It’s not a discussion. I corrected an error. There is nothing more to discuss. At least there wasn’t until you decided there was. 
I’ll let you have the last word, if you are so inclined.
Here’s something to discuss - the ethics allegations against Jane Sanders were made by Republicans repeating gossip and hearsay.
Should have realized that if the Trump campaign was the source of the allegations, it was going to be bullshit.
Fake news! Sad!
You’ve confused Jane and Bernie Sanders.
I did :).
If the bank were pressing for fraud charges, I would understand. If the donors whose pledges were represented differently from what they remembered were pressing for fraud charges, I’d understand. But the only people who appear to be pursuing this are Republican operatives with a vested interest in discrediting Sanders.
Assuming that you get to define the FBI and Justice Department as “Republican operatives with a vested interest in discrediting Sanders”, that’s true.
Well, yeah, it worked in the election for the FBI to discredit Hillary. And who runs the Justice Department now?
Ahem. The only people pushing for government agencies to pursue it, yadda yadda. There’s no evidence that any party actually affected by Sanders’s actions has asked the FBI–or anyone–to investigate allegations of fraud.
No, not quite. I was just prevented from quoting the entire article, which points out that Toensing, the guy who worked for the Trump campaign is the one who made the allegations about Sanders’ office, apparently just on the basis of hearsay. Toensing is also the source of the allegation that Jane Sanders attained the load through fraudulent claims.
Sanders claims that the whole investigation is a political witch hunt from the Trump camp against him.
Knowing that Toensing’s basing his claims about Sanders on gossip that no one will back up makes it likely that his claims about Jane Sanders are bullshit, too. That’s Trump fans, for you.
“Attained the loan …” I meant to say.
Even allowing the revision of “pursuing this” to “pushing for government agencies to pursue it”, there’s nothing here. Firstly, it’s unknown who is or isn’t “pushing for government agencies to pursue it”. I don’t know that this type of info is public knowledge. It’s known that the investigation was triggered by a Republican, but it’s not at all clear what the various affected parties have done having become aware of it.
But beyond that, affected parties generally focus on civil actions, not criminal. To my knowledge, the FBI and DOJ don’t generally act based on being pushed by affected parties (though that may be how the information initially comes to their attention in a given instance).
And even further beyond that, the bottom line is that whoever is or isn’t pushing for the FBI to investigate it, they are clearly investigating it. So unless you buy into the notion that the FBI and DOJ are simply extensions of whoever pushes them to investigate things, it’s not logical to dismiss their investigation based on speculation about who is or isn’t pushing them to investigate.
So basically, what you’ve got is total speculation about something that doesn’t appear to be at all meaningful even if true. (More below.)
This is a lot of fancy footwork, but doesn’t come close to backing up your initial statement. Your statement was: “the ethics allegations against Jane Sanders were made by Republicans repeating gossip and hearsay”. This was a factually incorrect statement, apparently based on your having confused the allegations against Jane vs Bernie Sanders.
IMHO, the lesson of all the above is that there’s a lot less room between the mentality of Trump supporters and that of supporters of other politicians than one might suppose at first glance. It’s all the same game, just with different names.
Very lengthy article just posted by the Washington Post.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk