A solid breaking story.

Not a lawyer but this looks bad.

At least for those who choose to run as Democrats.

And we have learned that the percieved sins the spouse will indeed be applied to the candidate.

should make sure they are. Jane Sanders clearly did not do everything by the book and was a poor administrator, but for her sake I hope it doesn't get worse.

I can see why.

The ability to take counsel is important.

... and it brings other things into clearer focus too. (And I'll just leave it at that without going into details.)

have remembered. Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. This is a problem of her own making, and the only real reason I don't want to see an indictment is because it might hurt Democrats. Their hypocrisy makes it hard for me to feel sympathy for them, especially after the campaign they ran and damage they did.

her legal vulnerability pretty well, and thus also his as a public figure.

But very importantly, Jane did not create this situation because she dishonestly claimed that Hillary and the party were corrupt. Jane's in trouble because of her own previous actions as president of Burlington College.

Hillary and the party have nothing to do with her legal troubles. And how we feel about indictment and damage to the party that Sanders briefly joined are also irrelevant to this case.

When headed by ethical people, the U.S. attorney's office has always been largely independent of political influence. That's how it was set up to be. Even now, under the Trump administration, that holds for most legal cases. We can't tell Van de Graaf or his boss to back off. Even Trump might have to find a way to fire two or three people to put it away. Not going to happen.

This specific post doesn't change my opinion. The US Attorney's investigation of Jane Sanders was orchestrated from the get go by a GOP operative. It was political at the outset and may well prove to be nothing more than that. Yet many comments here imply that there is guilt -- as did yours about Bernie not taking counsel or something to that effect. That was a two-fer on your part.

They pretty much know what she did, so now the question is about legality.

It is a legitimate investigation no matter who referred it.

Because that's what you're saying.

Or do you still not understand what a grand jury is?

Here you go:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/03/politics/what-is-a-grand-jury/index.html

Now, why don't you tell us how that "GOP operative" orchestrated a grand jury? Bringing a lawsuit is one thing, but a federal judge deciding that there was enough there to merit a grand jury is something else entirely.

And because it went several feet over your head.... Bernie should have listened to Jane's counsel on this. But he's not known for taking counsel from anyone who disagrees with him.

Jane understood the implications that an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the loan might have to a POTUS campaign, because there was enough problematic in the situation to create "bad optics." Even with no actual illegal activity on her part.

No, I didn't "imply guilt" - you did.

Is that clearer?

Still being nasty I see. You know, there's really no call for that.

You did imply guilt whether you intended to or not. I have my opinion on that -- based on about 18 month's worth of evidence.

And no, I didn't imply guilt - you inferred it.

Taking responsibility for your own mistaken assumptions, and not doubling down when you are wrong are skills adults need to gain credibility in discussions. Avoiding responsibility for your own reactions to others is a recipie for disaster - both in interactions with strangers and your relationships.

I suggest you look into developing those skills.

This was in Oct. How long does it take before, or not, a bill of indictment is delivered.

is going to happen.

is likely being investigated by doj at this point. But getting to the point of a grand jury means they smell blood in the water.

You just know the nsa, cia, and all homeland security assets are trained on the dems. Not to mention putins assets.

As far as I'm concerned, bernies time to run has passed. He should just serve out his career in the senate until he is ready to retire.. But his not running should be because the dems decide that, not right wing hit squads.

They would have gone home long ago if there was nothing there.

Notice how few replies there are to this thread. Interesting.

Just because you look doesn't mean you will find. They obviously found something.

But if there will be charges, they will be timed for any election run bernie might make. When is he up for re-election btw?

thinking that gripped the Right... Let's not promote the same Witch Hunt mentality for Bernie.

Is the grand jury convened by Mueller a "gotcha" too?

Sorry if you don't like it.

Sorry if you don't like them. Luckily, most here do.

And those kind of things stick, no matter how they are debunked, and are used against candidates.

Jane knew that. She knew that Burlington College's bankruptcy would become an issue in any of Candidate Sanders' higher education policies if he got as far as the nomination.

