Jane Sanders Lawyers Up

[DonViejo]

The strange story behind the federal investigation that has rattled Burlington, Vermont, and put Bernie and Jane Sanders on the defensive.

By HARRY JAFFE June 22, 2017

Bernie Sanders was in the midst of an interview with a local TV reporter early last month when the senator fielded an unexpected question about an uncomfortable matter.

“There’s an implication, and from at least one individual, an explicit argument that when they called for an investigation into Burlington College that you used your influence to secure a loan from People’s United—”

The senator cut him off.

Sanders is used to fielding softball questions from an adoring local press, but his inquisitor, Kyle Midura of Burlington TV station WCAX, had a rare opportunity to put him on the spot. Investigative reporters had been breaking stories about a federal investigation into allegations that the senator’s wife, Jane Sanders, had committed fraud in obtaining bank loans for the now defunct Burlington College, and that Sanders’s Senate office had weighed in.

Sanders had never responded to questions about the case, but he took the bait this time. Briefly.

“Well, as you know,” he said, “it would be improp— this implication came from Donald Trump’s campaign manager in Vermont. Let me leave it at that, because it would be improper at this point for me to say anything more.”

more
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/06/22/bernie-sanders-jane-sanders-lawyer-bank-fraud-investigation-burlington-college-215297

[radical noodle]

1. The tip of the iceberg

of the things the GOP would have used against Sanders had he won the nomination.

[LexVegas]

2. Never had a chance at winning the nomination. nt

[NurseJackie]

15. True.

[LiberalLovinLug]

106. Sanders would have destroyed Trump

no question. He would have easily won the rust belt, that NAFTA and TPP loving Hillary barely lost, and that would have been enough right there.

And investigation on shadily securing a loan to fund a legitimate college expansion, not for personal income gain.

vs.

Trump University scamming actual students for his personal monetary gain?

If that is the worst they could throw at Sanders, he'd still have come out way on top. The only thing that would have maybe stopped him winning is actual voting machine manipulations, along with voter suppression tactics by the GOP.

[Demsrule86]

112. He would have lost the moderates and there was plenty more to throw at him.

[George II]

130. He wouldn't have had a chance.

[VOX]

183. Your assertion presupposes quite a bit.

If Sanders had been the candidate, there is no telling what the Republican hate machine (with significant input and assistance from the Kremlin, we now know) would have thrown at Bernie.

No doubt part of such a coordinated attack against Bernie would include such outrageous chestnuts as "Northeastern socialist senator is out of touch with real Americans," "Sanders is the poster boy for even bigger government," "Socialist Dems want to raise your taxes," "Jane Sanders fleeced Burlington College," "How would hard-working Americans fare under socialism?" "Socialism, socialism, socialism," "How some countries have failed under socialist regimes," "Socialism will destroy America," etc., etc., and that's not even 1/4 of what the GOP hate machine would sound off with every day, via hate radio, Fox, Breitbart, Hannity, the Trump campaign itself, and so on. All of which plays great in the depressed, looking-for-someone-to-blame, disaffected white men who reside in the Rust Belt.

The demographics of the region indicate the highest concentration of white males in the United States; it's in this specific demographic that Trump was most successful. Sadly, his xenophobic messaging resonated most in non-urban areas where there is a constant setting of anger and fear.

While it's ultimately a fruitless exercise, nevertheless Bernie's "path to the presidency" would NOT have been some cakewalk. The last time a Northeastern senator/Democratic presidential candidate won was in 1960. And that was the charismatic JFK.

[Cha]

3. Mahalo for this, Don.

[Persisted]

5. Make sure you read the embedded links. nt

[Cha]

6. I had already read it all from another

site.. very interesting.

Mahalo, Persisted

[Persisted]

11. The involvement of the Catholic Church in the front and back ends

Of this particular land transaction is an interesting story.

[NurseJackie]

16. Curiouser and curiouser.

[Persisted]

21. Roman Holidays. nt

[NurseJackie]

23. I loved that movie!

[Persisted]

24. One of my favorites too... They just don't make them like that anymore. nt

[lapucelle]

92. How so?

The Church wants no part of a political grudge match. Burlington College offered the dioceses a price $4,000,000 more than the valuation of the property. Of course they jumped at the offer.

http://digital.vpr.net/post/catholic-church-rejects-claim-sanders-wife-caused-financial-harm#stream/0

http://archive.boston.com/news/local/vermont/articles/2010/05/24/vt_catholic_church_sells_hq_to_burlington_college/

http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=12477504

http://newsok.com/article/feed/161345

[Persisted]

97. Hang on..... are you suggesting that Sanders overpaid by 4 million? nt

[lapucelle]

109. That information is from the VPR story.

"Bishop Christopher Coyne [the current bishop of the diosoces], however, says the harm to which Toensing refers does not exist. And he says the church wants no part in any political grudge match."

---------------------SNIP-------------------------

"Coyne says an appraisal of the property prior to the sale yielded a $6 million valuation.

