tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6604414.post4132050156276074689..comments2024-03-24T15:27:49.804-04:00Comments on CANNONFIRE: BOMBSHELL! Did Bernie break Senate rules?Joseph Cannonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10574779960109698980noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6604414.post-90129251028021614572016-05-30T00:18:48.034-04:002016-05-30T00:18:48.034-04:00Seeing diGenova/Toensing on the letter head might ...Seeing diGenova/Toensing on the letter head might as well be Drudge, Joe. Their (especially her) behavior and lies during the Valerie Plame investigation should have been enough to get them dis-barred. But we'll see. But once you get your wish and Bernie goes away, we will get to watch that pair in action for the next several rehashing every Clinton conspiracy known to sling their slime on the wall hoping something sticks.Tom Matlockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11177852851337383078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6604414.post-79426003139656709952016-05-29T19:32:32.239-04:002016-05-29T19:32:32.239-04:00Harry, a resoundingly polite response from you.Harry, a resoundingly polite response from you.Alessandro Machihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06316327488702524564noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6604414.post-56630857377855471092016-05-29T19:31:16.137-04:002016-05-29T19:31:16.137-04:00If Sanders or his office contacted the Bank to app...If Sanders or his office contacted the Bank to approve the loan, that sounds problematical to me. As for Fox News being involved, why would Fox News suddenly want Bernie Sanders to fail? I thought the conservative game plan was to get Bernie past Hillary or have Bernie damage Ms. Clinton enough so that Trump wins.<br />The "you" should be "your" typo, was that made by Mr. Cannon or the Lawyer?Alessandro Machihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06316327488702524564noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6604414.post-50389655802599021932016-05-29T16:37:06.839-04:002016-05-29T16:37:06.839-04:00Good stuff. I read about it earlier in the day but...Good stuff. I read about it earlier in the day but didn't pick up on the Senate rules. Dropped a "b" in bombshell above. re "HERE'S THE BOMSHELL" (I hate it when I do that and its days before I notice it.)Bob Harrisonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05242937151007030508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6604414.post-64838062145220771452016-05-29T16:12:34.987-04:002016-05-29T16:12:34.987-04:00If the lawyers are conservatives this means that S...If the lawyers are conservatives this means that Sanders exhausted his usefulness for them. It tells if he had won it would have been slaughter from day one. He wouldn't know what hit him. Thank God that democrats are smarter than people give them credit forAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6604414.post-11653839267873918032016-05-29T15:58:00.956-04:002016-05-29T15:58:00.956-04:00Sorry...I meant "pressure put on the BANK.&qu...Sorry...I meant "pressure put on the BANK." Not "the back."<br /><br />I'm not talking about massage here.Joseph Cannonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10574779960109698980noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6604414.post-27505549703596739332016-05-29T15:36:42.065-04:002016-05-29T15:36:42.065-04:00I don't think it is stretching things too much...I don't think it is stretching things too much to argue that the approval of a loan constitutes the "gift of services." Moreover, I don't think it is exculpatory if the loan was made to Jane's college rather than Jane herself. <br /><br />That said, I am troubled by the lack of specificity in Toensing's letter. Just what is the nature of the information regarding pressure put on the back? How did the lawyer learn of this? And what, specifically, was the nature of the pressure?<br /><br />Those questions are the reason why I put a question mark in the headline. Toensing clearly is a political animal and he obviously has a bias -- that much is clear from his letter. But I don't think that Toensing is a fool. Joseph Cannonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10574779960109698980noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6604414.post-81667502680009332016-05-29T14:46:15.514-04:002016-05-29T14:46:15.514-04:00Is the lawyer who wrote that letter stupid or incr...Is the lawyer who wrote that letter stupid or incredibly stupid?<br /><br />The loan wasn't made to Jane Sanders. It was made to Burlington College. Below are the Senate rules cited in the letter. Was the loan a "gift" within the meaning of Senate rules? Yes. Was the "gift" made to Jane Sanders? No.<br /><br />I concede that Jane Sanders probably thought she was doing the right thing for the long-term growth and sustainability of BC. At best, her decision and subsequent actions were dubious. At worst they were malfeasance and (if we are to believe news reports) deceptive. For all I know, Bernie may have violated some rule or some law somewhere, sometime. But he didn't violate the two rules cited in the attorney's letter, as applied to the BC loan.<br /><br />SENATE RULES:<br /><br />(b)(1) For the purpose of this rule, the term ``gift'' means any gratuity, favor, discount, entertainment, hospitality, loan, forbearance, or other item having monetary value. The term includes gifts of services, training, transportation, lodging, and meals, whether provided in kind, by purchase of a ticket, payment in advance, or reimbursement after the expense has been incurred.