Last edited Wed Jan 10, 2018, 07:34 AM - Edit history (1)

would have stopped if they'd found nothing the first time...It could very well be a hit job.

Not recalling that the FBI got to that point in the investigation.

Can you refresh my memory on that?

Remember now?

Last edited Mon Jan 8, 2018, 11:43 AM - Edit history (4)

Was there a grand jury convened for Benghazi or not?

It's like asking a Trump supporter if they remembered him saying, on tape, that he liked to grab women by the pussy, and them retorting with, "That one woman dropped the rape charged. You remember now?"

Then again, perhaps you aren't clear on the difference between a congressional investigation, and one conducted by law enforcement. The FBI ended their criminal investigation of Benghazi, without seeing a need to call a grand jury for HRC's role in it, so the GOP Congress decided to start their own investigation.

That was a politically action, not a judiciary one, such as a grand jury.

Federal judges impanel grand juries. Congresspersons start congressional investigations. See the difference?

There is an ongoing investigation concerning a land deal that Jane Sanders orchestrated concerning potential criminal conduct, indicated by the impaneling of a grand jury. There was not one impaneled for criminal conduct concerning Hillary Clinton's role in Benghazi.

This is not congress going after a potential democratic candidate for president, this is the justice system investigating evidence of a possible crime.

"Most grand juries hear evidence only presented by a prosecutor, using subpoenas to gather documents, physical evidence, and witnesses to testify."

Is that clearer?

You're welcome.

I'm guessing it's me who just may have "hit a nerve".

Going back to 2016, when the investigation started.

It's like arguing with Trump supporters, for all respect for facts. The outrage that anyone would dare to think that a grand jury would be an indication of actual wrongdoing....

No one but the anti-Bernie contingent is even very interested!

investigations and justice department investigations.

As we know too well, although sometimes ethical, the former can also be nothing more than political weapons designed to fire huge lies.

As we are also seeing, JD investigations are applications of law meant to be independent of politics. Even with an intensely corrupt person appointed to head the JD, there are strong limits to the influence of political machinations. The law rules and the wheels of justice grind on, even under Sessions.

Politics and prosecutorial '"agendas" are NOT unknown either...They may be "meant" to be independent of such things, but they don't always succeed.

men are involved. But no relevance here.

After two years of observation, I find it entirely credible that Jane shares her husband's ethics, zealotry and even general level of competence. After all, zealotry and competence don't exactly go together, nor do zealotry and respect for ethical boundaries. The typical grand righteousness of zealots too often makes ignoring them seem the higher good.

Personally, it's a shame that that Jane failed to realize her ambitious dreams for that nice little college that was in need of rescue. There is no advantage to anyone in that, including the Democratic Party; and the outcome of this shabby little case similarly in practical terms does not matter to us. The kind of people who are vulnerable to Sanders' rhetoric would choose whatever reality or alternate reality satisfies, as would the right should the need arise.

including yours, I'm afraid, in your attempts to seem "objective" about the Sanders.

Didn't turn out that way. Warren bowed out, and I'm no fool to be swept up by demagoguery.

Nor, btw, am I the kind of person who would ever tolerate, much less support, an attempt to have superdelegates set aside the majority vote to effectively appoint a nominee. That would be a supreme betrayal of all principles and duties that in itself should disqualify anyone from leadership in a democratic republic. As for those who would support setting my vote aside to steal the election, that would also be a very revealing and defining move.

I am a liberal progressive Democrat who is committed to the continuance of our republic and the democratic principles on which it was founded. I can say that and it is actually true.

don't agree, that's fine. I'm not interested in re-fighting the primaries, though, and even I we're, DU rules disallow it.

actual response.

More like a pooch peeing on a bush.

Federal grand juries generally meet for 18 months over which they hear hundreds of cases. Except in exceptionally complex cases, a case is presented and an indictment comes down during the same week and the grand jury moves on to the next case.

This acting like the grand jury is still looking at Jane Sanders is wishful thinking by an embittered minority of Democrats.

....and Gates. Plus, there are still other sealed indictments as a result of Mueller's investigation.

