Special report: Sanders campaign millions go to mystery firm. (Tax returns must include spouses)

[Tavarious Jackson]

Federal Election Commission rules state that “campaign funds may be used to make salary payments to members of the candidate’s family only if: The family member is providing a bona fide service to the campaign (and) the payments reflect the fair market value of those services.”

Still, Tarrant made an issue of it. “Obviously, there’s questions of personal enrichment,” Tarrant’s campaign manager, Tim Lennon, told Seven Days in April 2006.

Lennon accused Bernie Sanders of “making money off of his wife’s actions,” adding, “He was personally enriching himself. He used his wife as his agent to do it, but that’s what he was doing.”

In response, Weaver — who was managing Sanders’ successful 2006 Senate run and is running his presidential bid — told Seven Days that Lennon’s charge was “a lie from top to bottom.”

Jane Sanders’ Vermont-chartered company had no official media work for her husband after the 2002 and 2004 races; her company is not listed on 2006 FEC reports for his first Senate run.

https://vtdigger.org/2016/07/15/sanders-campaign-millions-go-to-mystery-firm/

[Wwcd]

1. Weaver is to Bernie, what Huckabee is to Trump.

Thanks for the interesting post.

Been wondering when this would be questioned.
Ignoring the FEC won't make them go away!
It all comes back around sooner or later.

🤤

[lunamagica]

2. It so easy to clarify everything. Sanders, just show your full tax returns for the last ten years

Problem solved. No more questions, no more mystery.

Full transparency and honesty, like you preach and demand.

It's so simple, really

[Eliot Rosewater]

182. Astounding to me the people who DONT demand this. Astounding.

[EffieBlack]

200. Bernie doesn't need to prove anything to anybody

He's Bernie, after all.

[Eliot Rosewater]

206. How much longer will this go on. We wont survive LITERALLY if people dont wake up!

[MrsCoffee]

3. Im shocked.

[jrthin]

78. Me too.

[shenmue]

4. Doesn't smell good

[Wwcd]

5. Interesting also, is Tad Devine's role..

"Devine did not return multiple phone calls — both on his cellular and office lines — regarding the financial details of his media contracts.

The Post identified Old Towne Media as an agency run by two of Devine’s longtime buyers."

Good, well researched article from 2016, yet still very relevant today.

So many unanswered questions...Thankfully Some States have now passed laws as to requirements for Pres Candidates to show yrs of Taxes.

They are only protecting the US. They are fair laws that could have prevented the US from ending up with Trump

Good Read.

[More_Cowbell]

6. The CA legislature passed such a law, but Jerry Brown vetoed it

I think such a law, from a state with a lot of voters and electoral votes, would have had an impact. Not sure what Brown is trying to hide.

[JI7]

13. he said he was worried it could be a slippery slope to other requirements and wasn't sure

it would be constitutional.

[JI7]

81. I'm referring to jerry brown and why he didn't support the bill

[Wwcd]

82. I see. Thank you. & you're right about the legalities.

Brown was being cautious.
Perhaps they will find a way to make financial transparancy mandatory someday.

[Gothmog]

72. Several blues states will adopt these ballot access laws by 2020

Maryland has adopted a ballot access law

[Eliot Rosewater]

183. Brown has nothing to hide.

[George II]

57. Tad Devine's company, Devine Mulvey Longabaugh, received $5.2M, and Revolution Messaging...

...received $28.7M. One of the founders of Washington based Revolution Messaging is Arun Chaudhary.

[Wwcd]

84. Carefully captured photo ops is one of Chaudrey' talents.

This is so familiar to what Manafort & Devine did with the image makeover of Yanukovych in the Ukraine.
They bought him new suits, dressed him up, combed his hair & created a well presented, once unheard of man, chosen by Putin, to be the next leader of Ukraine.
Carefully coordinated practiced speeches & photo ops..Manafort & Devine created a new publicly accepted image for Putin's choice, from a once grumbling, disheveled, alcoholic.

Anybody can be a star with the proper image coordinators. However, these two worked on behalf of Putin to seat Yanukovych.

As for Chaudrey, he is a skilled photog, but his association with Rev Messaging & the ever untrustworthy global electioneer, Tad Devine, now raises eyebrows as to such an association.

Devine is a shit & a half all right.
It really was all about "MONEY & MEDIA", afterall.

Old Town Media & the hidden trails within that business really need to be brought to the light of day.

Mueller's on it.
This will be interesting!!

[George II]

88. Chaudrey also happens to be the husband of Laura Moser. Oh what a tangled web we weave.

[BannonsLiver]

170. Devine is so in deep with Russia

He shits beluga caviar.

[TheBlackAdder]

315. Barf! That stuff must be sold under the brand, "Trump Caviar"

[Me.]

224. 83 Million To DEvine

for just one period of time...there's a shellacking that went on there...wonder who benefitted

[murielm99]

7. K&R

I have wondered about Old Towne Media for a long time.

Thanks for having the courage to post this here. It is two years old, but still relevant, because no one has answered these questions, and because we have not seen Bernie's taxes.

[R B Garr]

17. Oh, yes about Old Towne Media.

And the Tad Devine foreign connections through Manafort. Still curious about all that.

[NurseJackie]

67. Well, this is getting messy and complicated, isn't it?

I'm not entirely sure what to make of it, but it certainly doesn't look good.

[Eliot Rosewater]

185. When it all comes out you all have to give me a parade and free lunch.

[R B Garr]

256. Yeah, why do we have to tolerate this? We are entitled to transparency,

at least on the level he has held for others. Not sure what to make of it either.

[ehrnst]

134. One has to wonder why Old Towne Media tries to cloak who actually owns the company.

I understand there are people digging into that.

[R B Garr]

259. That's good to hear Old Towne Media will finally get the scrutiny it deserves.

I don't understand the reluctance to explain how this whole operation was run.

[Roy Rolling]

8. How Can it be a "Special Report" If It's From 2016?

If you are going to troll Sanders, can't you find something more recent than a story from a hometown Vermont news blog from June, 2016?

[pnwmom]

12. Why couldn't it have been? Since he seems to be running again, this will matter. n/t

[Blue_true]

51. But piling on stuff on Joy Reid from 18 years ago is kosher?

Or dissecting an off the hand comment Hillary made 20 years ago is kosher? You do have strange standards, or are those blinders?

[Eliot Rosewater]

186. Well, Joy is anti Putin and anti Rump, so there is that.

[George II]

63. What is the shelf life of the term "Special Report"? Should organizations pore over their reports..

...and edit them once that shelf life expires?

VT Digger is far more than your typical "hometown news blog".

[disillusioned73]

74. lol..

it is amusing...

[Quixote1818]

9. This is two years old

[Tavarious Jackson]

14. As long as a candidate refuses to disclose 10 years return.

It's relevant

[Eliot Rosewater]

187. More than relevant, I dont know how EVERY one of his supporters isnt DEMANDING them

[R B Garr]

285. Exactly, it completely destroys all his talking points that he doesn't

abide his own standards for other politicians. You would think they would not stand for that.

[pnwmom]

15. So? It is relevant if he's running, as it appears he is. n/t

[m-lekktor]

18. It's data mining just to stir shit and punch left.nt

[Cha]

20. You mean like on Joy Reid?

[Jamaal510]

31. +1

[stonecutter357]

34. +1000

[ehrnst]

39. Yep. (nt)

[Gothmog]

73. Good point

[workinclasszero]

99. +1

[mcar]

325. Exactly!

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

42. Yup, more jumpin Bernie's shit... they never miss an opportunity to bash him.

Meanwhile, he just keeps building his political empire... it's no wonder Bernie is the #1 most popular politician of all the 2020 Democratic presidential hopefuls.

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!

[Wwcd]

48. Well, before 2020, maybe he could clear up those Old Town Media questions from 2016.

Should be a Fed Law anymore for every candidate to make availible 10 yrs tax returns.

Starting now.

[jberryhill]

53. How would such a law be Constitutional?

How about one requiring candidates to disclose every person with whom they'd had sex in the last 10 years?

[Wwcd]

61. Only if "who they had sex with" was criminal.

This is about skirting the financial laws.
Seems a common evil that has been the downfall of many.
You'd think, after Trump, no one would object to clearing up those unanswered questions. Especially when it involves millions of dollars.

Follow the laws, or pursue another dream.

Mueller specifically named Sanders along with Trump as beneficiaries of 2016 for a reason.
That statement says he's already aware of all questions of both campaigns.

This could be easily resolved & put to rest by handing over the taxes that should have been demanded of Trump in 2016.
We wouldn't be in this shithole had his financial dealings been made availible.

If there's nothing to hide then, please proceed with your quest to be leader of the USA.
We have a right to know who we're electing.
Prove you are as pure as you claim to be.

Show us every reason to Trust you with our future.
That is the result of the disasterous unvetted 2016.

Everything has changed because of Trump.
Blame him.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

108. Okay, so Bernie's a criminal now... I've heard it all!!

Gimme (and Bernie) a break!!

[NurseJackie]

201. Nobody said that.

108. Okay, so Bernie's a criminal now... I've heard it all!!

Nobody said that.

