HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » FBI probe into Sanders' w...

Thu Jul 6, 2017, 08:58 PM

 

FBI probe into Sanders' wife started with 'hearsay'

The Hill:

"The FBI's source for information that sparked a probe into the wife of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) admitted this week that the information he passed along was hearsay, according to a local Vermont television station.

The FBI is reportedly looking into whether Jane Sanders falsified loan documents while she served as the president of Burlington College. The small Vermont liberal arts school closed down in May 2016 after going bankrupt and failing to meet accreditation standards.

Brady Toensing, the lawyer who passed on the information to the FBI, reportedly got his information from Republican State Rep. Don Turner, who told WCAX-TV in Vermont that he heard the information from friends.

According to the report, Turner's friends who recounted the incident to him were working at the bank Sanders allegedly pressured into approving a loan. Turner told WCAX-TV that he wouldn't have shared the information with federal officials."

<more>http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news-lawmaker-news/340920-fbi-probe-into-sanders-wife-based-on-hearsay

Look like some here will have nothing to do now...


57 replies, 4490 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 57 replies Author Time Post
Reply FBI probe into Sanders' wife started with 'hearsay' (Original post)
Trial_By_Fire Jul 2017 OP
NCTraveler Jul 2017 #1
Trial_By_Fire Jul 2017 #2
NCTraveler Jul 2017 #3
AngryAmish Jul 2017 #4
Hassin Bin Sober Jul 2017 #15
R B Garr Jul 2017 #20
Hassin Bin Sober Jul 2017 #22
R B Garr Jul 2017 #23
Hassin Bin Sober Jul 2017 #25
AngryAmish Jul 2017 #27
karynnj Jul 2017 #44
Lee-Lee Jul 2017 #32
Hassin Bin Sober Jul 2017 #34
R B Garr Jul 2017 #38
Hassin Bin Sober Jul 2017 #45
R B Garr Jul 2017 #47
Hassin Bin Sober Jul 2017 #52
Post removed Jul 2017 #54
karynnj Jul 2017 #46
Hassin Bin Sober Jul 2017 #51
Demsrule86 Jul 2017 #40
R B Garr Jul 2017 #43
Demsrule86 Jul 2017 #48
Hassin Bin Sober Jul 2017 #50
R B Garr Jul 2017 #53
Demsrule86 Jul 2017 #55
blueinredohio Jul 2017 #5
Adrahil Jul 2017 #7
Trial_By_Fire Jul 2017 #6
LisaM Jul 2017 #8
NCTraveler Jul 2017 #10
LisaM Jul 2017 #26
Demsrule86 Jul 2017 #39
NCTraveler Jul 2017 #41
Demsrule86 Jul 2017 #49
NCTraveler Jul 2017 #56
Demsrule86 Jul 2017 #57
left-of-center2012 Jul 2017 #9
elleng Jul 2017 #11
seaglass Jul 2017 #12
Trial_By_Fire Jul 2017 #13
NCTraveler Jul 2017 #16
Gothmog Jul 2017 #19
Demsrule86 Jul 2017 #37
Demsrule86 Jul 2017 #42
LaydeeBug Jul 2017 #14
GulfCoast66 Jul 2017 #17
Gothmog Jul 2017 #18
Hassin Bin Sober Jul 2017 #24
geek tragedy Jul 2017 #28
Gothmog Jul 2017 #29
Lee-Lee Jul 2017 #33
Lee-Lee Jul 2017 #21
Gothmog Jul 2017 #30
Lee-Lee Jul 2017 #31
Demsrule86 Jul 2017 #35
Trial_By_Fire Jul 2017 #36

Response to Trial_By_Fire (Original post)

Thu Jul 6, 2017, 09:01 PM

1. I'm not sure why some want to keep bringing up this topic.

 

Makes no sense to me. It seem to be brought up as a way to continue the discussion on how she destroyed a school with a gross display of incompetence. Let's leave that to the Republicans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #1)

Thu Jul 6, 2017, 09:02 PM

2. ...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trial_By_Fire (Reply #2)

Thu Jul 6, 2017, 09:04 PM

3. I don't think you are asleep at the wheel.

 

I think it's intentional.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trial_By_Fire (Original post)

Thu Jul 6, 2017, 09:04 PM

4. Mortgage fraud is a very easy thing to prove/disprove.

 

If you say your income is x, and it is not, then you go to prison.

