Bernie and Jane Sanders, under FBI investigation

[CleveRocks]

It certainly doesn't sound like they were directly trying to enrich themselves -- the loan was for the college, not for them. Of course, her salary was paid by the College, so if it went under, she'd lose her job and income.

I don't think the mere fact others signed off on the deal insulates her - it is entirely possible that the CFO didn't want to lose his/her job either, and was willing to fudge on the loan documents to keep the school open. We kind of saw something similar at Penn State -- multiple executives put the prosperity/reputation of "the school" above moral, ethical behavior.

But, frankly like the Trump stories, it's something we're going to wait to see how the facts eventually play out.

They dont have to be enriching themselves to break the law. Lying about income on a loan application , even if it's for a good cause is still fraud. Using your office to influence a bad loan from a public institution does not sound legal, but i couldnt point to a statute..

As it happens during the same period my sister worked as an accountant for a music school in New Hampshire. The president of the institution was not a financial person and she pressured my sister to cook the books and represent donations as higher than they actually were. My sister refused to comply with this pressure and eventually she left the job.

That's what the cfo's job actually is two provide guidance to the executive as to what the numbers actually are and whatis fiscally be possible. But the president remains culpable for these types of decisions. But I agree with your final thought the only way that will know us to let it play out.

 

[bob2the2nd]

It's a simple enough question -- what is the actual crime involving Trump and Russia? And I'm not talking about claimed obstruction into the investigation of a crime -- I'm talking about the actual underlying crime for which he is being investigated?

Hillary was being investigated for putting classified material on an unclassified server -- there was a specific criminal statute at issue. Ms. Sanders is being investigated for criminal fraud in a loan application. Those are both crimes -- you can point to a statute and say "that's what we're looking at."

What is the underling crime for which Trump is being investigated?

OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE IS A CRIME. Nixon resigned because of obstruction of justice. a president of the united states resigned because of obstruction of justice. So let me make this very clear. If the president obstructed justice, he is guilty of a crime so significant prior precedence indicates he should resign over. PERIOD.

That said, if you were paying attention which you are clearly not. Robert Mueller has hired a litany of specialists including those that specialize in tax evasion, RICO cases, organized crime, money laundering, former deputy assistant attorney general, and a guy that was helped investigated Watergate. So if you want a specific crime, i dont know, because i dont work for Robert Mueller but just taking a guess......

possible things he could be currently under investigation for are

1)obstruction of justice
2)connections to organized crime
3)tax evasion
4) money laundering.

i mean im not an expert but those sound pretty serious.

that said because this is a thread about bernie sanders, i do believe 100% he needs to be investigated. If there is a connection there, and he might be guilty of a crime then yes, i do think he should be investigated. Same as hillary clinton, same as presiden trump, the same as anyone else that calls themselves an american citizen.

 

[DJTJ]

People in glass houses hurling stones?

If she did something illegal, she can go down for it. If Bernie Sanders did something illegal, he can go down, too.

Unfortunately, that's not really a one way street...

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

So if you want a specific crime, i dont know,

That's what I thought.

The Sanders -- specific crime being investigated. Hillary -- specifically crime being investigated although apparently the idea of the Special Counsel was something the Obama Administration never considered. In both of those cases, there was at least a prima facie case of criminal misconduct, on specific criminal statutes.

Trump? Well....maybe he did something wrong. We'll let you know if we find it.

Now, maybe you think that's justified anyway. But if that is the case, then someone mocking the investigation into Sanders because of who tipped off the FBI, and the constant cries of "witch hunt" with respect to Hillary, and the failure to appoint an independent prosecutor, are simply a joke.

 

[Huber.]

Trump is not under an FBI investigation. Bernie Sanders is

How do we know Donald Trump is not under an FBI investigation? Well, James Comey told us. He not only told us, but he told Chuck Schumer who, even after being told, still claimed President Trump was being investigated.

But we also know the president is not being investigated because everything has been leaked except that. The media, which has even leaked lies that they had to retract, has not leaked this. The president is not under investigation for collaborating with the Russians.