[Tavarious Jackson]

244. Very well said. nt

[Eliot Rosewater]

188. Exactly, so we are left with relying on candidates to "do the right thing" like Hillary did

[jberryhill]

300. Not entirely

We are left with relying on voters to do the right thing and not vote for persons who do not disclose their finances.

[KitSileya]

328. The party could make it a prerequisite of nomination

Make it a part of the party rules that the Convention will not nominate any candidate that does not release at least 10 years of tax returns in full (not just the summary). Political parties are private clubs, and can set their own rules and qualifications, as long as it doesn't give undue burden to a protected class. Every adult citizen has to file a tax return, and consequently they should have at least 10 years worth of them by the time they're 35+.

[Blue_true]

52. Bernie can clear this up by releasing his taxes for the last 10 years.

What is wrong with that request?

[Wwcd]

66. Blame mob boss Trump for this demand for open transparancy

Pushing back against the public's request for answers will only encourage greater distrust.

When a candidate asks the public for their confidence in leading this great nation, and when they will be using the taxpayers money to do so, then they are asking for total trust from ALL taxpaying citizens.

If you've given us a reason to question, then see that the question is satisfied.

Thanks to Trump, their word is no longer proof of honesty. Satisfy the rightful questions, or you don't belong at the head of the table.

Simple.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

142. Clear up what?

[Blue_true]

211. Sources of income, home interest payments.

For a guy passing himself off as a simple man, home interest payments of $25,000-$30,000 in Vermont would raise eyebrows, as would dividends from some types of stocks. Also, the tax returns will indicate how he deal with public right to know issues like Congressional per diems, does he double dip? None of that will be viewable unless the tax returns are released.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

270. I agree, Bernie should release his tax returns should he decide to run again in 2020.

[NurseJackie]

68. Nobody is "bashing" Bernie.

they never miss an opportunity to bash him.

Nobody is "bashing" Bernie. These are legitimate questions and points that the voters and contributors deserve to have answers to.

If he's running again in 2020, these things aren't just going to go away. They'll only get louder. Fair questions deserve honest answers and transparency.

Accountability and honesty is all that people are asking for... is that so wrong?

[ehrnst]

118. I thought lefty alternative newspapers were supposed to hold their legislators accountable

Was there a "soft rule" about that being verboten for certain career politicians?

I missed that.

[lapucelle]

314. ,,,

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

131. Nooooo, suggesting Bernie is a criminal and obviously hiding something when he hasn't even announced

announced whether he's running in 2020, noooo, that's not bashing. If things like that were said about Hillary, that would lead to an instant "hide."

But, if it's Bernie, suurrre, go ahead, feel free, bash away!! It's laughable, but, like I told another poster below, I have a very good feeling Bernie will have the last laugh.

BTW, I will AGREE with you, should Bernie decide to run for President again, he SHOULD disclose his tax returns at the appropriate time. But, to those that keep demanding he do so, and those claiming he must be a criminal or hiding something for not yet doing so - even though he may not even run - you just go on having your fun bashing him and dividing us, thus, creating more dissention at a time when we should be UNITING for the 2018 election against our common enemy.

[NurseJackie]

137. Nobody said anything about a "crime" being committed... except you.

131. Nooooo, suggesting Bernie is a criminal and obviously hiding something when he hasn't even announced

Nobody said anything about a "crime" being committed... except you. Not all things improper or eye-brow raising are actual "crimes".

All I'm saying is that it's in EVERYONE's best interest for our politicians (and candidates) to be transparent and to be honest and to keep their promises.

I think we can all agree that's not too much to ask. There's no reason for anyone to be acting as if it's a bridge-too-far that people want truth and candor.

should Bernie decide to run for President again,

Oh, please. He's running again and everyone knows it.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

139. That's ALL news to me!!

[NurseJackie]

143. Pay closer attention.

139. That's ALL news to me!!

Pay closer attention. The signs are all there. Any politician who spends more time in early primary states than he/she does in his/her OWN home state is running.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

146. Oh okay, well then that's GREAT news... thanks for making my day!!

[NurseJackie]

150. You're welcome.

146. Oh okay, well then that's GREAT news... thanks for making my day!!

You're welcome.

[fleabiscuit]

290. I see what you're doing there. I like it. :-)

IMHO it's a good idea with certain content.

[awesomerwb1]

79. Boo hoo.

You're awfully sensitive to any Bernie posts I have noticed.

All he has to do is release his tax returns to clear this up. Or I guess he wants to be like Dump.

What are you hiding Bernie?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

125. Nice... Bernie hasn't even announced if he's running in 2020 and you're demanding he immediately

release his tax returns and, of course, he must be hiding something, since he's not complying with your demands. That's laughable... but, keep up the bashing... I have a feeling Bernie will have the last laugh.

The funny thing is, I AGREE with you... if he runs, Bernie SHOULD release his tax returns, absolutely. It's the right thing to do.

Aside from all that, I don't see the need for you to make petty condescending remarks... though they are kinda amusing in their foolishness... boo-fuckin-hoo to you too!! LOL!!

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

135. Yes, don't call you out... or must be "touchy"... haha, another good one!! You're funny!!

[awesomerwb1]

147. Hey, you should've used more smilies

because I get a sense you might be angry or something.

Funny thing is you got all pissy and defensive because I typed "what are you hiding Bernie Wink" That part was obviously meant as a joke but you got oh so offended by it which is hilarious.

I'm not a Bernie fan, but I don't hate him, same way I wasn't a huge Hillary fan either.

What worries me is that some Bernie fans are so up his keyster that they would probably rather have a rep as president than whomever beats Bernie in 2020. Sad.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

149. Oh okay, so that was an obvious joke... like all the other posters here saying the EXACT same thing.

I get it now... hahahahaha, I'm dyin' laughing!! Thanks!!

[awesomerwb1]

151. That's why I typed it as a joke

because of others asking that question.

Flew over your head eh? Way too sensitive these Bernie people, way too sensitive. Can you please stop pouting now?

P.s Release your tax returns whether you pan to run in 2020 or not Bernie!

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

153. Yes, so add more personal insults... you really ARE awesome!! Nice.

[awesomerwb1]

158. The name means

awesome Red White (and) Blue.

Have a nice day

[Dennis Donovan]

171. Hmm, very nationalistic, don't you think?

[elocs]

136. "In response, Weaver who was managing Sanders successful 2006 Senate run

and is running his presidential bid — told Seven Days that Lennon’s charge was “a lie from top to bottom.”

This seems to clearly indicate that Weaver "is" (present tense) running Sanders presidential bid. Hillary Clinton was running for the nomination years before she officially announced her candidacy and I'm sure Sanders is doing the same.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

148. Glad to hear that!!

[NurseJackie]

152. See? I told you so! Glad you're finally willing to admit it. Now...

Now there's one LESS "excuse" for anyone to be evasive or overly-defensive, or to justify why they are opposed to transparency and honesty from all candidates. The voters and contributors deserve to know the truth. The sooner the better.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

155. Not admitting anything... saying, IF you're right - I sure hope so - then I'm glad to hear it!!

[NurseJackie]

159. Actually, no, that's not what you said.

saying, IF you're right

Actually, no, that's not what you said. This is the first time the phrase "if you're right" has been used. You may have been thinking it. You may have intended to say it. But you didn't.

All other times there was an clear willingness to accept his candidacy (declared or not) as an obvious fact. It's all "whoo-hoo" and "thanks for making my day" ... UNTIL the topic turns from a simple point of agreement toward more serious things like financial transparency and an honest accounting on behalf of donors, contributors and voters.

Then, suddenly, out of the blue, the new argument is "well, nobody really knows if he's running... therefore, we don't need to worry about things like honesty and transparency". GMAFB!

I have to say, this type of cherry-picking and evasiveness and goalpost-moving really does nothing to support whatever point you're trying to make in opposition to financial transparency... especially when it comes to campaign finances.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

168. Actually, here's what I said: "Glad to hear that!!," to which you replied...

by reading all kinds of things into that, as some kind of an admission that Bernie's running in 2020. How the fuck should I know at this point?! But I sure as hell HOPE he does. I've made that point clear in dozens of posts on this site.

Anyway, if it makes you feel good to infer that by saying I'm glad to hear something is an admission of it's truth, you go for it!! Though let me just say, there's really no need to put words in my mouth... or accuse me of "moving goalposts." That's pretty transparent.

I mean really, if it's THAT important to you, I declare you the winner on this argument. Yes, I know, I know, by saying that, I just admitted again how I know Bernie's running for President in 2020 and I'm just trying to "cover my tracks"... you caught me again!! haha!!

[NurseJackie]

181. Why would you be "glad to hear" something that you believed to be false?

Anyway, if it makes you feel good to infer that by saying I'm glad to hear something is an admission of it's truth,

Why would you be "glad to hear" something that you believed to be false? Either you actually believe it (as I do) or you're not very discerning when it comes to oneupmanship, splitting hairs and playing word-games.

Or, more likely... when someone is claiming to not believe (or to be "uncertain&quot whether Bernie is running again, they are giving themselves wiggle-room to be dismissive about the importance of transparency.

