General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAre the attacks on Bernie and Jane Sanders based on hearsay only? Any actual proof of misdoing?
For instance, the following is from Snopes:
http://www.snopes.com/2017/07/07/gop-lawmaker-allegations-sanders/
Is this all Republican dirty tricks?
emulatorloo
(44,133 posts)Joe DiGenova. That lifelong Republicans hack/Fox News 'legal expert' outright lies about an FBI investigation were posted constantly on DU simply because he spun a fantasy about a grand jury and indictments about a Democrat that some DU'ers didn't like.
Did you push back on that "hearsay'?
I will tell you that I told people not to trust Toensing on Jane Sanders in 2016.
Akamai
(1,779 posts)emulatorloo
(44,133 posts)If you did not push back on Toesning's daddy's bs, then I personally don't believe you have any credibility on this issue.
You can't happily feed at the pig trough of DiGenova and then denounce Toensing without being a hypocrite.
I asked if you pushed back against DiGenova, and you deflected. It was a simple yes or no question.
------
As to the FBI investigation, it exists.
They are not relying on the statements those Republicans hacks made.
They've interviewed witnesses from Burlington College and donors, and they have secured primary documentants from the time of the loan.
Pretending that the only thing the FBI has looked at is the statements of a couple Republicans hacks is ridiculous.
Again I believe Jane will be cleared by the FBI once the investigation is completed.
Akamai
(1,779 posts)and staying bought.
emulatorloo
(44,133 posts)Apologize for being so confrontational about it. That was wrong.
Long day on DU and very touchy still about DiGenova @ DU. Not an excuse of course. Should have asked politely.
tallahasseedem
(6,716 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I think it places your question in a much more honest and accurate context...
Gothmog
(145,345 posts)The concept of hearsay only comes into play during court testimony and has no meaning whatsoever at this stage of the investigation. Every time I see this silly attack on the investigation, I and other lawyers get to laugh. The concept of hearsay makes no sense here other that to give lawyers an excuse to be amused.
False statements were supposedly made to a federally insured financial institution in connection with a loan and that loan went into default not long after being made.. If there are allegations of false statements made in connection with a loan where a federally insured financial institution has suffered a loss, there is usually an investigation. It is a crime to make false statements to a federally insured financial institution in connection with a loan. This law is in effect because if the federally insured financial institution suffers a loss, then the taxpayers are on the hook.
The reports that I have seen indicate that the bank was promised that a donor was about to make a $1 million donation that year when the donor was planning to make the donation only upon their death. The loan went into default and the bank suffered a real financial loss. That donor was interviewed and that donor's statements are evidently inconsistent with the facts represented to the federally insured financial institution.
brer cat
(24,579 posts)I guess facts are not wanted.
Canoe52
(2,948 posts)without the snark...
JI7
(89,252 posts)the issue of the loan itself is different and that focuses on Jane Sanders .
Raastan
(266 posts)He has that in common with tRump...
Prove his innocence with transparency.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)were over-stated in the loan documents. In one case, a potential million dollar bequest at some unknown date in the future (IOW, upon death) was reported by Jane as immediate donations of that amount, divided over 5 years. The woman's accountant confirmed that she hadn't ever made the pledge Jane reported.
With Bernie, I don't think there is anything other than hearsay.
comradebillyboy
(10,155 posts)is substantial reason to think Jane Sanders may have committed bank fraud. It seems Jane seriously exaggerated the pledged donations in order to secure the loan. Her actions definitely deserve to be investigated.
Gothmog
(145,345 posts)This talking point only works on JPR This is a real investigation https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/federal-prosecutors-step-up-probe-of-land-deal-pushed-by-wife-of-bernie-sanders/2017/07/10/e3fc3e72-625a-11e7-8adc-fea80e32bf47_story.html?utm_term=.dde763ae2b24
A half-dozen people said in interviews in recent days that they had been contacted by the FBI or federal prosecutors, and former college trustees told The Washington Post that lawyers representing Jane Sanders had interviewed them to learn what potential witnesses might tell the government.
The investigation centers on the 2010 land purchase that relocated Burlington College to a new campus on more than 32 acres along Lake Champlain. While lining up a $6.7 million loan and additional financing, Sanders told college trustees and lenders that the college had commitments for millions of dollars in donations that could be used to repay the loan, according to former trustees and state officials.
Trustees said they later discovered that many of the donors had not agreed to the amounts or timing of the donations listed on documents Jane Sanders provided to a state bonding agency and a bank. That led to her resignation in 2011 amid complaints from some trustees that she had provided inaccurate information, former college officials said.
The land deal, the officials said, became a financial albatross for the 160-student school, contributing to its closure last year.
Response to Gothmog (Reply #11)
BannonsLiver This message was self-deleted by its author.
tallahasseedem
(6,716 posts)a couple of very easy questions since last night. Shall we expect more?
Really?
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)It seems that she might have gone far past the obvious gross incompetence. The rest is just to muddy the waters.
Considering how bad Jane looks in all of this, even under the best of circumstances, I think people that keep bringing it up have certain motives. We are out of the primaries. Let it run its course.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)I have not heard credible sources implicating Bernie in the investigation.
MineralMan
(146,318 posts)it turns up. I assume it will not rely on hearsay but on actual facts. I can wait for the results just fine. Until then, I know no more than you do, which is not very much.