The irony here is rich. Democrats have rallied to Bernie Sanders as the leader of the opposition against Donald Trump. He attracts huge crowds across the nation. One of his acolytes tried to assassinate members of Congress. And Bernie Sanders is under investigation by the FBI, unlike the president.

In fact, Sanders and his wife are both under investigation stemming from a bank loan. The FBI is investigating whether Sanders used his position to pressure the bank to give a college in Vermont a loan. His wife is the president of the college and signed the paperwork.

So President Trump did not pressure James Comey, but Bernie Sanders might have pressured a bank. The FBI is now investigating. And still the left will rally to Sanders because they really do not care about the allegations.

They just hate Donald Trump.

 

[AZ_]

Trump is not under an FBI investigation. Bernie Sanders is

How do we know Donald Trump is not under an FBI investigation? Well, James Comey told us. He not only told us, but he told Chuck Schumer who, even after being told, still claimed President Trump was being investigated.

But we also know the president is not being investigated because everything has been leaked except that. The media, which has even leaked lies that they had to retract, has not leaked this. The president is not under investigation for collaborating with the Russians.

The irony here is rich. Democrats have rallied to Bernie Sanders as the leader of the opposition against Donald Trump. He attracts huge crowds across the nation. One of his acolytes tried to assassinate members of Congress. And Bernie Sanders is under investigation by the FBI, unlike the president.

In fact, Sanders and his wife are both under investigation stemming from a bank loan. The FBI is investigating whether Sanders used his position to pressure the bank to give a college in Vermont a loan. His wife is the president of the college and signed the paperwork.

So President Trump did not pressure James Comey, but Bernie Sanders might have pressured a bank. The FBI is now investigating. And still the left will rally to Sanders because they really do not care about the allegations.

They just hate Donald Trump.

Oh man.

Just so much false equivalence and sanctimonious drivel.

 

[Huber.]

Oh man.

Just so much false equivalence and sanctimonious drivel.

Great points.

 

[AZ_]

Great points.

I mean, I won't admit to being on any sort of level close to Q-Tip or gour with regard to political issues and the mechanics of those involved.

But if you need explained to you how Trump's nefarious policies and actions toward his (and his campaign/administration's) relationship to Russia is differ in interest level or approach from what looks to be a potential error in valuation from a loan application, then it's simply not worth discussing with you.

We'll see the legitimacy to which Sanders was involved in this, as just about everyone has said.

But I don't need to see the victim mentality of conservatives whining about how people aren't treating this the same as a foreign adversary involving themselves in the election and then being rewarded with an almost exclusively pro-Russian agenda from the person they helped put in power.

 

[Huber.]

I mean, I won't admit to being on any sort of level close to Q-Tip or gour with regard to political issues and the mechanics of those involved.

But if you need explained to you how Trump's nefarious policies and actions toward his (and his campaign/administration's) relationship to Russia is differ in interest level or approach from what looks to be a potential error in valuation from a loan application, then it's simply not worth discussing with you.

We'll see the legitimacy to which Sanders was involved in this, as just about everyone has said.

But I don't need to see the victim mentality of conservatives whining about how people aren't treating this the same as a foreign adversary involving themselves in the election and then being rewarded with an almost exclusively pro-Russian agenda from the person they helped put in power.

Do you promise to post tweets every day refuting it even if no evidence comes out?

 

[AZ_]

Do you promise to post tweets every day refuting it even if no evidence comes out?

Great points.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

But if you need explained to you how Trump's nefarious policies and actions toward his (and his campaign/administration's) relationship to Russia is differ in interest level or approach from what looks to be a potential error in valuation from a loan application, then it's simply not worth discussing with you.

It was not "nefarious", much less treasonous, to think that the interests of the United States would be better served by changing the relationship with Russia that had existed under the Obama Administration. That's essentially criminalizing differences in preferred policy.