I declare you the winner on this argument.

The real winners will be the voters and donors when all candidates are honest and transparent with their campaign finances.

there's really no need to put words in my mouth...

I've done no such thing, and you know it! What I have done instead is to point out the things that you didn't actually say, even though you're now claiming that you did.

you caught me again!! haha!!

I figured as much.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

192. LOL!! You did it again... believe it or not, you really CAN be glad to hear something

someone else thinks to be true, though you yourself don't know if that's true.

Like when a weather person, or anyone else for that matter, says it'll be sunny skies tomorrow, I'm glad to hear that too, though I don't know it will turn out to be true. But, I am glad to hear they think so.

Why is that so hard to comprehend? Why do you even care SO much about being right about something that is so minor a point... it really does give me a chuckle, so thank you for that!

Besides, I already said you get to be right if you want it SO badly... you want a gold star too?!?!

[NurseJackie]

212. Pretzel logic.

Nobody is talking about the weather. I asserted something to be true and you agreed with me. By agreeing with the premise, then it naturally follows that it's never "too early" for any candidate to be honest and forthright about their campaign finances. Only... that question makes some people nervous, so they backtrack on whether or not they actually agreed with me to begin with... and pretend that "nobody knows" whether he's running or not. (He is.)

Why do you even care SO much about being right about something that is so minor a point...

I think the bigger and more important question is why are there people who DO NOT care about honesty and transparency in politics.

you want a gold star too?!?!

No, just honesty and transparency. Is that too much to ask?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

226. Wow okay, let me try this another way... you talk about logic... I'm sure you can follow this:

Point 1: I really, really, REALLY want Bernie to run again for President in 2020, so I HOPE he does.

Point 2: I can't say one way or the other whether Bernie is running in 2020 and have made that point clear in DOZENS of other posts. (BUT I HOPE SO!!). If I had to guess, I'd say it's more likely than not that Bernie does NOT run.

Point 3: Someone who thinks Bernie IS going to run in 2020 says so, and I reply to that person I'm glad to hear that!! (Maybe I should have added... and I hope you're right, anticipating you would dissect my words like a skilled surgeon.)

Point 4: Using LOGIC, that can't possibly be an admission that the person claiming Bernie is running for president in 2020 is RIGHT. I can think of any number of examples of things you could say, that I'm glad to hear, that I don't know is actually true. One thing's for sure, I didn't agree with you that Bernie IS running... like I said, I don't know that, so why would I agree? That's not logical. (I note you don't cite where I say I agree with you that Bernie's running... please enlighten me.)

Anyway, more importantly, I wonder why you and others here work SO hard to tell others what they must be thinking, even when they tell you exactly what they think, even going so far as to putting words in their mouth and subscribing ill intent.

I hardly recognize myself listening to you... is it so hard to just say, okay, I misunderstood what you were saying, it's cool. It's not a contest to see who can be the most right... or is it with you? That's why I keep sayin' you're right... if that makes you feel better.

Okay, that's the best I can do Jackie... if you choose to disbelieve what I'm saying and that I'm somehow being dishonest in my representations, there's nothing I can do about that. Apparently then, your hatred of Bernie runs deep and has colored your judgment and logic.

But, I'm seriously hoping you're wiling to cut me just a LITTLE slack and trust what I'm saying, though, to be honest, I really don't expect it.

Okay, have at it.

[NurseJackie]

262. He is running in 2020.

I hardly recognize myself listening to you... is it so hard to just say, okay, I misunderstood what you were saying,

Except that I didn't. You were perfectly clear.

One thing's for sure, I didn't agree with you that Bernie IS running... like I said, I don't know that, so why would I agree?

Yes you did. I said he's running and gave you reasons to support that assertion. You responded by expressing your delight that HE IS RUNNING. Therefore you agreed with me. You offered no caveats, explanations or fine print.

That's when I asked why you'd object to his being 100% honest and transparent with his campaign's finances... but instead of answering the question, you move-the-goalposts and change the subject by pretending that you never agreed he was running. I guess for some people playing word-games is more important than having an intelligent discussion about why it's important for politicians to be forthcoming and transparent with their campaign finances. Clearly, it's an uncomfortable topic that's easier to avoid with these hair-splitting distractions.

(I note you don't cite where I say I agree with you that Bernie's running... please enlighten me.)

Yes I did. Several times. (Heh, heh... "you don't cite" ... good grief.)

Apparently then, your hatred of Bernie runs deep and has colored your judgment and logic.

I don't have "hatred of Bernie". You don't know me. I've never said ANYTHING of the sort.

Why do you assume that political disagreement is the same thing as HATRED? What a horrible thing to say about me! Totally over the top! I don't personally attack you, why are you attacking me?

I've done nothing to you to deserve to be treated that way. (I guess my desire to discuss how honest politicians ought to be have has touched a nerve. Otherwise, there's really no good reason for anyone be so evasive with me.)

Now... insults aside... what I do have is a deep appreciation and belief that politicians should be open and transparent when it comes to financial matters. Not just with their "tax returns" but with how ALL of their campaign money is being distributed AND where it comes from.

I really don't know why anyone would be opposed to that. I don't know why anyone would go to such great lengths to avoid having a conversation about honesty and accountability.

Weird.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

263. LOL, the one thing I have agreed with you is that Bernie SHOULD be transparent about his tax returns

if he decides to run again in 2020. Guess, when I really DO agree with you, and concede a point, that's still not good enough... weird.

[NurseJackie]

265. Only his "tax returns"?? Sorry, not good enough.

263. LOL, the one thing I have agreed with you is that Bernie SHOULD be transparent about his tax returns

Only his "tax returns"?? Sorry, not good enough.

Guess, when I really DO agree with you, and concede a point (...) weird

Well, if you were actually agreeing with me that would indeed be weird. But you're not agreeing with me on that point.

His "tax returns" don't show where all the campaign money went, how it was spent, who got what and where it came from. The voters and donors and contributors deserve to know the truth. Why is that so objectionable?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

267. Yes, I know, nothing is good enough for you... believe me I get it.

[NurseJackie]

268. I simply believe our nation's politicians should be held to a high standards.

267. Yes, I know, nothing is good enough for you... believe me I get it.

I simply believe our nation's politicians should be held to a high standards when it comes to their personal finances and the finances of their campaigns.

Clearly that's not what you believe, or maybe it's just something that's very low on your list of priorities.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

271. You're such the mindreader... do you pick lottery numbers too?

[NurseJackie]

272. I already told you. I'm NOT a mind-reader.

271. You're such the mindreader...

I already told you. I'm NOT a mind-reader. I simply pay attention to what people say and do. I observe what people reveal about themselves.

do you pick lottery numbers too?

No, I only use the "Quick-Pick" option... and only when the prize starts to approach record amounts.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

273. Whatever you call it, it's a special gift you have... you're very fortunate.

[NurseJackie]

282. I know.

273. Whatever you call it, it's a special gift you have... you're very fortunate.

I know. It's a blessing. Thanks for noticing. I must let you know that it's always advantageous when I can tell who's sincere and honest, or who's being deceptive, or who's playing word games and trying score "points".

You know, there really aren't a lot of advantages to growing old, but with age, it's much easier to spot the signs that reveal someone's character or motivation. I'm smarter than many people are willing to give me credit for.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

284. Yes, intelligence and modesty, your two greatest assets, without a doubt.

[NurseJackie]

286. You forgot beautiful.

284. Yes, intelligence and modesty, your two greatest assets, without a doubt.

You forgot beautiful.

I never claimed I was the smartest cookie. I never claimed to be smarter than you. What I did say is that people often underestimate me. I'm smarter than many people are willing to give me credit for.

Having said that, I see that you're now guiding this discussion away from anything substantive and toward passive-aggressive snark and insincere "compliments". Frankly, I have to let you know that it's unclear to me what this approach is supposed to actually accomplish. (Much better than your previous accusations and insults about me being filled with "hatred".) But what IS clear is that you're now running away from your previous points.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

288. Sorry, yes, that too... you left out amusing.

You certainly have given me a good laugh!! Running away from my previous arguments... you're a riot!!!

[NurseJackie]

289. I wish you actually had made some "arguments".

Running away from my previous arguments...

I wish you had actually made some "arguments". Being argumentative and contrary is not actually making an argument in support of an idea or premise. Prattling off a series of contradictions is not an argument or a debate. It's just the premise of a Monty Python skit.

Instead, what I was given was a nearly indecipherable and an aimlessly meandering word salad that is focused only in denying the obvious and in obsessively LOWERING the standards by which we should hold our elected representatives and candidates.

You certainly have given me a good laugh!!

That's nervous laughter. Clearly, I've hit a nerve.

you're a riot!!!

At least you didn't accuse me of being "filled with hatred" again.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

295. LOL, you really need to stop... now you're only embarrassing yourself

with these petty arguments, points, or whatever you want to call them (wouldn't want to insult any wordsmiths out there).

