Jane Sanders Blames Sexism For Bank Fraud Accusations

| |

Top Tier Gear USA


Socialists are rarely mentally capable of claiming responsibility for their own actions; which is why the ideology appeals to the weakest members of society. Jane Sanders, the wife of socialist Bernie Sanders, is proving this in a bold way; crying “sexism” as a reason for investigations into her alleged bank fraud.

“I find it incredibly sexist that basically, he’s going after my husband by destroying my reputation, and that’s not OK,” Jane Sanders told The Boston Globe of the man responsible for an FBI investigation into the allegations she fraudulently obtained a loan for the Vermont college she once oversaw. All because of Sanders political ideology, however, this story is one that’s being hidden away as the mainstream media keeps peddling back to attempts to turn Russia into an enemy.

The FBI investigation into Jane Sanders began in early 2016 after Brady Toensing, a former official for Donald Trump’s presidential campaign in Vermont and now a candidate for U.S. attorney in the state, filed a complaint alleging the wife of the socialist committed bank fraud. Toensing, according to the Washington Examiner, started researching Jane Sanders in 2014, years before her husband Sen. Sanders, I-Vt., would run for president and have his hopes dashed when the Democratic National Committee rigged the primaries against him in favor of Hillary Clinton.

Jane Sanders led the small liberal-arts school Burlington College from 2004 to 2011. The college closed in 2016 after struggling to pay back creditors, and ultimately lost its accreditation. “Jane Sanders must think Hillary Clinton’s campaign was sexist for viewing the alleged bank fraud as a major issue, too,” said Michael Ahrens, Rapid Response Director for the Republican National Committee. In publicly leaked emails from Clinton’s presidential campaign in 2015, Clinton’s team looked into using Jane Sanders’ role in the college’s failure against then-candidate Bernie Sanders.

Toensing said he thinks every person should be treated fairly regardless of their status, and the fact that the Sanders are wealthy or Jane is female, shouldn’t prevent an investigation. “My goal is for a full, fair, and impartial investigation – that’s all I care about,” Toensing told the Globe.“That people be treated the same regardless of status in this system.”

Delivered by The Daily Sheeple

We encourage you to share and republish our reports, analyses, breaking news and videos (Click for details).

Contributed by Dawn Luger of The Daily Sheeple.

Dawn Luger is a staff writer and reporter for The Daily Sheeple. Wake the flock up – follow Dawn’s work at our Facebook or Twitter.

Wake The Flock Up! Please Share With Sheeple Far & Wide:
  • Mike

    when guilty, choose an ism, ist or phobia to have an excuse. The left is full of babies.

  • Milly Vanilly

    She needs to get Susan Rice to defend her…LOL.

  • Uncle Sham

    Well thats a confession if i ever heard one

  • renee ciccioni

    An investigation doesn’t prove that someone is guilty nor does it mean that the closing of the school was her fault it’s just an investigation to see if she had anything to do with it just like an investigation into the Russian collusion doesn’t mean Trump is guilty .

    • SP_88

      Exactly. It’s just an investigation. If she is innocent, than she should have nothing to worry about.
      The fact that she is using sexism as a reason why she shouldn’t be investigated does suggest that she has something to hide. But that’s just my observation and opinion. And in my opinion, what she should be saying is that she is innocent, and this investigation will prove that. Of course if she is guilty, the investigation will show that, but I’m just saying that her claims of sexism should be claims of innocence.
      But if was innocent, and they decided to prosecute her because she is a woman, then we have a problem. And I would absolutely disagree with it, regardless of whether I liked her or not.
      This is supposed to be a free country. And I believe that people should be allowed to do what they want, even if I don’t like it or agree with it.

      • renee ciccioni

        That was stupid for her to say , but politicians say the stupidest things these day ,even the president continues to put his foot in his mouth ,but she is innocent until proven guilty . You just don’t like her because she’s claims to be liberal.

        • SP_88

          Honestly, I can’t say if I like her or not because I don’t even know her, and I’ve never heard anything she said. But I could imagine that I wouldn’t agree with her on certain issues. But yes, she is indeed innocent until proven guilty. And my point was that everyone should be innocent until proven guilty regardless of whether we agree with them or not, and regardless of whether we like them or not.
          By “not like her” I meant that I wouldn’t agree with her political views. But that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t like her as a person, that I don’t know. I don’t automatically dislike someone just because I don’t agree with their political views. I don’t think that should be a standard for liking someone or not. Besides, I didn’t say I didn’t like her, I said she should have the same freedoms whether I like her or not. But I should have been more clear and said ‘whether I agree with her or not’ instead.
          And yes, Trump is no master of the English language. Anyone who uses the word “bigly” in a sentence has a very poor grasp of the English language. Bush Jr. was just as bad. It’s as if being a republican president requires that you failed English class in an epic fashion. Bill Clinton was well spoken. Obama wasn’t bad either, although he thought we had 57 states. But we are all human, and we have our strong points and our weak points. Just my two cents.

          • renee ciccioni

            Well said, I agree with you.