It is usually a seven witness trial.

Failing is not a crime. Lying on federal forms is.

The truth will out.

BTW, the hearsay thing, pretrial, is about the stupidest thing possible. If a policeman chases down a purse snatcher, tackles them hauls them to a station and types out a report...that is hearsay. Hearsay is an out of court statement meant to support the truth of the matter asserted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AngryAmish (Reply #4)

Thu Jul 6, 2017, 11:02 PM

15. Nonsense.

People "state" their income all the time and make errors. That doesn't make it criminal.

We've had this ongoing discussion for years in my mortgage office.

Ask a self employed person his or her income and I guarantee it will differ from what the underwriter says it is. By a bunch.

Now doctoring up W2s or fraudulent tax returns is a different story. Mortgage fraud is "very easy" when people do stupid shit like that.

From what I've read of the story the proposed donation income was just that. Proposed. The whole deal seemed very loose. Unless someone said something VERY stupid in an email, it seems like a whole bunch of he said she said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hassin Bin Sober (Reply #15)

Fri Jul 7, 2017, 12:00 AM

20. Do your clients misrepresent their income by up to 50%??

Amazing. Does Jane Sanders get a pass for overinflating assets, even though her husband maligns anyone close to Wall Street as frauds. Overinflated assets were the main reason for the meltdown.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R B Garr (Reply #20)

Fri Jul 7, 2017, 12:27 AM

22. What assets are you talking about?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hassin Bin Sober (Reply #22)

Fri Jul 7, 2017, 12:30 AM

23. Don't you get a mortgage for an asset? Like

a house? What kind of mortgages were you talking about?

Edit-you were talking about clients misstating income in the context that what Jane Sanders did was no big deal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R B Garr (Reply #23)

Fri Jul 7, 2017, 01:06 AM

25. The appraiser sets the value of the asset. The underwriter approves/accepts the appraisal.

The client doesn't set the value.

Now ask a a self employed business owner how much they earn and the number isn't going to be what an underwriter might calculate the income at.

Example: a client earned $50k in 2015 and $300k in 2016.

Is he lying if he, states on a 2017 "stated income" loan application he earns $300k?

The underwriter is going to call his income as a two year average of $175k. It gets even more complicated when you calculate in unreimbursed business expenses and paper losses/expenses (depreciation on real estate) that aren't really losses.

No one is going to jail if that file gets audited and the customer's opinion of their own income doesn't match the traditional underwriting guidelines.

The time for due diligence is BEFORE the loan is made. Not ask for some open ended and open to interpretation of what is a bonafide donation promise and have it provided at closing.

This whole thing sounds like a "stated income" loan to me. The bank was probably ok with a loose interpretation because they were only in the loan for 60% and the church was holding the note for 40%.

The bank could have asked for a more concrete accounting of proposed donations. They didn't. It's obvious they don't feel they were defrauded. The Tensing/Digenova family of Benghazi fame is making the beef.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hassin Bin Sober (Reply #25)

Fri Jul 7, 2017, 07:49 AM

27. I personally know someone who went to prison on a stated income mortgage fraud loan

 

Self employed and some puffery. They never missed a payment. But got on the wrong side of the US Attorney.

This college went to shit and very powerful people are out for blood.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AngryAmish (Reply #27)

Fri Jul 7, 2017, 12:25 PM

44. Very powerful people?? Toensing??

Here is what he is doing now in Burlington --- http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/2017/06/30/school-student-debate-use-hindu-swastika/397717001/

The college failed 5 years after Jane Sanders left. Are you saying that different decisions made over those 5 years could not have led to a different conclusion?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hassin Bin Sober (Reply #25)

Fri Jul 7, 2017, 10:34 AM

32. There is a wide gap between a self employed person income estimate and what is alleged here

 

For example in this article:

https://www.google.com/amp/thehill.com/homenews/senate/332313-fbi-investigating-jane-sanders-for-alleged-bank-fraud-report%3Famp

They say that Sanders listed a pledge Fromm specific named donor to give $1,000,000 over 5 years. That donor says she never made that pledge at all and only pledged to leave an unspecified amount to the school in her will after she died.