So, let me get this straight... the "previous points" you concede I was making, which "points" you claim I supposedly was "running away" from, with the intention of "now guiding this discussion away from anything SUBSTANTIVE" - due to your brilliant counterpoints no doubt... or were they arguments? - all of a sudden, NOW, were just indecipherable word salad that you couldn't make sense of, and, therefore, apparently respond to (though you did!), comparable to a Monty Python Skit... oookayyy, now that's not aimless and contradictory, nooo, not at all... hahaha!!

I have to give you credit though, you are a hoot!! MUCH funnier than a Monty Python skit... so you got me there!!

[NurseJackie]

307. Actually, that's not what I said.

all of a sudden, NOW, were just indecipherable word salad that you couldn't make sense of, and, therefore, apparently respond to (though you did!)

Actually, that's not what I said. I said "nearly indecipherable".

Here... check it out... I'll quote what I said:

Instead, what I was given was a nearly indecipherable and an aimlessly meandering word salad that is focused only in denying the obvious and in obsessively LOWERING the standards by which we should hold our elected representatives and candidates.

See? This is what you do. What good purpose does it serve to do that? I can honestly say that I've NEVER misquoted you or used your words out of context. In fact... in every case, I've always quoted you DIRECTLY (and even formatted it as a quote) and responded directly to everything you've said.

On the rare occasion that you type a complex sentence with more than one thought that deserved more than one reply, I made an effort to break your sentence into two halves, but I honestly and truthfully quoted both halves. I've always been honest and fair with you. --- I guess it's too much for me to expect the same in return.

I have to give you credit though, you are a hoot!!

Well, that's nice. But it's off-topic. Do you think you'll ever get around to telling me more about why it is that you believe Bernie should be exempt from criticism and that he shouldn't have to be transparent, honest and forthcoming about where his campaign money comes from and where it's spent.

The only thing we've established is that you're advocating for lowering standards of accountability and transparency... but what I'd really like to know is why?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

313. Sorry, NEARLY indecipherable, my bad... like that changes anything.

Oh, and, yes, I'm also advocating for lowering standards of accountability and transpancy and that Bernie should be exempt from criticism... riiiiiigghht. Another good one... you're too funny!! Show me the quote where I said that?!

It's SO obvious what you're doing. You don't have to misquote someone to twist what they're saying. All you have to do - and you're good at it, I'll give you that - is make things up as you go along, having mastered the "strawman argument," putting words in people's mouths, never conceding a point, all the while probing people's minds, knowing EXACTLY what they're thinking, what their bad motives and ill intent must be, what kind of vile person they are - until they're virtually unrecognizable - making it beyond impossible to engage with you on an intellectually honest level.

But yes, of course, you are all knowing, all seeing... THE most honest and fairest (and modest) of them all, never wrong according to you... yes, I know, I know, you just call 'em like you see 'em. I gotta say though, your "holier than though" shtick, while good for a few laughs, is wearing a bit thin. You might wanna give it a rest... for your own sake to save yourself any further embarrassment.

Okay, you can give yourself another pat on the back now... go for it.

[whathehell]

103. Of course..

but let them wind themselves up -- in the end, their Bernie Hate will matter about as much Kanye's Trump Love.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

119. Yup, yup... it's kinda amusing. They just keep repeating...

the same old boring, tired tripe... Bernie hasn't even announced if he's running in 2020, at which time, assuming he does run, he'll announce whether he'll disclose his tax returns - which I think he SHOULD do BTW - but, that doesn't stop the Bernie bashers from repeating their attacks on Bernie over and over and over again about "what is he hiding?" and suggesting Bernie is somehow guilty of criminal conduct.

But that's not bashing, nooooooo.... interested minds just wanna know. It's laughable!!

Just imagine if such things were said about Hillary. For example, I saw posters who simply asked what was Hillary hiding in her Wall Street speeches get instant "hides."

It really is just amazing... does nothing but divide people and create dissention. Sad to see.

[NurseJackie]

133. Nobody is attacking Bernie.

and suggesting Bernie is somehow guilty of criminal conduct.

Nobody is suggesting that either.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

138. Riiighht... all you have to do is read. It's laughable the Bernie bashing that goes on here

on a daily basis, apparently with you're blessing... unless I missed your condemnation of those suggesting Bernie's guilty of crimes for not having disclosed his tax returns before he's even announced whether he's running for President in 2020.

If I missed those critical remarks you've made against unwarranted attacks against Bernie's character, I apologize in advance.

Ohh, and see post #61, if you want just one example... no doubt you seen the others too in the upteen anti-Bernie threads posted here every day. Feel free to comment on that post... I'd be interested in seeing your critical remarks.

[NurseJackie]

202. Those are legitimate questions that deserve honest and forthright answers.

Ohh, and see post #61, if you want just one example...

Those are legitimate questions that deserve honest and forthright answers. Nobody is accusing Bernie of being a "criminal." It's very clear that these concerns and questions ought to be answered in a very clear, honest and transparent way.

Why would anyone object to that? Why would Bernie object to that? Why would you object to that? I think it's fair to say that everyone is in favor of honesty, right?

no doubt you seen the others too in the upteen anti-Bernie threads posted here every day.

Actually, I have to be honest with you. I see ZERO "anti-Bernie threads posted here every day". What I do see are people who are expressing legitimate concerns and offering sincere criticism of the things he does and says. I see people who jealously defend the Democratic Party and our Democratic candidates and Democratic politicians from the lies and smears hurled in our direction.

That's not "anti-Bernie"... unless you're suggesting that he should be immune from any sort of criticism and questions. And how would that be fair?

If I missed those critical remarks you've made against unwarranted attacks against Bernie's character, I apologize in advance.

Again... I see no "attacks against Bernie's character". I see legitimate questions that deserve to be answered.

I'd be interested in seeing your critical remarks.

I'm so sure.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

214. I've stated unequivocally numerous times here that Bernie ABSOLUTELY should disclose his tax returns

if he decides to run again in 2020. That's the right thing to do and I will be right there with you saying he should do so... and be critical of Bernie if he fails to provide that level of transparancy.

Somehow I doubt you are with me in calling for similar transparency as it applies to Hillary in her refusal, to this day, to disclose the contents of her Wall Street speeches... or do I have that wrong and missed your calls to release her speech transcripts?

I know, I know, you can splain why transparency requirements only apply to Bernie's tax returns should he decide to run in 2020. Have at it.

[NurseJackie]

216. Sorry... Hillary isn't running for anything.

Sorry... Hillary isn't running for anything. I don't want to talk about the primary. That's over. Time to look ahead.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

231. My point wasn't about the primary itself... it was about your views on consistantly

applying transparency requirements to all candidates and situations, across the board, past OR present. But, no worries, by your response, you answered my question, thanks.

[NurseJackie]

251. Then why did you mention it in the first place?

231. My point wasn't about the primary itself...

Then why did you mention it in the first place?

it was about your views on consistantly
applying transparency requirements to all candidates and situations,

I know a trap when I see one. Sorry, I'm not going to refight the primary with you.

But, no worries, by your response, you answered my question, thanks.

Actually, by your "question", you confirmed something that I've long suspected to be true. Thanks.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

258. Oooh, now your suspicions are true... yes! Guess that makes them true in your book.

You're good, assuming the worst about people... got to hand it to you.

Just curious, have you ever conceded a point here about which you might have initially held a different opinion, or are you always right about everything?! That's a serious question. I honestly can't believe some of the things you say... indeed, I hardly recognize myself listening to your disparaging remarks about me and what I supposedly said and failed to say.

You seem to know so much about what people think and know, their motivations, and deepest thoughts. Do you ever give even the SLIGHTEST consideration that maybe, just maybe, you could be mistaken about those things? Has that possibility even occurred to you?

That was a retorical question... the answer is obvious.

[NurseJackie]

264. I don't accuse people of having "hatred" toward someone...

You're good, assuming the worst about people...

I never assume anything. It's all evidence based.

What I can do is remind you that I don't accuse people of having "hatred" toward someone simply because of a political disagreement. (Shall I "cite" that for you?)

Just curious, have you ever conceded a point here about which you might have initially held a different opinion, or are you always right about everything?!

Yes.

I hardly recognize myself listening to your disparaging remarks about me and what I supposedly said and failed to say.

I've made no disparaging remarks about you. Other than that, I don't have any advice for you. I just call 'em as I see 'em.

You seem to know so much about what people think and know, their motivations, and deepest thoughts.

It's no mystery, really. I'm not a mind-reader or anything. I simply pay attention and listen. I only know what people share about themselves.

Do you ever give even the SLIGHTEST consideration that maybe, just maybe, you could be mistaken about those things?

No. I'm a good judge of character. I generally take people at their word and believe what they show me.

For example, if I'm walking through the woods and I see someone setting snares and traps, then that tells me a lot about his intentions. This stealthy "hunter" may believe he's being clever, but just from quietly observing him, I can tell what kind of person he actually is.

Has that possibility even occurred to you?

Why?

That was a retorical question... the answer is obvious.

Ahh... drama. More cute than clever.

[betsuni]

296. I have Hillary Clinton's Wall Street speech transcripts right in front of me. I know everything.

How it must vex you! Wondering, fearful, yearning to discover the diabolical details of world domination we oligarchs have planned! Ha ha. I can say no more...

