need to understand that mature people can handle more than one thought at a time. They should also understand that getting the present administration out of power accomplishes several valuable results at the same time.

    Whatever gets Trump and Pence (and their Republican enablers) out of power and gone in the most expeditious manner is to be desired. Maybe it is a s simple as flipping the House and/or the Senate in 2018.

    How about we work hard to get that goal accomplished. Then we can work on the rest. Bernie supporters: vote for all Democrats.

  98. We always have corruption in politics, but these days it feels like we have barbarian at gate of Rome, while Roman army is too busy fighting each other.
    In short, we have corruption legalized via "Citizen United" and both parties are continuously chipping away campaign finance laws. Result, we have system that is not listen to "We the People" but few wealthy donors. Today's politician lie on campaign and once in office, they do what their donors ask them to do. We can see that with Obama and now, Trump.
    Democrats and Republicans are more focused on fighting ideological wars. Real war is corruption in system that does not give a fair chance to outside ideas that can only be represented by a candidate that is not from either party. In addition, both parties control debate rules via election commission (made of 4 Dems + 4 Reps) that does not allow outside ideas to show day-light during discussion. When that happen, we independents might care about Russia/Clinton. Otherwise, it's a blatant disrespect to your democracy by hyping up people about non-issue. Make fellow Americans fight ideological war, so politicians can continue that shenanigan and backroom dealing.

  99. So you are saying what? That we shouldn't care about Russia because you don't like Citizens United?
    Now, if you don't think the 2016 election, or even the 2017 senate election in Alabama, is not showing that we are clearly being exposed to "outside ideas," then you are completely insane.
    But you won't need to worry about a thing, because if we follow your lead we will never have another free and fair election because you will do nothing to protect our system from Russian meddling.

  100. The longer all this goes on without a hint of actual collusion the more I agree we look like laughing stocks to the world. Diane Finstein signaled to the world this past weekend that she has seen "no evidence yet". She is the ranking minority leader of the senate intelligence committee. That speaks volumes for where we are at right now. Mueller has charged folks with stuff but all of those charges have nothing to do with collusion. Not good optics for all the grandstanding that has been done around the topic.

  101. "Without a hint?"

    "Nothing to do with collusion?"

    Okay.

    We appreciate the punditry but let's let Mueller carry on. I think you will be surprised.

  102. A presidential candidate publicly invited a foreign power to hack his opponent's emails. Substantial evidence suggested that a presidental campaign manager laundered millions of dollars in payments for his work on behalf of politicians in a foreign country. Evidence emerged that the US National Security Advisor was going to kidnap a legal resident of the US on behalf of a foreign government. An Attorney General repeatedly contradicted his own sworn testimony before the Senate. A President asked an FBI Director to call off an investigation, and when the Director didn't, the President fired him. Given all that, if a country did NOT undertake a deliberate, careful, and thorough investigation, that is when that country would be "the laughing stocks to the world."

  103. This is a hair-splitting question, that allows the author to parse out different "left-wing" groups as being foreign interlopers in the Democrat party. The truth is that on all sides of the spectrum there are people who care about the Russian investigation and those who don't. You will find and did find many expressions of failing to care in the way you assume should be the modal way, but it doesn't mean much as an interpretive tool or as a means of parsing into groups by those who care or don't care in certain ways. The question you pose in the lead seems like a subtle dig at Sanders supporters, in effect, you are trying to say they're a little wacky and unreliable, they don't care about the same things as the establishment blessed "left" does, or more specifically, they aren't clintonites, and therefore they aren't us. Personally, I see the Russia investigation and all its tendrils as part of the great unveiling of the establishment way of doing business. Right now it's hitting the stooges of the oligarchy hardest, but, I hope, it will reach to all those who have been fooling us for so long on both sides of the phony two party system that's stealing our government from the people.

  104. The author infers assumptions of normalcy and heterodoxy, and in doing so belies the arrogance and elitism that undermined the HRC campaign. That campaign used its final moments together as a team to draft a white paper that blamed the loss on a "perfect storm" of events including Russians. Maintaining a dichotomy that juxtaposes (A) what they like to imply as being normal Democrats and their own Russian theory for the election loss, with (B) Bernie Sanders supporters and a perceived lack of enthusiasm for the Russian theory, is key for the people within the Clinton machine to maintain their relevance, and their earned position in a political patronage pyramid that no longer has any reason to be. It takes a bit too much fairy dust to think that all of this is coincidental, rather than being yet another angle that the members of the Clinton network are using to maintain their clutch on the levers of power.

  105. Jill Stein seems to enjoy the support of Putin. Perhaps Bernie Sanders has some political or financial connection as well.
    Maybe Robert Mueller will have some news about Democrats as well. Bernie did benefit from DNC leaked emails and he and his wife seemed almost Trumpian in their ability to predict their release.
    It sounds far fetched but anything is possible these days.

  106. I dispute the author's contention that Sanders supporters do not care about the Russia Investigation. Mr. Klion cites a few people such as Katrina van den Houvel, Masha Gessen, and Noam Chomsky.

    Sorry, citing a few well known people hardly constitutes proof of his contention. A poll of Sanders supporters showing lower interest in the Russia Investigation would be powerful evidence. No such evidence is provided.

    Until polls confirm his headline assertion, I will disregard his opinion.

  107. There is also the matter of possible treason, which seems to be the course Mueller's investigations are headed. Has anyone considered the implications of Donald Trump and friends working hand in hand with Putin & Comrades to sabotage the democratic campaign in order to win? Does anyone realize what this really means?

    Did the people in question, by opening their door to our sworn enemies, by using organizations like Wikileaks and others, compromise the secrets and values of their country?

    We should not rest until these questions are answered.

  108. This is another edition in the "why won't the Sanders supporters shut up and behave" meme. There is an investigation. If that investigation reports serious wrongdoing then we will support holding those who have done wrong accountable.

    I worked for Sanders in Iowa. I worked legal protection for Clinton in New Hampshire. I don't need lectures from people who make excuses right and left for the worst run Democratic Campaign in my lifetime. Today I learned that payday lenders, with the assistance 9 Democratic Senators, are in the process of passing a law exempting them from usury laws. So I am going to call every one of those Senators and make my voice heard.

    I don not apologize one bit for focusing my efforts on that instead of Russia.

  109. More power to you, brother! Well put.

  110. Good points Bill. This article is basically asking the Sanders crowd, "Why don't you take the Russian meddling claims as a foregone conclusion, irrespective of any evidence that may (or may not) be produced by the Mueller investigation?" So far there is zero evidence that the purported Russian election meddling swayed a single vote. There is also zero evidence that Trump colluded in any way with Russians on the purported meddling. On this topic at least, the NY Times is every bit the propaganda machine that Democrats claim Fox and Brietbart to be.

  111. So Mr. Greenwald doesn't want Americans to pay too much attention to the Russian interference story? That seems like another very excellent reason to pay very close attention. Clinton got three million more votes than Mr.Trump. and presumably Mr. Greenwald finds her to be responsible for that. I don't find it confounding at all that this nation's crippling misogyny, coupled with trump/Russian rigging, produced the result we got. These Sanders succubi on the democratic party need to start their own party. Theycan call it the "free lunch bunch". They'll claim to have simple, certain solutions to complex world problems, solutions that cost nothing.

  112. "These Sanders succubi on the democratic party need to start their own party. "

    Careful what you wish for. I'd be delighted to join a new party, i think we should start one too. Have a nice 2020.

  113. The assertion that Clinton policies led to the rise of Putin is incorrect. It confuses privatization with governance.

    The Reagan and first Bush administrations paid much more attention to Eastern Europe than to Russia after the wall fell. We offered no stabilization funding, no assistance forming a democratic government, writing a constitution, or developing civil society institutions, as we did in Poland and the Baltic states, for example. They tacitly regarded a weak, chaotic Russia as in America's interest.

