General Discussion

Cha

(308,432 posts)

146. Right.. blame it on a cc instead of who actually

Reply to Kathy M (Reply #105)

Fri Jun 23, 2017, 10:40 PM

Jun 2017

started this shite.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

188 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Jane Sanders Lawyers Up [View all] DonViejo Jun 2017 OP

The tip of the iceberg radical noodle Jun 2017 #1

Never had a chance at winning the nomination. nt LexVegas Jun 2017 #2

True. NurseJackie Jun 2017 #15

Sanders would have destroyed Trump LiberalLovinLug Jun 2017 #106

He would have lost the moderates and there was plenty more to throw at him. Demsrule86 Jun 2017 #112

He wouldn't have had a chance. George II Jun 2017 #130

Your assertion presupposes quite a bit. VOX Jun 2017 #183

Post removed Post removed Jun 2017 #165

Mahalo for this, Don. Cha Jun 2017 #3

Make sure you read the embedded links. nt Persisted Jun 2017 #5

I had already read it all from another Cha Jun 2017 #6

The involvement of the Catholic Church in the front and back ends Persisted Jun 2017 #11

Curiouser and curiouser. NurseJackie Jun 2017 #16

Roman Holidays. nt Persisted Jun 2017 #21

I loved that movie! NurseJackie Jun 2017 #23

One of my favorites too... They just don't make them like that anymore. nt Persisted Jun 2017 #24

How so? lapucelle Jun 2017 #92

Hang on..... are you suggesting that Sanders overpaid by 4 million? nt Persisted Jun 2017 #97

That information is from the VPR story. lapucelle Jun 2017 #109

Sanders overpaid by 4 mil on a property sold because of pedophilia? Persisted Jun 2017 #110

It's more a framing of a narrative. N/T lapucelle Jun 2017 #113

*Kamala Harris* So that would be a yes? *Kamala Harris* nt Persisted Jun 2017 #114

Absolutely not. lapucelle Jun 2017 #115

Oh lordy....you just revealed you didn't read the complaint. Persisted Jun 2017 #117

Toesning filed his complaint in the name of lapucelle Jun 2017 #122

Again....you sidestep the claim your own source provides...the 4 mil overpayment. Persisted Jun 2017 #123

My source? lapucelle Jun 2017 #134

Yes....YOUR SOURCE. You posted that article as "proof" Persisted Jun 2017 #137

The article is incredibly in-depth....read the embedded links, too. Persisted Jun 2017 #4

Here is another article on this Gothmog Jun 2017 #7

FBI investigating Jane Sanders for possible fraud: report NCTraveler Jun 2017 #8

I suspect the investigation isn't limited to just the front end of the transaction. Persisted Jun 2017 #9

Do you have a report on where the land ended up? rgbecker Jun 2017 #13

The losses to the archdiocese and then the deal with the developer Persisted Jun 2017 #19

If bankrupsies are indication of criminal activity, look at Trump's many verses wife of Bernie's rgbecker Jun 2017 #10

Hmm....you make a great argument for the release of public records, like taxes. nt Persisted Jun 2017 #12

True, that! NurseJackie Jun 2017 #17

If weaver denies it, then it's true joeybee12 Jun 2017 #14

What Weaver "dismissed" vs. what may have really happened are two different stories. George II Jun 2017 #131

I'm trying to imagine your reaction DefenseLawyer Jun 2017 #18

I think she was right to hire an attorney. I only have one question...when? Persisted Jun 2017 #20

Someone usually did before the most recent incarnation of TOS and few even afterwards. NT Demsrule86 Jun 2017 #45

And I think you will agree that those celebrating this post would not have been pleased. n/t DefenseLawyer Jun 2017 #48

I don't celebrate it. It is what it is...but there are hard feelings and not from the primaries. Demsrule86 Jun 2017 #61

He did so even today! George II Jun 2017 #133

Really? What is the game here? Demsrule86 Jun 2017 #164

Clinton is one of the most attacked politicians in history. NCTraveler Jun 2017 #85

