You’re not so much wrong as WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?!?
It helps because the sooner Bernie Sanders exits stage left, the better. Rather than Bernie running to every microphone, it’s time for the loudest voices to be Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Al Franken, Tammy Duckworth, Kirsten Gillibrand, Amy Klobuchar, Gavin Newsome, Sherrod Brown, among others.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I’m not sure Democrats consider Democrats the gold standard for corruption.
In the eyes of the American voters that you need to win elections, Bernie is another crook like Hillary. And he did it to himself. His unforced error.
Democrat party/Clintonista loyalistsI don’t mean progressives, I mean people like the OPare jumping up and down in glee that Berniethe one guy that could have won for themis destroyed. Do they just really want to stay in the minority party?
Sherrod Brown I would consider worth running. He has a union background. Are you sure *you *want him on that list, Clinton-lover?
Most of the rest are “identity politics” corporate Democrat stuffed suits, who will easily go down in flames for you so you can keep the GOP in charge, which is apparently what you want.
I’m not sure Democrats consider anything.
Take my own view on it: That if Bernie or his wife broke the law, they should pay the price. Like anyone else. This attitude displays an open mindedness that strays from blind partisanship, imo, and therefore shows that Democrats aren’t merely blind partisans. That makes Democrats look good. YMMV.
:smack:
Upon rereading it, I see where I misinterpreted it. My apologies.
MAYBE. Or maybe I’m not confused on that at all. MAYBE you quoted me saying,
If. But there’s precious little reason right now to think the allegations are true, so let’s slow our roll, m’kay?
This isn’t like the Jefferson case, where the FBI removed tens of thousands of dollars of cold cash from his freezer.
There’s plenty of reason to think the allegations against Jane Sanders are true (in the form of statements by several ostensible donors denying having made the pledges she represented to the bank).
The allegations against Bernie are very weak, at this point.
Is there plenty of reason to think she deliberately misrepresented the pledges? That’s the bit that seems weak to me: evidence of deliberate malfeasance, rather than incompetently trying to put her best face forward in a way that was technically truthful but aspirational, the way everyone does when getting a bank loan.
Okay, I just read the actual complaint, including all the exhibits attached. The “smoking gun” seems to be a spreadsheet in which certain pledges have an X by them that means “confirmed.”
I don’t understand how that X got there. Is it that potential donors were wined and dined, and over dinner said, “Sure, I think you can put me down for $400,000,” and they got an X by their pledge?
It seems to me that it’s going to depend on details like this. Right now, it’s very silly to treat this like a smoking gun–especially since the person bringing the complaint is someone who has worked for Trump, previously brought unsuccessful lawsuits against Sanders, and has a vested fucking interest in taking Sanders out.
You have to look at the details. I don’t know how you can get past donors who claim they never promised the amounts (or terms) that she put down in her names. If you call that “aspirational” then I guess you would call bank fraud “aspirational”. The whole point of a bank needing collateral for their loans is that they don’t want to rely on “aspirational” - they want reliable actual collateral.
I’m not aware that “everyone” does that when getting bank loans. I’ve gotten bank loans and don’t recall providing any “aspirational” items.
What’s “very silly” is to try to divert the issue by focusing on who brought the complaint. The facts are what matter. The guy who brought the complaint - or his motivation - is completely irrelevant. Unless you’re alleging that the guy fabricated these documents. Hard to slip that past the FBI.
I thought I followed all the links in this thread, and I didn’t come across these specific claims. Can you show me where to find them?
See e.g. here:
It’s in most of the articles I’ve seen on the subject.
Let’s take this bit by bit.
That doesn’t say that they hadn’t made pledges. There’s no fraud in using pledges in a loan-support document without telling the pledgers you’re doing it. Do you have any evidence that their pledges weren’t made?
This is a little worse. But what does “the next few years” mean? If she’d actually confirmed that bequest, and the college listed it as a confirmed donation, I don’t see the problem.
You claimed that there were “donors who claim they never promised the amounts (or terms) that she put down in her names.” Do you actually have a cite for that?
Is there any reason you skipped over some of the very words that you quoted? Again, with the relevant part in bold:
That would be an example of “donors who claim they never promised the amounts […] that she put down in her names”.
The other person promised money to be paid at her death. Unless Sanders had some way of knowing with surety that she would die in the next few years, then she was misstating the donation in saying she had a pledge for funds coming in over the next few years.
That would an example of “donors who claim they never promised the […] terms that she put down in her names”.
And again, I’m not saying she’s clearly guilty of anything. Only that there is a smoking gun and in contrast to your claim to the contrary.
I understand that it’s important to you to believe that some Democrats are “crowing in glee” and “jumping up and down in glee” (at the same time?) about the Sanders allegations. But is this just one more of your delusions? Or do you have some actual evidence that this is occurring?
I’d particularly like to see the Crowing while Jumping Up and Down; that seems as though it would be entertaining to watch. How about a link?
Another delusion. Only Putin’s poodles believe that Hillary is a crook.
:smack: Somehow I missed that part of the sentence. My apologies.
Digging further into the cites, I’m finding this, which I believe accounts for those two donors:
Again, this is not exactly smoking gun material: one donor who discussed making a donation then never committed, and another one who can’t really remember the discussion. For a total of $65,000 – far less than the amount at the heart of the investigation.
Probably thought they were making a pledge to public TV, without realizing how ruthless those people can be.
The original post of the thread you are posting in is my evidence.
You just declared the majority of American citizens to be Putin’s poodles. The Democratic Party is down a hole and you’re digging the pit deeper.