That isn't a case of differing estimations or reading the numbers differently.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lee-Lee (Reply #32)

Fri Jul 7, 2017, 11:23 AM

34. And maybe there is a wide gap between what people said before the collapse and after the collapse.

It sounds to me like a bunch of he said she said. And quite possibly donors covering their asses.

At the very least nobody should be prosecuted for all of this nonsense. At least that's what reasonable people would think. Jagoffs like Bradley Toensing obviously have different opinions.

One donor is said to have given $30k but was listed for $60k. He said he never "formally" agreed to the second $30k. Okay, but did he "informally" promise the second $30k? Or did he just promise it? If the guy backed out of course he isn't going to admit to making a promise because he could be on the hook for the money. Because even verbal promises can be enforced.

The $million dollars from Maietta sounds pretty murky too. It sounds like she agreed to give a $one million dollars as a gift but then changed it to a bequest on advice of her accountant. This was done as a hedge against the college failing. She was writing checks at the time with the understanding those amounts would be deducted from the bequest amount.

Everyone keeps quoting Maietta as if her recollection and what she will say now might not be different from what she said or promised verbally to her friend the VP of Finance. There are several quotes from other people involved in the fundraising that cast a lot of doubt.



Christine Plunkett, the Finance VP at the time, seems to be the one who had the personal relationship with Maietta.


https://vtdigger.org/2017/05/04/burlington-college-donor-says-never-signed-pledge/

So much so that Maietta took the college out of her will due to how the staff and students treated Plunkett:

" Maietta said she had a personal relationship with Plunkett and was dismayed by how students and faculty treated Plunkett in 2014. When she was forced to resign under pressure from student protests, Maietta decided to remove Burlington College from her will."

In 2014, Christine Plunkett, who succeeded Sanders as Burlington College president, told WCAX in an interview about Maietta’s gift that “the understanding at the time was that it was a cash gift and we proceeded until we understood it was a bequest.”



“I know that particular donor, probably about a year after making a commitment, she began to question whether Burlington College would be successful, and that led, as I understood it, to a rescission of that commitment,” Leopold said.

Maietta said she had stopped cutting checks to Burlington College, partly based on advice she got from Moss. “He said, ‘They don’t know what they’re doing. They’re going to go belly up,’” she said.

Moss said he didn’t necessarily tell Maietta to stop giving the college money, so much as he floated the idea of leaving money in her will as a hedge against the possibility that the college might fail in its effort at expansion.

He said he had a gut feeling that the college was overextended, and by deferring the gift until her death, Maietta would be less likely to put money toward a lost cause.

In 2014, Christine Plunkett, who succeeded Sanders as Burlington College president, told WCAX in an interview about Maietta’s gift that “the understanding at the time was that it was a cash gift and we proceeded until we understood it was a bequest.”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hassin Bin Sober (Reply #34)

Fri Jul 7, 2017, 12:12 PM

38. Bernie Sanders throws the term "fraud" around very loosely.

Any one of the items you mentioned would certainly fit his loose definition of fraud. He accused all of Wall Street for being frauds and with far less evidence than this. In fact, the only evidence he had was a financial meltdown from 9 years ago now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R B Garr (Reply #38)

Fri Jul 7, 2017, 12:29 PM

45. I wouldn't go so far as to accuse the prospective donors of fraud.

People get cold feet or change their mind. They had good intentions when they made the pledges. That's all that counts.

Maietta had a valid reason for first changing her gift to a bequest (doubts about the college's viability) and later reneging on the donation/bequest due to what she felt was unfair treatment of her friend Plunkett.

I suspect a lot of other donors saw the writing on the wall and pulled their donations as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hassin Bin Sober (Reply #45)

Fri Jul 7, 2017, 12:34 PM

47. It looks like some of this might turn on how or if those pledges were

misrepresented. Blaming all misunderstanding on the donors seems more like wishful thinking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R B Garr (Reply #47)

Fri Jul 7, 2017, 01:07 PM

52. Arguing Bradley Toensing's side of this nonsense is also wishful thinking.

What do you have to gain by taking Toensing's side of this?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hassin Bin Sober (Reply #52)


Response to Hassin Bin Sober (Reply #34)

Fri Jul 7, 2017, 12:34 PM

46. It would be normal for the President to take as fact a gift listed by her CFO

Why would she question a donation that the CFO listed, where they were already getting checks? From Plunkett's comments here, it really sounds like she thought it was a gift even in 2014 - three years later.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to karynnj (Reply #46)

Fri Jul 7, 2017, 01:01 PM

51. Yes, they had received at least $100k from Maietta.

And even Maietta and her accountant admit to, at the very least, discussions of a gift and the fact it was later changed to a bequest. A bequest that would be reduced by the subsequent partial payments.