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

297. Haha!! Okay, now THAT was actually funny! I have to say, I DO like your sense of humor.

Sometimes, it's good to laugh at these things and not take ourselves too seriously. Besides, I needed a good laugh, thanks... had a sucky night due to some crappy family news.

[ehrnst]

316. OMEGERD... It's the key to the illuminati's deepest darkest

investment secrets!

Careful! If any true progressive straight white male glances at them, HRC will immediately shrivel into a puddle shrieking WHAT A WORLD!!!

[treestar]

301. Hillary disclosed her tax returns

The speech transcripts are another thing; kind of like demanding Obama's birth certificate or school transcripts. There is no equivalency there; Bernie would have to disclose something else besides just his tax returns; let's have all his speeches (and the right wing could surely find something to tout as "communism.&quot

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

305. I get what you're saying treestar, valid point. My comments on speeches, however, was in response to

transparency issues in general, as it was being argued, and the hypocrisy of those arguments when applied to past or future candidates other than Bernie.

Again, if Bernie runs in 2020, I'll be right there with you calling for the release of his tax returns, because it's the right thing to do regardless of who's the candidate. What I WON'T be doing is keep asking, every day here, what is Bernie trying to hide, suggesting he's guilty of some kind of criminal conduct or other nefarious activity.

But, is it fair to expect Bernie to release his tax returns once he declares he's running for the nomination? Absolutely!

[ehrnst]

329. +1000.

[Tarheel_Dem]

254. You might call it "hate", and you might have a point, except it's those of us you've labeled....

as haters who have to get behind and support him. So, "in the end"..."Bernie Hate" (as you call it) will matter tremendously. You can't get to the nomination without some of us "haters". That's already been proven.

[whathehell]

303. "You can't get to the nomination without some of us 'haters""

Watch us.

[Thekaspervote]

180. Elizabeth Warren has stated several times she won't run

As for Bernie, the dems are fools if they let him run again as a Democrat! He used the democratic party, then resigned and continued his unabated bashing, of President Obama and others.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

234. Elizabeth is free to change her mind; hope she does, even if it means challenging Bernie,

should he also decide to run. I'd certainly listen to what she has to say, along with all the other candidates who toss their hats into the ring.

[Cha]

247. Yeah, you're right.

[Amimnoch]

220. Nope. Never.

Look up and down this, or any of the ridiculous pro and anti threads on him that’s popped up recently. 2018 primaries aren’t even over and already his potential run is dividing the party.

If he truly cares about ousting Trump and the Republicans, he won’t run again. If he does, then his real loyalty will be very apparent to me, and apparently to many others as well.

The one caveat I’d throw in there is, if between now and then he can actually mend fences with the Democratic Party members he’s slighted, and can get them to endorse him this time around I’ll reconsider. I honestly don’t see that happening though.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

293. Guess we'll see if and when he decides to run.

[fleabiscuit]

291. Really?

Meanwhile, he just keeps building his political empire... it's no wonder Bernie is the #1 most popular politician of all the 2020 Democratic presidential hopefuls.

Really? Please supply the list of the Dem candidates that will be running. It would be great to see.

[lapucelle]

178. Sourcing information from a reliable local news source

that reports on both the positive and problematic aspects of the actions of local politicians is not "data mining".

data mining
noun: the practice of examining large databases in order to generate new information.

And questioning why millions of dollars from small donors went to a mystery firm and political operatives like Devine et alia is not "punching left". These are legitimate questions.

[George II]

59. You are correct, and a lot more has been learned during those two years.

[LanternWaste]

86. I guess the shelf-life of bias is much less than two years...

I guess the shelf-life of bias is much less than two years... like broccoli, maybe-- three or four days (four or five if sprayed with a light misting of saltwater and covered in damp paper towels), and then its simply relegated to Irrelevance for the sake of favoritism and preference.

News however, often remains far more relevant, and for a far longer time than broccoli.




Ironic that Don Quixote was defeated merely by peering into a mirror.

[pnwmom]

10. Someone apparently claimed this was a rightwing source. It isn't, as I'm sure you know. n/t

[m-lekktor]

19. i read it leans left. I looked at the content.

It seems devoted to going after Bernie. Very vendetta like

[pnwmom]

21. Vendetta like? it was entirely appropriate for the VT paper to investigate

his dealings with Old Towne Media, especially since he refused to release any full tax returns.

[ehrnst]

40. In what way is the Vermont Digger "vendetta like?"

You mean like Scott Pruitt says about the investigations into his actions at the EPA?

[JCanete]

29. It's not a rightwing source...it has shown to be fairly consistenly anti sanders, and the quality

of some of those attacks have at times bordered on if not entered, spurious or silly.

[pnwmom]

32. There is nothing silly or spurious about the questions raised about Old Towne media. n/t

[ehrnst]

41. You mean like Scott Pruitt is claiming about the investigations into his

actions at the EPA?

[JCanete]

110. no I don't.

[ehrnst]

114. Sounds pretty similar. (nt)

[JCanete]

116. yeah, right...and if you were to tackle different source for misiniformation about pizza gate, etc.

you would also just be attacking the messenger I guess...based upon your reasoning. In fact, attacking that messenger must confirm that the story is true...who cares if the content is bullshit or blown out of proportion or just throwing shit at a wall.

[ehrnst]

122. You have your strawmen moving goalposts now.

I suppose that's efficient, but it's still just "throwing shit at a wall" as you so eloquently put it.

[JCanete]

124. what's my strawman? You are making false equivalences for the sake of attacking me. nt

[ehrnst]

130. "I know you are but what am I?"

Really?

[JCanete]

141. no, not really.

[ehrnst]

145. Yeah, really.

Literally, even.

(cue angry retort about "game playing" )

[George II]

64. VT Digger a right wing source?

[ehrnst]

115. I know.

I thought that part of what makes alternative lefty publications great is that they aren't afraid hold their legislators' feet to the fire.

I guess some career politicians are off limits to investigative journalism.

I hope someone has a list....

[R B Garr]

11. I am seeing the new part being tax return info

for spouses, as well as candidates. Agreed. Both must be examined as well as campaign payments to other family members.

[Tavarious Jackson]

16. Yes, a spouse is an easy way to hide

creepy details...

[Tarheel_Dem]

22. Is Jane still looking for those darned tax returns?

[Blue_true]

54. I heard a rumour from a friend of a friend that knew a guy named Harry.

That those tax returns sleep with the fishes, deep in the bowels of Lake Chaplain.

[Paka]

23. No smear of Bernie will go untried.

The powers that be are so scared of Bernie they will stop at nothing.

[Tavarious Jackson]

24. That's not true

Bernie is running again in 2020. This is fair. Transparency is what we should all want.

[Cha]

25. The word is transparency.. everyone gets it..

no exceptions.

[KPN]

89. No exceptions? Hmmm ...

where was the outrage over lack of forthcoming re: speeches to Wall Street firms?

At least be consistent here. Geesh.

[Cha]

189. Awwww

[KPN]

233. Huh? Awww what.

Back at you.

[ehrnst]

240. Oh noes! Not the speeches!!!

A Senator should be relieved if his personal finances are as big a nothingburger as the transcripts of the dread "Wall Street Speeches."

After all, the gnashing of the teeth over the FEES, OMG SHE GOT FEES, is because she released her taxes.

Perhaps that's why some people would like to avoid that kind of transparency themselves.

[Cha]

242. +10000000000000000 ad infinitum

[Cha]

241. lol

[ehrnst]

238. +1000 (nt)

[Tavarious Jackson]

235. It was her form of employment

That is the way she made a living. Most people, mostly men gave speeches for money. Some of the speeches were public so everyone knew the gist of them. Bernie did use it against her and I thought that was fair criticism. She did release 30 years of taxes of both her and her husbands. In the same way Bernie used the speeches.. someone will call for tax returns and it's fair.

[fleabiscuit]

294. And BS wouldn't be impeded by any copyright agreements about his taxes; I would think. nt

[Paka]

298. Thank you!

[treestar]

309. well that's extremely unfair

The Clintons released 30 years of tax returns! Talk about inconsistent.

[whathehell]

26. Well put, lol.

but at least it's predictable.

[lunamagica]

38. How is asking him to show his full tax returns a smear?

[ehrnst]

44. Yes, I wondered about that as well. (nt)

[whathehell]

58. The poster called it a "smear attempted"

and the tax return demand is the result of the attempt, not the smear itself.

[workinclasszero]

100. Yeah whats up with that?

[ehrnst]

243. I know. (nt)

[TheSmarterDog]

36. Since when is demanding transparency of candidates & holding them accountable a smear?

[whathehell]

60. He:s not a candidate

and when he was one, he complied with that "demand".

[stevenleser]

91. He absolutely is a candidate in this year's election. AND he is an elected official. So feet to the

fire right?

[whathehell]

96. Has the federal election committee demanded his returns?

If so, that counts -- The demands of out of State Bernie Haters?...Not so much.

[stevenleser]

101. MTG

[whathehell]

102. LOL

Is that your standard response to losing an argument?

[stevenleser]

105. Nope, it's my standard response to someone moving the goalposts. nt

[whathehell]

111. Even when no goal post moving had transpired,?

Sure --Whatever you say.

