Not seeing the connection here. :dubious:
Obviously, the only way to settle this matter of the Sanderses’ alleged iniquity is to appoint a special prosecutor. I hear James Comey has free time…
This may just be the break that the Clinton campaign has been waiting for!
“Nothing,” replied Mr. Brownlow, “except that it remains for us to take care that you are neither of you employed in a situation of trust again. You may leave the room.”
“I hope,” said Mr. Bumble, looking about him with great ruefulness as Mr. Grimwig disappeared with the two old women, “I hope that this unfortunate little circumstance will not deprive me of my parochial office?”
“Indeed it will,” replied Mr. Brownlow; “you must make up your mind to that, and think yourself well off besides.”
“It was all Mrs. Bumble—she would do it—” urged Mr. Bumble; first looking round to ascertain that his partner had left the room.
“That is no excuse,” returned Mr. Brownlow. “You were present on the occasion of the destruction of these trinkets, and, indeed, are the more guilty of the two in the eye of the law, for the law supposes that your wife acts under your direction.”
“If the law supposes that,” said Mr. Bumble, squeezing his hat emphatically in both hands, “the law is a ass—a idiot. If that is the eye of the law, the law’s a bachelor, and the worst I wish the law is, that his eye may be opened by experience—by experience.”
Laying great stress on the repetition of these two words, Mr. Bumble fixed his hat on very tight, and putting his hands in his pockets followed his helpmate down stairs.
[/Dickens]
Seems pretty clear. Dale dislikes Sanders. High college costs are a bad thing. Sanders’s wife overreached in fundraising. Ergo, she’s responsible for a bad thing, confirming Dale’s dislike for her husband. Crystalline!
Did you understand what I said?
How do you not use your influence to secure a bank loan when you are a nationally prominent politician currently holding down a major office? What exactly is he accused of having done?
You might be right about that. Sanders, if he runs in 2020, would likely engender a lot enthusiasm among progressives generally, but who’s to say that most of that wouldn’t come from safe states and therefore wouldn’t result in any more electoral college votes?
Next time you indulge in fat-shaming remember that it’s for their own good.
He is alleged to have quite possibly, maybe, almost, sort-of, kinda-who-knows ?, slightly, I’m not sayin’ nuffin, arguably, heavily leant on the Bank to force them to go along with his wife’s criminal schemes.
The Senator is a very intimidating man. In addition to his political influence and vast powers he could conceivably control the Vermontese underworld and be well-muscled up; he may well have been fondling a shotgun at the time: you don’t want to cross Bernie.
And more, from the article, could almost be illustrative of The Way We Live Now:
The local Roman Catholic Diocese owned the acreage and was looking to sell. It had recently settled more than two dozen sexual abuse lawsuits for $17.76 million and needed cash. The property went on the market for $12.5 million. The Diocese took Burlington College’s offer of $10 million, which seemed to be a bargain.
It’s funny seeing all the Bernie supporters laugh off stuff you’d be foaming at the mouth over if you replaced Bernie in this story with Hillary and Jane with Bill. 
The FBI has been looking into this case for awhile, the reason it’s on the front pages again is after like a year when the principals decide to hire attorneys that suggests something is going on with the case that is more significant than “oh this is just some nonsense political thing the FBI is randomly investigating.”
Jokes about Sanders being intimidating aside, a sitting U.S. Senator has a lot of political hard and soft power that could be used to a bank’s benefit or detriment. If Sanders or one of his intermediaries, with Sanders’ permission or under his orders, in any way suggested to or created some sort of quid pro quo agreement between Sanders willingness to either help (or not hurt) the bank in exchange for approving a loan that’s a big deal.
We’re a long way from knowing enough to know if Sanders has any genuine legal worries, but the fact the investigation has persisted this long and appears to be more serious now than it was when it started, is new and would be relevant in ascertaining whether someone is a good political choice to say, be a Presidential nominee if this was the 2016 primaries still. Just the same as the investigation into Clinton’s emails (those investigations uncovered inappropriate behavior that at least in the FBI Director’s words fell short of a chargeable criminal act, but they were undeniable politically relevant in assessing HRC’s fitness to be the nominee.)
