New Whitlock column on Fine Case...

[bevosu]

Excellent point. I've experienced the same thing. Like Whitlock says, I'm no angel and far from perfect, but there have been a number of times in my life where I've helped family members financially, or I've been the one who paid for something (say helping someone who was several months behind on their mortgage, helping someone clear up their credit, renting a boat for a family outing, paying for stuff for my nieces and nephews, etc.) for people to enjoy themselves and make family gatherings better and more festive.

And then when I declined to pay for things later on, boy did I get some harsh **** thrown back at me by those same loved ones and family members who were more than happy to take my help or have me pick up the tab.

I few years back I lent an old friend 10K to help him through a tough stretch with his contracting business. He paid me back in a reasonable amount of time. A few years later he asked me for 7k for the same reason. I had to say no. He was not pleased.

It took a few months but he got over it. The old saying never lend a friend money has some validity.

 

[armory]

I few years back I lent an old friend 10K to help him through a tough stretch with his contracting business. He paid me back in a reasonable amount of time. A few years later he asked me for 7k for the same reason. I had to say no. He was not pleased.

It took a few months but he got over it. The old saying never lend a friend money has some validity.

Is there a typo in there somewhere? I don't get the connection. He repaid a loan in a reasonable time, so you won't lend to him anymore?

 

[djcon57]

Another absurd thread of Bernie apologists.

There was never likely going to be any charges, because of the State SoL and the limited Federal jurisdiction, considering that almost all of Davis's allegations were in-state. This has always been understood, and even Whitlock states that the dropped charges do not exonerate Fine, but some Cuse fans are going beyond-Whitlock on this issue, getting poetic about Fine's troubles "vanishing silently in the night." None of that is realistic or responsible.

The Federal probe lacked jurisdictional grounds because of the limited evidence regarding the trip to Pittsburgh. The state prove revealed evidence sufficient to warrant charges. Whitlock is wrong to say that the Fed's did not find credible evidence of child molestation: the Feds did not say. They only had jurisdiction on the interstate aspect of the allegations. New York's legal officials found sufficient corroborating evidence for criminal sanctions, but lacked jurisdiction because of lapsed time.

I think most SU fans get this, but the Fine apologists can get loud and hostile. Whitlock is just a Fox guy grinding his ax against ESPN. If there was even a scintilla of a chance of a successful defamation suit,

ESPN would have canned Schwarz.

"New York's legal officials found sufficient corroborating evidence for criminal sanctions, but lacked jurisdiction because of lapsed time."

And again, we are back to he said/he said. No trail of pedophilia. Nothing on the PC. They interviewed 100+ witnesses.

If you want to call me a Fine apologist...go for it...I think the guy is clearly an unsavory/disgusting character for having a gay relationship with a guy he helped raise. But being gay isn't a crime, last I checked.

Oh, and I believe Lang lied, obviously.

 

[PhatOrange]

"And again, we are back to he said/he said. No trail of pedophilia. Nothing on the PC. They interviewed 100+ witnesses.

agreed. They said they interviewed 100+ witnesses. It's hard to believe none of those people had anything incriminating or corroborating against him. And Peds don't stop being peds so it's also hard to believe he just 'stopped' and low and behold the SOL ran out. One would think the 100's upon 100's of kids who've been in contact with Bernie over 50 years would have 'something' against him. Nadda.

Again, we're back to dumb and dumber.

 

[texascpa]

Is there a typo in there somewhere? I don't get the connection. He repaid a loan in a reasonable time, so you won't lend to him anymore?

Why should he? Just because he was repaid one loan doesn't mean the second is automatic. The friend should be ashamed for getting pissed off about it. He's not owed anything, even a second loan.

 

[rrlbees]

Whitlock is just taking his "I told you so" victory lap. He deserves it IMO.

He was the only one to call BS on Tomasselli's story. Also the only one to invite ZT for an interview, in which he asked perfectly fair questions, then still called BS afterwards.

I've bit my tongue on the topic, lest I offend some here. But the above is innocent enough. Whitlock absolutely believed ZT after he interviewed him as did his producer. Whitlock was blown away by the interview.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

 

[bevosu]

Is there a typo in there somewhere? I don't get the connection. He repaid a loan in a reasonable time, so you won't lend to him anymore?

No typo...just an awkward way of saying that even though I did lend him money and he did pay it back, circumstances changed and I wasn't in a position to lend him money the second time around...and he thought I was a jerk.

 

[STEVEHOLT]

"On Friday, federal investigators ended their probe into Fine."

wow. isnt that what HE was accused of doing?