    Be that as it may, privatization was necessary. The author seemingly forgets the Soviet system had become dysfunctional. Privatization was the only viable way to rationalize state industries that were producing next to nothing while bankrupting the state.

    Privatization likewise did not cause the halving of Russian economic output. On the contrary, the weak state, with its attendant lawlessness and existential uncertainty, made productive investment impossible.

    This country could have done more to foster democracy in Russia. We didn't, and we're paying the price. 'Twas ever thus.

  114. I am one of the people who doesn’t care about the Russia investigation for the simple reason that there are much more important things to investigate. Why, for instance, does the US support the crimes against humanity committed by the Saudis in Yemen? And this generalizes— 15 years after the Iraq War no one in any high position has been held accountable for that crime or the torture policies— in fact, pro torture members of the intelligence community are now cited as patriotic heroes.

    Russiagate might lead to Trump’s impeachment. Given the atrocity of the war in Yemen, that is like nailing Al Capone for tax evasion. Fine. But the system that regularly produces bipartisan support for American war crimes will remain untouched.

  115. Mr. Klion seems very concerned about Russia for corruption and no doube rightly so in many areas but are we so free of corruption and tax cheating that we feel justified to lecture Russia or any country on morality. When we give the elite tax reductions and cut safety nets for the underprivileged we have hardly qualified ourselves for climbing into the pulpit and orating as if we were examples of morality.

    r

    r

  116. The supposition of your opinion piece rests on the following phrase:

    "The extent of the alleged collusion, which may ultimately endanger Trump's presidency, has yet to be determined...."

    Factually speaking, It should read:

    "The alleged collusion, which may ultimately endanger Trump's presidency, has yet to be determined....

    Maybe evidence will be found and maybe it won't but, as of now, there is zero evidence of collusion.

    As an Obama Democrat, perhaps I should appreciate this piece but as someone interested in the truth, journalistic license with the sole purpose of creating an unsubstantiated narrative is unfortunate.

  117. Yup. Article rings true. As I reflect on the Sanders-supporting friends I recall they don't care about Russian meddling. They 1) deflect (like Trump supporters) and mention something irrelevant. Or, 2) they have no comment on this, but are activist on several other topics. Also, 3) they have wrongly stated in the past several times that there is nothing to discover in a Russia investigation. Still waiting for Glenn Greenwald in particular. Finally, similar to Trump supporters they will not eat their words.

  118. Thank you so much, Ally. I have had the same experience so I am dumbfounded at the resistance to the idea.

  119. It's simple: if Russia influenced the election, then people might stop paying attention to what a poor sad victim Bernie was during the primaries.

    Sanders supporters are diverse, so it's odd to write an editorial that casts the lot of them this way. Sure, there's a bloc with no interest in anything but Government Corruption and sees everything else as a conspiracy to distract from that. But can't we focus on the majority that doesn't?

  120. Aren't you ignoring the number one reason Sanders supporters want to ignore the Russia interference issue?
    The Russians didn't only help Trump, they also helped Sanders, whether intentionally or not. Without the Russian interference, Sanders' losing effort would have been smaller than it was.
    Sanders' supporters don't want to face the fact that he also was made an unwitting ally of Putin and Trump.
    Also, leaving the Russians alone or denying the Russians' activities means Sanders can continue to benefit from Russian trolls and bots, free of charge.

  121. I fail to see the logic in your argument.

  122. That’s completely false. If it wasn’t for DNC corruption Sanders would be president now.

  123. "Without the Russian interference, Sanders' losing effort would have been smaller than it was."
    -The Democratic party secretly putting their thumb on the scale for Hillary..
    That's an issue Sanders-haters seem to want to ignore.
    Ironic to hear charges that we don't care about Russians meddling in our election by many who seem to not care about their own party meddling in it as well. I (and the other Sanders supporters I know) care about both.

  124. Sanders supporters are not monolithic. I voted for Bernie but would have strongly preferred Elizabeth (or Joe, or Al, or literally anyone but Hillary).

    Some of us care deeply about the Mueller investigation - and want to see everyone who got into bed with Putin tarred, feathered, and run out of town on a rail (a punishment much far more horrible than we moderns can imagine, but absolutely appropriate for the traitors who betrayed this country).

    Furthermore, the American political left fought the good fight during the Cold War - but once it was over, we let down our guard, and allowed the agents of a capitalism-run-amok to rape and pillage the former Soviet Union. And at the depths of their depredation, dishonor, and suffering, the Russian people tragically turned towards authoritarianism and Putin. I can't help but blame us - as in the US and Bill Clinton - a least a little, for that.

    We had a choice. We could have encouraged Russia to become more like Sweden - humane, socialist, peaceful - as Ms. vanden Heuvel's husband, Stephen Cohen, the eminent Sovietologist, urged at the time. We instead encouraged it to become more like us - materialistic, ruthlessly capitalistic, and savage.

    We vainly imagined that liberty won the Cold War; but what many of us discovered, in hindsight, is that liberty, when divorced from notions of virtue and economic solidarity, leads inevitably to authoritarianism and corruption on an epic scale - and thus, to Putin and Trump.

  125. This is a naive view of Russia. It's people have never experienced democracy, and the shock treatment so regaled was almost inevitable, since the alternative was go straight to kleptocracy. Urge it to become Sweden? Have you visited or talked much to Russians? It's like saying Americans could be Swedish.

  126. Who says that Sanders supporters are not interested?

    They are interested in the Russia connection, but they're savvy enough to know that the Constitution does not provide for do-over elections under any circumstances. No matter what, we will not get to vote again and choose Hillary.

    Furthermore, even if His Self-Centeredness is removed from office, the next three in line are Pence, Ryan, and Hatch, all of whom could still do some real damage to this nation.

    Meanwhile, the mainstream Dems getting all worked up about the Russia connection are at the same time failing to take care of business, the business of connecting with the general public and finding candidates at all levels who will have broad appeal, not on some superficial focus group level but as people who understand and have practical ideas for solving the day-to-day problems that this nation faces.

    By all means prosecute the current Republican administration if malfeasance is found, but from where I stand, I see Sanders supporters running for local offices and taking action towards damage control on the state and local level.

    By the way, assuming that the Russians did interfere with the U.S. election, it would almost be poetic justice, considering the ways that our C.I.A. has interfered in foreign elections ever since the end of World War II.

  127. Your final statement sounds just like our eloquent president. "We're not so innocent" so no problem with the actions of other foreign intruders.

  128. Well said. This article and some of the inane comments following it left me feeling rather poorly about this paper and its readership. It looks like Fox News down there, with all the venomous Bernie hatred. It's hard to see so many people still consumed by the rage they indulged during the campaigns. It's also nice to see that reason isn't yet abandoned.

  129. Yep, exhibit 1 for how the Bernie people cost us the election:

    "Who cares if they are trying to ruin our democracy, someone did in our past"

    Losers.

  130. Clickbait title. As a Sanders supporter and a voter concerned about the Russian influence on the election, I’m amused by this piece. I always find it difficult to stomach the repeated attacks on progressives (with Chomsky and Greenwald named in several hit pieces I’ve read) as being uninterested in the Russia/Trump story. Both Mr. Greenwald and professor Chomsky have had the same views for years regarding the larger issue of corruption in politics, national security and big business. The election meddling needs more evidence available for public consumption if serious allegations are to be brought and upheld as truths. The evidence of corruption in government and the corporate sphere is overwhelming. Many progressive journalists and scholars have shown for decades how bad our system of revolving door politics and business relationships is. Until both parties begin to address the problem in their own front yards and stop hiding behind clickbait attacks on the vocal but truly concerned opposition, they will only slide deeper into the rabbit hole of corruption.

