General Discussion

JCanete

(5,272 posts)

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

Sat Jun 24, 2017, 05:18 PM

Jun 2017

are pretending you aren't accusing them of anything...that nobody is already considering them or her guilty. On the other hand, you're trying to convince me, I guess by the article, that she IS guilty. If I'm wrong about what you're saying, just straight up say what it actually is you are saying.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

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