'At the time, we were very satisfied with the $10 million purchase price on a property that was assessed … at $6 million. So the offer from Burlington College was about $4 million more than the property was worth,' says Coyne, who was not bishop at the time of the transaction."

http://digital.vpr.net/post/catholic-church-rejects-claim-sanders-wife-caused-financial-harm#stream/0

[Persisted]

110. Sanders overpaid by 4 mil on a property sold because of pedophilia?

Let me see if I have this.....

1) the archdiocese needs to raise money to pay off settlements because they employed childfucking priests.

2) The property is worth 6 mil according to the archdiocese.

3) Jane Sanders pays them 10 mil.

4) The loan defaults, with the CC only getting 8 mil.

5) Parishioners ask the US attorney to look into the deal.

6) The bishop claims no money was actually lost because Sanders paid 4 mil over the value, so there should be no federal investigation of the bank loan?

7) Burlington College goes under.

Are these the assertions of facts?

[lapucelle]

113. It's more a framing of a narrative. N/T

[Persisted]

114. *Kamala Harris* So that would be a yes? *Kamala Harris* nt

[lapucelle]

115. Absolutely not.

Your narrative implies church approval of and participation in the lawsuit filed by Toensing.

"Coyne said Toensing didn’t reach out to him, or any other employee or agent of the diocese, prior to filing the complaint alleging harm to the church.

Toensing instead filed the complaint on behalf of Wendy Wilton, a former Republican senator from Rutland County who ran unsuccessfully for state treasurer in 2012, and who, Coyne says, 'happens to be Catholic.'

Toensing, who says he too is Catholic, says the harm to the church is extensive, whether Coyne recognizes it or not."

http://digital.vpr.net/post/catholic-church-rejects-claim-sanders-wife-caused-financial-harm#stream/0

[Persisted]

117. Oh lordy....you just revealed you didn't read the complaint.

The complaint Toensing filed is on behalf of the parishoners of the archdiocese. Wendy Wilton is one. You should read the complaint.

Arguably, morally and legally, the Catholic Church is better represented by the non-childfucking parishoners than the pedophiles and their enablers.

Who is the true Church is perhaps a philosophical question best left out of this discussion.

But you, my friend are carefully avoiding addressing the factual assertion put forth by those you claim represent the Church:

Are you claiming that the bishop.is correct? Did Jane Sanders overpay by 4 million?

[lapucelle]

122. Toesning filed his complaint in the name of

one named parishioner in the Burlington dioceses and other "aggrieved Vermont parishioners".

What on earth is a "Vermont parishioner", aggrieved or otherwise? Any member of any parish in any dioceses of any faith who happens to live in Vermont? Why not name the parish or at least the dioceses? Why, indeed.

I make no claims. I reported what Bishop Coyne said about the value of the land in a VPR interview.

I need no lectures from you concerning the distinction between the Church as an institution and the church as a community of those who follow the actual teachings of Christ.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2680892/LTR-to-USATTY-and-FDIC-IG-Re-Apparent-Fraud-Sen.pdf

https://vtdigger.org/2016/01/11/vermont-gop-official-requests-federal-probe-into-jane-sanders-fraud-allegations/

[Persisted]

123. Again....you sidestep the claim your own source provides...the 4 mil overpayment.

Did Sanders overpay?

As for "aggrieved parishioners" I suspect that might be any Catholic who wonders at the transactions conducted to pay the wrongs of pedophiles.

[lapucelle]

134. My source?

In response to your cryptic post about the Church being on both ends of this deal, I quoted and linked to what the current bishop said during a VPR interview, specifically that the dioceses was not damaged by the default because the offer price was much higher than the actual valuation.

As for the "aggrieved parishioners of Vermont", why would people angry that their dioceses sold property to settle a sexual abuse case file a complaint against the buyer of the land?

Faulty assumptions lead to dubious conclusions, and I've done more than enough to explain the facts concerning the actual complainants.

Life is too short.
That's why ignore is my friend

[Persisted]

137. Yes....YOUR SOURCE. You posted that article as "proof"

of lord knows what, and inadvertently aired the claim that Jane Sanders paid 10 mil for a property worth 6 mil, using Burlington College's money.

Now, the authority for this claim of overpayment is apparently the same person whom you rely upon to ascertain that the underlying claim to the US federal attorney is misplaced.

So, is your bishop reliable only in tbe latter claim, but not the former? In other words, is the Bishop mistaken about the $4 mil overpayment but not mistaken as to any potential loss to the diocese vis-a-vis a federally insured loan?

Think on that logical pretzel twist for a second.

[Persisted]

4. The article is incredibly in-depth....read the embedded links, too.

Jane Sanders has hired scooter Libby's lawyer..... let's hope she listens to him better than Libby did.

[Gothmog]

7. Here is another article on this

Link to tweet

?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fpoliticaloasis.freeforums.net%2Fthread%2F9499%2Fguess-finally-lawyered-rhymes-wanders%3Fpage%3D1

[NCTraveler]

8. FBI investigating Jane Sanders for possible fraud: report

Federal investigators are looking into allegations that Sen. Bernie Sanders’s (I-Vt.) wife, Jane Sanders, falsified loan documents while she served as the president of Burlington College, according to multiple reports.