They admit they changed their mind based on the viability of the college. Later, long after Sanders left, Maietta reneged on the bequest based on the subsequent treatment of her friend, Plunkett - the former VP of finance and later college President.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hassin Bin Sober (Reply #25)

Fri Jul 7, 2017, 12:18 PM

40. No. This was pledges and there will be documentation or the bank is in trouble.

The key question here is did Jane Sanders claim more pledges than she really had. If she did, it is bank fraud...a federal crime. Now, the other charge is that Sen. Sanders used his influence at the bank. I think that would be difficult to proves one way or the other.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #40)

Fri Jul 7, 2017, 12:23 PM

43. Exactly, on everything you said. It looks like the OP posted this again

to emphasize the "hearsay" against Senator Sanders as if it is bogus all the way around, but they are separate issues. It's also just common sense that the allegation against the Senator is hearsay. Unless someone had tape recorded their conversation, and that is generally illegal in most states or there has to be explicit permission to record, it's an accusation. So, of course it is hearsay, but that obviously doesn't stop people from making accusations, as the Senator well knows from his own accusations against others.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R B Garr (Reply #43)

Fri Jul 7, 2017, 12:47 PM

48. Yeah, the idea that this is all hearsay and a witch hunt is untrue.

When I read about the pledges and the mortgage documents...I felt ill...because I know that could be a serious problem...hope it isn't. Now, with the GOP evil ones in charge of justice...how nice would it be for them to prosecute Sen. Sanders and Jane Sanders to deflect attention from Trump? I am glad they have lawyers...we don't need this shit right now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #40)

Fri Jul 7, 2017, 12:55 PM

50. I suspect the FDIC Inspector General is looking at the bank underwriting piece.

If I'm not mistaken, part of the documentation provided and accepted include a spread sheet with anonymous (Maietta) donors initials.

Maybe the bank is accustomed to dealing with wealthy donors who prefer to remain anonymous.

The whole deal seems pretty loosey goosey to me. I don't deal in the philanthropy world. But I do know wealthy people that absolutely refuse to sign anything they don't have to. I suspect most donors are reticent to sign pledges.

The loan documents say they were "to provide at closing" documentation of pledges that were in their opinion bonafide and enforceable.

What's bonafide? Would a promise to the VP of finance by someone she has a personal relationship with be bonafide?

What's enforceable? A written pledge certainly is enforceable. But so is a verbal promise - just much harder to enforce.

Bradley Toensing's mommy and daddy wanted The Clintons in prison over a land deal they lost money on, Bill impeached over a blow job, and Hillary "locked up" over some non consequential statements made after Benghazi - and her emails.

Now their spawn wants Jane Sanders "locked up" over some nonsense she didn't even stand to personally benefit from even if true.

The question is, what's YOUR stake in this nonsense?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hassin Bin Sober (Reply #50)

Fri Jul 7, 2017, 01:09 PM

53. How typical to attack people for discussing an ongoing fraud investigation.

"The question is, what's YOUR stake in this nonsense?"

It's an FBI investigation. What's YOUR stake in keeping people from discussing it? And the newfound Clinton devotion is truly remarkable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hassin Bin Sober (Reply #50)

Fri Jul 7, 2017, 01:21 PM

55. Stake? It is a discussion. As one who has taken out many mortgages and fought off Bank of America

for several years after the 08 crash successfully, I find it interesting...Countrywide bought my loan in 08 sold my loan twice to different banks before they went out of business...one of which was BOA. An epic battle ensued where I faced possible foreclosure multiple times despite having paid my mortgage to Wells Fargo...the company who we thought held our mortgage. Hubs was laid off and ultimately we had to get lawyers despite the cost. The bank and investigators went though our mortgage documents with a fine tooth comb-looking for a way to ruin us...had we put any erroneous information on this document, we would have faced federal charges.

