http://www.cbsnews.com/news/source-of-fr...s-hearsay/

TLDR: Republican lawmaker hears of the story from banking friends. He decides that wasn't enough to warrant reporting it because it was hearsay and his banking friends weren't even involved in the loan negotiations themselves but were rather relaying information from somewhere else. A republican lawyer hears about it through the lawmaker and reports it to the AG.

So just to be clear: a banker heard it from someone else who told a lawmaker who didn't think it had merit who told a lawyer and that's the source of this whole fiasco.

on the bright side republicans even though yall looked like morons by falling for this at least it's better than thinking there is a chid sex ring in the basement of a pizza shop that doesn't have a basement.

Lol. Sad desperation

(07-05-2017 10:01 AM)shere khan Wrote:  Lol. Sad desperation

so to be clear: you won't admit to an obvious red flag regarding this story?

To be clear. Lol

(07-05-2017 10:05 AM)shere khan Wrote:  To be clear. Lol

leave it to shere khan to have a "yes or no" question be too complicated for him.

Hmmmm...hearsay is plenty to open up an investigation.

Hell, hearsay is admissible in some hearings.

So, the crappy pants libturds want to ignore the FACTS of the case.

FACT: Jane Sanders fraudulently reported to state and banking regulators donation amounts which were incorrect and very overstated. Very, very overstated.

FACT: Jane Sanders reported one donor of one million dollars, even though the donor said she would not donate the money until her death.

FACT: Jane Sanders tried unsuccessfully to get the above woman to sign papers which would force her to start donating money earlier than her death, but she refused.

None of that is based on hearsay. There are documents that back that up.

And you dont seem to be bothered in the least that a sitting Senator told the bank to "Get the deal done." That should, at the very least, bring him up on ethics charges. It could also be criminal.

BUT MUH HEARSAY!

(07-05-2017 10:05 AM)shere khan Wrote:  To be clear. Lol

...am certain if a board vote was taken, ol 'johnny, tennis skirt, and castrated bison win 'the fragE-0le award' running away...

Most investigations involve the use of hearsay. It's not a big deal at the investigatory stage.

(07-05-2017 10:15 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  So, the crappy pants libturds want to ignore the FACTS of the case.

FACT: Jane Sanders fraudulently reported to state and banking regulators donation amounts which were incorrect and very overstated. Very, very overstated.

FACT: Jane Sanders reported one donor of one million dollars, even though the donor said she would not donate the money until her death.

FACT: Jane Sanders tried unsuccessfully to get the above woman to sign papers which would force her to start donating money earlier than her death, but she refused.

None of that is based on hearsay. There are documents that back that up.

And you dont seem to be bothered in the least that a sitting Senator told the bank to "Get the deal done." That should, at the very least, bring him up on ethics charges. It could also be criminal.

BUT MUH HEARSAY!

Lemme guess: from infowars?

(07-05-2017 10:15 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  So, the crappy pants libturds want to ignore the FACTS of the case.

FACT: Jane Sanders fraudulently reported to state and banking regulators donation amounts which were incorrect and very overstated. Very, very overstated.

FACT: Jane Sanders reported one donor of one million dollars, even though the donor said she would not donate the money until her death.

FACT: Jane Sanders tried unsuccessfully to get the above woman to sign papers which would force her to start donating money earlier than her death, but she refused.

None of that is based on hearsay. There are documents that back that up.

And you dont seem to be bothered in the least that a sitting Senator told the bank to "Get the deal done." That should, at the very least, bring him up on ethics charges. It could also be criminal.

BUT MUH HEARSAY!

This is why i lol at john.

U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders and his bride, Jane, have become the Bonnie and Clyde of national Democratic politics — the law is hot on their trail as the lovebirds restlessly move from one hideout to another.

The difference, of course, is that Bonnie and Clyde were dirt poor, while Sen. Sanders, the 75-year-old Social Justice Warrior, reported an income of $1,052,000 last year
And Bonnie and Clyde lived in their car. Mr. and Mrs. Sanders own three fabulous homes — a four-bedroom in Burlington, a townhouse on Capitol Hill, as well as their new summer cottage on Lake Champlain that they bought for $575,000 cash last summer.


http://www.bostonherald.com/news/columni..._loan_deal

(07-05-2017 10:29 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-05-2017 10:15 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  So, the crappy pants libturds want to ignore the FACTS of the case.

FACT: Jane Sanders fraudulently reported to state and banking regulators donation amounts which were incorrect and very overstated. Very, very overstated.

FACT: Jane Sanders reported one donor of one million dollars, even though the donor said she would not donate the money until her death.

FACT: Jane Sanders tried unsuccessfully to get the above woman to sign papers which would force her to start donating money earlier than her death, but she refused.

None of that is based on hearsay. There are documents that back that up.

And you dont seem to be bothered in the least that a sitting Senator told the bank to "Get the deal done." That should, at the very least, bring him up on ethics charges. It could also be criminal.

BUT MUH HEARSAY!

Lemme guess: from infowars?