The small Vermont liberal arts school closed down in May 2016, after going bankrupt and failing to meet accreditation standards.

The college began to face financial difficulties during Sanders's tenure from 2004 to 2011, falling $10 million into debt when the school purchased a new campus in 2010.

Sanders has been accused of falsifying the information on the loan documents in order to expand the college grounds.
The VTdigger.org reported that some of the donors Sanders appealed to for help with loans are now in contact with the FBI and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/332313-fbi-investigating-jane-sanders-for-alleged-bank-fraud-report

[Persisted]

9. I suspect the investigation isn't limited to just the front end of the transaction.

The back end of this transaction, where the land ended up is an interesting little story, too.

[rgbecker]

13. Do you have a report on where the land ended up?

Link? Did it actually move???! LOL.

I can see the headline now: "Lakefront property trucked to New Hampshire in scheme to raise property values in Manchester."

[Persisted]

19. The losses to the archdiocese and then the deal with the developer

were covered in the local press. Not difficult to find.

The Conway lawsuit is also covered.

[rgbecker]

10. If bankrupsies are indication of criminal activity, look at Trump's many verses wife of Bernie's

college's one, (Years after leaving the place.)

From the article that points out the role Trump's Vermont henchman.

“As a result of my [initial] complaint,” Toensing wrote, “I was recently approached and informed that Senator Bernard Sanders’s office improperly pressured People’s United Bank to approve the loan application submitted by the Senator’s wife, Ms. Sanders.”

The evidence for that charge seems to be thin, at best. According to sources familiar with the matter, the alleged “pressure” may have simply been a casual suggestion—perhaps chatter by a Sanders staffer over lunch, instead of a written document or email—and though such a suggestion might still be improper, it would be difficult to prove a direct connection to the senator.

In response to a question from Politico Magazine about the allegation, Sanders adviser Jeff Weaver dismissed any claim that the senator or his office intervened in the loan request, calling it “ridiculous” and “false.”

[Persisted]

12. Hmm....you make a great argument for the release of public records, like taxes. nt

[NurseJackie]

17. True, that!

[joeybee12]

14. If weaver denies it, then it's true

He really is a skunk

[George II]

131. What Weaver "dismissed" vs. what may have really happened are two different stories.

[DefenseLawyer]

18. I'm trying to imagine your reaction

If every time Secretary Clinton has hired an attorney (hint: it has been a few times) someone posted on DU that she had "lawyered up".

[Persisted]

20. I think she was right to hire an attorney. I only have one question...when?

If this was a hire made during the campaign, I think it should have been disclosed.

[Demsrule86]

45. Someone usually did before the most recent incarnation of TOS and few even afterwards. NT

[DefenseLawyer]

48. And I think you will agree that those celebrating this post would not have been pleased. n/t

[Demsrule86]

61. I don't celebrate it. It is what it is...but there are hard feelings and not from the primaries.

Sen. Sanders has said some pretty bad stuff about Democrats recently. It is posted here if you want to look...It is to be expected that some are angry with him. It is a vicious cycle. I don't like seeing any Democrats bashed. And I think it is a bad idea to Bash Sen. Sanders and against TOS as well. Now Greens of course are fair game and it is expected that we bash them (hehe).

[George II]

133. He did so even today!

[Demsrule86]

164. Really? What is the game here?

[NCTraveler]

85. Clinton is one of the most attacked politicians in history.

They have an enormous foundation. Their fingerprints are on a lot of things.

They have teams of lawyers.

What's interesting is the deflection.

[woodsprite]

151. I'm thinking this is a rinse-repeat of Whitewater, except they changed the names. n/t

[DemocraticWing]

22. What's the word you guys used about the emails?

"Nothingburger"

Move along, kids.

[Persisted]

25. I think when your criminal attorney personally calls witnesses

It tends to indicate a little more than a nothingburger.

It may be a nothingburger. It is entirely possible that the federal investigators who have already visited Vermont and Florida have turned up nothing of interest.

I would be very interested in finding out with the bank itself filed once the loan defaulted.

[Madam45for2923]

72. How is it a nothingburger! Was an actual crime committed or not?

Seems you think not.

[Freethinker65]

26. She would be insane not to "lawyer up"

[Persisted]

28. I think she's right to retain a lawyer. I just want to know if the retention happened during the

Campaign. I think it should have been disclosed because I think it's the type of thing that would have been used by the GOP had he gotten the nomination.

[Trial_By_Fire]

27. Looks like the haters have something to be happy about...

[Persisted]

29. I don't know that I would characterize the parishioners as haters.

Certainly mr. Toensing is a precocious little shit.

[QC]

173. Haters is an ugly word. Perhaps they are just msanthropes. n/t

[Autumn]

174. Both are ugly and nasty but yes msanthropes is the perfect description.

Last edited Sat Jun 24, 2017, 02:59 PM - Edit history (1)

[left-of-center2012]

31. Circular firing squads will not help us in 2018 and 2020 n/t

[Trial_By_Fire]

32. Did you mean to post this on the OP's thread?

[left-of-center2012]

33. No

I meant it as support for your comment.
Didn't exactly work, though?