  131. If the object is to persuade Sanders supporters, the article should have been entitled less antagonistically and more accurately "How the Russia Investigation Should Matter to the Left." Mr. Klion does not actually explain "why" Sanders don't care about the Russian investigation; and that assertion is actually false. Sanders supporters do care about the Russia investigation. They just frame it differently, as an "also" rather than the central issue. Mr. Klion makes a compelling case, however, in terms most Sanders supporters would take to heart, for considering the investigation of Trump's relationship with and fondness for Putin's kleptocracy as central to dangerous structures of power and wealth in America and around the world. It does a great disservice to an argument that is not condescending and insulting to lead with a heading that is. That's fairly petty, continuing to fight the last election's Democratic primaries, and no way to unite people against forces that threaten us all.

  132. Is it possible Sanders' supporters don't want to hear about Russian interference because Sanders himself was also a beneficiary of that interference? He didn't ask for their help, but he certainly got it, and continues to. Sanders himself admitted this at one point, but he needs to disavow it more forcefully.

  133. Of all the things to reach for: the notion that at this late date Sanders somehow owes a more forceful disavowal of intangible gains from Russian interference. Are you for real? That's even worse than the article's gratuitously condescending headline. Please get over blaming Sanders and Sanders supporters for Clinton's loss. It is not helpful. Democracy is about the competition of ideas and candidates. Not about lining up behind a party's anointed candidate. Any candidate who is weakened rather than sharpened by competition is simply proven a weak candidate. Hillary beat Bernie. She failed to beat Trump. There are many lessons to be learned, but one of them is not to continue to fight a battle on the one hand already won and on the other one already lost.

  134. The central issue is not Russian interference in our election. The issue is Trump essentially hiring the Russian government to do so. It is OUR president's attempted subversion of democracy that is important to this country, not Putin's. It is as close to treason as a president has every gotten. Everything else is secondary.

  135. I have a very, very simple answer -- and a fact which has irked me from the moment he latched his campaign to the Democratic Party to begin with.

    BERNIE IS NOT A DEMOCRAT. It's not a surprise, then, that his supporters are, relatively speaking, still more intent on fulfilling the "white working class" pledge instead of either A) supporting the larger party's efforts of all-important racial progressivism, or B) dropping their INDEPENDENT white man for either a woman or message of greater (read: vocal) solidarity.

  136. It was not only Republicans who bought into the claims that free markets and private enterprises are the wealth creators, while government mostly is a big costly drag on the economy. The Democrats thought that way too, although they tended to justify the costs of government as assuring improved quality of life. After three decades it is clear that government is far more crucial to a free country and to keeping in that way by moderating the excesses of capitalism, the distortions of markets, and the short sighted and selfish ways private enterprises work.

  137. I think we who supported Sanders in the primary care more than others about Russia particularly since Bernie was also underhandedly treated by the DNC. Everyone knows now he would have won & that of the candidates he sincerely cared about the people more than his ego. I'd still take Bernie over all if them any day... That is of course unless Biden runs.

  138. Quite the loaded question in the headline. This Sanders primary voter deeply cares about these issues, as do others that I know. Yes, Clinton ran a weak campaign, as Klion alludes to, but said weak campaign was then kneecapped by Russian meddling. Despite her campaign's failings, she quite possibly could have squeaked out a victory absent said meddling, but we'll of course never know. Klion's argument seems to be yet another update of the tired old claim that, if only Sanders didn't run and/or exist, Clinton would have won, and it's no more convincing than any of the other attempts made to prove that claim.

  139. The question is not whether Russia worked to facility Trump’s election but rather: why? Is the resulting domestic distraction and America’s withdrawal from international affairs the sufficient outcome or does Trump owe the Kremlin his service? Chaos or cunning, that is the question.

  140. There is a big difference between caring about this investigation as opposed to being totally preoccupied with it. The current democratic establishment party is looking upon the results of this investigation(a rather big gamble)to being their sole ticket in turning around their fortunes and increasing their chances in winning upcoming elections. Sanders knows that the vast majority of the electorate are more concerned about what is going to happen to their healthcare, their jobs, growing inequality, money in politics and the environment, the Russian investigation is well down their list of prioriies. The investigation is progressing on its own, Americans do not need to be reminded about the importance of the Paradise Papers, and other scandals that require embracing to understand America is in serious trouble.

    If this government had never been elected, this would not have been an issue and the country could have moved on in dealing with more pressing problems, instead it is scandal after scandal. For the Clinton crowd and democratic party to keep blaming everyone else, including the Russians, is getting tiresome. Clinton and the DNC lost it all by themselves.

  141. I think you missed the reasons entirely. The reason is, I believe, that we don't know what happened. We are waiting for the special prosecutor to flip enough people to get to the truth. Bernie people are evidence based and non conspiratorial.so we are waiting to see what the facts are before going out on a limb. If you want people who make wild accusations like that you're looking in the wrong places in the wrong party.

  142. David Klion sites a few people who are skeptical of the Russia investigation, and generalizes to apply that to all Sanders supporters, even though Senator Sanders himself draws a cogent point from the Russia story. Russia's interference in our society, not only our election, is serious and many Sanders supporters are aware of it. I think there is a concern that too many democrats will place their hopes in the Mueller investigation to prove Trump colluded, and then all will be made right. That will not happen. Democrats need to focus and what they stand for, and need to figure out how to oppose inequality, corruption, oligarchy and authoritarianism. Mr. Klion, some of us care about the Russia investigation, we just don't obsess over it.

  143. How can corrupt, oligarchic, authoritarian Democrats oppose those things?

  144. As a Sanders voter:

    It is way down my priority list.

    On top of my list of my concern is the take over by big money of the Democratic Party.

    Take the recent NY Times story on Governor Cuomo:

    "Cuomo, a Master of the $50,000 Fund-Raiser, Bypasses Small Donors"
    quote:

    "Since the beginning of 2015, Mr. Cuomo has raised over 99 percent of his campaign money from donations larger than $1,000.

    Mr. Cuomo has accumulated more than 25 million. FROM THE RICH

    Mr Schumer's record is even worse. His top ten campaign contributors are all from Wall Street.

    The rich that donate to the Democratic party to not have the best interest of the working Americans at heart. The Wall Street crowd financing Mr. Schumer is interesting in maximizing corporate profits on the back of workers. The rich got rich by spending their money on where returns are maximized and that includes buying politicians via campaign contributiosn.

    And the idea that campaign donation do not influence those who receive them ins laughable. They do.

    I.e. until the Democratic Party returns to the mode where it is funded by million of small donations by working Americans rather than the ueberrich
    my number one concern is not with Russia's meddling but with the rich taking over BOTH parties.

    Is that clear ?

  145. You make a good case for amending the US Constitution to take $$$ out of politics and government, but until that happens, money calls the shots...on both sides

  146. So Schumer receives contributions from Wall Street but Trump hired Wall Street. Does anyone think Mnuchin who was CEO of Goldman Sach is sec. of Treasury because he was board. Or Tom Brady or Wilbur Ross out of the goodness of their hearts. Tillerson has restricted Exxon stock so he did not have to divest yet he is over in Russian hammering out a half-trillion deal for Exxon. Give it a rest.

  147. Clear and amen!

  148. The biggest reason that Clinton lost is that many Democrats stayed home. Russian meddling was a factor but not the whole reason. Sander's supporters knew that a Trump presidency would be bad but felt they could not support the status quo.

  149. If it were a choice of the status quo or going off the cliff, a sane rational person would go for the status quo....Clinton was not an ideal candidate by any means but she would have made at least a competent POTUS who would not sell the country to our chief foreign adversary....

