Sanders Family Disputes Report of Escalating Burlington College Probe

[Omaha Steve]

FILE: PAUL HEINTZ
Sen. Bernie Sanders and Jane O'Meara Sanders campaign in Reno, Nev., in February 2016.

An adviser to Sen. Bernie Sanders' (I-Vt.) family is disputing a report that federal authorities empaneled a grand jury in connection with a long-running investigation into a 2010 land deal orchestrated by his wife, Jane O'Meara Sanders.

In a story published Sunday, VTDigger.org reported that the probe had progressed to the point that federal prosecutors had convened a grand jury — a step the news outlet suggested meant the feds were seeking indictments. Authorities have spent two years investigating whether, during O'Meara Sanders' tenure as president of Burlington College, the now-defunct institution overstated pledged donations to secure a bank loan.

Former Burlington College board member Robin Lloyd told VTDigger that she testified before a grand jury last October at the federal courthouse in Burlington. She said that Paul Van de Graaf, who heads the criminal division in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Vermont, questioned her for an hour about the college's attempts to secure pledges to buy a $10 million campus.

In a statement issued to Seven Days following publication of the VTDigger story, Sanders family spokesman Jeff Weaver cast doubt on it.

FULL story: https://www.sevendaysvt.com/OffMessage/archives/2018/01/07/sanders-family-disputes-report-of-escalating-burlington-college-probe

[PragmaticDem]

1. A grand jury is an escalation, but it doesn't mean indictments are coming.

I don't think VTDigger said there will be indictments.

[emulatorloo]

3. Exactly n/t

[emulatorloo]

2. So Weaver is calling Robin Lloyd a liar?

Interesting! Thanks for posting.

[Omaha Steve]

4. Changed its original headline, Grand jury empaneled in Burlington College case, to a new one

Update, January 8, 2017, at 6:58 a.m.: Following publication of Seven Days’ story Sunday night, VTDigger corrected its report to remove multiple references to the empanelment of a grand jury. The online news outlet changed its original headline, “Grand jury empaneled in Burlington College case,” to a new one, “UPDATED: Grand jury takes sworn testimony in Burlington College case.” VTDigger removed at least two other uses of the word “empaneled” from the story and added the statement Weaver provided Seven Days. The new version of VTDigger's story includes an editor’s note at the beginning saying that it had been “updated.” At the end, it says it was also corrected.

Edit to add: look how many people missed the update!

[emulatorloo]

5. Heres a link to updated article for those who missed it

UPDATED: Grand jury takes sworn testimony in Burlington College case
Editor’s note: This story has been updated with a quote from Jeff Weaver, a spokesman for the Sanders family.

https://vtdigger.org/2018/01/07/grand-jury-empaneled-burlington-college-case/

[Demsrule86]

41. I think Jane Sanders may be in trouble. No matter how you parse it the Feds are looking into it.

A grand jury is not good news for anyone.

[Me.]

57. I'd Like To Know How She Got Away With Paying Her Daughter 1/2 A Mil

for woodworking classes

[R B Garr]

58. I would also like to hear about that. nt

[Wwcd]

59. At BC & also on the resort at St Lucia. Quite the gig, huh!

Last edited Thu Jan 11, 2018, 04:19 PM - Edit history (1)

Wonder if the offshore acct Jane set up for her BC "studies abroad" program is also under scrutiny.
She did say it was closed when BC went belly-up, but was the balance in the off shore returned to BC or what?
BC may have wanted that looked at by the Feds as well. A thorough accounting of all BC funds under her watch have to be looked at in a case of Finances & the Feds.

Dang, $1/2 million for a woodworking instructor, including a sweet gig on a Caribbean island!
I'm in the wrong business.

[Me.]

60. There Is Also Thia

"Shortly after Leopold’s son, also named Jonathan, purchased the resort, Burlington College began writing it large checks for all-inclusive stays for its study abroad students.

The younger Leopold later said during a deposition related to a lawsuit filed by a student who was injured at the rest that he conducted boat tours and snorkeling trips "on behalf of Burlington College."

Now in full disclosure, these and other 'tricky expenditures' are mainly being reported by RW sources with Vanity Fair re-reporting them.

[Wwcd]

61. Wow! Thanks for that update. I hadn't read about that part ., ME.

The whole Caribb /BC deal has opened more questions leaning towards self enrichment & many questions yet to be answered.

What was JS up to with the Carbb /BC & Offshore Acct. As well as Leopold's connections, his dad was close with the Sanders' , and kind of big red flags appearing with Driscoll's rather large payments.
Someone was making $$$$ from their association with BC.
And many left with no degrees & no jobs.

Guess we'll find out!
Thanks..☺

[Me.]

63. And While We're Talking Money

There still isn't an answer to what/where/how of that 10million

[Demsrule86]

64. That is what gives me pause. I have a family member who gave his Mom a loan on her house when she

needed money. He did 2 years in club Fed. It sounds sleazy. 1/2 a mil for a woodworking class?

[Me.]

66. God, What Is Illegal About Giving A Mom A Loan

or did he just give it to her and call it a loan so he wouldn't have taxes and....who the hell told?

[Demsrule86]

72. You aren't allowed to lend to family. He was a banker.

He spent two years in Club Fed. If Janes Sanders she needs to face justice just like anyone else. I am not saying she did.It is illegal to lie on mortgage documents. And I am no saying she did that either. I just don't know.

[Me.]

74. She Does Need To Be As Accountable As Anyone Else

We'll see how it plays out

[ehrnst]

19. The first paragraph of the article is misleading in its phrasing

"An adviser to Sen. Bernie Sanders' (I-Vt.) family is disputing a report that federal authorities empaneled a grand jury in connection with a long-running investigation into a 2010 land deal orchestrated by his wife, Jane O'Meara Sanders."

Whereas Weaver states that "We have absolutely no reason to believe that there is a grand jury empaneled to examine Burlington College, Jane Sanders, or any aspect of Dr. Sanders' service as president of Burlington College."

So that's a problem with the article. The author of the article states first that the family disputes that a grand jury was formed, whereas the statement from Weaver qualifies the denial of a grand jury on the matter by saying that they have "no reason to believe" that there is currently a grand jury.

Good journalism would require the opening paragraph to clearly reflect the full message with the statement (and the headline). For instance "An adviser to Sen. Bernie Sanders' (I-Vt.) family is disputing a report that there is currently a grand jury empaneled in connection with a long-running investigation into a 2010 land deal orchestrated by his wife, Jane O'Meara Sanders."

[snooper2]

6. somebody having a sad day

[GaryCnf]

7. Thank Omaha Steve

Sounds like VTDigger got busted using a deceptive headline and telling half the story. Nice to hear from someone who has knowledge of the CURRENT state of affairs.

So Sanders' spokesperson, who would know, says that there is no current grand jury investigation and Ms. Loyd says the only reason she was called to testfy 3 months ago was because she didn't bother to call the FBI back.

[ehrnst]

20. Unfortunately Vermont Seven Days has a misleading first paragraph

Implying that Weaver said that there was no grand jury empaneled.

He stated that he has no "reason to believe" that there "is" a grand jury.

The is the current statement in the corrected VT Digger report stands:

"Lloyd’s appearance is the first public confirmation that the federal government has compelled a grand jury."

[LenaBaby61]

9. "Sanders Family Disputes Report of Escalating Burlington College Probe."

I don't believe Bernie will run for POTUS in 2020, mostly due to age and maybe because his attention will be elsewhere, and with something like this connected to Bernie and his wife Jane, this makes it a lead pipe cinch that he won't run for POTUS.

I can just SEE thuglicans and mostly fatso tweeting about this incessantly and and saying that he and his wife are a law-breakers, guilty of whatever, that they stole monies, hasn't released HIS taxes (Yep, irony and nerve since he won't release HIS taxes) etc. etc. etc., even though there may be total absolution for Bernie et al., fatso will dig up this story to smear both Bernie and his wife. You see how fatso goes on a senile man's tweeting rampage @ Hillary anytime he freaks out and thinks that Mueller's getting closer to his fat crooked ass, and although she's BEEN absolved of any wrong doing in the fake uranium-selling claim, some thuglicans continue on with their fake talking points about it and of course fatso keeps tweeting about it as if the lie is real and that Hillary was SOLELY responsible for selling his buddies the ruskies uranium. That LIE has BEEN debunked. Yet, he STILL tweets about it, and thuglicans keep it on their speed-dial of talking points 😒

[ehrnst]

15. I think he will run for POTUS in 2020

even if his cancer recurs, even if he still refuses to release his personal financial information, even if Jane is charged, and even if he is found to have used his influence in improper ways in the loan.

