FBI investigating Jane Sanders for alleged bank fraud: report
Source: The Hill
Federal investigators are looking into allegations that Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-Vt.) wife, Jane Sanders, falsified loan documents while she served as the president of Burlington College, according to a Friday Daily Caller News Foundation report.
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.
Jane Sanders has been accused of falsifying the information on the loan documents in order to expand the college grounds.
Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/332313-fbi-investigating-jane-sanders-for-alleged-bank-fraud-report
= new reply since forum marked as read
NOT!
I was to lazy to find the link tonight. 
. . . wouldn't have needed to do so many Bing searches!
..But I Am On Team sheshe2.
I knew what you meant
GK 
may I be on Team Cha too? 
Yay! 
lets add JuJuYoshida to the team too
As it seems to become easy and easier to do Satan's work as accuser and allege, without proof, that something undesirable took place or someone did something illegal, isn't it interesting---perhaps "entertaining" too---to note how some DUers did "...handle the report."?
P.S.
I wonder why "Bank" and "Fraud" were capitalized.
For instance, in your post #310, you say: "Toensing...did his nuisance suits AFTER he heard about it."---"it" being, if I'm not mistaken, the information reported by local news sources relative to a discrepancy in the record of donation amounts in a loan application.
And, yes, it is confusing me here because of your repeated contention that there was a DOJ/FBI or US Attorney investigation underway long before Toensing made his formal complaint. Among other things, you say, in post #320 (above):
1. "...they don't have public records of what caused the investigation to be started."
("...they don't...."? I wonder who this "they" is . . . "they" are?"
2. "The FBI/DOJ does not inform people that they are under investigation, nor do they, to my knowledge announce these publicly or confirm them to local press when they're ongoing, for obvious reasons"
(Hm-m. Very interesting and astute observation.)
3."Remove the Republican from the story, and you still have a fraud investigation by the DOJ/FBI that was begun before the politics got heated,..."
(In light of 1 & 2, how can you possibly know there was---that is, IF there was!---an investigation already in the works prior to 2016 and Toensing's complaint?)
. . . the investigation itself. Anyway . . .
In my Post #326, I said:
And, yes, it is confusing me here because of your repeated contention that there was a DOJ/FBI or US Attorney investigation underway long before Toensing made his formal complaint. Among other things, you say, in post #320 (above):
1. "...they don't have public records of what caused the investigation to be started."
("...they don't...."? I wonder who this "they" is . . . "they" are?"
You replied in Post 332 (above):
Right, all those links make it clear that there was a DOJ/FBI investigation prior to 2016, in 2015.
Clear? There's nothing in those links that make it clear there was a DOJ/FBI investigation in 2015. There was obviously plenty of investigative reporting going on; but, in 2015 (as you admit elsewhere) a federal investigation was a rumor. Nothing in those links says the present investigation has been going on since 2015. That much is clear!
You continue:
"They" is the DOJ/FBI, who don't make public declarations of their investigations, not sure where the confusion is here, since I made that pretty clear.
So . . . in other words, you're saying, "They---the DOJ/FBI---don't have public records of what caused the investigation to be started and don't make public declarations of their investigations." That's clear enough. Yet, here you are . . . speaking again about a DO/FBI investigation prior to 2016, begun in 2015, as though it was/is/ a matter of public record! (** sigh **)
If something isn't public, what evidence do you have that, in fact, the investigation began in 2015? What are "...the facts we have at our disposal,..."? And who is this "we" you mention? Was this "we" perhaps involved in the investigation? If not---using that "simple application of critical thought" you mention---I've come to the conclusion you couldn't know zip about whuzzup, as I said elsewhere, except for what you read in the news . . . and, then, ya gotta consider the source and its biases.
This thread has been bounced up top for more exposure than it needed. If you care to bump 'er up again, have at it. I'm outta here!
P.S.
FWIW: I have been paying little to no attention to what Bernie has been saying since the election. Maybe I should have . . . considering the accusation in that last sentence of yours.
I just realized that it was this Post #287 that sent me on a wild goose chase or snipe hunt, a search for what you called a "...lawsuit (emphasis added) which came after the actual investigation."
Actual investigation? . . . or rumoured investigation?
