FBI investigating Jane Sanders for alleged bank fraud: report

[Ninsianna]

217. The Hill has updated it's article with more sources. To be specific, the post you're replying

to makes it evident that this is a long standing issue, and Jane herself was very much the person who was involved here.


It is pretty ridiculous to be carping about this as nonsense when your argument about sources was obliterated, the spin about how the president of the college who personally was involved in the loan applications, whose leadership was the sole reason for this land deal, whose husband was invoked to apply pressure, is somehow equivalent to some made up right wing lie about Uranium deals by people willfully ignorant about who these work in the US government.

To be clear, you're making false equivalencies and spinning madly when your first argument of right wing propaganda was disproved with links going back to 2015.

This wasn't about attacking the wife of a newly prominent Sanders, it wasn't about attacking him politically, it wasn't right wing, it wasn't propaganda, it doesn't equate to the fake news that was being used to attack Hillary, there is no "bloodlust", the facts prove that the bloodlust is among those who have a hypersensitivity to anything that is not pompom waving, somersaulting adulation of the Sanders. It's a weird sort of projection from those who had such a bloodlust to see a woman fall due to the things they claim her husband did.

Rejecting facts is something that those attacking the Clintons have a habit of doing, they also engage in quite a bit of projection. Investigating actual actions of a woman who used her husband's position to make bad business decisions and whose actions caused actual harm to number of people is legitimate, even if her name is not Clinton and people don't have 20 years of programmed hate to push false stories. It's ridiculous to reject the facts to make false equivalencies.

To be clear, it's not about a personal attack on someone to see her fall or to attack her husband, the facts and the timeline simply do not back this up. This knee jerk reaction that it's "right wing" anything, really is not appropriate here, especially when it's been demonstrated to you that THAT line doesn't work at all here.