And I think that there are many who would dismiss any or all of those things as irrelevant to his chances.

[Me.]

52. IMHO

He’d be smart not to. This is just the beginning of the oppo. He was let off easy the last time so he has no idea of what could come his way. He has a nice cushy job, two homes, lots of money. A good life.

[Demsrule86]

71. He should delay delay and delay and hope Democrats are back in office by 20.

He should not run for president.

[Me.]

75. I Don't Know How He Can Delay

He's not in charge of the case, but even when the Dems get in, it won't help him. And I agree, he shouldn't run. And certainly not try to do so as a DEm again. But then, THat ship has sailed.

[NCTraveler]

10. "Sanders family spokesman Jeff Weaver cast doubt on it. "

"the current news reports are simply recycling an account of a government interview of a witness from several months ago."

Fill us in Mr. Ethics. What government "interview" are you referring to?

AP by way of BDN - Published Today

Burlington College trustee testifies about land deal pushed by wife of Bernie Sanders

BURLINGTON, Vermont — A former Burlington College trustee said she testified about the fundraising deal that was undertaken while U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders’ wife was president of the now-defunct Vermont school.

Burlington College closed in 2016 after struggling under the weight of its $10 million purchase of property and buildings from the Roman Catholic Diocese of Burlington in 2010 during Jane Sanders’ presidency. The Burlington Free Press reports former trustee Robin Lloyd said Sunday she testified before a panel about the property purchase after receiving a grand jury subpoena.

Lloyd is the former chairwoman of the school’s development committee. She said she was asked mainly timeline questions about the period from 2010 to 2011.

A spokesman for the independent senator’s family said they have no reason to believe prosecutors have empaneled a grand jury.

https://bangordailynews.com/2018/01/08/news/nation/burlington-college-trustee-testifies-about-land-deal-pushed-by-wife-of-bernie-sanders/

At least they don't incorrectly identify Sanders as a Democrat. I imagine the WFB and other outlets will.

[GaryCnf]

11. This and other updates

Have pretty much ended the dreams of those still determined to take Bernie down.

Robin Loyd's FULL story makes it clear that there is NO EVIDENCE of a grand jury investigation of Sanders, or, for that matter, the Burlington College case. She refused (failed might be a better word) to speak to FBI agents (which every citizen has a right to do) so the FBI asked the US attorney to use a sitting grand jury (which, unlike the FBI, does have the power to compel testimony) to force her to talk. Much to the chagrin of SOME, what Ms. Loyd says is entirely consistent with Jeff Weaver's statement that there is no grand jury empaneled to investigate Burlington College OR Jane Sanders.

This news is consistent with the Washington Post's retraction of its story claiming that such a grand jury had been empaneled after it was revealed that the Post had misinterpreted a subpoena seeking documents from state officials, another common law enforcement investigative tool where the materials sought cannot, or are not, turned over voluntarily and NOT proof that a grand jury has been investigating Sanders OR the Burlington College deal.

Finally, comes the news that Tony Pomerleau, a Burlington real estate mogul who was intimately involved in the attempt to expand Burlington College (and, in fact, contributed a $500,000 bridge loan) was interviewed by FBI agents in December '17. This is actually INCONSISTENT with the empaneling of an investigative grand jury, IF such a jury had been empaneled to consider charges, as VTDigger tried to claim, he would have been called to testify.

Particularly sad for those still fighting OUR ALLY Bernie Sanders were two bits of news that accompanied the last two stories. The subpoenaed documents produced NOTHING NEW and, this comment from Pomerleau,

"There was nothing that I had with [O'Meara Sanders] that meant anything to them," he said. Asked whether he shared anything that might incriminate O'Meara Sanders, who is married to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Pomerleau said, "No. If I did, I wouldn't tell you anyway."

https://www.sevendaysvt.com/OffMessage/archives/2018/01/08/feds-interview-pomerleau-in-burlington-college-investigation

I wonder if they know what "no" means?

So after the little flurry of revelry we've witnessed, what is the real "Breaking News?"

The FBI is still trying to find some evidence to support Brady Toensing's (Winger-N.C.) politically-motivated attack on the Sanders.

Are there REALLY Democrats who are celebrating THAT?

If anyone is unclear about how it works . . . J.D. NYU 1985, Clerk, United States Court of Appeal for the Fourth Circuit, 1985-1986, LDF (capital litigation, prisoner civil rights) 1986-1994, private practice, 1994-present (capital litigation, race-based civil rights litigation, restoration of rights) . . . provided because some have asked . . . I'll be glad to assist

[lapucelle]

12. Yes, but weren't documents subpoenaed pursuant to a grand jury investigation?

https://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/investigations/records-related-to-investigation-into-burlington-college-land-purchase/2495/#document/p2/a361722

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3891525/Records-related-to-investigation-into-Burlington.pdf

[GaryCnf]

13. Yes indeed

And here is where people's lack of knowledge of how grand juries work can be used to create a false narrative to further a particular agenda.

Without getting into unnecessary detail, let me use Ms. Loyd's experience as an illustration. She is a person with no connection whatsoever to any illegal activity (as far as we know). The FBI came to ask her questions. As a citizen she has an absolute right to tell the FBI that she will not answer their questions. She exercised that right. What happened then is the FBI went to the US Attorney's office and said, essentially, "We (the FBI) are conducting an investigation of Burlington College and we have a witness who won't talk to us. Will you go to the sitting grand jury (recall that grand juries usually/often sit for 18 months at a time) and get us a subpoena OR have them haul that witness in to testify?" This is because a grand jury has the power to compel even a totally innocent and uninvolved person to provide evidence (why grand juries have that power and the cops do not is interesting from a historical and constitutional perspective, but is not really the issue here). This happens all the time. It doesn't mean that a grand jury is investigating Burlington College or anyone else. It means the FBI asked the US Attorney for help getting documents/testimony they couldn't get otherwise.

Contrast this with what is commonly known as a "grand jury investigation," a good example of which is the grand jury empanelled by Mueller. They are sitting with a particular purpose and that is to make a finding whether there is probable cause to determine whether a crime has been committed and whether the person targeted by the prosecutor committed it.

Both of these grand juries have and use the power I described above, but they are completely different animals. In fact, many grand juries empaneled for the latter purpose hear mostly hearsay testimony from the law enforcement officers repeating the results of their investigation. Those grand juries are also the "animal" most people think of when they hear the words "grand jury." They hear the words and they start thinking "Oh, oh, it's getting close. Indictments are on the way. The FBI must have a case if they are going to the grand jury."

It is that common perception that is being misused by Sanders' political enemies to carry on their ceaseless vendetta. They know that most people who hear the words "grand jury" will take those words to mean: "By golly, they were right way back then. It wasn't just a right wing meme from Brady Toensing. The FBI has a case against Jane Sanders and now prosecutors are seeking indictments." It makes them and their concerns and their warnings about Bernie and their every day attacks on one of the great allies of this Party APPEAR legitimate.

The only actual fact in all this is that the US Attorney and/or the FBI have been investigating a relatively simple financial transaction for two years and have not been able to discover evidence that it is even likely that a crime has been committed.

[ehrnst]

17. "The current status of any grand jury investigation into Burlington College is unclear."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/burlington-college-trustee-says-she-had-federal-interview/2018/01/08/2fbd141c-f446-11e7-9af7-a50bc3300042_story.html?utm_term=.a16020fb51f3

[GaryCnf]

21. And, once again, that statement is technically correct

And IF a person had a desperate need to believe that there was some reason why Sanders, if he chooses to run, will not be the frontrunner for the 2020 nomination (and here I speak not in terms of whether he is the best candidate, only to the fact that he is in a position similar to where Secretary Clinton was in 2008 and 2016, with an on the ground organization already established and a healthy war chest), to believe he has some skeleton in his closet that will bring him down before 2020 ever gets here OR IF a person wants to believe their past use of Burlington College to smear Sanders was justified, they CAN take the Washington Post's observation as giving them a glimmer of hope that "one day" this will take Sanders down.

All I have done is explain how grand juries work, a subject on which I actually have some knowledge, what is the MOST LIKELY situation here, and why I believe the treating of this "glimmer of hope" as a fact, or even a reasonably likely possibility, is motivated by a desire to trash Sanders (a violation of the TOS) as opposed to a desire to discuss possible obstacles in our mutual efforts to see to it that we reverse the disaster of 2016. In return, I have had snide comments questioning whether I am even an attorney, a massive "look at the squirrel" effort to shift the focus to whether VTDigger has an anti-Bernie agenda (as opposed to what is the most likely reason for Ms. Loyd's appearance), and alert stalking.

I'm done with this subject.

[ehrnst]

22. So you're saying that the only reason anyone would even imagine that there was,

as reported, ever a grand jury on the Burlington College case, at any time, would be that they had a "desperate need to believe that there was some reason why Sanders, if he chooses to run, will not be the frontrunner for the 2020 nomination."

I think that the "desperate need to believe" something might lie much closer to home...



And I hear you about people not listening to someone with some real knowledge on a topic.

I get that when I talk about the topic of health care policy - in particular "Medicare for all." Talk about a "desperate need to believe" in the face of data that doesn't support the dogma... and accusing anyone wielding facts about it having no other reason that "hatred" for a particular career politician.

Why do you think that you are being "alert stalked?"

[GaryCnf]

24. I appreciate this

And give a to what is probably a very accurate observation regarding my own "desperate need to believe."

It is easy, when it's something I want to believe, for me to say things like >>> "Bernie's already-existing ground game and fundraising mechanism is enough to give him a leg up (or at least a position of influence) in 2020." In reality that is indeed wishful thinking.

Perhaps I should keep in mind the saying about "glass houses"

Take care

[KPN]

54. +1!

[lapucelle]

23. So there is evidence that there is a grand jury investigation of the Burlington College land deal

contrary to an earlier claim that

"Robin Loyd's FULL story makes it clear that there is NO EVIDENCE of a grand jury investigation of Sanders, or, for that matter, the Burlington College case"

.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3891525/Records-related-to-investigation-into-Burlington.pdf

[GaryCnf]

25. Please re-read the post to which you replied.

Paying special attention to the discussion of "grand jury investigation" as understood by a lay person and the use of the power of a grand jury to assist in what is really a law enforcement investigation.

Thank you.

[lapucelle]

30. I think I'll just re-read the subpoena issued pursuant to the grand jury investigation.

Those who expect their "expertise" to be taken seriously should be careful about making easily disproved categorical pronouncements (in all caps, no less) like

"there is NO EVIDENCE of a grand jury investigation of Sanders, or, for that matter, the Burlington College case."

especially when documented evidence is readily available.

https://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/investigations/records-related-to-investigation-into-burlington-college-land-purchase/2495/

[GaryCnf]

32. Lol

"easily disproved"

"documented evidence"



Bye

[KTM]

27. Well...

"The FBI is still trying to find some evidence to support Brady Toensing's (Winger-N.C.) politically-motivated attack on the Sanders.

Are there REALLY Democrats who are celebrating THAT? "

Well, there is at least one, and boy is she busy.

Thanks for the articulate breakdown of what is really happening here. That some here embrace it and are beyond exuberant about their "glimmer" is truly a disgusting (and enlightening) thing to see.

[KPN]

55. Absolutely.

Ooops. Maybe not ... there are at least two.

[George II]

31. Because they deny it it's not true? Remember, trump repeatedly claimed there was no contact...

....with any Russians. We've found out differently.

I guess we can do away with courts and trials, just ask the accused. If he/she says he/she didn't do it, we can just move on?

[GaryCnf]

34. Because "who" denies "what?"

I am not relying on anyone's denials. I am relying on the wtnesses' descriptions of their experiences, the dates of their interactions with law enforcement, the time the investigation has been pending, the relative simplicity of the financial transactions involved, and the fact that no indictments have issued. Oh, and the fact some seem incapable of dealing with . . . lawyer.

Btw, in this country we don't have criminal trials when there is not enough evidence to support an indictment, no matter how often Brady Toensing or any of his allies say someone committed a crime.

[R B Garr]

35. Isn't fraud a crime?? Bernie's whole campaign platform surrounded calling

Wall Street business fraud.

[GaryCnf]

36. When it happens, fraud is a crime

When it's only a desperate fantasy of Brady Toensing that now appears to either be so unsupported by FACTS that it was not presented to a grand jury or presented to it and rejected, it's not.

[R B Garr]

37. Yes, FACTS are important. Fantasy allegations just to

smear others for personal gain and esteem should definitely be called out. Labeling people as frauds without FACTS is indeed a desperate fantasy.

[GaryCnf]

38. I can only conclude

that you are referring to those who have suggested that the FBI's use of the power of the grand jury to compel the cooperation of citizens who, for whatever reason, have declined to voluntarily assist its Toensing-inspired investigation indicates that the case has advanced (as opposed to the more likely scenario that they show it in its death throes).

If I have read your post correctly, allow me to suggest that the better course of action is to understand the disappointment at having repeated this story for almost two years, together with breathless assertions of Sanders' impending political demise, only to be forced to face up to the reality that neither indictments nor the end of Sanders' influence in Democratic Party politics are forthcoming.

Compassion seems the better course of action.

[R B Garr]

39. No, the hypocrisy exposure has already happened.

The rest sounds like a lot of projection and fantasy of your own.

[GaryCnf]

40. Well I must apologize for reading

your post incorrectly then.

Given that neither you, not any other poster, has provided a factually-based counter-argument, preferring instead to make unsupported personal attacks on my honesty and my qualifications and/or repeating the same misleading argument over and over again, you can surely understand why I would miss a personal attack in violation of the TOS.

[ehrnst]

45. The counter-argument that there was a grand jury convened for the case?

That is based in fact...

[GaryCnf]

48. For the reasons I have set out (again)

That does not appear to be the case. I would be interested to hear the factual basis for claiming anything other than that these recent developments are evidence of anything other than the routine assistance grand juries provide to law enforcement every day in every jurisdiction.

Now that would be a meaningful discussion!

[R B Garr]

50. You are suggesting that grand juries are convened just to harass people?

You are suggesting there is no factual basis for questioning anyone in the Burlington College bank fraud case being conducted by the FBI in regard to Jane Sanders' actions in securing a loan. This is all just a routine. LOL, at least you are acknowledging there is a grand jury in existence. That is indeed a meaningful development.

BTW, earlier reporting some months ago in the summer said the Sanders' lawyered up with high powered DC lawyers, so there must be some actual FACTS out there floating around.

[Demsrule86]

42. If a witness testified before a Grand jury than a Grand Jury is empaneled.

It is that simple. We don't know what happened for sure. I thought looking at the details of the loan that they are suspect. And lying on a mortgage document will get you sent to prison...not sure if Ms.Sanders did that...but the witness said they asked about the pledges...sounds like they want to know if she based her statements in the mortgage documents on legitimate pledges.

[GaryCnf]

46. There is no dispute whether

a grand jury is empaneled. Federal grand juries are empaneled for months at a time (as another poster pointed out, possibly 18 months at a time or even longer) and act on dozens of cases over that time. A sitting grand jury assisting law enforcement by issuing a subpoena to recalcitrant witness or by issuing subpoenas for documents is something that federal grand juries do all the time.

The meme being spread is completely different. That meme is that a grand jury has been empaneled for the specific purpose of investigating Jane Sanders/Burlington College. That is clearly the insinuation of the VTDigger story which makes a point of describing the issuance of subpoenas as an escalation of the investigation.

While it is undoubtedly true that empaneling a special grand jury to investigate Sanders/Burlington College would indeed be an escalation of the investigation, the mere fact that a recalcitrant witness or documents held by third parties were subpoenaed is simply not evidence that a special grand jury has been empaneled or that criminal charges are being considered. As I have explained repeatedly, given the Loyd's account of why she was subpoenaed (which fits right in to the decidedly insignificant use of a sitting grand jury I just described), the statement made by the real estate mogul whose name escapes me that he had been interviewed by the FBI in December (which is inconsistent with there being a special investigative grand jury, or a grand jury considering charges, because in either instance he would have been called before the grand jury itself), and the length of time that has been spent investigating a really quite simple financial transaction with no indictments being handed down, these recent "revelations" point not to an escalation, but rather to making sure that there are no loose ends before putting Toensing's clearly politically-motivated complaint to rest.

As you mention, the accusations made against Jane Sanders and the Burlington College Board of Directors were very serious. That, however, has little to do with whether the breathless claims of an escalation in the investigation are supported or refuted by what we know about Ms. Loyd's experiences and the experiences of the other persons from whom information has been sought.

Btw, thank you for your reasoned response. It is appreciated and respected.

[ehrnst]

44. Again, you imply that the only reason anyone would acknowledge

the existence of a grand jury on this case does so out of "hatred," and lacks "compassion."

I guess you have decided to ignore the glass house?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210074362#post24

[GaryCnf]

47. Please do not misunderstand me

In fact, it is foolish to deny that a grand jury has been empaneled. A grand jury issued the subpoenas.

What runs contrary to what we know to be facts is the contention that the issuance of these subpoenas indicates either the existence of a grand jury investigation of Sanders/Burlington College, or that a grand jury is considering charges. A sitting grand jury assisted a pending law enforcement investigation. It's something that happens all the time, not an escalation.

[Me.]

53. Can They Interview Witnesses Without Being Empanaled?

[ehrnst]

43. Grand juries aren't convened on just fantasy or rumor

There has to be a substantial action(s) to look into.

[GaryCnf]

49. Grand juries are convened as a matter of course

Without regard to any particular case. They perform numerous functions, from assisting law enforcement with their power to compel testimony and/or the production of documents, to considering whether an indictment should be handed down, to, in special cases, conducting investigations. A grand jury is undoubtedly sitting in Vermont right now, just as it is across the street from my office.

Where the stretch comes in here is the claim that the grand jury that subpoenaed Ms. Loyd is performing anything other than the first of these rolls.

[R B Garr]

51. Exactly. Now we're being told that grand juries are convened just

to harass people. Yesterday, this was all being passed off as fake news.

I am enjoying the shift in concern for Hillary, though.

[Wwcd]

67. Toensing is actually irrelevant. Jane lied to the bank to get a loan

That is the crime being looked at.

Toensing has zero to do with Jane Sanders' actions while she was at BC .

Shooting the messenger won't make the investigation stop.
The crime in question was Jane's lying to the bank.
Not Toensing reporting it.

Why blame Toensing for what Jane Sanders did to secure the bank loan. She provided false info as told by those who pledged or did not pledge as Jane said it to the bank.

The messenger has nothing to do with the crime being investigated.

Jane's fudging the numbers to the bank occurred & was questioned long before Toensing reported it.

[GaryCnf]

68. So you've gone straight to

"She's guilty" ("Jane lied to the bank to get a loan" )

In world where the objective is slurring Sanders, treating accusations as facts might be enough.

In a world where facts matter, you get:

NO INDICTMENTS after TWO YEARS of investigation of a simple financial transaction!!!!!!!!!!

[Wwcd]

69. No. Those are the questions being asked. I have no idea what she actually did.

Stop accusing me of going straight to anything.
This issue with Jane, The Bank, & Burlington College going belly up has been in question for over a year. Toensing didn't break this news.

Its not new news but making Jane Sanders dilemma with her direct involvement, about Toensing is the point I made.
Toensing jumped on this to gain favor from his pathetic RWers.

His name shouldn't even be given recognition.
He is a pitiful RW paparazzi looking for a story to attach his name to. Maybe he'll get an appearance on Hannity!

This "Feds & Financial" case belongs to Jane Sanders. She applied for the loan.
Give credit for this fiasco where it is due.
Jane Sanders.

[LexVegas]

14. "Sanders family spokesman Jeff Weaver"

[ehrnst]

18. Not sure why they keep him on, other than he's an insider

Weaver certainly seems to be problematic at times.

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/bernie-sanders-group-turmoil-227297

[emulatorloo]

28. Personal friend.

Which is nice, I guess. However IMHO they could do much better with a competent professional.

[ehrnst]

29. There is the issue of trust

and if someone doesn't trust people who disagree with them, that can be an issue in finding people outside one's close circle.

My understanding is that Bernie is not someone who seeks a "team of rivals."

[George II]

33. Yes, an insider to the campaign. He probably knows everything.

[Jakes Progress]

26. I guess he has to resign then.

I mean, there was an alleged crime possibly reported by anonymous sources.

Isn't that the situation that "forced" Bernie to demand that Al Franken resign. We don't need no stinking' evidence.

[Wwcd]

56. " Isn't that the situation that "forced" Bernie to demand that Al Franken resign."

Yes, it certainly is.
Thanks for pointing that out.

[R B Garr]

62. That's a very good point and analogy. Al didn't even get a grand jury.

He got nothing.

[Demsrule86]

65. He can't. They have a GOP governor.

[Jakes Progress]

70. Didn't bother him to put Franken's seat in play.

All Dems are not created equal. Some are smarter and more capable than others. Just getting someone with a D by their name isn't the same as getting someone who is bright, sharp, and talented.

His signing on (piling on) with the "Dems Who Dump Dems" crowd was not smart. It was not fair. It showed lack of leadership and thought. It was a stupid thing to do. He could apologize. Say he was wrong. He could try to get Franken back in the Senate (where he has been more effective opponent of trumps than Sanders).

But he won't. None of those who played that card will fess up. They will not admit an error. There is a lot on DU about not saying the two parties are alike. They aren't, but in this case we have several senators with the same inability to admit that they did the wrong thing that republicans have.

[Demsrule86]

73. It wouldn't be in play...the governor would appoint a Republican...do you ever thing what it would

mean if the GOP got a bigger majority?. This is not about Sen. Sanders, this is about the rest of us and the price we would pay if the GOP gets more power.

[Jakes Progress]

76. Stop being silly.

Of course my post was tongue in cheek. To those who know what has been going on, it was a reminder that Sanders jumped in to condemn Franken and demand that Al resign on exactly the kind of crap that is being slung at Bernie himself. He didn't mind putting a safe Democratic seat into play in 2018. I don't want Sanders resigning (unless there were a chance of getting a good Democrat to replace his continued Independent seat). I didn't want Franken to resign. Sanders showed very little political savvy (unless he cynically saw Franken as a rival for nomination in 2020) in his bandwagon leap. We lost a very effective voice for nothing but a day's headlines and, for Sanders and those who joined in, a phony (or naive) attempt to appear like they cared. Actually, I think they care, but they just didn't show enough intelligence and courage to do the right thing. We lost a Senator and the #MeToo movement got degraded.

My second post was to protest your idea that any senator with a D by their name would be just fine, that as long as the replacement was a Democrat it was fine to dump our most effective voice against trump in the US Senate.

Sanders did a dumb thing here. It demeaned and detracted from the @MeToo movement and the Democratic party. He wasn't alone. And he won't be along in never admitting his culpability.

[OAITW r.2.0]

77. This sucks for our us, but it is war.

In my old iteration I was a BC/AG/JK/JE->BO/HC supporter. Back in November/16, I would have proudly supported Bernie against the idiot who occupies the White House today. The Session/Trump WH will use this to divide Democrats....I am not bitting. We are all in this together. It's simply,

(1) Trump is unhinged.
(2) Republican majority Party refuses to do their legal duty and removes him. Instead they use his compromised ass to push an undemocratic legislature agenda, due to their own criminal complicity in aiding and abetting foreign countries who are actively working to undermine this country.
(3) It's not your character or morals that make you a rising star in the Republican Party....it's how cheap your vote can be bought/blackmailed to facilitate this country's demise.
(4) The whole RNC is a Uber-RICO act that needs to be addressed if we really care about what this countries future. Lots of criminal acts being done across state lines and the Republican Party is facilitating it.

Nov. 2018 will be a defining political moment for this country.

If a trial for Mrs. Sanders is necessary, make it a trial of her non-Republican peers. Because I am pretty sure this is politically motivated event to fracture the left.