[Trial_By_Fire]

34. Sorry about that...

Glad you clarified that for me!

[Persisted]

44. A Senatorial candidate's wife is under federal investigation. Are we supposed to not

mention that?

[Demsrule86]

46. We don't need someone as our nominee in 20 who may have baggage that the GOP can

exploit...they always find something to latch onto but let's not help them. Glad this is being brought out now.

[Voltaire2]

67. Irony lost I suppose.

[Demsrule86]

68. Not at all...it didn't work out so well in 16...now much of that was trumped up by the GOP and

there was never any criminal wrongdoing on the party of Sec. Clinton. But I want a damned 'virgin' for 20 someone the GOP will have a hard time demonizing. Even if it can't be proven legally, I don't even want the innuendo of something improper.

[LanternWaste]

57. I'd rationalize it as such if my sacred cows demanded it of me as well...

I'd rationalize it as such if my sacred cows demanded it of me as well...

[left-of-center2012]

30. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty

Let's not throw our friends under the bus.

[Pauldg47]

35. Yes!

[sheshe2]

153. Hillary never was.

[Ace Rothstein]

36. The reaction of glee from a few posters is kind of embarassing.

I don't think you'd see the same from Sanders supporters if Bill Clinton was suddenly under investigation for something.

[left-of-center2012]

37. We will need Sanders and his supporters in 2018 and 2020

We all need to work to defeat the GOP,
and stop alienating our friends.

[Ace Rothstein]

47. Yep, the people determined to keep reliving last year's primaries are going to make 2018 very ugly.

[Persisted]

53. There's just one flaw in that argument....BS is a 2018 Senatorial candidate.

Surely you are not suggesting that in the 2018 senatorial races, having a spouse under current federal investigation is not a newsworthy item?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

58. This isn't an investigation. It's a Security Review.

[Persisted]

98. Indeed. Perhaps the FBI can be perusaded to hurry up via a Fox

News appearance.

[Ace Rothstein]

65. It may be.

I doubt it will matter in Vermont where Bernie is incredibly popular.

[_BravoMan_]

78. Ace...

File this under "no shit, sherlock"... The refighting of the 2016 primaries remain embarrassing, and yet they continue to nitpick Bernie.

What did the DNC tell the Sanders supporters - "We don't need your votes" - and then go after the Republican votes? That is the wrong strategy all the way around. I would NOT be surprised if the Independents are now the largest voting bloc.

If the Democratic Party wants to stay viable, they need to dump the Third Way Democrats that has had over 30 years of the same failed strategy. Dr. Dean had the right idea (when we started winning again), but then after he left, they went back to losing to the Republicans. It's gotta stop right now. After 10 years, I'm very sad to say that Dr. Dean is a part of the problem, not the solution, by becoming a PHARMA lobbyist, and abandoning the people.

[emulatorloo]

135. "We don't need your votes" Link to a quote from a DNC or Democratic Leader who said that.

Sorry, I never heard anyone say that.

I am a Bernie primary supporter.

Bernie had a lot on influence on the platform.

There was lots of Outreach to convince Sanders supporters to vote Democratic in 2016.

Most Sanders supporters did vote Democratic in 2016.

[Demsrule86]

49. We need Democrats in 2020.

[left-of-center2012]

84. We need more than Democrats in 2020 (and 2018)

We need Independents and every vote we can get.

Alienating potential supporters won't help.

[Demsrule86]

119. Look, I hope they vote with us, but the the Bob'ers can't be counted on, and I will not destroy

our chances of winning by turning the party over to them-country is center left at best...we are a big tent party they can join or not...their choice. Not catering to them.They are but one of the Democratic constituencies.

[Purveyor]

103. Can I buy two vowel's? An I and a 0 please... eom

[Cha]

146. Right.. blame it on a cc instead of who actually

started this shite.

[Cha]

145. your little cc is just that. Pathetic that you're trying to

blame this on your little vowel search.

[Cha]

126. The local Vermont Digger has been on this since

the beginning.

They must feel the People have right to know the facts.

https://vtdigger.org/2017/05/09/sanders-dismisses-burlington-college-allegations-political/

[George II]

147. The FBI doesn't file charges, formal or not, they recommend charges to the Attorney General, and....

...they don't do so until any investigation is complete.

[lapucelle]

180. The FBI never "files charges", formal or otherwise.

"The public may not always understand that the FBI does not have the job of deciding who should, or should not, be prosecuted for crime. It was created to do investigations – period. When it finishes one of its probes, it can and usually does make recommendations, but someone else has the job of deciding what to do with the results of those investigations – an actual prosecutor."

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/constitution-check-does-the-fbi-have-power-to-decide-who-gets-prosecuted

[David__77]

40. I think some Sanders supporting would "enthusiastic" about such a scenario.

And some would not. I would not, as someone who voted for Sanders in the primary.