[stevenleser]

112. Nope, when the goalposts weren't moved I don't post that. You did, so I did. nt

[whathehell]

209. Lol. Asking a question you can't answer

does not a goal post move make...Nice try, though.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

277. Goooooooaaaaaaaaalllll by whatthehell!! Nice one!!

[whathehell]

302. Lol..Thanks, InAbluEsTaTe

You rock.

[Eliot Rosewater]

190. How in the hell could anyone who claims to be liberal be OK with

THEIR Candidate refusing to release these?

[TheSmarterDog]

106. I guess the only people that should be held accountable are those that St Bernie runs against.

[stevenleser]

107. Yep, and anytime you ask a question about Bernie, you get the goalposts moved repeatedly. nt

[ehrnst]

109. If the GOP had used "did the FEC demand his returns???"

as some sort reason that he balked basic ethical transparency protocol for POTUS candidates since the seventies, those here on DU would have mocked that endelessly.

And GOD FORBID Hillary refused to release her financials.... or tried to beg off with "You go first!!!".... the cries of "she's hiding her corruption!!!!!!!!!!11111!!!!!" would have rung from the rafters.

But some career politicians are immune, apparently.

[whathehell]

113. Is that what you guess?

Then I'd suggest you re-read my ost and guess again.

[TheSmarterDog]

117. Are you posting in some secret code? Or using dogwhistles that only The Initiated understand?

Or are you actually demanding special treatment for the non-Democrat Bernie Sanders where everyone has to be transparent & accountable for their personal finances as a matter of course, & and he doesn't?

[stevenleser]

121. It's anyone's guess whether your interlocutor is being deceptive or has problems with discoursing

coherently. At this point it's even money.

[TheSmarterDog]

129. I won't take those odds.

[whathehell]

123. Um, no

but I am very disinterested in discussing BS with those I don't think view him objectively..

[TheSmarterDog]

128. So, you're moving the goalposts.

[leftofcool]

252. Looks like if he runs he can't get on the ballot in CA or NY

You have to show your tax returns now in both states to get on the Presidential ballot.

[TheSmarterDog]

257. Oh, man! That just breaks my heart!

[Cha]

306. I wish! I think the

Gov of CA vetoed it for some strange reason.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

275. How dare you defy the all-knowing, all-seeing who have spoken and passed judgment on Bernie, the

hider of all things criminal, comparible to tRump, Rethuglicans, in league with the Russians, etc.... haven't you heard?!?! Yes, Bernie must be bashed at all costs, even if, should he even run for President in 2020, he does so as an Independent, the fortunes of the Democratic Party be damned!! /sarcasm

[lunamagica]

37. He can easily stop this by showing his full tax returns, showing us

us he practices the tranparency he preaches and demand of others.

[Eliot Rosewater]

191. Nope, I dont know one

I dont know a single REAL liberal who would defend not releasing them.

That is simply NOT a liberal position.

[ehrnst]

43. Who are you talking about when you say "the powers that be"

and why would Bernie "scare" them?

[ehrnst]

104. Crickets... (nt)

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

280. Truer words were never spoken.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

280. Truer words were never spoken.

[fierywoman]

27. This is almost 2 years old (July 15,2016)

[pnwmom]

33. And it's still relevant because the questions were never answered and he's running again. nt

[whathehell]

65. He'll show them when he needs to..

not when the anti-Bernie crowd "demands" it.

[Wwcd]

98. Well that"anti-bernie" crowd you claim, is in the millions then

Its not anti- bernie to expect a candidate or politician who's income & sustenance comes from the taxpayers. Whose legislative decisions involve us all.
The post-Trump world is absolutely right to demand questions that were left unaccounted for, be held to eventually answer for.

This is not anti-bernie. This is about all candidates & politicians practicing what they preach & answer to the public they claim to want to lead.

Words of a politician are fine but when there is a hint of doubt as to hidden financials, we have a right to ask & a right to be answered.

Thank Trump for the transparent scrutiny now placed on past & future financial affiliations of all candidates.
The longer they bar that door to questions, the greater suspicions will become.

"Living forthright & forthcoming is an honest man's path."

That quote is more pointed today, since Trump, than ever before.

[Cha]

324. Thank you for explaining that,

Wwcd!

[Wwcd]

330. You are welcome Cha ☺❤

[pnwmom]

132. He needed to last time and he didn't. He also should have released full tax returns

and never did.

[Eliot Rosewater]

193. I thought everybody knew that, surely everybody on this thread knows this and

NOBODY on this BOARD would defend that action? right?

[whathehell]

194. Well, maybe he's just waiting for your good counsel on the matter..

but somehow, I doubt it. You have a good day, now.

[JCanete]

28. Well DUe'rs, not being a partisan and reactionary bunch who just pick sides and come to conclusions

based upon their affiliation alone, who have just bravely and nobly come to the defense of Joy Reid, will certainly stand circumspect here, waiting for proof...or hell, at least more solid evidence before they come to a verdict. They will band together and say "PEOPLE DO NOT LET EFFORTS TO DIVIDE US SUCCEED!"

or not...

[Tavarious Jackson]

30. Totally agree. It's why tax returns are important

From both spouse and candidate if they file separate... but Joy Reid is not running0 for office.

[whathehell]

62. Sure..

The difference in the way she's being treated here is ALL aboutd that distinction.

[KPN]

90. Yep ... "or not".

[stonecutter357]

35. K&R

[ProfessorGAC]

45. Headline Is Misleading

There's no "must". If there were, we have seen PINO's tax returns. I just watched Sam Bee yesterday and Preet Bahara is working with a group to legally codify "traditions" in politics. One of the items he specifically mentioned was making it a LAW to show tax returns.
Hence it's not currently a law, just a tradition with respect to transparency and not a "must". Therefore, the headline is misleading.
BTW: I agree with Bahara that is should be a law, but that doesn't make it one, yet.

[Gothmog]

46. Where are the tax returns?

[dalton99a]

49. Bingo

[Wwcd]

50. 2020 should be interesting! This tax thing may just derail some candidate's 'higher aspirations'

When you demand purity, then you must lead by example.
Kinda blows the trustability thing when you refuse to uphold what you demand of others.

This thing with Old Town Media will have to be accounted for, and soon.

After Trump, every candidate needs to be an open book to work for this Country.
There can be no more of this , "nothing to see here, move along please", approach.

[Blue_true]

56. In 2020, as the perceived front runner.

Bernie is going to get the type of vetting that Hillary got. There are a lot of really questionable things in his pass. The same people that are pounding Joy Reid are demanding that Bernie get a pass.

I think Bernie's refusal to make public tax returns in 2016 will be a very major issue for him in 2020, this time he won't get the opportunity to skate because everyone was focused on someone else.

[George II]

71. You're 99% correct - concept of "perceived front runner" is only because there's only 1 in the race.

[Gothmog]

75. This will be fun to watch

[Blue_true]

184. It won't be fun for me to watch.

Bernie is going to get vetted and I believe that vetting is going to be damaging. But he has a core of supporters who listen to absolutely no reason and if there is a democratic field larger than two, that can pull him to the nomination. One positive that I see is that the people who would rather not see Bernie as our party's nominee, won't do foolish things like vote third party or write in, they will support Bernie 100% as the party nominee.

[KPN]

92. Well, not all Bernie supporters are joining the Joy lynch mob -- that's a gross misstatement.

But, yes, if Bernie decides to make another run at it in 2020, he will definitely get the extreme public vetting that Hillary got. He should, and that includes a public expectation that he releases his tax returns.

Maybe he will do that in 2020. We'll see. I do think one of the reasons he didn't was Hillary's refusal to release transcripts from her Wall St. speeches. A fair game move to his thinking perhaps.

[Blue_true]

204. Not a fair exchange transcripts for tax returns.

Hillary seems to have always been a private person that is hesitant to release stuff that she feels is private, even when the stuff is mundane. Her speeches could have been before groups like women and female executives and she could have felt what was said in that setting was never meant to be public. I was disappointed that she didn't release the transcripts and personal emails that eventually came out and were non issues, by holding out, I think that she allowed them to become major issues that made her look like she had something to hide.

Bernie and tax returns is an entirely different animal, as is Bernie's position on guns. Bernie passes himself off as an Everyman, but he owns fairly expensive real estate, how did that happen? Also, what are his investments. A lot was made of Hillary, who is worth around $35-$50 million approximately owning a few stocks in pipeline companies, when the fact is a person with that much money often don't make the investments themselves and typically only provide philosophical guidance to people that do the investments, and generally only companies that they really and truly have issues with are eliminated (i.e., no gun manufacturers, no Cigarrette makers, ect.). I can bet you that I own oil company stocks and oil pipeline stocks and don't know about it, because I don't go to that level of granularity. When Bernie is asked about guns, he changes the subject, I can respects him saying that he lives in Vermont and people have guns for hunting and what they believe is protection, Kirsten Gillibrand made the same statement years back and lots of the people fawning over Bernie are ripping her apart, the difference is that Kirsten has taken a strong stand on illegal guns, assault weapons and wise restrictions on who can buy guns.