I have to say, I am conflicted in this case. If Jane Sanders broke the law and gets away with it...It feels unfair after what I went through. I was told just admit you lied ...your sentence will be lighter... I didn't do anything wrong, and I documented everything so I refused. but if I was incompetent or a liar, it would not have mattered...My husband and I would have faced prison.It seems the wealthy and well connected have a different set of rules than we do sometimes.

Now here is the conflicted part...the Democratic Party doesn't need this sort of shit right now...it could hurt us in 18 and 20 so I hope this is a witch hunt and both Sanders are completely exonerated by even Jeff Session's corrupt Justice department. We don't need a prosecution which would distract from Trump and Russia.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trial_By_Fire (Original post)

Thu Jul 6, 2017, 09:05 PM

5. Why don't these guys start suing? Maybe they would at least slow down a little.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blueinredohio (Reply #5)

Thu Jul 6, 2017, 09:15 PM

7. Sue who? For what?

 

I think it's good they have lawyers, but if they didn't do anything wrong, this kind of investigation should be over fairly quickly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trial_By_Fire (Original post)

Thu Jul 6, 2017, 09:12 PM

6. I know...

 

...this doesn't fit the narrative... so sorry...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trial_By_Fire (Original post)

Thu Jul 6, 2017, 09:18 PM

8. I don't actually believe Sanders' office would pressure the bank.

It seems completely out of character. That angle needs to be dropped quickly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LisaM (Reply #8)

Thu Jul 6, 2017, 09:23 PM

10. I don't think his office would have the clout to pressure a bank.

 

Sanders isn't knee deep in shit or a really dirty player. I don't see where the clout to pressure would come from.

This seems more like a way to keep the conversation about Janes incompetence in the news and to create a false narrative of criminality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #10)

Fri Jul 7, 2017, 01:24 AM

26. I think she was mis-cast as a university head.

Among other things, she was against professor tenure at that college. This investigation is probably warranted but at rhis point, I don't care.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #10)

Fri Jul 7, 2017, 12:13 PM

39. I am not saying Sen. Sanders did anything wrong, but any sitting Sen. has clout.

He is very popular in Vermont. As for incompetence...I find that irritating..incompetence is not a defense if you have broken federal law. I want this to be proven untrue. It does not do our side any good. However, we will have to wait and see.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #39)

Fri Jul 7, 2017, 12:19 PM

41. That is a huge "if".

 

And I don't think he has the clout. I do agree that senators have power. Not this one. He has little power in his own state and at that time had almost no following. You have to remember that as a career politician he has only become well known outside of his very small state recently. His influence in congress has been unrecognizable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #41)

Fri Jul 7, 2017, 12:53 PM

49. He is beloved in Vermont. He does have clout which doesn't mean he used it...

also the fact she was his wife made a difference no doubt. We will see.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #49)

Fri Jul 7, 2017, 01:29 PM

56. I really disagree that he had clout.

 

A senator is a state representative at the federal level. He doesn't have the clout you say with respect to republican state representatives within his state. The clout you mention is with the people of a small state. That could only be used as a form of full fledged blackmail.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #56)

Fri Jul 7, 2017, 01:31 PM

57. I think any Senator has clout...it is a respected job... so we will just have to disagree.

And Vermont is not like other states...very small...many folks know Sen. Sanders personally according to my friend who worships him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trial_By_Fire (Original post)

Thu Jul 6, 2017, 09:18 PM

9. "got his information from Republican ..."

'nuf said.
Let's move on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trial_By_Fire (Original post)

Thu Jul 6, 2017, 09:44 PM

11. Partner with digenova and Toensing.

http://www.digenovatoensing.com/attorneybiosbt.htm

Also the chair of Donald Trump’s campaign in Vermont, Toensing is the son and stepson of a 'colorful pair' of anti-Clinton prosecutors known for their frequent commentary against Democrats on television.

http://heavy.com/news/2017/06/brady-toensing-vermont-jane-sanders-bank-fraud-mother-victoria-joseph-digenova-trump/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trial_By_Fire (Original post)