At this point, I anticipate quite rough primaries ahead, and quite a rough struggle for control of the Democratic Party at all levels.

[Demsrule86]

50. If that happens then we lose...it is that simple. No one

should control the Democratic Party...we need a big tent where all are welcomed.

[David__77]

52. By "control," I mean fill leadership positions within.

There are party officials who have authority. There are elections for things like county central committees here in California, for instance.

I think that there can be vigorous primaries, and the winning candidates still go on to win the general election. There are real political differences. Further, I don't think the Democratic Party will ultimately welcome all; for instance, there are dividing lines, like racism, etc.

[Demsrule86]

56. That is a good idea. Party's should have strong local control. Since elections are state run really.

[LanternWaste]

59. Your inference of glee is embarrassing as well...

Your inference of glee is embarrassing as well... you seem rather shrill, try to calm down!

[Ace Rothstein]

64. Shrill? No

If you can't see that some are excited by this news then you must not have read through all the replies.

[Cha]

128. The Vermont Digger has been on this from the

beginning.. I guess they must feel the people have a right to know what went on at Burlington College.

https://vtdigger.org/2017/05/09/sanders-dismisses-burlington-college-allegations-political/

[MineralMan]

38. People involved in any kind of legal proceedings need to hire lawyers.

So, I'm not sure the title of this thread is that meaningful. The linked story is not about Jane Sanders hiring an attorney. It is about the legal action that made it wise to hire an attorney.

That she has hired an attorney isn't really the story at all. People hire attorneys because they need attorneys. It's a wise move.

The facts will emerge, regarding this case.

[David__77]

39. I appreciate your comment.

I think that there will be an awful lot of litigating involving political figures in the period ahead.

[Persisted]

55. Respectfully I think part of the story is when this particular counsel was retained.

[Me.]

41. Never Been A Fan Of JS

And under ordinary circumstances, I would describe this as chickens coming home to roost…aka…Karma. However, with a troublemaking Toeansing in the picture, I have to wonder if this is solely a political hit. (as an aside, I wonder why Brady took his mother’s last name instead of his father’s, Di Genova). Also, that lawyer she has is pricey, as pricey as a $600,000. summer home. so where is that money coming from?

[Persisted]

42. I can't imagine that Sanders would be stupid enough to use anything but personal income in the

Retention of an attorney for a matter that occurred during Jane's employment with Burlington College.

[Me.]

43. You're Right

It would be pretty stupid

[Persisted]

54. Neither Sanders strikes me as particularly mercenary or stupid.

They must be using personal funds, because I simply cannot imagine a scenario under which any other funds would reasonably be used.

[Me.]

62. I Wouldn't Classify Either As Stupid

though I did think there was opportunism in that direction so we shall see, I remain open to whatever the truth is

[Demsrule86]

51. I don't know what happened or what role Jane Sander played or didn't play, but quite a few kids got

screwed ...they had paid their tuition much of it with student loans and had nowhere to go.That is not right and should be looked into.

[Initech]

60. Everybody's lawyering up for the weekend!

[hrmjustin]

63. This is serious but a lawyer can push for the FBI to wrap up their investigation.

Jane Sanders actions are questionable but I don't want to see her in legal trouble.

[Lee-Lee]

70. A lawyer will have zero influence on how fast the FBI works

They do what they do at the pace they want to do it.

You might slow them by stalling on producing evidence they request. But you won't speed them up or make them do anything in haste.

[hrmjustin]

71. Yeah I really meant to say they can lobby hard for no indictment.

[Persisted]

100. Oh....you mean you can't ask the FBI to hurry it up?

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/jane-sanders-jokes-the-fbi-shoulld-get-on-with-email-investigation

[pirateshipdude]

66. Maybe we will see the joint tax returns. Eom

[R B Garr]

69. This is about their unabashed hypocrisy. When you put yourself in a moral

authority position over others and demean and diminish others with unproven inferences of corruption, then you better be clean yourself. Lawyering up over potential fraud charges pretty much knocks you off your pedestal.

Amazing that Andrea Mitchell didn't even question Bernie about this when he was on her show just now. They have not been held to the same standard in the media that they demand of others. Enough with this.

[JCanete]

73. it's not about shit until a crime has been proven. Jesus. Why not just coopt the "lock her up" chant

[R B Garr]

74. lol, more utter hypocrisy. You've got to be kidding with this.

[JCanete]

75. What's the hypocrisy? Show me mine. You are all about convictions without proof aren't you? nt

[R B Garr]

76. Not worth explaining the obvious. If you claim you are a moral authority,

then you better not have baggage yourself. It's not a difficult concept.

[JCanete]

77. so not my hypocrisy at all. You are already making the bold assumption that this is all a done deal

and that Sanders is guilty because it fits your world view. Not because you have the facts.

[R B Garr]

79. lol, you are desperately trying to make this about me. The article speaks for

itself. And the hypocrisy is what I was addressing.

[JCanete]

80. the article literally ends with the sentence..."this may all end up being nonsense..."