  150. "Russian meddling was a factor but not the whole reason."

    You actually think that "Russian meddling" rose to the level of such importance as to be classified as not merely the whole reason? How about, at best, it was almost insignificant? For hard numbers see the number of purported Facebook ads from Russian bots compared to the total amount of advertising there. Please. Get a grip and get some perspective.

  151. The Russia investigation is important the way the Watergate investigation was important. I hope there are no Bernie Sanders' supporters who think we should not have investigated Watergate because Nixon won in one of the biggest landslides in history, so any wrongdoing "didn't affect who won".

    When "All the President's Men" (so to speak) are willing to blatantly act illegally and improperly to help him win, that is ALWAYS worthy of investigation. The fact that a foreign government tried to influence our election is not that surprising. The fact that the campaign of the candidate was meeting with representatives of that government and changing the Republican platform to what that foreign government wanted is shocking and appalling. Foreign governments will always attempt to influence elections, but having a campaign work with them is illegal and improper.

    And like Watergate, the Russia investigation isn't just about the crime, it is about the cover-up. Firing Comey to stop an investigation? Lying to Congress?

    Anyone who says that they "don't care" about the Russia investigation is saying that they "don't care" about democracy. Democracy is about more than winning elections and politics. It is about the rule of law and no person being above the law.

  152. Why not just title this piece "What *Else* Have Sanders Supporters Ruined?"

    I phone banked for Sanders, then I phone banked for Clinton. And like most Sanders primary voters, I went to the polls for Clinton in November. (After all, only 12% of us voted for Trump.) Every other Sanders supporter I know thinks the Russia investigation is a huge deal.

    Klion has found two liberals who don't care about Russia's meddling. Not a strong basis for a pretty extraordinary claim about 13 million people. You know what doesn't help unity amongst Democrats? Treating half the party like it's the children's table.

  153. The NY Times has had it in for Sanders since his campaign started.

    The headline, most likely written by an editor, not the author of the column, is yet another attack on Sanders and what the Times editors apparently see as his mindless, Russian-influenced, unrealistic, freeloading, closet-misogynist supporters.

    The Times' bizarre attacks on Sanders and the economic left would be funny if they hadn't given us President Trump.

    They are even less funny when you realize they may give us a second term of Trump.

  154. There is a couple of problems with the Russian investigation:

    Before Putin became Tsar of Russia he was in the KGB; lying is his stock in trade. He has been trained to lie with a straight face. Trump is a naif.
    We do this kind of thing all the time to other countries, so we have zero credibility when we protest that it has been done to us.

    Regardless, this is the sort of thing we should make very, very painful to the countries who do it to us. As in, we are going to seize all of your assets in our country for a number of years because you tried this, painful. We need to make it so painful that most countries will not even consider it. This is a big deal because the success of the American democracy rests on faith in the results of an election. If that faith comes into doubt, we are in serious trouble. Regardless of who conspired with who, Russia must pay a very heavy price for its meddling.

  155. I disagree with the author's recommended priority. The self-enrichment of the kleptocrats is only part of the picture. The mission to destabilize the US and the world began in the Soviet Union and is alive and well in today's Russia. The effort goes well beyond the election. The priority for both the left and the right should be exposing and stopping the breadth of Russian efforts.

  156. The reason Sanders supporters don't care that much is because we would be dealing with very similar issues if Clinton was elected. The republican controlled congress would be out for blood, and talk of a Clinton impeachment would dominate the news cycle. Trump and Hillary were just two sides of the same coin.

  157. Illogical. Republican attacks are senseless. So what if Clinton would be attacked? To say she's like Trump is simply foolish.

  158. No, they’re not. Not at all.

  159. A very well reasoned, cogent and important analysis.

  160. I was a Sanders supporter and I care about Foreign influence so I'm not sure what this is all about.

    The real death of democracy occurred under GWB. Trump and the contemporary GOP are the logical conclusion of Citizens United.

    Foreign money is pouring into our elections only you can't know how much.

  161. Whether one shares Sanders’s views or not should not be the issue. The issue should be what Putin is doing to the west and how Trump is getting him there. This is everyone’s problem now.

  162. FWIW, this Sanders supporter is very interested and actively supportive of the Russia investigation. I know a great many others who are as well, and are intently following and/or promoting it.

  163. I worked on the Sanders campaign and with election integrity groups during the Primaries. Two weeks ago the purging of well over 100,000 voters in Brooklyn, alone, was recently declared illegal by the State Attorney General and the Brooklyn Board of Elections. Illegal purges and forged signatures on party registration forms were statewide. And nationwide. The demographics of the purged voters and illegally switched party affiliations disproportionately affected those more likely to vote for Senator Sanders.
    This is relevant to one reason it appears that many Sanders supporters are less fevered about the Russian investigation than their mainstream counterparts. Though a number of journalists - none of which had any background in election fraud - condescendingly dismissed the rumors and rumbles during the Primaries, professionals in the field understood that the 'irregularities' that occurred at key turning points in the Primary election were not a 'nothing burger' and many of my fellow Sanders supporters have understandable anger at the DNC. As we have seen from a member of that leadership recently - with good reason.
    So the #RUSSIA! defense - while clearly not a nothing burger, either - finds less sympathy because they distrust the attempts to pass off blame for their debacle.
    That said, every Sanders voter I know certainly does agree with Bernie about the threat of world oligarchy and DOES care about the Russia scandal for that reason - as Klion hopes that we would.

  164. The NY voter purge was predictable. The rules are too old, should be changed, but they weren't designed against Sanders (you have to be a Democrat of at least 6 months to vote in the NY Dem primary). NY is an outlier in this, so you can't generalize. But what's sad is the voting irregularities in the primaries were actually Russian tests. So the continued fury against Clinton, based on these problems, is totally misplaced.

    Perhaps its time to take a breath and remember Sanders isn't a Democrat.

  165. Taking tribal identity out of it for the sake of discernment, the purging was strategic - do you think Putin wanted Sanders to lose so Trump could beat Clinton? How about the forged signatures on registration cards that changed party affiliation? Did Putin have plants across the country in boards of elections - they would have to have been at that for years, for those employees did not materialize during the Primary process. In California, Alex Padilla, Secretary of State, wrote a new election protocol handbook, distributed (inconsistently) to polling districts - while the official instruction to poll monitors directly contradicted those instructions. That, and the fact that college neighborhoods and 'artsy' neighborhoods (UCLA and Silverlake, for example) were positively epic in their numbers of purged or registration flipped voters. The resulting chaos required weeks of post-election recounts - during which hundreds of thousands of ballots were thrown out for technicalities specific to Padilla's work to obfuscate the process. Putin? Or was Alex Padilla, a faithful Super Delegate, gunning for higher status in the Clinton administration?

    Perhaps it is time to take a breath and remember that prejudice is the greatest enemy of perception.

  166. aking tribal identity out of it for the sake of discernment, the purging was strategic - do you think Putin wanted Sanders to lose so Trump could beat Clinton? How about the forged signatures on registration cards that changed party affiliation? Did Putin have plants across the country in boards of elections - they would have to have been at that for years, for those employees did not materialize during the Primary process. In California, Alex Padilla, Secretary of State, wrote a new election protocol handbook, distributed (inconsistently) to polling districts - while the official instruction to poll monitors directly contradicted those instructions. That, and the fact that college neighborhoods and 'artsy' neighborhoods (UCLA and Silverlake, for example) were positively epic in their numbers of purged or registration flipped voters. The resulting chaos required weeks of post-election recounts - during which hundreds of thousands of ballots were thrown out for technicalities specific to Padilla's work to obfuscate the process. Putin? Or was Alex Padilla, a faithful Super Delegate, gunning for higher status in the Clinton administration?