Thu Jul 6, 2017, 09:52 PM

12. Poorly written article. The hearsay was the part where Bernie supposedly pressured the bank for the

loan. The facts are that Jane Sanders provided donation commitments on loan documents that were not accurate by far. Whether incompetence or fraud, we will see.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seaglass (Reply #12)

Thu Jul 6, 2017, 09:53 PM

13. ...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trial_By_Fire (Reply #13)

Thu Jul 6, 2017, 11:04 PM

16. It's late. Might want to think about calling it a night.

 

You seem sleepy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trial_By_Fire (Reply #13)

Thu Jul 6, 2017, 11:35 PM

19. In the real world this is how these matters are handled

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seaglass (Reply #12)

Fri Jul 7, 2017, 12:09 PM

37. Putting inaccurate information on a mortgage application is a federal crime. There is no

allowance for incompetence. If you take out a mortgage anytime soon ...read it. It is notarized as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seaglass (Reply #12)

Fri Jul 7, 2017, 12:23 PM

42. The problem for the Sanders is that we have a Republican justice department...anyone

remember Don Siegelman? He is just recently out on parole. This was a political prosecution for sure. He was in jail for at least 10 years. I am glad the Sanders family has good lawyers. You can't trust Sessions and that bunch.


http://www.al.com/news/birmingham/index.ssf/2017/02/former_alabama_gov_don_siegelm_2.html fv

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trial_By_Fire (Original post)

Thu Jul 6, 2017, 09:57 PM

14. The probe into Flynnghazi started as an attack on Obama for 2012 re election.

 

The probe into HRC's 8 year old unhacked email with NO classified information whatsoever started with bullshit.

It's what they *DO*.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trial_By_Fire (Original post)

Thu Jul 6, 2017, 11:06 PM

17. I think this is as much bullshit as the Hillary Bengazi bullshit

But the damage is done. Even though I feel that way, despite my best efforts, I cannot help rolling in a little schadenfreude due to all the aspersions I have read here about Establishment Democrats.

And with those feeling I know I am being played by the republicans. And apparently the Russians. Just like all the Liberal haters of Hillary and we establishment Democrats were and are being played.

But I realize I am being played.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trial_By_Fire (Original post)

Thu Jul 6, 2017, 11:34 PM

18. The FBI according to numerous accounts is actively investigating this complaint

The FBI investigation is real and there are reports of some troubling facts. It is against the law to make a false statement to a federally insured financial institution. If that financial institution suffers a real loss to a false statement, then the FBI or other regulator will investigate. There are numerous reports of persons being interviewed by the FBI. It appears that a tax payer insured institution suffered a loss due to these transactions and so I am not surprised that there is an investigation.

The OP does not affect the validity or seriousness of the current FBI investigaton.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #18)

Fri Jul 7, 2017, 12:30 AM

24. This is not an investigation. It's a security review.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hassin Bin Sober (Reply #24)

Fri Jul 7, 2017, 08:39 AM

28. Federal Bureau of Security Reviews nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hassin Bin Sober (Reply #24)

Fri Jul 7, 2017, 09:25 AM

29. Do you have support for this assertion

There are numerous articles on the Sanders lawyering up and the FBI interviewing witnesses. Your claim is not true

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #29)

Fri Jul 7, 2017, 10:35 AM

33. Really?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trial_By_Fire (Original post)

Fri Jul 7, 2017, 12:26 AM

21. Many criminal investigations start with hearsay

 

It's a totally different standard than testifying in court.

You can't testify to hearsay in court.

You can take what would be considered hearsay in court, investigate it and find more hard facts and first hand witness and get a conviction.

A whole lot of criminal investigations start with "word is that xxxxx" or "people are saying xxxx" from informants. That would fly as testimony in court but it's enough to look in and see if there is validity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lee-Lee (Reply #21)

Fri Jul 7, 2017, 09:27 AM

30. There is evidently a real investigation here

It does not matter how the investigation started. The Sanders have lawyered up and the FBI has interviewed witnesses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #30)

Fri Jul 7, 2017, 10:25 AM

31. Yup

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trial_By_Fire (Original post)

Fri Jul 7, 2017, 12:05 PM

35. This has been posted before and again this article deals with the allegation against Sen. Sanders.

It does not deal with the charge that Jane Sanders falsified mortgage documents . Why post this again?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #35)

Fri Jul 7, 2017, 12:07 PM

36. ...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread