Bernie and Jane Sanders, under FBI investigation for bank fraud, hire lawyers - Polidicks

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;52399913]Seriously, same goes for all of Trump's people lawyering up in the face of the Russia investigations. You'd be a complete idiot not to.[/QUOTE] The issue isn't that they're getting lawyers, the issue is the accusations.

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;52400244]The issue isn't that they're getting lawyers, the issue is the accusations.[/QUOTE] Seems pretty clear he's arguing against the notion that lawyering up implies you're guilty. Don't see him claiming the accusations aren't an issue.

[QUOTE=Jeezy;52400313]Seems pretty clear he's arguing against the notion that lawyering up implies you're guilty. Don't see him claiming the accusations aren't an issue.[/QUOTE] Its like these people turn a blind eye when its not their side.... Fucking Tribalism...

[QUOTE=Jeezy;52400313]Seems pretty clear he's arguing against the notion that lawyering up implies you're guilty. Don't see him claiming the accusations aren't an issue.[/QUOTE] That [QUOTE=Uber22;52400333]Its like these people turn a blind eye when its not their side.... Fucking Tribalism...[/QUOTE] I don't understand what that has to do with the post you're responding to. It seems like a non-sequitur. Doesn't help that it's kind of a vague statement which could be directed at either side

[QUOTE=Jeezy;52400313]Seems pretty clear he's arguing against the notion that lawyering up implies you're guilty. Don't see him claiming the accusations aren't an issue.[/QUOTE] Ok, my bad not being able to discern the his opinion on the matter from 2 setences. Even then I was just stating that nobody here thinks getting lawyers is an admission of guilt. [editline]25th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Uber22;52400333]Its like these people turn a blind eye when its not their side.... Fucking Tribalism...[/QUOTE] It goes both ways bud. A lot of the people here say "innocent until proven guilty" but are quick to say that the Russians are guilty of election meddling and that Trump is guilty of it as well. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;52400930]It goes both ways bud. A lot of the people here say "innocent until proven guilty" but are quick to say that the Russians are guilty of election meddling and that Trump is guilty of it as well. Can't have your cake and eat it too.[/QUOTE] Important details to note: A lot of the people who are saying that now would also treat Sanders as guilty if it were as obvious as it seems to be in Trump/Russia's case. The second detail would be that people are more likely to give Sanders the benefit of the doubt because his record is so much cleaner than Trump's or Russia's.

[QUOTE=Alice3173;52401289]Important details to note: A lot of the people who are saying that now would also treat Sanders as guilty if it were as obvious as it seems to be in Trump/Russia's case. The second detail would be that people are more likely to give Sanders the benefit of the doubt because his record is so much cleaner than Trump's or Russia's.[/QUOTE] yeah everyone thinks Trump is guilty because he acts super guilty

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;52400930]It goes both ways bud. A lot of the people here say "innocent until proven guilty" but are quick to say that the Russians are guilty of election meddling and that Trump is guilty of it as well. Can't have your cake and eat it too.[/QUOTE] There's a big difference between quietly retaining a lawyer and going on a Twitter rampage against the advice of the law firm who was reluctant to represent you in the first place because you're an obnoxious loudmouth.

[QUOTE=Electrocuter;52399418]Whether it's true or not it will be something for the conservatives to pull in 2018 and that'll be enough, that is if he runs of course. Just the [b]possibility[/b] of Hillary being found guilty on the e-mail scandal was enough to tip the election in Trump's favour.[/QUOTE] No, Hillary lost the election due to a massive number of factors. The email thing, and how she handed it, was just a small part of that.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;52401384]yeah everyone thinks Trump is guilty because he acts super guilty[/QUOTE] Not really quite so. Its more that he is a compulsive liar (the whole crowds thing), and because of the many things he and his administration is getting caught doing

[QUOTE=Lambeth;52401384]yeah everyone thinks Trump is guilty because he acts super guilty[/QUOTE] Everyone thinks Trump is guilty because they want him to be. Just like how everyone thinks Hillary was guilty in the email scandal because they want her to be. People are treating Sanders better because he is treated as a messiah in politics who can do no wrong. Hes actually receiving the benefit of the doubt because hes popular. [editline]26th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Snowmew;52401402]There's a big difference between quietly retaining a lawyer and going on a Twitter rampage against the advice of the law firm who was reluctant to represent you in the first place because you're an obnoxious loudmouth.[/QUOTE] "Innocent until proven guilty" still applies bud. You can't scream "FUCK TRUMP AND THE RUSSIANS" then say "ah well you know its just an investigation, I doubt any fraud actually happened" or vice versa.

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;52401859]Everyone thinks Trump is guilty because they want him to be. Just like how everyone thinks Hillary was guilty in the email scandal because they want her to be. People are treating Sanders better because he is treated as a messiah in politics who can do no wrong. Hes actually receiving the benefit of the doubt because hes popular. [/QUOTE] I dunno I think only inviting russian press and not american to various events is pretty weird

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;52401859]People are treating Sanders better because he is treated as a messiah in politics who can do no wrong. Hes actually receiving the benefit of the doubt because hes popular.[/QUOTE] People are giving him the benefit of the doubt because he has a very clean track record. Clinton doesn't. Trump especially doesn't.

[QUOTE=MistyVermin;52399169]I dont understand why everyone is so worried about this, if you are planning to face a lawsuit you hire lawers, im not for or against sanders but this is really not the issue about this whole ordeal.[/QUOTE] Pretty sure fraud is a criminal case, not a civil lawsuit case.

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;52400930]but are quick to say that the Russians are guilty of election meddling [/QUOTE] Do you trust our intelligence community? I mean is there any singular corner in it anywhere that you think is reliable? I ask because the whole of it has said there was not only meddling but it was a coordinated and massive attack. We're quick to say it because that's what the people who we've charged with investigating that sort of stuff are all in full agreement: It happened. You're saying "we're being quick to say that man was charged with murder" after the equivalent of every high court in the nation (supreme court included) just sent out a letter affirming their position that in their opinion that man committed murder. Just because Trump refuses to "charge" Russia with 'murder', that's enough for you? At what point would you say the Russians [B]would[/B] be guilty of election meddling? All of our intelligence apparatuses just said they're guilty. Who do you trust more than them to judge that? Is Russia not guilty until you think they are?

It's also not like Sander's is capable of using his powers to fuck with the people investigating him, his wife just seems to be getting a lawyer and patiently awaiting the results. As opposed to trying to fire multiple heads of investigations into your actions because you're so "innocent" I don't think anyone blames trump for getting lawyers so much as using his powers are president to obstruct investigations in every way possible.

Comments in here clearly show why Sanders had a chance in the election.

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;52401859]"Innocent until proven guilty" still applies bud. You can't scream "FUCK TRUMP AND THE RUSSIANS" then say "ah well you know its just an investigation, I doubt any fraud actually happened" or vice versa.[/QUOTE] Of course, "bud". But Trump goes out of his way to ignore his lawyers' advice and prove himself guilty. Apparently you haven't been keeping up with the news recently. Bernie has, to my knowledge, said next to nothing about this. As one should do when being investigated.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52402053]Do you trust our intelligence community? I mean is there any singular corner in it anywhere that you think is reliable? I ask because the whole of it has said there was not only meddling but it was a coordinated and massive attack. We're quick to say it because that's what the people who we've charged with investigating that sort of stuff are all in full agreement: It happened. You're saying "we're being quick to say that man was charged with murder" after the equivalent of every high court in the nation (supreme court included) just sent out a letter affirming their position that in their opinion that man committed murder. Just because Trump refuses to "charge" Russia with 'murder', that's enough for you? At what point would you say the Russians [B]would[/B] be guilty of election meddling? All of our intelligence apparatuses just said they're guilty. Who do you trust more than them to judge that? Is Russia not guilty until you think they are?[/QUOTE] The intelligence community makes mistakes. Theyre the ones who sent us to Iraq in 03. Innocent until otherwise proven in a court of law. [editline]26th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Lambeth;52401872]I dunno I think only inviting russian press and not american to various events is pretty weird[/QUOTE] Is that an admission of guilt on his part, or is it just a media bias because the Russian prwss throws softballs? [editline]26th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Alice3173;52402010]People are giving him the benefit of the doubt because he has a very clean track record. Clinton doesn't. Trump especially doesn't.[/QUOTE] Yea thats my point. You can't have your cake and eat it too. [editline]26th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Snowmew;52402455]Of course, "bud". But Trump goes out of his way to ignore his lawyers' advice and prove himself guilty. Apparently you haven't been keeping up with the news recently. Bernie has, to my knowledge, said next to nothing about this. As one should do when being investigated.[/QUOTE] I keep up with the news, which is why I'm in this thread lol. But until Trump makes a very clear admission of guilt and its proven in a court of law, innocent until proven guilty. [editline]26th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Vodkavia;52402466]Except Trump doesn't have a clean record either, many of his supporters don't remember all of the shady stuff he's done or choose not to. And since Cyke clearly is behind on current events I'll list how Trump has made himself look guilty. 1. Trump has gone on the record saying he's paid off politicians and people in power for favours. 2. Trump said to russian officials that firing comey relieved him of great pressure. 3. Trump asked Comey to throw the Russian probe under the rug and asked for loyalty. 4. Trump lied about his reason for firing comey, saying it was because of the Hillary investigation, after having praised him for doing it. 5. Trump publicly threatened comey over twitter, then had to later retract it. 6. Trump randomly called comey regularly telling him random things he claims he's innocent of. 7. Trump [I]knew[/I] that flynn had undisclosed talks with russian officials and did not disclose payments from russia and turkey, and said himself he would have told him to do it himself. Fired him anyway. 8. Trump openly praised Putin and Russian, even downplaying the mans practices of political motivating killings while he was manipulating the election to help him win. The fact that this doesn't register on your radar says a whole lot more about your own biases and lack of homework, bud.[/QUOTE] I know about this. I don't live under a rock. You all seem to think that I support Trump, I absolutely do not. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy here. Plus the majority of the shit you said hasn't been proven in a court of law anyway. We all know that Trump is a compulsive and egotistical liar. He'll lie if it means it looks like he has morw authority.

Cyke Lon Bee, the point is we can have our cake and eat it since treating Trump and Sanders as equally honest is a false equivalence.

I think you guys are too eager to jump on each other Cykelonbee is not saying he is ignoring evidence and supporting trump regardless. On the contrary, he is saying that [I]technically[/I], we cannot call him guilty and punish him until proven in a court of law Trump does have far shadier connections than whatever Sanders possibly has, we all know it, but in our effort to protect democracy from trumps ridiculous administration, we must not forget then principals we are fighting for, such as "innocent until proven guilty"

[QUOTE=Electrocuter;52399418]Whether it's true or not it will be something for the conservatives to pull in 2018 and that'll be enough, that is if he runs of course. Just the [b]possibility[/b] of Hillary being found guilty on the e-mail scandal was enough to tip the election in Trump's favour.[/QUOTE] No Hillary lost because her campaign had zero authenticity with the people after the failure of the 2008 election, she had no firm policy other than "being for the children"( who isn't?) and when she had a chance to rebuild credibility with the voters she instead focused on attack ads showing that she's "not trump" and somehow that makes her a good choice. She fucked up her own chances, no one else, the scandals weren't the largest players by far.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;52402607]Cyke Lon Bee, the point is we can have our cake and eat it since treating Trump and Sanders as equally honest is a false equivalence.[/QUOTE] Not if you want to be logical, no. You're in the same boat as the people who support Trump and deny accusations against him blindly, while having a "Hillary for Prison 2016" bumper sticker on your F150 pickup. Innocent until proven guilty isn't something you can pick and choose with. [editline]26th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Vodkavia;52402626]A majority? 1,2,4,5,7 and 8 are based on public statements by trump himself, and the undisclosed communications Flynn had were confirmed by law enforcement and officials. There's no fucking hypocrisy here, you're putting a completely fresh case on the same pedestal as someone whose as about as innocent as a man taking a selfie of him laying a steamy hot shit on a policeman's shoe.[/QUOTE] "confirmed by law enforcement and officials" and "convicted in a court of law" are 2 very different things. Statements and evidence are different things and both have to be weighed in a court to have any importance. Unless you're the judge or jury presiding over Trump and Sanders case, you have no place to weigh in on who is and who isn't guilty. You haven't seen the full statements, full evidence lots, or spent anytime in the courtrooms. Doing so makes you no better than the type of people who riot when a person is killed by police before any courtroom proceedings happen. [editline]26th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=da space core;52403137]I think you guys are too eager to jump on each other Cykelonbee is not saying he is ignoring evidence and supporting trump regardless. On the contrary, he is saying that [I]technically[/I], we cannot call him guilty and punish him until proven in a court of law Trump does have far shadier connections than whatever Sanders possibly has, we all know it, but in our effort to protect democracy from trumps ridiculous administration, we must not forget then principals we are fighting for, such as "innocent until proven guilty"[/QUOTE] eggzactly. I didn't vote for Trump and I support very little, if anything, he says or does in his administration or otherwise. I'm simply pointing out that "Innocent until proven guilty" protects people like Trump with shady dealings and conspicuous records, as well as men like Sanders who seem to be spotless. Who knows, by the end of this Sander's wife might have actually embezzled millions through the college and Trump might have actually done nothing wrong. Court cases are not a talk show where its up for the viewer to decide whose guilty and innocent.

[QUOTE=Vodkavia;52402466]Except Trump doesn't have a clean record either, many of his supporters don't remember all of the shady stuff he's done or choose not to.[/QUOTE] Did you misread my post or am I misunderstanding you? I was saying that Sanders' record is clean while Clinton's isn't and Trump's is especially bad. [QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;52402505]Yea thats my point. You can't have your cake and eat it too.[/QUOTE] Your point is utterly invalid then. You can't just ignore context because context matters quite a lot. [QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;52403834]Not if you want to be logical, no. You're in the same boat as the people who support Trump and deny accusations against him blindly, while having a "Hillary for Prison 2016" bumper sticker on your F150 pickup. Innocent until proven guilty isn't something you can pick and choose with.[/QUOTE] You're completely off-base here. None of us are saying there's no chance that the accusations could be true. We're saying that given Sanders' track record it's incredibly unlikely they are and due to said clean track record we're giving him the benefit of the doubt rather than assuming he's guilty like we would for Clinton or Trump who would be far more likely to be guilty in comparison.

[QUOTE=da space core;52403137]Cykelonbee is not saying he is ignoring evidence and supporting trump regardless. On the contrary, he is saying that [I]technically[/I], we cannot call him guilty and punish him until proven in a court of law[/QUOTE] You're right; except this isn't a court of law. Let me ask this: [B]If Russia dropped a nuke on New York City, do we have to wait for the President to agree we were attacked when the whole of our intelligence apparatus states 'btw, NYC was nuked'?[/B] Are we 'not nuked' until Trump announces it because our 'singular entities in our IC gets information wrong sometimes, despite there never having been a unanimous opinion by the IC's totality that was not basically bulletproof'? If the President goes on to say 'I don't think we were Nuked; even if we were, I don't think it was Russia.' then what? We just keep trusting the President's judgment implicitly forever? Do you think [I]the President doesn't make mistakes or could never have ill will?[/I] We're not disagreeing on opinions, we're disagreeing on facts. That is, by the way, the definition of ignoring evidence. The IC has the evidence; the IC unanimously agrees there was an attack. Either you believe them or you don't. You either believe hundreds of thousands of analysts across 11+ governmental agencies who've been charged to investigate exactly this sort of thing all [I]simultaneously[/I] arrived at the same wrong conclusion despite [B]all[/B] of them having different intelligence sources - or you side with Trump who just tosses all that over his shoulder and goes 'nah'. Trump, who has [I]none[/I] of those intelligence services/intel (because he refuses to be briefed on it) and just his 'very good brain'. It reminds me of the debate surrounding climate change a few years back. "I reject all of your evidence because it doesn't fit what I personally know; it's cool here so how could it be warming?"

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52404003]You're right; except this isn't a court of law. Let me ask this: [B]If Russia dropped a nuke on New York City, do we have to wait for the President to agree we were attacked when the whole of our intelligence apparatus states 'btw, NYC was nuked'?[/B] Are we 'not nuked' until Trump announces it because our 'singular entities in our IC gets information wrong sometimes, despite there never having been a unanimous opinion by the IC's totality that was not basically bulletproof'? If the President goes on to say 'I don't think we were Nuked; even if we were, I don't think it was Russia.' then what? We just keep trusting the President's judgment implicitly forever? Do you think [I]the President doesn't make mistakes or could never have ill will?[/I] We're not disagreeing on opinions, we're disagreeing on facts. That is, by the way, the definition of ignoring evidence. The IC has the evidence; the IC unanimously agrees there was an attack. Either you believe them or you don't. You either believe hundreds of thousands of analysts across 11+ governmental agencies who've been charged to investigate exactly this sort of thing all [I]simultaneously[/I] arrived at the same wrong conclusion despite [B]all[/B] of them having different intelligence sources - or you side with Trump who just tosses all that over his shoulder and goes 'nah'. Trump, who has [I]none[/I] of those intelligence services/intel (because he refuses to be briefed on it) and just his 'very good brain'. It reminds me of the debate surrounding climate change a few years back. "I reject all of your evidence because it doesn't fit what I personally know; it's cool here so how could it be warming?"[/QUOTE] I was referring in the sense of what it would take to get Trump impeached. I completely agree with the established facts brought up by comneys testimony and the work of the intelligence agencies, regardless of what the white house says. my point is that to get trump impeached, we still need even more irrefutable evidence to slam dunk trump out of the white house. I want so much evidence brought up against him that he will have no choice but resign in disgrace

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;52402505]I know about this. I don't live under a rock. You all seem to think that I support Trump, I absolutely do not. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy here. Plus the majority of the shit you said hasn't been proven in a court of law anyway. We all know that Trump is a compulsive and egotistical liar. He'll lie if it means it looks like he has morw authority.[/QUOTE] Look, I have a boner for the judicial system too but you're coming off as the kind of guy who will constantly claim that nothing happened until it has been tried in a "court of law" (as opposed to a court of equity, I suppose, since you're really keen on this whole "court of law" phrasing). When you're a lawyer and you see someone's client publicly ignoring his lawyer's advice to further bury himself in questionably incriminating statements, you have to wonder what kind of guilty secret that idiot is hiding, and why his lawyer is not dragging his ass into the lawyer's office to tell him outright that if he wants to win the case, he better shut the fuck up. News flash - it's not because the guy is making misstatements about his innocent past, it's because he's desperately clinging onto every possible out and going to extreme ends to attempt to exonerate himself, not realizing that he's doing exactly the same thing that every other guilty criminal does - saying too much. Methinks you've just been watching the intro sequence to Cops too often.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52404003]You're right; except this isn't a court of law. Let me ask this: [B]If Russia dropped a nuke on New York City, do we have to wait for the President to agree we were attacked when the whole of our intelligence apparatus states 'btw, NYC was nuked'?[/B] Are we 'not nuked' until Trump announces it because our 'singular entities in our IC gets information wrong sometimes, despite there never having been a unanimous opinion by the IC's totality that was not basically bulletproof'? If the President goes on to say 'I don't think we were Nuked; even if we were, I don't think it was Russia.' then what? We just keep trusting the President's judgment implicitly forever? Do you think [I]the President doesn't make mistakes or could never have ill will?[/I] We're not disagreeing on opinions, we're disagreeing on facts. That is, by the way, the definition of ignoring evidence. The IC has the evidence; the IC unanimously agrees there was an attack. Either you believe them or you don't. You either believe hundreds of thousands of analysts across 11+ governmental agencies who've been charged to investigate exactly this sort of thing all [I]simultaneously[/I] arrived at the same wrong conclusion despite [B]all[/B] of them having different intelligence sources - or you side with Trump who just tosses all that over his shoulder and goes 'nah'. Trump, who has [I]none[/I] of those intelligence services/intel (because he refuses to be briefed on it) and just his 'very good brain'. It reminds me of the debate surrounding climate change a few years back. "I reject all of your evidence because it doesn't fit what I personally know; it's cool here so how could it be warming?"[/QUOTE] Only on Facepunch will you see people comparing circumstantial evidence to Nuclear bombings

[quote]Only on Facepunch will you see people comparing circumstantial evidence to Nuclear bombings[/quote] That's right, argue against my metaphor and not my argument. Our entire IC states that this is what happened. That's not just you know 'Bob Seagers (Rogue CIA Analyst) with his one contact and one source and shaky theory'. It's the whole of the CIA, NSA, FBI, DHS, and so on and so forth ad nauseum - through all their contacts and with vigorous vetting. There's been multiple congressional hearings that confirm it. There's been constant confirmation under oath from heads of those departments. Do you think there's a massive conspiracy against the President such that each of those agencies (literally all of the agents, all of their management staff, and the heads of those departments) would wholly fabricate or not fully vet their recommendation (meanwhile putting their own jobs and the trust of the american people on the line) just in order to... what, embarass him? That they would collectively put the security of the country at risk to deliver some 'sick burns'? That the states then 'got into it' and then declared that their databases were potentially compromised? At what point is their word worth more than Trump's? [B]And perhaps even more importantly, why do you think the evidence is circumstantial when the whole of them are saying it is not?[/B]

[QUOTE=Snowmew;52404277]Look, I have a boner for the judicial system too but you're coming off as the kind of guy who will constantly claim that nothing happened until it has been tried in a "court of law" (as opposed to a court of equity, I suppose, since you're really keen on this whole "court of law" phrasing). When you're a lawyer and you see someone's client publicly ignoring his lawyer's advice to further bury himself in questionably incriminating statements, you have to wonder what kind of guilty secret that idiot is hiding, and why his lawyer is not dragging his ass into the lawyer's office to tell him outright that if he wants to win the case, he better shut the fuck up. News flash - it's not because the guy is making misstatements about his innocent past, it's because he's desperately clinging onto every possible out and going to extreme ends to attempt to exonerate himself, not realizing that he's doing exactly the same thing that every other guilty criminal does - saying too much. Methinks you've just been watching the intro sequence to Cops too often.[/QUOTE] Nah I'm just idealistic. Sanders shouldn't get special treatment from you all because you wanted him to win the presidency. Its blatantly hypocritical. [editline]26th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52404531]That's right, argue against my metaphor and not my argument. Our entire IC states that this is what happened. That's not just you know 'Bob Seagers (Rogue CIA Analyst) with his one contact and one source and shaky theory'. It's the whole of the CIA, NSA, FBI, DHS, and so on and so forth ad nauseum - through all their contacts and with vigorous vetting. There's been multiple congressional hearings that confirm it. There's been constant confirmation under oath from heads of those departments. Do you think there's a massive conspiracy against the President such that each of those agencies (literally all of the agents, all of their management staff, and the heads of those departments) would wholly fabricate or not fully vet their recommendation (meanwhile putting their own jobs and the trust of the american people on the line) just in order to... what, embarass him? That they would collectively put the security of the country at risk to deliver some 'sick burns'? That the states then 'got into it' and then declared that their databases were potentially compromised? At what point is their word worth more than Trump's? [B]And perhaps even more importantly, why do you think the evidence is circumstantial when the whole of them are saying it is not?[/B][/QUOTE] Your metaphor is hilariously bad, that was my point. A more apt one would be "intelligence agencies say that the Iranians infiltrated our energy infrastructure. Theres not much concrete evidence but most committee members and heads of departments agree the probability exists." Youre still working under the assumption I disagree with the validity of the claims against Trump and that I support him.