    Perhaps it is time to take a breath and remember that prejudice is the greatest enemy of perception.

  167. I object to this article. I voted for Sanders at the Alaska convention and I donated heavily to his cause. I held my nose and voted for Hillary. I support the Mueller investigation and my mine priority is to avoid an apocalyptic disaster brought on by a two year old. The fate of the democratic party pales by comparison.

  168. Rule #1: Anyone who says they "held their nose" is a phony.

    What I learned about Bill deBlasio's 2 to 1 romp to a second term is that the comment board of the NY Times is infested with Republican phonies alleging to be Democrats who love ever candidate EXCEPT the ones that happen to be running at the time.

    I figured this out last March, I won't be the last.

  169. mine is of course main

  170. Misleading title on an excellent analysis for why Russia needs to be the focus for leftists. "Why Don't Sanders Supporters Care about Russia" is a negative overgeneralization. David Klion makes valid points about Russian oligarchs hogging the wealth, American corporations wanting Russian natural resources, and Trump officials mired in this geopolitical quagmire, the interconnections being of interest to all leftists, including Sanders' followers. We need to. E unified in our opposition against these blood sucking oligarchs.

  171. But we do care..........

  172. There are so many reasons to not follow the mindless masses into constantly screaming Bengazi... I mean Russia... at every turn.

    This literally started as one of a long long list of excuses Hillary used to blame everyone but herself for losing the election. After a year of constant lies and slandering from Hillary's campaign, the last thing anyone wants is to listen to another year of the same campaign rhetoric long after she lost.

    RussiaGate is the theory of everything. Russia has been used to discredit anyone criticizing Hillary, no matter how legitimate. It is also their excuse for discrediting anything not convenient to the DNC party elites and their corporate masters. Raise a serious concern like her warmongering or racism, and its #FakeNews until you cite actual proof and then it becomes "useful idiots" or "you are a Russian bot". Real people have been banned from Twitter as bots for criticizing Hillary. Russia is blamed for Black Lives Matter, NoDAPL, even for the sexual abuse allegations against George Takei. It is a laughing stock to anyone no enthralled to the Hillary machine.

    But the biggest issue is that Bernie supporters are acutely aware of rigged elections as the entire DNC primary was an affront to democracy. We all knew it, DWS resigned over it. Brazile has turned whistleblower. We care about the integrity of elections, but don't believe a word of someone who only claims to care while supporting a rigged primary.

    How many times can Dems cry wolf?

  173. You're a study in contradictions.
    You say you "care about the integrity of elections", but you don't believe in "RussiaGate", which is actually about the integrity of elections.
    You say that "the last thing anyone wants is to listen to is....the same campaign rhetoric'. And all you can talk about is "the campaign".

    You've got to stop looking backward, and move on.
    You're so consumed by your anger that you cannot see clearly who your real enemy is. Trump, not Hillary.

  174. What a sorry take on the situation. What terrible lies do you refer to? Rigged elections? At least in California, Bernie supporters may still believe the primary's voting irregularities were a Clinton plot. If they paid attention to what Russian investigations found, they'd now know it was a Russian 'dry run', and the random problems hit both Sanders and Clinton supporters. Bernie supporters seem to forget he won caucuses, the least representative elections. Clinton won the popular votes by more than Obama beat her.

  175. The biggest mistake the DNC made in hindsight, is accepting Bernie Sanders as a candidate for the Democratic primary. He isn’t and wasn’t, a Democrat. That being said, I’d have voted for him if he’d been the choice, would you have voted for Hillary Clinton?

  176. Also blaming Russia is too convenient a distraction for taking on election fraud, voter disenfrancisement, and increasing corporate control of elections through both Citizens United and the machines themselves. A Dem-driven Red Scare is far more expedient than working to fix these other parts of our democracy that have breaking down for some years before this election.

  177. The Russian investigation isn't owned by Democrats. The fact that many people were hoodwinked by Russian propoganda isn't a fake scare tactic.

  178. Perhaps Bernie supporters don't want to find out that Russia helped push Bernie in the primaries by spreading anti-Clinton propaganda and stolen document leaks, to create exactly the kind of havoc that happened.

  179. I didn't need Russian propaganda to know that Ms "I'm With Her" wasn't with me.

    I just read her website and watched her sell her soul at fundraisers in the Hamptons.

  180. I supported Sanders, but like many others who did, I'm not a cultist; I simultaneously have concerns about Russian influence in this administration.
    Shrieking, however, serves no useful purpose, particularly when it encourages our new civil war.
    Trump was elected because the sag across large parts of the country was ignored by Washington, a town filled with smugly prosperous public servants.
    Trump noticed; Sanders noticed. Schumer and Pelosi didn't and don't.
    The nativist demagogue won, because so many are being hurt by large, implacable forces.
    Sanders is rational; the D.C. Dems are hoping for the best. And Mueller, to get back to the Russians, seems to be doing his job.
    We care, but its hard to stir the sludge the national Dems have become.

  181. I don't know why Mr. Klion thinks Sanders supporters are not interested in the Russian scandal. Everyone I know who would have voted for Bernie Sanders or thought he was the best person in the race is very interested in the outcome of Mr. Mueller's investigation and how it will play out. The things Mr Sanders often talks about are continuing problems for our country and he believes they need to change.

  182. The interference by Russia is real, but it only built on the unfairness of our electoral system to deliver a highly engineered result: 70,000 strategically placed votes. Much of what they are alleged to have done would have perfectly legal and SOP if done by the GOP.

    The more important feature of Russian interference is its support for Fascism and religious fundamentalism in the US and Europe. That is not being faced by much Left with the result that only the antifa factions of the Left are engaged in mobilizing people against the alt right and confronting it directly.

  183. Generalize much? I wrote in Sanders rather than vote for Hillary or Trump and I care deeply about Russia's collusion.

  184. To the Bernie left, the DNC favoring Hillary was a crime against humanity, but Russia actually influencing the election is a non issue. The Russian's affirmed their fantasy that Bernie could have won and they aren't going to bite the hand that fed them that.

    I call it the Bernie left because it is not more progressive than those of us who actually want equality and justice, and see equality as the road to a more just economy. The Bernie left is willing to sacrifice women's rights at the altar of their economic agenda. I fail to see that as more progressive and I'm sick of the contempt with which they treat us equality progressives.

  185. The author explicitly addresses one reason and alludes to another why I can't get behind making the Russia investigation the number one priority for the country, and, especially for those on the left.

    The first is that right-wing hawks are obsessed with Russia. The most militaristic, imperialistic people are the ones who are the most obsessed with Russia, probably because Russia is one of the few countries in the world powerful enough to stand up to them. Their agenda is inimical to just about everything the left stands for. Why should the left make sacrifices for its enemies' causes?

    The second is related to the author's attempts to argue that we shouldn't let supporting the hawks bother us because one the traditional bogeymen of the left, the oil companies, favor a less hostile approach to Russia. This is a blatant misdirection. The oil companies might not have a problem with Russia, but the gas companies definitely do. And the gas companies are the ones pushing for a ridiculously confrontational stance towards Russia.

    In fact, the entire conflict with Russia in Syria and in Ukraine is almost exclusively related to control over the supply of natural gas to Western Europe. American gas companies are trying to muscle Gazprom out of the European market. Everything else is just window dressing.

    The gas companies and the military industrial complex seek to use the investigation to cow Trump into submission. What does the left gain from helping them with their crusade?

  186. From some of the comments, it seems that Russian propaganda has succeeded in pushing several story lines: that Russian interference never happened because the intelligence community is lying, that it isn't important if it did happen because it supposedly didn't influence the election, that Russian meddling is trivial compared to other problems, that both political parties are equally corrupt, etc., etc.

    Discouraging.