I should also note it’s pretty scumbag behavior Sanders never released his tax returns, and raises major questions. HRC had released like 30 years of returns during the primaries.
Parallel-universe hypocrisy accusations are fine and all–but please show me examples of me, or any other supporter of Sanders, going after equivalent bullshit about the Clintons. Otherwise, I might think your implication is bullshit.
As far as I can tell, she’s not accused of cupidity. She’s accused of stretching the truth in a fundraising drive. There was no quid pro quo, there was no kickback, there was no personal gain for her. Or am I missing something?
This seems an excellent example of not attributing to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity.
Eh. I was a Bernie supporter, and I wouldn’t have made a big deal about this had it been Bill and Hillary. Unless this was something Bill did as part of Hillary’s campaign.
What’s “funny” is that we have an avid Bernie hater who got sucked into the sensational implications of an article without being careful enough to notice the sensationalism. The article is about Jane, not Bernie. And yet, look at the thread title.
While I do despise Bernie Sanders, the Politico article clearly mentions that Senator Sanders’ office is being looked at to see if they improperly influenced the loan approval.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Huh? Are you serious. Obtaining a loan on false pretenses is a felony. Lying about the amount of pledges in order to get a bigger loan than you’d otherwise get is thus, a felony.
Maybe that’s where the confusion is, that you guys don’t realize misrepresenting financials to get financing is a serious enough criminal act that it’s categorized as a felony offense. To again quote CBS News:
Lying about your financials to get a loan to buy land is something people actually go to prison over. Now, in her specific case where she was acting as an officer of a college, I don’t know if she has criminal liability protections ordinary loan applicants wouldn’t have, that’d be a question for a lawyer.
Distorting donor levels would be classified as more than “stretching the truth” when you use that to get a loan.
Also
Now, if we’ve learned anything from the Hillary FBI investigation, we don’t know what the FBI isn’t saying. And unlike the Hillary investigation the investigation into Sanders appears to be proceeding like a normal FBI investigation (meaning it isn’t open to the public while it is ongoing.)
So I go back to my original point, if either of these allegations are true they would represent an actual crime on Jane’s part and either a crime or an ethical violation on Bernie’s part. I do not know (and none of you do either) whether Sanders is actually being investigated or if it’s just Jane, I’m just saying if the allegations hinted at are true, they aren’t “nothing.”
When there are more than “hinted allegations”, I’ll get worried. And keep in mind that this issue has been under investigation for a long time. The story is not new. And yet all we have so far is “hinted allegations”. When there’s more (about Bernie), I’ll express more.
We wait with bated breath.
Baited breath, in this case.
Friend of mind described putting a politically provocative bumper sticker on your car as a “bummer lure”.
I get that Democratic Party loyalists, as a rule, hate Bernie as much as does the OP. I get that they are just crowing in glee that he and his wife proved to be just as corrupt as the Democrats.
But how does this make Democrats look good? It shows that the great social-democratic hope has feet of clay. He’s another crook on the left, or at least another ridiculous fool like Anthony Weiner. That doesn’t help the center-left party. It helps the Republicans in public perception now and in future elections.
This is amazing news for Trump and for the present GOP leadership. It demonstrates convincingly to swing voters and reformers that voting for reformers and outsiders is useless. Mitch McConnell should be very happy, and Trump should be ecstatic, because Donald Trump, never indicted, is now the uncontested hero of the American people, the one hope we all have.
Congratulations, Democrats and forces of the left. Another unforced error has led to your utter and lasting defeat.
Tell me I’m wrong.
OOOOOOHKAY, then. I consider myself 75% or more to the left of the entirety of the USA, and I DIDN’T CARE who got nominated for the Democratic ticket. If it would have been up to Hugo Chavez vs Donald Trump I would have considered them equally since Chavez wouldn’t have had the support of Congress to wreck America! Am I a “force of the left?” Did I make an “unforced error”? Tell me specifically what I could have done to make sure that 45 did not take his place in the White House.