[ehrnst]

246. Yes, that makes so much sense.

The transcript of speeches that turned out to be a nothingburger as a condition for basic financial transparency that has been honored by POTUS candidates since the seventies.

Sure. Same thing.

[whathehell]

69. Why don't you ask him?

I"m sure he'll feel compelled to comply with any and all demands made here.

[MrsCoffee]

87. Why didn't he release them when he promised to do it ASAP?

This lack of transparency certainly makes people wonder what he could be hiding.

[whathehell]

97. As I said..

Go ask him.

[Eliot Rosewater]

198. When you ask that question and folks act like they dont care, I have to check where I am

[whathehell]

213. As I said, you'll have to ask him..

but when you're a hammer, everything does look like a nail..Have a nice day.

[Blue_true]

205. When there is no answer, I guess snark substitutes. nt

[whathehell]

215. When there is no interest

in the game of "gotcha", things look different.

[Cha]

229. Actually it doesn't.. they just think it

does.

[Cha]

228. Exactly.. he won't.

[whathehell]

304. Wanna bet on it?

[George II]

55. The campaign paid Old Towne Media LLC more than $83M for their work on the campaign.

Somewhere between 7% and 12% (that's between $5.8M and $9.9M) was paid to someone for sales commissions. But no one knows who received that commission.

[NurseJackie]

70. Seems like it would be easy enough to be honest and transparent about this detail...

Somewhere between 7% and 12% (that's between $5.8M and $9.9M) was paid to someone for sales commissions. But no one knows who received that commission.

Seems like it would be easy enough to be honest and transparent about this detail. I have to be honest... when the simplest of details are withheld (or "accidentally" omitted) and when calls for honesty and transparency are ignored, it certainly has the potential of being interpreted as an attempt to intentionally hide the truth.

$9,900,000 is a heck-of-a lot of money! Quite a payday in sales commissions. When talking about these kind of big-bucks, some reasonable level of scrutiny should be expected... and honestly... I have to say, we're not there yet.

In my opinion, the level of review and scrutiny has been less than cursory. Just a perfunctory glossing-over that lacks the level of clarity that's often demanded of others. I think that the voters and the donors deserve some simple transparency and honest accountability.

What good purpose does it serve for anyone to avoid being forthcoming with this information. Somebody knows the truth. Why is it being withheld?

All I'm saying is that these are legitimate questions and they aren't going to go away simply by stonewalling or ignoring them. The demands to produce data will only grow louder and more intense as his 2020 campaign gets underway.

[ehrnst]

249. Old Towne Media LLC has some ads in interesting places.

https://yellowpages.rin.ru/cgi-bin/more_e.cgi?z=US&id=33684


https://yellowpages.rin.ru/

[George II]

255. Hmmmm...that second link goes to a Russian yellow pages! Thanks for the information.

And then we have this from Daily KOS:

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/5/31/1532953/-The-Potential-Scandal-at-the-Heart-of-the-Sanders-Campaign

[ehrnst]

308. The first link is the detailed listing from the Russian language Yellow Pages

and the second link it the listing for Abar/Hutton, who are the people who did many ad buys for Devine in 2016, and appear to be connected with Old Towne Media.

[George II]

311. Abar Hutton and Old Towne Media are both located in Alexandria, VA, less than three miles apart.

[ehrnst]

317. That has been noted.

It is not clear as to who actually owns Old Towne Media LLC, but what is clear is that it is located in Shelli Hutton-Hartig's home. Working out of the home alongside Hutton-Hartig is Barbara Abar Bougie.

http://www.benningtonbanner.com/stories/the-truth-of-the-matter-the-best-legal-form-of-siphoning,109480

[disillusioned73]

76. Strap in folks..

if he runs, we got 2 more years of this...

[Tavarious Jackson]

83. It's an easy fix.

Show the tax returns. It's really that easy. You should want that.

[disillusioned73]

85. If he becomes the candidate..

I guess we will have to see.. the problem I have is that the media let Trump forego such a requirement.. will they do it again in 2020?? That is the bigger issue, corporate media doesn't hold corporate candidates to account..

[Tavarious Jackson]

93. Is Bernie a corporate candidate?

He should not wait until the media calls him out. He should be transparent and not in the general, in the primary. No 10 years tax return.. No vote.

[Eliot Rosewater]

199. He can release his high school diary and I would still NEVER vote for him again, but

surely NOBODY could vote for him if he REFUSES to release the tax returns.

[Tavarious Jackson]

208. Yes. The bar is set pretty low

when people don't think taxes matter. They matter now in the wake of Trump than they ever did.

[Eliot Rosewater]

210. They know god damn well taxes matter but the cult of personality works wonders

[George II]

312. The media also let Sanders "forego such a requirement". In fact, in April 2016....

....both Bernie Sanders and Jane Sanders promised to release their tax returns "soon" (Jane said by the end of April).

That never happened. All that was ever released was the Form 1040 from 2014 with none of the schedules.

http://time.com/4295446/bernie-sanders-tax-returns-jane-sanders/

[sarcasmo]

77. Adios.

[BoneyardDem]

80. Clear it up, show the taxes

[KPN]

94. Why post this now? Oh yeah, the beat -- and the smear campaign -- goes on!!!

No less with an article that is nearly two years old.

Why post this now? .... "Drums keep pounding a rhythm to the brain

[link:

|

[Tavarious Jackson]

127. This is not a smear. This is sincere concern.

It's normal for a candidate to release 10 years of tax records, Bernie did not and since he is running again in 2020 democrats and everyone else on the left should expect this from every and any candidate.

[KPN]

140. It's a smear -- plain ansd simple. The article is two years old.

There's a reason it was posted now. To say otherwise seems disingenuous ... Bernie isn't even a candidate currently.

[Tavarious Jackson]

144. He is running in 2020

This is vetting and when we vet going back years and even decades is fair. It was done to Hillary and every other candidate, their past is relevant. Don't you want to know why he didn't release his taxes? You should want to know in my opinion.

[Autumn]

162. He's running for his Senate seat in 2018. He hasn't announced he's running in 2020.

[Tavarious Jackson]

164. He is setting the ground work in a heavy way..

He is running. I don't think I have heard him even mention his own home state in a long long time.

[Autumn]

173. He's been very busy in VT at town meeting for seniors, Keynote Address at VSAC

and other events in VT he does a lot. His Senate work, he campaigns for people running for office, his own campaign. You probably miss a lot of what he says about his home state.

[Tavarious Jackson]

176. I'll check it out.

I am interested in what he thinks about a lot of issues. Does he still want to get rid of NAFTA? How does he feel about NATO, the EU and other global policies?

[Autumn]

179. I'm sure you can find his opinions on those issues and many more easily.

He's very vocal

[Tavarious Jackson]

236. I've tried and paid attention and have not seen anything.

Can you link me to where I can find his stances on those issues?

[Autumn]

237. Try Google, Bernie's name and whatever issue you want to know about.

[Tavarious Jackson]

239. Sanders calls for new NATO that includes Russia

This is what I found. :/

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/260804-sanders-calls-for-new-nato-that-includes-russia

When it comes to NATO, Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump offer similar assessments

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-live-updates-democr-1460688145-htmlstory.html

[Autumn]

248. The first is an old article and Trump cribbed a lot from Bernie's speeches in 2016.

In 2015, when he talked about a new Nato and included Russia we didn't know what Russia was doing towards the election and it would have been logical at that time to include the other worlds super power.

[Tavarious Jackson]

250. It was after what Putin did in Ukraine and Crimea also Syria though nt

[Tavarious Jackson]

167. A lot of people care about taxes

If there is nothing there than why not release them?

[KPN]

232. Maybe so. But why wouldn't he be extremely active just to frame the debate going into 2020?

Bernie Sanders has an opportunity to influence the direction of the party and politics into the future like very few have ever had in my lifetime at least. Why would he not take advantage of that? He's setting the table, defining the playing field -- all good stuff for any progressive frankly.

Until we get into 2019, everything is premature. And OPs like this article are indeed nothing but a smear meant to undermine an individual that many for some reason seem to fear.

[Autumn]

163. Yep.

[NCTraveler]

95. Hey! Their client list is longer than Cohen's....

https://www.opensecrets.org/expends/vendor.php?year=2016&vendor=Old%20Towne%20Media

[Me.]

177. Am I Reading This Correctly

83 + million?

[NCTraveler]

195. Just in the time period mentioned. Nt

[Me.]

221. THat's More Than A Big Bucket Of Cash For Any Time Period

and it went for just one period of time to Devine? Sorry, but it strikes me as those who contributed in good faith have been taken to the cleaners...Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

[NCTraveler]

266. +1 nt

[Wounded Bear]

120. Had to be a reason he didn't release his taxes...

[Me.]

222. LOts More Than 83 Million Reasons

[JCanete]

319. oh the conclusions people are willing to automatically accept when the person is someone they don't

like, and those they are willing to go down with the ship denying when accusations are against somebody they do like.

[Devil Child]

154. Posting a two year old hit piece on Sen. Sanders is telling

Doesn't the anti-Sanders clique have some fresh mud to sling around?