Post removed Post removed Jun 2017 #89

I'm thinking this is a rinse-repeat of Whitewater, except they changed the names. n/t woodsprite Jun 2017 #151

What's the word you guys used about the emails? DemocraticWing Jun 2017 #22

I think when your criminal attorney personally calls witnesses Persisted Jun 2017 #25

How is it a nothingburger! Was an actual crime committed or not? Madam45for2923 Jun 2017 #72

She would be insane not to "lawyer up" Freethinker65 Jun 2017 #26

I think she's right to retain a lawyer. I just want to know if the retention happened during the Persisted Jun 2017 #28

Looks like the haters have something to be happy about... Trial_By_Fire Jun 2017 #27

I don't know that I would characterize the parishioners as haters. Persisted Jun 2017 #29

Haters is an ugly word. Perhaps they are just msanthropes. n/t QC Jun 2017 #173

Both are ugly and nasty but yes msanthropes is the perfect description. Autumn Jun 2017 #174

Circular firing squads will not help us in 2018 and 2020 n/t left-of-center2012 Jun 2017 #31

Did you mean to post this on the OP's thread? Trial_By_Fire Jun 2017 #32

No left-of-center2012 Jun 2017 #33

Sorry about that... Trial_By_Fire Jun 2017 #34

A Senatorial candidate's wife is under federal investigation. Are we supposed to not Persisted Jun 2017 #44

We don't need someone as our nominee in 20 who may have baggage that the GOP can Demsrule86 Jun 2017 #46

Irony lost I suppose. Voltaire2 Jun 2017 #67

Not at all...it didn't work out so well in 16...now much of that was trumped up by the GOP and Demsrule86 Jun 2017 #68

I'd rationalize it as such if my sacred cows demanded it of me as well... LanternWaste Jun 2017 #57

Everyone is innocent until proven guilty left-of-center2012 Jun 2017 #30

Yes! Pauldg47 Jun 2017 #35

Hillary never was. sheshe2 Jun 2017 #153

The reaction of glee from a few posters is kind of embarassing. Ace Rothstein Jun 2017 #36

We will need Sanders and his supporters in 2018 and 2020 left-of-center2012 Jun 2017 #37

Yep, the people determined to keep reliving last year's primaries are going to make 2018 very ugly. Ace Rothstein Jun 2017 #47

There's just one flaw in that argument....BS is a 2018 Senatorial candidate. Persisted Jun 2017 #53

This isn't an investigation. It's a Security Review. Hassin Bin Sober Jun 2017 #58

Indeed. Perhaps the FBI can be perusaded to hurry up via a Fox Persisted Jun 2017 #98

It may be. Ace Rothstein Jun 2017 #65

Ace... _BravoMan_ Jun 2017 #78

"We don't need your votes" Link to a quote from a DNC or Democratic Leader who said that. emulatorloo Jun 2017 #135

We need Democrats in 2020. Demsrule86 Jun 2017 #49

We need more than Democrats in 2020 (and 2018) left-of-center2012 Jun 2017 #84

Look, I hope they vote with us, but the the Bob'ers can't be counted on, and I will not destroy Demsrule86 Jun 2017 #119

This message was self-deleted by its author Kathy M Jun 2017 #99

Can I buy two vowel's? An I and a 0 please... eom Purveyor Jun 2017 #103

This message was self-deleted by its author Kathy M Jun 2017 #105

Right.. blame it on a cc instead of who actually Cha Jun 2017 #146

your little cc is just that. Pathetic that you're trying to Cha Jun 2017 #145

The local Vermont Digger has been on this since Cha Jun 2017 #126

The FBI doesn't file charges, formal or not, they recommend charges to the Attorney General, and.... George II Jun 2017 #147

The FBI never "files charges", formal or otherwise. lapucelle Jun 2017 #180

I think some Sanders supporting would "enthusiastic" about such a scenario. David__77 Jun 2017 #40

If that happens then we lose...it is that simple. No one Demsrule86 Jun 2017 #50

By "control," I mean fill leadership positions within. David__77 Jun 2017 #52

That is a good idea. Party's should have strong local control. Since elections are state run really. Demsrule86 Jun 2017 #56