[R B Garr]

81. More quotes:

“There’s an implication, and from at least one individual, an explicit argument that when they called for an investigation into Burlington College that you used your influence to secure a loan from People’s United—”

[JCanete]

82. is an implication proof now? What the fuck are you doing? Just reread your own damn posts and

realize how half-cocked you are going off.

[R B Garr]

83. You've got to be kidding.

Read the article. It starts with the title about Jane Sanders lawyering up. Sorry you are angry about that.

[JCanete]

86. and that is ALL you currently have. Jesus. She may have committed a crime, but lawyering up...is

that itself hypocrisy now? Why are you choosing this hill to die on?

[R B Garr]

87. LOL at you desperately trying to make this about me. Jane Sanders lawyered up.

She's being investigated for fraud. It's all in the article. And there's more than one article, not just this one posted.

[JCanete]

88. almost nothing is in the article. Really. I read the whole thing. There is one investigation. Then

there is some irrelevant character assassination about what kind of a boss Jane Sanders was. There is a leading question about whether or not the bank was eager to loan money to the wife of a man with as much clout as Sanders has in Vermont. There is somebody drawing an inference and suggesting that there is an implication. Then there is you, using lawyering up as evidence, and "implications" stated by a journalist as more evidence.

Then there is the statement in the article that it is VERY hard to actually prove this kind of fraud. The person has to be shown to have knowingly misled, not accidentally or even incompetently done so. And then the ending comment that this may all be smoke and no fire.

From all of that...you got GUILTY out of it. At the end of the day you may be right, but it will have had nothing to do with your masterful powers of reasoning and objectivity. You will have just bet on a horse that "won."

[R B Garr]

90. Too bad you're angry that Vermont newspapers reported on Jane Sanders

lawyering up. You should contact them with your concerns. In the meantime, I'll continue to read whatever I damn well please.

And you do realize that the definition of hypocrisy is about morals. You keep substituting morals for "crimes" and then trying to pass it off on me. LOL,

[JCanete]

91. I don't know from that article that anything illegal or immoral happened. That's the thing. Somehow

from the article you know. Because what, only guilty people get lawyers? Are you listening to yourself at all?

I have no beef with papers reporting that. That is news. It isn't a conviction. It isn't doing a Nancy Grace the way you are.

[R B Garr]

93. You should look up their own comments about morality.

I doubt you're having this much trouble grasping the hypocrisy behind Jane Sanders being investigated for a crime. Fraud is a crime. Vermont newspapers are writing about it.

I don't write for a Vermont newspaper, though. I just read what they wrote. It looks like you are just harassing me now. Too bad you are angry that Vermont newspapers reported on this FBI investigation.

[JCanete]

94. how am I harassing you? Do you feel harassed? You have responded to every post I've made. Maybe

you're harassing me?

No, you didn't just read what they wrote. Wow. That's kind of the point. You actually made a determination of guilt knowing almost nothing of the case or the evidence that would make Sanders 1) an immoral hypocrite, and 2) a criminal. She hasn't even been charged with a crime yet.

[R B Garr]

95. LMAO, the posts are numbered, so it's easy to see that what you're saying is false.

And, again, I addressed their hypocrisy. It's right there in the posts. Everything else you have embellished, LOL.

It's obvious you are angry that Vermont newspapers are reporting on a federal probe of a U.S. Senator's wife. You should write them about it.

[JCanete]

96. okay....have a good day.

[LiberalLovinLug]

107. Thankyou for your patience in dealing with such balderdash

I was reading the thread and appreciate someone taking the time to call out these baseless smear tactics against our Democratic party allies like Sanders.

What I find sardonically amusing is that there are still those that are fighting the primaries...EVEN THOUGH THEIR CHOICE WON THE PRIMARIES.

[R B Garr]

108. You should also write the Vermont papers and Newsweek

now, and the federal agencies who issued subpoenas about this matter and tell them of your concerns. Twisting words on a message board to fit a false narrative about year old primaries just looks phony at this point.

[Persisted]

101. Well.....depending on when that lawyer was retained, this appearance on Faux

might be seen as hypocritical......


http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/jane-sanders-jokes-the-fbi-shoulld-get-on-with-email-investigation

[George II]

148. That's why there's something called an investigation. And the FBI doesn't "prove" crimes, they....

....just make recommendations to the Department of Justice.

[JCanete]

162. Yes, I'm aware that that's why there is an investigation, nor do I have a problem with there being

one, unless its a witch-hunt, and the Democratic party should be all too familiar with those. Those of us here already coming to a conclusion though are not doing so on the merits of the information that they possess.

[R B Garr]

166. Again with this dishonesty? How absurd.

You are the one pretending that people are saying she is guilty of a crime or have come to that conclusion. Obviously this is an investigation and is not finalized. Who would or could say that she is guilty, yet you posted to me about 10 times on this thread with that absurdity. Hmmm.

[JCanete]

175. you were. You were claiming immorality and hypocrisy. On what grounds were you doing that?

You said they better be clean, yet you don't know if they are or not now and that doesn't matter to you.