  187. The article's headline doesn't align well with its content. The headline suggests it will explain Sanders' supporters reticence to accept the seriousness of Russia's interference. The article explores reasons why they should.

    The Times should explore the headline's suggestion, because these reasons aren't hidden. In California, the Dem's primary was treated by Sanders supporters as a fiasco. They blamed Clinton's team for voting irregularities. On election day, they still did.

    Now we know Russian hackers manipulated the primary's voting rolls, which prevented voting randomly. Sanders supporters find this embarrassing. Ditto Russian invention & spread that Clinton's team assassinated 5 Sanders staffers. Some Sanders supporters believed it. The Russian investigation brings this painfully up.

    Wikileaks stories were the basis for Sanders supporters protests at the Dem's convention. Few read them, which would deflate. They just knew what they said. To accept these were Russian efforts to sow disunion is almost self-incriminating.

    Unfortunately, the commitment Sanders generated among idealists led some to lose perspective. The Russian investigations are a blast of reality.

  188. This is an absurd story. A capricious hit piece on the left.

    The only people I know who aren't following Trump's collusion with Russia are those on the far right who are in complete denial. Agreement among all our national security agencies that this occurred somehow galvanized our attention.

    The case is in fact a spectacularly valuable object lesson, for those of us on the left, in the middle, or really anyone still capable of observing and learning, in how power in this country works and the degree of to which our democracy has eroded.

    A hugely important "teachable moment" in American history for all of us.

    It is not hard to follow this at the same time we follow in depth the many train wrecks Trump is hastening.

  189. Investigation and publication of all the Russia-US business and banking connections involving Trump campaign and White House staff and cabinet members, by both the media, especially the dogged connect-the-dots reporting and analysis by Rachel Maddow, and special prosecutor Mueller are doing what Bernie Sanders couldn't do. No matter how many times he repeats that Big Money and the 1% have stolen our democracy and control most of the wealth in the U.S. while working people work longer and harder to get by, drown in student debt and go without healthcare, it wouldn't get the attention of those working people without the almost daily "follow the money" revelations. The Russia investigations are the best possible education for working stiffs to understand how the rich get richer with the help of our government while Republicans call us "losers" and "takers" if we're not playing and winning the insider game. While Sanders himself is using some of these revelations in his own progressive movement, progressive Democrats should use them more effectively in their opposition to Republican tax cuts for oligarchs and plutocrats and in their push for universal, single-payer health insurance. Thanks, Russia, for showing us that our system is rigged.

  190. Many voters are simply becoming hardened to the fact that they have little or no chance of being heard over the roar of big money influence peddlers, whether they come from Big Pharma, Wall Street or Russia.

  191. A bizarre essay that constantly undercuts its own thesis.

    But as for the question in the title, Sanders' supporters have it exactly right. Let us keep our eye on the ball. The biggest threat to America comes not from without but from within, from our own kleptocrats -- a word the author uses twice for the Russians but shies away from our own. Compared to the amount and scale of business corruption in the US, the Russians, oer any other country for that matter, are patzers.

    Look at the tremendous damage being done bu the GOP -- to the environment, to the rule of law, the fairness of the vote -- none of these are happening because of any Russian actions, but are a core part of the GOP program to impoverish and enslave us in the service of the obscenely rich, that would have happened anyway when they came into power.

    So yes, let Mueller's investigation continue, but let us not forget the real goal of a truly democratic government.

  192. The reason leftists don't want to put too much faith on or attention on the Russian investigation is that it's demobilizing, encouraging us to sit back and let Mueller do his work. We've got our hands full and have plenty to do to fight the outrages Trump brings down every day to be able to afford to wait for Mueller to bring him down.

  193. I read this essay closely. I noted that it quoted four authors, none of which claimed to speak for Sanders supporters, and none of which said they did not care about the Russia investigation; rather, they wanted it to be viewed in a larger context. Then, at the end, I read Sanders's condemnation of "inequality, corruption, oligarchy, and authoritarianism."

    And, somehow, from that, your editor came up with ... that headline. As if that was the key take-away from an otherwise worthy essay.

  194. This is one Bernie Sanders supporter who takes this very seriously. It is not merely the interference of Russian in our election, it is the fact that the current President and his administration appears to be a criminal enterprise. The connection to Putin and other Russian oligarchs would appear to be the tip of the iceberg.

    If the rule of law does not apply to the President and members of his administration, then there is no rule of law in this country.

    So, yes, I take this investigation very seriously.

  195. I supported Bernie initially and Hillary once she became the candidate. Curious how your opinion was formed. I and the other Sanders supporters I know are following the Russia investigation CLOSELY. I believe you would have a hard time finding anyone more devoted to the truth and to justice being done to any who participated in the Russian attack on our Democracy than I am (And the other Bernie supporters I know).

  196. What about the $150,000,000 Bill and Hillary took from Russian concerns? Does that not mean anything to you?

  197. I'm not uninterested. I assume the evidence is there, and I assume Mueller will turn it up in due course. I am hopeful that the system will work, though not all the way confident.
    What I find alarming: Trump's obvious fascination with dictators. I never thought he was running for president. The corruption embodied by his family, and its economic ties with Russia. Those are much more threatening than fake social media posts.
    All of this is serving as a smokescreen for Kobach et al's project to disenfranchise large sectors of the citizenry. That also is alarming.

  198. Sp, what about Wikileaks?

    Wikileaks has traditionally been warmly regarded in progressive circles, but now we are being told by many sources they are a front for Putin. How do we know this, and for how long has this been the case?

    I have no idea if the NYT, is correct in saying that Sanders supporters are really not worried about aspects of the general election being manipulated by Russia. And it seems awfully silly to suggest that concern about foreign meddling (which the British, and Spaniard, and French are also worried about) has mainly to do with making Hillary Clinton feel good about losing the electoral college, so hopefully nobody is really as petty as to suggest all that. What I do believe is that Sanders supporters, or progressives, or whatever you want to call them, shouldn't take the elitist high road of dismissive disinterest until they know whether or not the Russians were also meddling with them, and their perception of what is unbiased information.

  199. Let me count the ways in which this piece is irritating:

    1) Which Sanders supporters do you mean - or are we all the same?
    2) "..it seems clear that the Russia story is only going to get bigger." Notwithstanding that "clear" is the word in American foreign policy talk which often signifies the opposite, this may well be true. Or, on the other hand, it may not get bigger, or it may even diminish. Why not see what the Mueller investigation comes up with? Unless this a mushroom cloud situation?
    3) American democracy is already being stolen right from under our noses in broad daylight through shoddy elections, strict constructionist money=speech (obviously) SCOTUS rulings, corporate control of media and an absence of campaign finance control. Against all that, Russian meddling is going to stack up how high?
    4) Tell Ukraine about Russian meddling. If we can't even counter fake narratives of Russian troops and heavy weaponry taking chunks of Ukraine, maybe we should start there and work our way up.
    5) Let's practice what we preach. Or do we grant licenses to meddle on a selective basis?
    6) When it comes to the architecture and exploitation of tax havens, Russia is not better or worse than other places where there is money. It's not a Russia issue.
    7) The big kleptocratic elite that is sapping this country is the military industry, which takes such a perverse share of our budget that it can only be justified by having enemies everywhere. Hmm... just sayin'.

  200. What about the $150,000,000 Bill and Hillary took from Russian concerns? Does that not mean anything to you?

  201. I voted for Saunders in the primary, then Clinton in the general, and am very concerned about Russian intervention in our elections. At the same time I don't think that intervention was a deciding factor. Of more importance were the great number of people who did not vote, the lopsided gerrymandering that rebukes the idea of fair elections and election laws and practices in various states that prevent minorities and others from not voting. Taken together, along with our own leaders' intransigence on election reform, there is no way the people's choice can be elected.