Why prosecutors asked for sealed indictments? Is there some grand conspiracy that VTDigger hasn't uncovered that the AUSA is trying to protect from being revealed so the unindicted co-conspirators don't flee or destroy evidence?

If the underlying bitterness motivating this weren't so sad this would be friggin'

I don't recall that there was.

pissant crap we've been hearing from the anti-Bernie contingent from day one. I know it, you know it. You can almost hear the drooling in this thread.

a political action like a Congressional investigation, and act like they are the same, because you feel a need to defend Bernie Sanders no matter what.

You can almost hear the snarling in this thread from those that see persecution of Bernie in anything but the highest praise and lockstep with his opinions.

Come on now... admit it.

There are some on this thread sounding like Trump supporters do when there's a grand jury called for the Mueller investigation - complete with false equivalencies to Hillary....

This is just a lot of drooling over potential bad news by some folks who wish bad news for Bernie. I'm just pointing out the obvious here.

Have to chuckle at the Trump supporter analogy. I thought something very similar immediately in response to one of your earlier posts in this back and forth but ...

Just pointing out the obvious here.

Getting defensive is one way to deal with fear.

Perhaps you'll use another retort than a red herring next time you are corrected on a topic.

Perhaps stopping before you swallow your foot would be a start.

Nasty.

of a big Bernie/Jane "Gotcha'"..Most of us just don't feel that level of animosity toward them

You go ahead, though..We certainly wouldn't want to ruin your "fun".

And seeing "animosity" where there is "fact."

but continue the anticipatory schadenfreude.

What next? Peeing on something?

It's ugly, and I'll never understand it. I don't know whether it's ignorance, anti-Semitism, or what.

Last edited Mon Jan 8, 2018, 03:43 PM - Edit history (1)

And I thought Bernie was an atheist.

Why do you think that the federal judge hates Bernie? Especially since Bernie says that the Grand Jury isn't about him or Jane?

Or Paul Van de Graaf? Why would he be persecuting Bernie?

And why do people think that the Vermont Digger is anti-Bernie for reporting on this?

Yeah, someone up-thread did question VTDigger. I think that was without basis myself. But that certainly doesn't mean Jane is guilty of as some here insinuate.

vTDigger got caught in a lie and had to edit the article.

So threre's that.

his own commentary about that word. So it's not as Lots of Laughter as you are trying to pass off.

Thanks for chiming in by the way.

Personally, I just can't let crap like this slide when it has the history it has here and is so transparent.

So let them stew in it.

And you are quite welcome, btw --I'm
exactly the same way.

Last edited Mon Jan 8, 2018, 02:40 PM - Edit history (1)

Just an FYI.

Even if Jeff Weaver is shouting from the rooftops that it's a lie.

Calling Robin Lloyd a liar might come back and smack them in the face.

At least among those who value facts.

and dollars for decades to support the only thing standing between us and fascism going back to Nixon are just haters, then you are not paying attention or giving the Democratic Party and it's core muscle and supporters respect.

And before you hit the button, I am not saying Sanders represents fascism.

It seems you are putting words in the poster's mouth. He didn't say or call anyone "just haters". He described a behavior that is perceived by some towards Mr. Sanders. That is all -- it wasn't a personal insult.

A nice little college was completely destroyed...

Last edited Mon Jan 8, 2018, 04:27 PM - Edit history (2)

by the GOP.

If anything, the GOP has shown very little opposition to Sanders's POTUS aspirations, so this isn't something that sounds like a right wing supported investigation at all.

And the Attorney General who took up this case did it in the Obama administration.

Equating posting a story that there is a grand jury convened does not = "supporting" the Toensings any more than agreeing that Edwards had an affair means you are a fan of the National Enquirer.

Hillary was the frontrunner. If bernie were the nominee, he would be destroyed. totally. completely.

Hillary was attacked, ultimately defeated, but not destroyed in the process. bernie would be.

The only reason the gop and russians propped him up was to siphon votes from hillary. bernie played right into it. Stein benefitted also.