[Owl]

156. Exactly

[Tavarious Jackson]

161. It's vetting

He is running in 2020. Remember when people were asking why Hillary worked on the Goldwater campaign when she was 17? it's not a hit piece. It's a reminder that as democrats we should at the very least expect 10 years taxes of any candidate and if their spouse file separate we should expect their returns as well since spouses share income. Why is this an issue? It shouldn't be. It should be standard.

[JCanete]

326. Can somebody point to how one would even look into what Sanders has and has not released?

So the issue before was that he filed for extensions and people made a ridiculously big deal about that here. Is he still filing for extensions or did that end up being a huge nothing burger? People were making all kinds of noise here about how they couldn't wait for that big reveal...and then I heard nothing at all.

[Tavarious Jackson]

327. He only released one year. EVER nt

[shanny]

157. Special Report from 2 years ago?

[Tavarious Jackson]

160. The question is still valid.

Why did Bernie and Jane not release standard ten years taxes?

[Tavarious Jackson]

169. A lot of people care.

They don't have to but Bernie and Trump are the only candidates that refused to in years. It's a norm that we can not afford to lose. Look, if Bernie wins the democratic nomination... I will vote for him and campaign for him for sure. I care about taxes and I know many democrats that do.

[shanny]

172. Was he the nominee? I must have missed that.

[Tavarious Jackson]

174. No one who does not release their taxes

should ever be the nominee. We are not republicans. Taxes are normally released before the start in Iowa. Just because republicans have low standards does not mean democrats should.

[shanny]

278. Make a rule then. Pass a law.

And no, taxes are not normally released before the start in Iowa. They are normally released by the candidates before election day. This has been the tradition by both parties since Nixon. Until rMoney, and now tRump.

Don't like it? Fix it.

[LexVegas]

197. No. He got destroyed by a vastly superior candidate. nt

[shanny]

279. So, what's your point?

[Cha]

225. Yep.. and it's not going away.

We want transparency from all the candidates in 2020.

[Me.]

175. I've Always Wondered Where That New House Came From

Forensic accountant please

[Thekaspervote]

207. So, there you have it, and if bernie should run as an independent candidate we're are doomed

To another 4 years of IQ45. I think maybe there’s some soul searching to do on your end.

[Lazy Daisy]

219. No there isn't

I did my duty, I voted for Hillary in 2016 even though she wasn't who I voted for in the primaries. I was proud to vote for a woman to hold the office of The Presidency. I, like the majority of people who didn't vote for her in the primaries knew she was FAR better than Trump and hoped the democratic party would take notice of their left leaning voters and would promote more progressive candidates.

Instead we get constant Bernie bashings almost 2 years after the primaries ended. We get the party leaders, DLC and DCCC pushing out all our candidates all over the country this years elections.

so yeah, have fun with the elections if this is the treatment so called "extremists" get. I for one am sick and tired of the party telling me who is best for me. The party needs to listen to it's voters.

[Tavarious Jackson]

230. So " Our Revolution" can endorse candidates but the DLC can not?

Help me understand that logic.

[Cha]

299. The "DLC" is an old and stale insult that has no meaning now..

the Democratic Party has a progressive platform. The poster is just trying to insult the Democratic Party. Needs to get up to speed.

A snip or two ..

Protect Voting Rights, Fix Our Campaign Finance System, and Restore Our Democracy
□ Protecting Voting Rights
□ Fixing Our Broken Campaign Finance System
□ Appointing Judges
□ Securing Statehood for Washington, DC
□ Strengthening Management of Federal Government

Combat Climate Change, Build a Clean Energy Economy, and Secure Environmental Justice
□ Building a Clean Energy Economy
□ Securing Environmental and Climate Justice
□ Protecting Our Public Lands and Waters

Much More..
https://www.democrats.org/party-platform

I want to thank you for your timely OP, Travarious

[ehrnst]

245. So endorsing a candidate that isn't Our Revolution's choice

is "the party telling me who is best for me?"

Isn't that sort of like when the right wing complained that Michelle Obama was trying to tell kids what food is good for them?

How is the party not listening to voters? I've completed three surveys from Perez...

[leftofcool]

253. The party did listen to its voters. They chose Hillary

If Bernie tries to run as a Dem in 2020, there will be millions of Democratic write-ins.

[Me.]

261. The Party Does Need To Listen To Voters

that are Democrats

[Cha]

283. The Democratic Party listens to

me!

[Me.]

287. And They Should LIsten To

YOU...

[Cha]

292. And, I hear

them!

It's long..

Things that Democrats would not be doing if they had the power:

Escalating towards nuclear war with NK.
Pulling out of Paris Climate Agreement.
Reducing National Monuments.
Defunding renewable energy.
Defunding CHIP.
Not helping Puerto Rico sufficiently.
Threatening and deporting DACA.
Building a wall on the southern border.
Attacking our allies and praising Russia.
Ignoring the Russia's cyber attack on our democracy.
Trying to revive the war on cannabis.
Backing expansion of private prisons.
Sabotaging the ACA.
Pushing an obscene tax bill which trigger cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.
Preparing to decimate the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau.
A State Department in shambles.
Privatization schemes against public education.
Expanding the private prison system.
Attacking the BLM movement.
Praising White Supremacists.
Renewing attacks on our LGBT brothers and sisters.
Destroying Net Neutrality.
Decimating clean water and clean air standards.
Banning certain words from useage at the Center for Disease Control.
Oil drilling off our coasts.
Packing the Federal bench with pro-corporate rightwing extremist judges.
Cutting funding to Meals on Wheels.

To name a few

SHRED https://upload.democraticunderground.com/100210148833

We’re suing the Trump campaign and Russia.

snip//

"Today, the DNC is filing a civil lawsuit alleging that Russia perpetrated a brazen attack on American democracy during the 2016 election, and found a willing partner in the Trump campaign.

Here’s why: a major part of Russia’s attack on American democracy was the cyberattack on the DNC and theft of the DNC’s proprietary information. This stolen information was then released to the public by Russian agents and
WikiLeaks to damage the Democratic Party and influence the 2016 election.

We’re taking this action because we believe no one is above the law, and we must pursue every avenue of justice against those who engaged in this illegal activity against the DNC and our democracy. We must also prevent future attacks on our democracy, and that’s exactly what we’re doing today."

More.. https://medium.com/TheDemocrats/were-suing-the-trump-campaign-and-russia-72a6b76067e6



P.S. Just what I've been saying..

Now, putting together a lawsuit like this, with all the proper documentation, has taken some time. That’s why we’re filing it today, both to seek justice and to deter further attacks on our democracy.

Link to tweet

[Cha]

274. You convenietly forget about all that

BS has been out there directing at the Democratic Party.

He started right after the 2016 election.. and to expect People not to fight back is ridiculous.

African American Women and men are our Democratic base and loyal Voters.. and the Democratic Party and, I am eternally grateful. They're mostly not out there threatening our Party with "3rd party" bullshit, either.

Oh , and nina turner is a divider.. I say Enough of her.

[George II]

318. The DLC was disbanded way back in 2010, about eight years ago.

The mission of the DCCC is to support Democratic House candidates, just as the DSCC is devoted to electing Democratic Senatorial candidates.

That's what they do, that's what they're supposed to do, and I fully support both in their missions to get Democrats elected.

[MrsCoffee]

218. Lol.

[Cha]

223. "Oh FFS" yourself.. It's called transparency..

You need to embrace it.. there's going to be a lot of it coming down the pike.

BS is no exception. No matter how much you don't want his history discussed.

You need to look in the mirror and "do some soul searching".. your threats about the Democratic Party are ridiculous and a little bit pathetic.

"berniecrats-bootie call"? Really? l0l So you "vote 3rd party" is that what you're saying? You keep it up.

[Me.]

260. Enough Is Enough Is Enough

of Nina Turner

[Cha]

269. ENOUGH nina turner.. is

exactamente!

Gracias, Me!

[Me.]

276. ...

[George II]

320. Although she was originally a Democrat, Nina Turner has abandoned the Democratic Party, indeed....

....she has openly stated that she and Our Revolution will endorse some candidates running against Democratic candidates.

One can get a good idea of her attitude toward Democrats from this revealing "The Nation" interview last June:

https://www.thenation.com/article/nina-turner-it-is-not-our-job-to-fit-into-the-democratic-establishment/

[Me.]

321. She Was A State Senator For Heaven's Sake

oh how the worm has turned

[George II]

322. Yes, and ever since she ran and lost the election for Ohio Secretary of State, she's been....

....very unhappy with Democrats, even though Bill Clinton endorsed her in that election.

[Me.]

323. Looks Like The Citizens Of Ohio Were The Smart Ones

and had her number before we all did

[JNelson6563]

217. Everyone who runs should show 10 years of returns.

No exceptions.

[Lil Missy]

227. If this were Hillary there would be HOWLS!!

[treestar]

310. You bet! 30 years of tax returns!

And yet for Bernie to produce his Hillary is said to have to produce even more, something different, her speech transcripts! Sexist to demand that she produce one more thing than Bernie.

[mac56]

331. This is not helpful.

Please knock it off.