  202. Barbara, I think that "Russian intervention in our elections" added significantly enough to the "great number of people who did not vote" by stirring the pot and getting sufficient numbers of people to be disgusted enough not to vote (a form of voter "suppression"). Don't forget HRC won the popular vote across the country, but Trump became president by winning just enough of a majority in key places to game the electoral system, and she was caught blindsided by having ignored people in those critical places. Who knows where (...) the Russians who created fake ads on Fb got the list of possible targets for their ads. This is a fascinating and eye-opening analysis: https://medium.com/startup-grind/how-the-trump-campaign-built-an-identit...

  203. I am interested in seeing Trump’s tax returns and, from them, indications of the foreign interests that are influencing a president who continues to side with Russia over the opinions of American intelligence services and past presidents of both major parties. I am glad there is an investigation and I hope it continues. But as a voter in a barely representative democracy, I am most interested in seeing the facts for myself and drawing my own conclusions. Neither the Clintons nor the Trump family seem especially willing to trust the voters to know and decide how are government is being run.

  204. While some who have supported Sen Sanders like Susan Sarandon are unrepentant about the outcome of the election, it is doubtful the majority of his supporters are unconcerned about Russian meddling, at least at the grassroots level.

    DNC needs to grow up though. Whatever dispute between the Clinton camp and the Sanders camp, the current reality, 2018 and 2020 are more important. People like Donna Brazile need to go away. They are just as selfish as the Republicans.

    Quoting Glenn Greenwald doesn't help. First, was he a Bernie supporter? It is difficult to put him in a political spectrum. Maybe anarchist?

    I have a lot of respect for Chomsky as a linguist. Politically, he is too idealistic than pragmatic.

    In conclusion, your title "Why Don't Sanders supporters..." is too much a clickbait, Mr Klion. That is beneath NYT standard.

  205. You're not getting the point. Establishment DMC is part of the problem and the left wing knows it.

  206. I was an ardent Sanders supporter, and I am very interested in the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. Frankly, I hope the investigation does undo the Trump presidency. David Klion's op-ed essay misrepresents the views of several progressives. He insinuates that they do not care about the serious threat posed by Russia or the security of our elections. Klion quotes Katrina vanden Heuvel, yet discounts her sensible point that liberals and progressives need to focus on the important economic and political issues confronting the U.S. So, I am all for investigating what happened in 2016, but I also believe that getting to the bottom of this scandal, while important, is not the main issue facing our country at this moment.

  207. I work with and interact with white working class voters on a daily basis. Let me assure you that the whole question of Russia is the farthest thing from their minds. While I may personally care about Russian meddling in the election and Trump's coziness with Putin, most of us who work with our hands and shower AFTER work want the following:
    -A decent paying job
    -Affordable health care
    -Affordable child care
    -Affordable education for our kids and grandkids which results in good job

    Until the Democratic Party addresses these concerns, it will never reclaim its position as the party of the working class.

  208. But that was what the Democratic Party was offering in 2016 and still offers today. Trump ran on being Trump. He had slogans, not policies, and he's still governing that way.
    And that really is what his hardcore supporters want: government by slogan.

  209. Hugh - the Democrats do address and provide workable policies on health care, a livable minimum wage, revitalizing workers unions, childcare, worker safety conditions. Where have you been?

  210. So you think the Republicans are the party of the working class? Why would that be?

  211. I can't fathom how the reporter deduced that Sanders' supporters were not interested in the Russia investigation. All Berniecrats I know are intently interested in the concept of fair elections free from outside interference. However, while the Clinton/DNC appear obsessed with Russia, my focus remains on the DNC and the rigging of the primaries. Of course, interference from a foreign power is of great concern but efforts to disrupt our democratic process from within are just as appalling. Democracy is a very fragile concept and it depends, to a great extent, on trust. When we can no longer trust our political parties and our election process, democracy can not survive.
    Unfortunately, Establishment Democrats and their followers are as blind to the truth of the primaries as many Trump supporters are to the concept of Trump campaign collusion with the Russians.

  212. The fact that the establishment preferred HRC is no surprise, but it also doesn't mean she beat Bernie illegitimately. If even Democrats aren't concerned about the interference of Russia, then we are doomed as a country to the consequences.

  213. The huge crowds Sanders drew had nothing to do with the Russians. But they did speak to issues many felt needed more attention.

    Those issues still need attention. And so does Russian interference.

    They are not mutually exclusive. You can do both.

    You might as well ask why many Democrats are ignoring those issues and focusing only on Russia. Maybe that's true. But it's not going to get us anywhere.

    Winning in 2020 requires concern about Russia and concern about the issues Sanders raised--and people responded to.

  214. The issue of Russian meddling in the 2016 election is a proxy for questioning Trump's fealty to Russian interests over those of the United States. But we really don't know what this means and may never know. Is our President moving to lift sanctions over Ukraine in return for a permit to build an eponymous tower in Moscow? Sounds plausible, but it's doubtful that Mueller's investigation will find that out.

    Mueller's investigation may well find proof of money laundering by Trump and Co. on behalf of Russian mobsters. But no one will be shocked. That likelihood is already baked into this presidency.

    Trolling on FaceBook has helped Russia advance an agenda of dividing the US and making us less effective and more withdrawn internationally. But our public discourse was poisoned by divisive and isolationist elements within the US long before the Russians piled on. It's hard to get worked up over that.

    I find Trump to be morally bankrupt and utterly unAmerican. For me the real Russia scandal is that our President clearly prefers the values of and friendship Vladimir Putin over Angela Merkel. Mueller's investigation won't fix that. Only a new election will.

  215. The embrace of Russia is disgusting and, perhaps, treasonous - but not unexpected from a ruthless, inexperienced team. I think millennials know this as do most sentient beings. The thing is, Hillary's team paid for some of the same type of info, i.e., the famous dossier, instead of trying to run purely on the issues. So there is some commonality between the two campaigns which is called hardball I guess.
    I think we are coming to a point where this type of behavior, no matter the source, is disdained by millennials, if we must generalize - at least those who lean more left than right. So their apparent jadedness is to be expected as they watch the two parties rip apart and reform into something not expected by those of us who existed before Reagan.

  216. I agree with Chomsky. The US has a nefarious history of intervening in other countries’ elections and actually overthrowing governments, so this case of Russian interference is like the chickens coming home to roost. Hey, I’m all in favor of investigating the possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, but Democrats need to be prepared for either of the two most probable outcomes: one is that Trump’s underlings (Manafort, Flynn, etc) are found guilty, but Trump himself gets exonerated, which Trump and Fox News will spin as an I-told-you-I-didn’t-personally-collude. The other is that Trump is found guilty, and President Pence takes over, immediately uniting again the GOP behind him and ramming through their agenda. Dems, be careful what you wish for.

  217. Must be nice to have a spotless mind such as yours, Mr. Klion. None of the voter bases you discuss are as monolithic as you portray them. You should really dig into the gray areas, because that's where you'll find the Russians interfering. They really don't care who gets investigated or convicted; their Mission 2016 was accomplished, and they're no doubt going to keep finding exploits to polarize the nation even further.

    To their credit, the moderates (such as there are) in both parties are trying to foster a calmer and more reasoned discussion. But those who benefit from the shouting (the companies who own both conservative and liberal media) will unwittingly aid Russia in destabilizing the American political system. It shouldn't come as a surprise that they're quite content (albeit shocked) that they were able to drive the wedge so deeply.

    There should be no defenders or apologists for Russia's actions. It would be ideal to start at the top, of course, but that seems unlikely. Again, some benefit from the increase in volume and invective and don't hesitate to question the legitimacy of the whole government infrastructure--as if it was something external to ourselves.