If you viewed ISIS/Islamic militancy as a greater threat than Russia, then it is perfectly reasonable to want to improve relations with Russia so that you can cooperate against ISIS, etc.. Whether or not that policy is wise or correct isn't the point. The point is that it is entirely legitimate for a President to take that approach, and Trump was open about that during the campaign.

In reality, how was his desire to reset relations with Russian any more or less legitimate that Obama's desire to reset relations with the Muslim world when he took office? The fact that people on the other side politically didn't approve of those changes doesn't make them treasonous or nefarious.

So frankly, I'd say that those actions/preferences are far more legitimate than if the Sanders engaged in an actual criminal act.

 

[AZ_]

It was not "nefarious", much less treasonous, to think that the interests of the United States would be better served by changing the relationship with Russia that had existed under the Obama Administration. That's essentially criminalizing differences in preferred policy.

If you viewed ISIS/Islamic militancy as a greater threat than Russia, then it is perfectly reasonable to want to improve relations with Russia so that you can cooperate against ISIS, etc.. Whether or not that policy is wise or correct isn't the point. The point is that it is entirely legitimate for a President to take that approach, and Trump was open about that during the campaign.

In reality, how was his desire to reset relations with Russian any more or less legitimate that Obama's desire to reset relations with the Muslim world when he took office? The fact that people on the other side politically didn't approve of those changes doesn't make them treasonous or nefarious.

So frankly, I'd say that those actions/preferences are far more legitimate than if the Sanders engaged in an actual criminal act.

So it's perfectly reasonable for a President to shrug off the intelligence community which unanimously confirmed that they were responsible for meddling in the Presidential election?

Not only that, but to continually deny their involvement until it became politically convenient (i.e. the fake news Washington Post report detailing Obama's "lack" of action on this issue?)

To buck the sanctions stemming from that action put in place by President Obama?

Are we going to ignore eight years of conservatives calling President Obama too soft on Russia, as the new administration enables their every interest?



I could buy this for maybe even half a beat, if Trump didn't completely deny the very real facts that Russia attempted to interfere with the election process and is now seemingly being rewarded for their efforts. Both in policy, and with denial by the administration they helped install.

 

[The Oi]

Everyone listen. I think you will find this brings us together.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

So it's perfectly reasonable for a President to shrug off the intelligence community which unanimously confirmed that they were responsible for meddling in the Presidential election?

That has absolutely nothing to do with the point you made about Trump's "nefarious policies" towards Russia, which were the great evil you contrasted with the Sanders.

To buck the sanctions stemming from that action put in place by President Obama?

What do you mean "buck the sanctions"? Trump had every right as a candidate to say he would consider lifting those sanctions, and every right as President to do exactly that. He is under no more obligation to keep Obama's sanctions on Russia in place than Obama was to keep the sanctions on Iran and Cuba in place.

Are we going to ignore eight years of conservatives calling President Obama too soft on Russia, as the new administration enables their every interest?

Oh please. There have always been differences of opinion regarding Russia, both between and within parties. Romney (who mutually detested Trump) was mocked in the 2012 debates for claiming that Russia was our biggest geopolitical threat. And Obama himself wanted to reset relations with Russia. Hell, at least Trump's was open during the campaign about wanting to improve relations with Russia. Obama said one thing during the campaign, then whispered "I'll have more flexibility to negotiate after the election" to the Russian Foreign Minister when he didn't know the microphones were on.

You are essentially criminalizing an openly discussed policy change with Russia, and reading something nefarious into the fact that Russia probably preferred that approach. Well, duh. What country wouldn't prefer a new U.S. President who wants better relations?

If Russia tried to influence U.S. public opinion to vote for Trump because it preferred his prospective policies to Hillary's, that does not remotely suggest or demonstrate misconduct on the part of Trump or anyone on his campaign.

 

[Tlyons]

One FBI investigation soon to be under his belt. He has a ways to go but he's on the the Trump route to President. He has AGs to bribe, black people to discriminate against and pussies (Get off your hands Bernie!!!!) to grab among other things.

Boats probably sailed on spreading his seed and creepy behavior toward own daughter.

But...you're on your way Bern!!!