Before or after Toensing's formal request? It doesn't really matter when the investigation began. As I said elsewhere, "It'll all come out in the wash." And, hopefully, (to paraphrase that unknown author, Anonymous): "It'll all be okay in the end; and, if it ain't okay, it ain't the end."
I didn't like The Hill's inflammatory headline lifted from a RW rag. Capisci?
P.S.
Sorry I didn't reply sooner . . . wasn't online at all yesterday.
. . . there's a difference between The Hill's echoing a RW rag's headline indicating that Mrs. Sanders is being investigated for alleged bank fraud in light of nd the V{R headline---the headline where the story initially appeared on May 2nd---viz:
Officials: FBI Investigating Burlington College
Land Deal Brokered By Jane O'Meara Sanders
That VPR headline and story indicates that it's the land deal itself that is being investigated. Further down under that same headline is an update indicating that Mrs. Sanders has not been contacted by the FBI nor any other authorities concerning the investigation.
In reply to your last question: Yes, indeed, it is most interesting how some are "handling the report."---the "report" as presented by OP in contrast to the initial report from Vermont Public Radio.
P.S.
Forgive the delayed reply . . . I wasn't online at all yesterday when the Real World weas calling.
since 2015. I think there is a post in this thread where someone has gathered them together.
The land deal was predicated on the financing, and she has been contacted, she just hasn't been interviewed yet, I believe. But it bothers me that the knee jerk reflex has been to make misleading statements about how this is a Republican witch hunt, when the investigation was happening before then and we all know how opportunistic the GOP is.
That doesn't mean that it's all because of the nasty GOPers.
It wasn't just VPR, there have been several other sources, and some are busy trying to paint this as some sort of political attack on Bernie via his wife. The initial reports on this were coming from local news sources, and they were also seen through the prism of some open wounds from the primary rather than on their own. When this started, it was about investigating a pretty big thing in Vermont, and the involvement of a wife of a sitting Senator wasn't the primary issue, but that seems to be the only thing that some people see.
So the timeline is being ignored and the spin is a bit too strong, with some thinking that her status alone makes her above reproach. I think that's a poor mindset. I don't think she was deliberately trying to commit a criminal act, but she might have done so and in a way that's ethically questionable, and that should be addressed without all the hysterics. People seem to be bringing in other grudges when anyone mentions a current story that's in the news for legitimate reasons.
P.s. Thank you for the reply, and no worries, most of us have things going on away from the computer, I find it weird that some people find that surprising and use as some sort of passive aggressive attack. This is a message board, there is no time limit, that I'm aware of on replies, and I prefer when people take the time, when they have it, to post things that are well thought out, as your reply was, there was no need for apology
Last edited Wed May 10, 2017, 02:12 PM - Edit history (1)
While doing a Bing search (trying to find out when investigating of the land deal actually began), I came across a Boston Globe article reporting the closure of the college, found the following information which, to me, casts a little more light on what was happening there after Mrs. Sanders left:
he school sold about 80 percent of the new property to a developer last year, but Burlington College remained on probation from its accrediting agency because of its financial situation.
Even after the school sold the property, the debt from the land purchase and the property taxes were “crippling,” Holm said on Tuesday. Yves Bradley, chair of the school’s board of trustees, called the debt “crushing.”
The school came close to bridging the financial gap but ended about $350,000 short, said Moore, the college president. The bank pulled the plug in April.
“We were three months financially short of making it successful. We had a strong incoming class,” she said. “We would’ve had a surplus next year.”
Bernie Sanders’ campaign defended his wife’s tenure at the school, saying she helped it climb out of debt and become accredited as a “masters-level institution.”
“. . . She left the college with a detailed plan for the future, none of which was implemented,” said Michael Briggs, spokesman for Sanders’ campaign, in the statement, which did not specifically address the land deal. “Mrs. Sanders has tremendous respect for both the current and past Burlington College faculty, staff and students and . . . is terribly disappointed with its closure.”
Edited to add: Here's a link to the Boston Globe article:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/05/27/burlington-college-closes-under-unwanted-spotlight/vQcws7acOi4uuo8FtPresM/story.html
. . . "It's rumoured that...."
Please see my Post #326 to your Post #320.
P.S.
Thank you, nonetheless, for all your posts, posts containing much to think about before forming an opinion or jumping to conclusions.