    To put it bluntly: if we don't take responsibility for our actions, individually and collectively--if we continue seeking 'safety in numbers' and retreating to our respective 'safe media' spaces, rather than meeting people with different views *one-on-one* and stop trying to convert them--we're in trouble.

  218. Bernie fans desperately want to believe that Clinton couldn't have won the election even without the Russian interference, and that Sanders could have. It's a toxic fantasy. It simply isn't true.

  219. It's very simple. For Trump, admitting to the Russian influence means he didn't win on his own. For the Bernie supporter it means Clinton didn't lose on her own. In the world of the aggrieved it's important to define the right victim and for the Bernie dead-ender it's not Hillary.

  220. Baloney. Where's the poll? I think the premise of this article is wrong.

    I voted for Sanders, then Clinton. Every Sanders supporter I know thinks the Russian intervention was destructive and troubling. And if there's collusion, it's treasonous.

    (By the way, as a Sanders voter, I am not responsible for the opinions of Noam Chomsky)

  221. Some times articles are entitled in such a way for the purpose of attracting a certain readership and this appears to be one of them. I don't know why this is necessary, especially when the article winds up saying precisely the opposite of what is suggested in its original question. Of course, Sander supporters are concerned. If one of your major concerns is inequality, how could you not be.

    We have a great number of people in this country, though, who do not care or are simply ignoring the apparent intrusion by the Russians in to our politics. Some of these people are in elected positions. Most are Republicans. This would appear to be a concern to every one but it is not. The Russian involvement, which seems certain by all accounts, even if collusion with the Trump Administration cannot be proven, is merely a symptom of the overwhelming failure of our government over a period of many years. There is so much money in politics now that it is absolutely ridiculous. If we really look around it is pretty obvious that wealthy people control the entire world. The current state of affairs reveals that enough of them have figured out how to band together and rip it off, and they are doing it. Our own government now looks like a crime family in action. Concerned? Absolutely disgusted!

  222. Should the question be why the right does not care about the Russian Investigation? Sanders did not make it to the finals because of Hillary. The party running our government has little concern to find out what happened but yet we ask why Sanders supporters are not vocal about Russia? We have a president that can't bring himself to say anything negative about Russia but we ask why Bernie's supporters are quiet? The question should be why are we so impressionable that the Russians could influence our elections in the first place. We really should be concerned about the influence of social media on our lives. Like the Ghost of Obama still permeates our presidents psyche I guess we need someone else to blame our shortcomings on. So why not Bernie's supporters?

  223. I'm sorry, Mr. Klion, but you have completely missed the point (not unusual for a Clinton supporter). No one (or at least no one of significance) is saying that the Russia investigation is "not an issue". It most certainly is an issue, and the best thing any of us can do is sit back and let it play out. As long as Mueller continues to have a free hand, the smart thing for Democrats to do is sit back and let him do his job. The GOP is doing their best to politicize it, the Dems need to to everything they can to DEpoliticize it. What comes out will come out, some voters will care and some will not.

    In the meantime, though, the Democratic Party has a job to do - showing that they know how to govern the country. They need to grow up and stop acting like a bunch of children still whining about why Hillary lost. No matter what happens with the investigation, there will be no do-over of the election. There are very, very serious issues facing the country that need to be addressed. And the job of the Democratic Party now is to show the voters that they have the ideas and the policies to address those issues. About 135 million citizens sat out the election because they felt that neither party had any answers. By focussing exclusively on Trump and Putin, the Democratic Party is telling them that they were right.

  224. Let me summarize: The fact that America lacks moral authority but still expects to remain a world leader is a running joke these days among the intelligentsia of most nations. The open ideological warfare we have made against each other in the USA, defined by divisions along lines of religion, income, race, education and politics have transcended the supposed benefits of our liberal democracy.

    We were a grand experiment that multiculturalism, meritocracy and ethics are better than war, tribalism and grift. We've failed to show that even under the best of circumstances, humans can transcend the baser instincts that have held us back from achieving our own ideals for millennia. It's now every man and woman for themselves.

    Sanders' candidacy was a true grassroots movement that tried to show that some Americans are still motivated by passion and idealism, while the Clinton campaign allowed itself to succumb to incompetence, skullduggery and the influence of an entrenched kleptocracy that hides billions in offshore wealth while insisting that minor political differences, rising home equity and 401k's are more important than global human rights.

    A dark time in human history is descending upon us. The only way forward is to allow the younger generation to find and embrace ideals we've long abandoned. The millennials once found hope in Sanders. The treacherous politics of our own leadership has demoralized and defeated them. I'll die before it gets fixed. Good luck, kids!

  225. It's silly that you would assign blame to the Trump campaign for any effort on behalf of any foreign government to influence an American election.

    Russia clearly values intelligence and invests heavily in it -- perhaps, if leaks are to be believed, to the distress of its American counterparts.

    And if movies and novels count, they're very good at it too.

    But claiming that Russian interference had anything to do with the clear outcome of America's November 2016 election reminds me of 1970's-era fringe theories that the mafia could elect an American president: crazy and conspiratorial.

    So maybe the Sanders folks are closer to reality than the outliers who still cling to collusion.

    And it's surely the left-wing of the Democratic party who will choose its next nominee for president.

  226. I️ am more than open to seeing what Mueller turns up, but for now I’ve not seen anything that genuinely looks like foreign corruption of the political process. Am I️ supposed to believe that $100,000 worth of Facebook ads (half spent after the election, and of the $50,000 that remains half of that spent in deep red states) swing an election where Clinton spent $1,000,000,000,000? Really? That’s just absurd.

    So far the public trial has been about ‘ties’ to Russia, as if the international super-rich don’t all have ties to each other! No clear, credible arguments for explicit Kremlin involvement have been made which explain how it happened and what ‘Russia’ really stood to gain. Nothing described even seems to have been truly illegal. Notice that the Manafort claims/indictment have NOTHING to do with the election per se.

    The fact that the most ardent Russia conspiracy theorists almost never even bother to differentiate between Russian citizens, Russian IP addresses and actual agents of the Russian government is a serious dent in their limited credibility. The fact that the ‘Russia’ developments are cheered along in an explicitly partisan manner doesn’t help.

    I’ve yet to see good intellectual arguments for why eliciting Russian help (which BOTH campaigns apparently did, if indirectly) is fundamentally different to the vast corporate control of our government (a fact that had real and actual effects on Americans everyday, and yet is rarely talked about in the media).

  227. Well you buried the lede, and the article's title is misleading,. Your quote from Bernie Sanders at the very end of this piece makes this evident.

    Bernie' quote expresses what for me has been the primary concern; a me-first ethic encourages the aggrandizement of the world's resources into dragons' hoards. Such hoarding deprives others of their basic needs.

    This inequality encourages authoritarian tendencies to protect "What's mine." So whatever happened to the common good and cooperation and sharing? Why has the Golden Rule become those with the gold get to rule ( and use ruling to get more gold)?

    Bernie condemns this corruption. The Russian investigation as it "Follows the money," and the Paradise Papers disclosures shine light on it. Progressives aren't ignoring the Russian influence issue. They aren't ignoring the issues Donna Brazile raises about the DNC either. They aren't ignoring what this I'll-conceived "Tax Reform" signifies. There is a need to take a broader view.

  228. The quotes in this article may actually be from Sander's supporters, but they certainly don't reflect the feelings of any of his supporters that I know or even see posts from on the internet. His support does not come primarily from the traditional, intellectual left wing in this country anyway, as the intellectual left wing in the U.S. is like the proverbial tree in the forest that no one sees fall.

    Our media is pretty much dominated by the right wing of the American eagle and corporate right of center interests. How many people actually read The NY Review of Books? Is Noam an anchor on MSNBC?