[R B Garr]

176. You can't be serious. I'm sure you're not.

If you claim to be a moral authority let's say on bank fraud, for instance, and you are under investigation yourself, then you lose that high ground.


I doubt it's a difficult concept for anyone. Other simple concepts:
If you live in a glass house, don't throw stones
He who is free of sin shalt cast the first stone.

[JCanete]

177. So because Clinton was under investigation she would never be able to call out other corruption?

The investigation itself is the crime now? Shit doesn't make any sense.

[R B Garr]

178. LOL, more proof you can't be serious.

[JCanete]

179. First, the very thing you are calling them out for was an off-handed joke. as far as I know neither

Sanders has ever claimed that Clinton committed a crime. Joking that " it would be great if the FBI sped up the investigation" might be out of line because even if its a joke, there's an associated insinuation, but they are hardly on record calling for Clinton's head on this, or assuming the worst, and Bernie Sanders most public statement on the subject is quite the opposite.

Second, what you are saying is that all it takes to discredit somebody is the investigation. If somebody opens up an investigation on you, screw the conclusions of that investigation, you are guilty by investigation. You can never be taken seriously on issues of corruption again.

[R B Garr]

181. LMAO, that is not what I was "calling them out for." You still seem angry that

the Vermont newspapers are reporting on this, but your distortions are just fake. Too bad you're angry, but you need to take it up with the newspapers who wrote about it.

[JCanete]

184. okay, hard to have a discussion if you won't actually say what you mean. On the one hand you

are pretending you aren't accusing them of anything...that nobody is already considering them or her guilty. On the other hand, you're trying to convince me, I guess by the article, that she IS guilty. If I'm wrong about what you're saying, just straight up say what it actually is you are saying.

[R B Garr]

185. More proof you can't be serious.

[JCanete]

187. just proof you'd rather play games than to have a discussion. Hope that did something for you. nt

[R B Garr]

188. LOL

[Persisted]

116. There is definitely an investigation:

Richard Moss, Maietta's accountant, told Daily Caller News Foundation that the FBI has reached out to him and requested an interview with Maietta.

"It was sometime back in March or April, during tax season," Moss told the Caller. "It was in regards to Corine Maietta's current address and where they could contact her for questions related to Burlington College."

https://www.google.com/amp/thehill.com/homenews/senate/332313-fbi-investigating-jane-sanders-for-alleged-bank-fraud-report%3Famp

[Persisted]

118. Further, Toensing alleges a filing of an SAR. That's a pretty bold assertion.

In fact, the only question I would ask either Sanders is if they know this to be true.

[Cha]

129. Like I posted before.. The Vermont Digger has been

on this story from the beginning.

It was a Vermont gop official who first filed the charges.

[George II]

149. "I did not think FBI talks about investigations"

You might want to tell that to James Comey.

[sheshe2]

155. Woah!

Most excellent response, George.

[Persisted]

111. Sanders overpaid by 4 mil on that property? What is that a defense to?

I just read the article you posted.

Are you claiming that Jane Sanders just paid 10 million dollars of Burlington college's money on a property only worth 6 million??

[Persisted]

124. You put forth a source as an authority. Are you disclaiming it? nt

[Persisted]

141. You cited an article that detailed a 4 mil overpayment.You, not me.

Is the article true? Or, do you believe the assertion of fact by the bishop to be untrue?

[BainsBane]

125. Interesting article.

[elfin]

127. Liked him, but not Jane

Shouldn't be important, but it did influence me to switch to Hillary. She "bothered" me in her appearances on MSM for reasons I can't delineate. Mainly a perceived attitude (on my part) that didn't ring true for some reason.

I wanted Joe, but so be it.

I thought that if Bernie were the nominee she would be a major drag on the ticket.

Yes, Bill was a problem as well, but more of a known quantity.

[George II]

132. CBS reported this as well:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bernie-and-jane-sanders-under-fbi-investigation-for-bank-fraud-hire-lawyers/

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

By JOHN BAT CBS NEWS June 23, 2017, 5:44 PM

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and his wife, Jane Sanders have hired prominent defense attorneys, amid an FBI investigation into a loan Jane Sanders obtained to expand Burlington College while she was its president, CBS News confirms.

Politico Magazine first reported the Sanders had hired lawyers to defend them in the probe. Sanders top adviser Jeff Weaver told CBS News the couple has sought legal protection over federal agents' allegations from a January 2016 complaint accusing then-President of Burlington College, Ms. Sanders, of distorting donor levels in a 2010 loan application for $10 million from People's United Bank to purchase 33 acres of land for the institution.

According to Politico, prosecutors might also be looking into allegations that Sen. Sanders' office inappropriately urged the bank to approve the loan.

Burlington attorney and Sanders supporter Rich Cassidy has reportedly been hired to represent Sen. Sanders. And high-profile Washington defense attorney Larry Robbins, who counseled Libby "Scooter" Robbins, former Chief of Staff for the Vice President, is protecting Jane Sanders.

(more.....)