Your inference of glee is embarrassing as well... LanternWaste Jun 2017 #59

Shrill? No Ace Rothstein Jun 2017 #64

The Vermont Digger has been on this from the Cha Jun 2017 #128

People involved in any kind of legal proceedings need to hire lawyers. MineralMan Jun 2017 #38

I appreciate your comment. David__77 Jun 2017 #39

Respectfully I think part of the story is when this particular counsel was retained. Persisted Jun 2017 #55

Never Been A Fan Of JS Me. Jun 2017 #41

I can't imagine that Sanders would be stupid enough to use anything but personal income in the Persisted Jun 2017 #42

You're Right Me. Jun 2017 #43

Neither Sanders strikes me as particularly mercenary or stupid. Persisted Jun 2017 #54

I Wouldn't Classify Either As Stupid Me. Jun 2017 #62

I don't know what happened or what role Jane Sander played or didn't play, but quite a few kids got Demsrule86 Jun 2017 #51

Everybody's lawyering up for the weekend! Initech Jun 2017 #60

This is serious but a lawyer can push for the FBI to wrap up their investigation. hrmjustin Jun 2017 #63

A lawyer will have zero influence on how fast the FBI works Lee-Lee Jun 2017 #70

Yeah I really meant to say they can lobby hard for no indictment. hrmjustin Jun 2017 #71

Oh....you mean you can't ask the FBI to hurry it up? Persisted Jun 2017 #100

Maybe we will see the joint tax returns. Eom pirateshipdude Jun 2017 #66

This is about their unabashed hypocrisy. When you put yourself in a moral R B Garr Jun 2017 #69

it's not about shit until a crime has been proven. Jesus. Why not just coopt the "lock her up" chant JCanete Jun 2017 #73

lol, more utter hypocrisy. You've got to be kidding with this. R B Garr Jun 2017 #74

What's the hypocrisy? Show me mine. You are all about convictions without proof aren't you? nt JCanete Jun 2017 #75

Not worth explaining the obvious. If you claim you are a moral authority, R B Garr Jun 2017 #76

so not my hypocrisy at all. You are already making the bold assumption that this is all a done deal JCanete Jun 2017 #77

lol, you are desperately trying to make this about me. The article speaks for R B Garr Jun 2017 #79

the article literally ends with the sentence..."this may all end up being nonsense..." JCanete Jun 2017 #80

More quotes: R B Garr Jun 2017 #81

is an implication proof now? What the fuck are you doing? Just reread your own damn posts and JCanete Jun 2017 #82

You've got to be kidding. R B Garr Jun 2017 #83

and that is ALL you currently have. Jesus. She may have committed a crime, but lawyering up...is JCanete Jun 2017 #86

LOL at you desperately trying to make this about me. Jane Sanders lawyered up. R B Garr Jun 2017 #87

almost nothing is in the article. Really. I read the whole thing. There is one investigation. Then JCanete Jun 2017 #88

Too bad you're angry that Vermont newspapers reported on Jane Sanders R B Garr Jun 2017 #90

I don't know from that article that anything illegal or immoral happened. That's the thing. Somehow JCanete Jun 2017 #91

You should look up their own comments about morality. R B Garr Jun 2017 #93

how am I harassing you? Do you feel harassed? You have responded to every post I've made. Maybe JCanete Jun 2017 #94

LMAO, the posts are numbered, so it's easy to see that what you're saying is false. R B Garr Jun 2017 #95

okay....have a good day. JCanete Jun 2017 #96

Thankyou for your patience in dealing with such balderdash LiberalLovinLug Jun 2017 #107

You should also write the Vermont papers and Newsweek R B Garr Jun 2017 #108

Well.....depending on when that lawyer was retained, this appearance on Faux Persisted Jun 2017 #101

That's why there's something called an investigation. And the FBI doesn't "prove" crimes, they.... George II Jun 2017 #148