You really need to educate yourself from some real news sources before you post. It would make you appear much less idiotic.

These are FACTS of the case. Not speculations. Not Fake News. FACTS. The woman who was to be the million dollar donor has already spoken out, confirmed her million dollars was to be upon her death and no sooner, and confirmed that Jane Sanders tried to get her to sign some papers which could have forced the donor to start donating sooner than upon her death. And when Jane wasnt trying to trick donors into giving away their money sooner, she was trying to throw out the residents of one of the buildings in which she was under contract to help relocate.

(07-05-2017 10:43 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-05-2017 10:29 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-05-2017 10:15 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  So, the crappy pants libturds want to ignore the FACTS of the case.

FACT: Jane Sanders fraudulently reported to state and banking regulators donation amounts which were incorrect and very overstated. Very, very overstated.

FACT: Jane Sanders reported one donor of one million dollars, even though the donor said she would not donate the money until her death.

FACT: Jane Sanders tried unsuccessfully to get the above woman to sign papers which would force her to start donating money earlier than her death, but she refused.

None of that is based on hearsay. There are documents that back that up.

And you dont seem to be bothered in the least that a sitting Senator told the bank to "Get the deal done." That should, at the very least, bring him up on ethics charges. It could also be criminal.

BUT MUH HEARSAY!

Lemme guess: from infowars?

You really need to educate yourself from some real news sources before you post. It would make you appear much less idiotic.

These are FACTS of the case. Not speculations. Not Fake News. FACTS. The woman who was to be the million dollar donor has already spoken out, confirmed her million dollars was to be upon her deat hand no sooner, and confirmed that Jane Sanders tried to get her to sign some papers which could have forced the donor to start donating sooner than upon her death. And when Jane wasnt trying to trick donors into giving away their money sooner, she was trying to throw out the residents of one of the buildings in which she was under contract to help relocate.

So infowars it is then.

I don't think anything comes of this.

The question will remain, at what point did her overestimating donations become lying about donations. That's not an easy thing to draw a line on.

Personally, I think she lied her ******* ass off.

Many investigations are based on anonymous tips, ie. hearsay. Yes it is the AG's responsibility to separate the good tips from the bad tips. But if it appears that something is wrong, it is their responsibility to investigate.

The VA scandal of patients waiting months for appointments was started by a "hearsay" tip.

The Maddow scandal wasn't uncovered by the SEC staff but by a rival fund manager kept telling the SEC that there was no way Maddow could be doing what he was doing. He didn't have proof, only intuition and reported it. Therefore, hearsay.

Woodward and Bernstein relied on "hearsay" to start their investigation into Watergate. And we all know where that went.

I could go on but maybe you'll get the hint.

(07-05-2017 10:49 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I don't think anything comes of this.

The question will remain, at what point did her overestimating donations become lying about donations. That's not an easy thing to draw a line on.

Personally, I think she lied her ******* ass off.

Doesn't matter. If she knowingly overstated donations on a loan application that is bank fraud. Pretty simple.

(07-05-2017 11:05 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(07-05-2017 10:49 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I don't think anything comes of this.

The question will remain, at what point did her overestimating donations become lying about donations. That's not an easy thing to draw a line on.

Personally, I think she lied her ******* ass off.

Doesn't matter. If she knowingly overstated donations on a loan application that is bank fraud. Pretty simple.

...not quite

Fraud requires specific intent.

The point of my comment is that there is a not so clear line between simply being wrong and actively bullshitting.

(07-05-2017 11:07 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(07-05-2017 11:05 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(07-05-2017 10:49 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I don't think anything comes of this.

The question will remain, at what point did her overestimating donations become lying about donations. That's not an easy thing to draw a line on.

Personally, I think she lied her ******* ass off.

Doesn't matter. If she knowingly overstated donations on a loan application that is bank fraud. Pretty simple.

...not quite

Fraud requires specific intent.

The point of my comment is that there is a not so clear line between simply being wrong and actively bullshitting.

However, estimating donations should have an in-place policy and process.

For example: Committed donations + an amount of impromptu donations = anticipated donations.

If the number used to acquire the loan deviates materially from the amount of expected donations per policy then that could be basis for misstatement of fact.

(07-05-2017 11:11 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(07-05-2017 11:07 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(07-05-2017 11:05 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(07-05-2017 10:49 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I don't think anything comes of this.

The question will remain, at what point did her overestimating donations become lying about donations. That's not an easy thing to draw a line on.

Personally, I think she lied her ******* ass off.

Doesn't matter. If she knowingly overstated donations on a loan application that is bank fraud. Pretty simple.

...not quite

Fraud requires specific intent.

The point of my comment is that there is a not so clear line between simply being wrong and actively bullshitting.

However, estimating donations should have an in-place policy and process.

For example: Committed donations + an amount of impromptu donations = anticipated donations.

If the number used to acquire the loan deviates materially from the amount of expected donations per policy then that could be basis for misstatement of fact.

That's very true.

But, then the question becomes, is a failure to have a policy or follow a policy rise to the level of intent to commit fraud?