[Persisted]

138. Well....shit. That's rather different. He's lawyered up too? nt

[Cha]

139. Mahalo, George..

[Persisted]

143. Yeah....no shite. I just realized an Easter Egg in the OP's article.

Generally speaking if a witness is subpoenaed to the Federal grand jury they cannot speak upon that under any circumstances.

But nothing prohibits them, as detailed in the article, from indicating that's someone's lawyer contacted them and then was directed to their own counsel.

I cannot imagine a scenario under which I would be calling a witness out of the blue.

[sheshe2]

156. Oh shit.

Who hasn't lawyered up? This is just getting crazy now and incredibly sad.

[Tarheel_Dem]

136. This makes me increasingly glad they never actually joined the Democratic Party. n/t

[Gothmog]

150. Agreed

[jg10003]

142. There is no personal gain implied, only bad management and maybe bad judgement.

Whatever Jane Sanders did, she did on behalf of the college. There is no suggestion that she or Bernie profited from the situation.

[Persisted]

144. Indeed. Except for the payments to her daughter. Which were

discontinued under the next President to BC.

Some Sanders supporters, upthread, indicated that the archdiocese of RI valued the land sold to BC as worth 6 mil. BC paid 10 mil.

That's a 4 mil difference.

[Expecting Rain]

152. Other than the $200,000 Golden Parachute

That Jane Sanders took after she destroyed Burlington College under the swirling accusation off fraud.

Bernie Sanders would be railing about such profiteering were it anyone else.

Total hypocracy.

[JI7]

158. the 200k was in the open and given to her as part of her pay for the job

[Persisted]

159. Job or severance? nt

[R B Garr]

160. Golden parachute. That's how it's described

in several articles that have come out about it.

[Docreed2003]

154. Despite the fact...

That this thread has done wonders to bring out the full throated Bernie haters, and I fully admit he deserves criticism at times but not hate.

Despite that, has no one here pieced together what's going on? If Jane Sanders committed a crime, she should face judgement for that, but this reeks of the same type of "political lawsuits" that have plagued the Clinton's for decades.

My point is not to stir the shit pot here...my point is...between attacking Hillary and now Nancy and Bernie...we're playing right into their hands.

This type of infighting shown in this thread, even though it's carefully worded in ways to avoid a block, and the Pelosi threads inundated with RW BS are intentional folks...we're being encouraged to fight each other rather than focus on what's happening right in front of us with Trump.

This attack on Jane Sanders is coming from the right,and if she committed a crime, I'm ok with the sentience that follows, but this seems extremely convenient that we are seeing these attacks on leaders and their family members from our side during a time of extreme importance, i.e. The GOP Senate "Wealthcare Bill"

[Persisted]

157. "Hillary, Nancy, and now Bernie."

Two women. Two Democrats. Two Democratic women not under federal investigation.

I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing the connection to the Sanders.

That being said, I wish them a full hearing and exoneration.

[Docreed2003]

161. Despite how I phrased my post

The point remains..attacks are coming at us and their motivation is to divide. We have to join together to fight these assaults and not use them as an excuse to continue the infighting amongst the party.

[Persisted]

163. I am completely united behind Democrats in my Party. nt

[NastyRiffraff]

168. +1

Vote Democratic.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

167. So she inflated the price of an asset which is largely subjective she was borrowing against.

This will never end up in an indictment.

[Persisted]

169. No....that is not what is alleged.

Apparently she mischaracterized both the nature and the size of donations available for the purchase.

That's great if you're trying to sell bullshit to raise more donations in your school literature. But when you're attempting to get a federally insured loan that's a No-No

As a side note the Archdiocese is now claiming that they suffered no Financial harm, so their parishioners should not form the basis of the federal complaint, because Jane Sanders paid 10 million on a six million property.

It all comes down to this ...if Toensing is correct in alleging that the bank itself filed an SAR than the Sanders have a very serious problem

[DemocratSinceBirth]

171. I have to read it again slowly- Why did she overpay for the property?

[Persisted]

172. Who knows. nt

[NurseJackie]

182. Is this "just an anoyance" that will all blow-over? Or could it be career-ending?

Are we talking "fines-and-wristslaps" or is this more serious? Is it criminal? Like jail-time criminal? Or just penalties and restitution?

[Persisted]

186. I think it hinges on what the bank has told to the feds.

As I've indicated previously Toensing is a political hack. His claims on behalf of the parishioners of pretty much utter bullshit. But if he's correct, and the bank actually did file an SAR, it's going to be pretty difficult to make that go away. I don't think there's much of a dispute about the facts.

Jail time? No. While that penalty is possible I don't see that realistically happening.

[R B Garr]

170. Inflated assets were behind the financial meltdown.

I remember a time that real estate appraisers were targeted for over-appraising in properties to secure a loan. This is not related to the Sanders case, though. Just a general comment. Martha Stewart's case was pretty flimsy, but that didn't stop them (different investigation, I realize).

It is ironic that his platform is based on calling Wall Street frauds, and then they are under investigation for bank fraud. Maybe they will be more circumspect on who they smear with unprovable claims of corruption in the future.