Yes, I'm aware that that's why there is an investigation, nor do I have a problem with there being JCanete Jun 2017 #162

Again with this dishonesty? How absurd. R B Garr Jun 2017 #166

you were. You were claiming immorality and hypocrisy. On what grounds were you doing that? JCanete Jun 2017 #175

You can't be serious. I'm sure you're not. R B Garr Jun 2017 #176

So because Clinton was under investigation she would never be able to call out other corruption? JCanete Jun 2017 #177

LOL, more proof you can't be serious. R B Garr Jun 2017 #178

First, the very thing you are calling them out for was an off-handed joke. as far as I know neither JCanete Jun 2017 #179

LMAO, that is not what I was "calling them out for." You still seem angry that R B Garr Jun 2017 #181

okay, hard to have a discussion if you won't actually say what you mean. On the one hand you JCanete Jun 2017 #184

More proof you can't be serious. R B Garr Jun 2017 #185

just proof you'd rather play games than to have a discussion. Hope that did something for you. nt JCanete Jun 2017 #187

LOL R B Garr Jun 2017 #188

This message was self-deleted by its author Kathy M Jun 2017 #102

There is definitely an investigation: Persisted Jun 2017 #116

This message was self-deleted by its author Kathy M Jun 2017 #120

Further, Toensing alleges a filing of an SAR. That's a pretty bold assertion. Persisted Jun 2017 #118

Like I posted before.. The Vermont Digger has been Cha Jun 2017 #129

"I did not think FBI talks about investigations" George II Jun 2017 #149

Woah! sheshe2 Jun 2017 #155

This message was self-deleted by its author Kathy M Jun 2017 #104

Sanders overpaid by 4 mil on that property? What is that a defense to? Persisted Jun 2017 #111

This message was self-deleted by its author Kathy M Jun 2017 #121

You put forth a source as an authority. Are you disclaiming it? nt Persisted Jun 2017 #124

This message was self-deleted by its author Kathy M Jun 2017 #140

You cited an article that detailed a 4 mil overpayment.You, not me. Persisted Jun 2017 #141

Interesting article. BainsBane Jun 2017 #125

Liked him, but not Jane elfin Jun 2017 #127

CBS reported this as well: George II Jun 2017 #132

Well....shit. That's rather different. He's lawyered up too? nt Persisted Jun 2017 #138

Mahalo, George.. Cha Jun 2017 #139

Yeah....no shite. I just realized an Easter Egg in the OP's article. Persisted Jun 2017 #143

Oh shit. sheshe2 Jun 2017 #156

This makes me increasingly glad they never actually joined the Democratic Party. n/t Tarheel_Dem Jun 2017 #136

Agreed Gothmog Jun 2017 #150

There is no personal gain implied, only bad management and maybe bad judgement. jg10003 Jun 2017 #142

Indeed. Except for the payments to her daughter. Which were Persisted Jun 2017 #144

Other than the $200,000 Golden Parachute Expecting Rain Jun 2017 #152

the 200k was in the open and given to her as part of her pay for the job JI7 Jun 2017 #158

Job or severance? nt Persisted Jun 2017 #159

Golden parachute. That's how it's described R B Garr Jun 2017 #160

Despite the fact... Docreed2003 Jun 2017 #154

"Hillary, Nancy, and now Bernie." Persisted Jun 2017 #157

Despite how I phrased my post Docreed2003 Jun 2017 #161

I am completely united behind Democrats in my Party. nt Persisted Jun 2017 #163

+1 NastyRiffraff Jun 2017 #168

So she inflated the price of an asset which is largely subjective she was borrowing against. DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2017 #167

No....that is not what is alleged. Persisted Jun 2017 #169

I have to read it again slowly- Why did she overpay for the property? DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2017 #171

Who knows. nt Persisted Jun 2017 #172

Is this "just an anoyance" that will all blow-over? Or could it be career-ending? NurseJackie Jun 2017 #182

I think it hinges on what the bank has told to the feds. Persisted Jun 2017 #186

Inflated assets were behind the financial meltdown. R B Garr Jun 2017 #170