<br /><br />(2)(A) A gift to a family member of a Member, officer, or employee, or a gift to any other individual based on that individual's relationship with the Member, officer, or employee, shall be considered a gift to the Member, officer, or employee if it is given with the knowledge and acquiescence of the Member, officer, or employee and the Member, officer, or employee has reason to believe the gift was given because of the official position of the Member, officer, or employee. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6604414.post-52959672034035781172016-05-29T14:31:10.089-04:002016-05-29T14:31:10.089-04:00Donald Trump is an extremely dangerous creature, a...Donald Trump is an extremely dangerous creature, a highly ambitious multi-billionaire. I wonder whether his "Organisation" may have been planning his presidential bid not for just for 3-4 years but for longer?<br /><br />I'm no expert on US politics, but a look through the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_candidates" rel="nofollow">list of US presidential candidates</a> at Wikipedia suggests that since 1900 there has only been one other Republican candidate who, like Trump, had no record of high-level public service (cough) before he ran for the presidency. That was Wendell Wilkie in 1940.<br /><br />It's fascinating that during George W Bush's presidency (2001-2009), Trump supported the <i>Democratic</i> party.<br /><br />Not only did the Clintons attend Trump's wedding reception in 2005; but Trump <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/clinton-foundation-keeps-donations-from-donald-trump-119883" rel="nofollow">actually funded the Clintons' Foundation</a>.<br /><br />In 2008, when he was still a Democrat, he <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/264386-trump-once-wrote-hillary-clinton-would-be-great-president" rel="nofollow">wrote that Hillary Clinton would make a great "president or vice-president"</a>.<br /><br />What's been going on?<br /><br />He's never held public office. He's been a private-sector business boss who has cultivated friends in both major political parties, while building up his recognition value among the population, over a long period.<br /><br />Might it be the <i>Trump effort</i>, rather than the Republican Party, that's been running Stone who's running Sanders? If a Trump bid for the presidency has been planned for some time, but only put into practice when he decided he was sure to win, then his influence in the Democratic Party, <i>gained partly when he was supportive of it and friendly with leading figures in it</i>, may be more extensive than simply what is required to run a vitriolic opposition within the party to Hillary Clinton. It generally takes two sides to split a political party. Might both sides have been ratfucked?<br /><br />A test of this hypothesis is whether the Clinton campaign makes an apparently stupid miscalculation, fucks up big-time somehow, thereby helping Trump. I hope this doesn't happen.<br /><br /><br />bnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6604414.post-5819359342103449382016-05-29T14:20:46.281-04:002016-05-29T14:20:46.281-04:00I'm not convinced by the lawyers' letter, ...I'm not convinced by the lawyers' letter, there. They want it to be fraud, and openly call it fraud, but offer no reason to believe that's what it is. There's no evidence of deception, and only the usual over-generous pay-off to a member of the capitalist class as evidence of personal gain, no evidence of either deception or personal gain in the so-called fraud. Seems more like the wife was just trying to save a struggling institution through expansion, and failed miserably.<br /><br />I stand by my haiku.Stephen Morganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11310986776169327671noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6604414.post-2048207983626327442016-05-29T13:58:46.152-04:002016-05-29T13:58:46.152-04:00You are right about the lawyers. But if this were ...You are right about the lawyers. But if this were a GOP plot, there would be a lot more publicity for this lawsuit on the right-wing sites.Joseph Cannonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10574779960109698980noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6604414.post-15671806295923213492016-05-29T13:50:43.911-04:002016-05-29T13:50:43.911-04:00Interesting. Might explain Jane Sanders' abse...Interesting. Might explain Jane Sanders' absence from campaign functions and TV appearances of late. <br /><br />What makes me queasy, however, is the mention of the law firm--diGenova and Toensing. These two lovelies are a Fox News tag team, right-wing operatives who love stirring controversy and half-baked legal theories. I don't know what went down with the Burlington College mess. Jane certainly does not have a head for finance and there was some indication of a very rich friend who has profited handsomely from his Bernie connections. Said friend (can't recall the name) managed to weasel out of a Telecom scandal in Vermont. <br /><br />Is this legal investigation for real? Don't know but the diGenova/Toensing connection is highly suspect. Could they be trying to deflect an inquiry into Republican operatives funneling money into Sanders' campaign, an attempt to wound HRC? The FEC has had nearly monthly inquiries into Bernie's campaign donations, a good amount not passing the smell test.<br /><br />The plot thickens!<br /><br />PeggysueAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6604414.post-15932072466790827822016-05-29T13:35:39.514-04:002016-05-29T13:35:39.514-04:00As presented you are right Joseph. A serious infr...As presented you are right Joseph. A serious infraction and certainly a problem for the Senator. Meets my definition of corruption. Those of us who are sympathetic to Sanders program, would hope that there is some factual inaccuracy here. <br /><br />HarryAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com