All best!
You asked for something from 2015, when it was a rumor, it's been confirmed now, so prefacing what I said with "it's rumored" would have been a bald faced lie.
Please read my post to see why I chose to tell the evidence based truth and did not choose to lie as Bernie and his staff are doing here.
He's wrong, and so are you. This investigation was begun in 2015, it's not political, that is a bald faced lie from Bernie and his followers. They can't seem to handle truth or follow simple timelines or facts. You cannot choose to deliberately lie to the bank about your financials, that is fraud, and no matter who you are, that is a crime that will be investigated when uncovered, particularly when it's the public suffering from your criminal actions while you got a golden parachute, and your spouse's influence or spin won't protect you.
Also, if you had chosen to run your mouth self righteously while you knew this was going on, and attacked your husband's opponent, you're going to be exposed as a hypocrite.
No amount of those who present facts or 
denying facts and spinning madly is going to change that. The facts are out there, the locals have been onto this for years, and the evidence is piling up.
Where has the 2015 rumour been "confirmed now"---the 2015 rumour that there was a federal investigation into the land deal? Link, please! Pretty please?!
Considering you found it problematic to provide a link or links to "...something from 2015, when it was a rumor,..." am I to simply take your word that "...it's been confirmed now...." to be a fact?
Well, hell's fire! After all my fruitless Bing searching for something that doesn't seem to exist, I'm almost willing to settle for a link from anywhere and anywhen from anyone indicating there's no reasonable doubt that the present federal investigation began long before the Toensing complaint!
... and republican candidate for state treasurer.
What a coincidence she is the aggrieved "parishioner"
How ever do these coincidences keep happening? I mean, what are the chances an investigation can be requested by the state vice chair of the Republican Party who happens to be the son/stepson of two of the slimiest republican hatchet duos that ever walked the earth?
And then Party flunkey Wendy Wilton is the aggrieved parishioner?
But their voices should be heard. Have you seen their latest opinion on Benghazi? Oh my word, they still want to lock Hillary up.
You should definitely promote and support their efforts.
with losing more than a million dollars in church funds because they'd lent money to a college based on misrepresentations of the ability of the college to pay it back.
Only a Rethug would ever be angry about a little thing like that.
https://vtdigger.org/2015/12/23/catholic-church-nailed-in-loan-settlement-with-burlington-college/
BURLINGTON — The Roman Catholic Diocese of Burlington lost at least $1.5 million and perhaps as much as $2 million on a $3.65 million loan to Burlington College, according to financial statements from the church.
And . . . please imagine you're seeing one of those sarcasm emoticons here instead of this one ---> 
P.S.
Thank you!
Unlike The Caller and The Hill, Vermont Public Radio didn't find it necessary (apparently!) to write a click-baitable headline. Anyway . . .
VPR has updated its report to include a message saying (among other things): "Jane has not been contacted by the FBI or any other authority and only knows as much as news reports indicate." I wonder what---if anything--- The Caller or The Hill can make of that.
If not . . . too late now!
lunamagica 
There should be a high-five emoticon!
Of course we can multitask!
I expect no less, and actually am surprised that there hadn't been any of this type of shit happening long ago.
Corporate-run america doesn't want any potential risks to their firm entrenchment in our government, and they do realize that Bernie garners huge support for progressive action. Discrediting any potential opposition as harshly as they can. They can easily blast this kind of story and hammer it all over their media outlets, hoping that the democratic base get distracted and divided. Don't fall for it.
Frankly who gives a shit, even if his wife did this. It's 100% gonna be overblown as would any tiny shred of "dirt" to try and discredit and smear Bernie. Nice try though, I say. We have shitheads in power who themselves have committed far worse felonies and even treason, so who really gives a flying crap about this. Really, this was the best they could scrounge up?
What's next, his wife forgot to obey the poop-n-scoop laws one morning and a neighbor had to buy new shoes because they stepped in some doggy doo? Pfft.
Ben Pollard the election results would have been the same. Because Putin was involved no matter who was the Democratic candidate. The fix was on for Trump no matter what.
Putin wouldn't have suddenly called it off and let Bernie win, I'll guarantee you.
We have to remember this and stick together.
We have to understand what Putin & the GOP did, and make sure it never happens again.
Just sayin'
