2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumDid Bernie's wife commit a felony when she secured a loan for Burlington College?
Well this is interesting to say the least:
September 13, 2015 by Morgan True
Former Burlington College president Jane Sanders overstated donation amounts in a bank application for a $6.7 million loan that was used by the college to purchase a prime 33-acre property on Lake Champlain in 2010.
Sanders told People’s United Bank that the college had $2.6 million in pledged donations to support the purchase of the former Roman Catholic Diocese of Burlington property on North Avenue. The college, however, received only $676,000 in actual donations from 2010 through 2014, according to figures provided by Burlington College.
That’s far less than the $5 million Sanders listed as likely pledges in the loan agreement, and less than a third of the $2.14 million Sanders had promised People’s Bank the college would collect in cash during the four-year period.
<...>
Two people whose pledges are listed as confirmed in the loan agreement told VTDigger that their personal financial records show their pledges were overstated. Neither were aware that the pledges were used to secure the loan.
<...>
People’s United Bank stipulated that at the time of the closing in December 2010, the school would provide a report as part of the loan agreement detailing “fundraising collections, commitments and grants equal to $2,270,000” and information that would satisfy the bank that pledges were “valid and enforceable commitments of the respective donors and granting parties.”
Read more:
http://vtdigger.org/2015/09/13/jane-sanders-overstated-donation-amounts-in-loan-application-for-burlington-college/
Defrauding a financial institution in order to secure a loan is a felony. Here's the relevant US statute:
18 U.S. Code § 1344 - Bank fraud
Whoever knowingly executes, or attempts to execute, a scheme or artifice—
(1) to defraud a financial institution; or
(2) to obtain any of the moneys, funds, credits, assets, securities, or other property owned by, or under the custody or control of, a financial institution, by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises;
shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1344
So what happened to Jane Sanders? She received a $200,000 golden parachute from the Burlington College board of trutees:
http://vtdigger.org/2015/09/13/jane-sanders-overstated-donation-amounts-in-loan-application-for-burlington-college/
The VT digger website is a bit temperamental. Here's the cached version:
https://web.archive.org/web/20150914045133/http://vtdigger.org/2015/09/13/jane-sanders-overstated-donation-amounts-in-loan-application-for-burlington-college/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)
murielm99
(30,730 posts)And...is it true? Can you refute it? If not, and she is working for his campaign, then she is open to scrutiny.
After all the attacks on Hillary and Bill here, this seems fair to me.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)murielm99
(30,730 posts)It did not become a sewer until very recently. I think I know who is bringing the sewage.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Next.
murielm99
(30,730 posts)Nyah! Nyah!
Bernie supporters get more childish by the minute. It just shows your desperation. Goodbye.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)It's stupid to play the seniority card. Ponder.
FarPoint
(12,309 posts)Last edited Sun Sep 27, 2015, 12:57 PM - Edit history (1)
The Sander posters are out of real debate material... Hillary has the nomination..... Even Bernie knows this fact. Sanders does bring light into our Democratic Platform development.... He is doing a dutiful task for the greater good. So, just chill out and/ or ignore the flaimbait....We have this.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)Hillary can go enjoy being a grandmother and raising tons of money for the family foundation
FarPoint
(12,309 posts)Hahahaha.. So weak my dear friend.... Truth hurts I see...can't really debate so you go passive aggressive... Hahahaha...
I'll make the typo correction so you can focus on your people skills. Your behavior is not a new trick ...to become the language police when an argument or discussion is a lost skill ...We've seen it a thousand times. Smart phones can create an opportunity for your type.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)murielm99
(30,730 posts)That is the first time I have felt any encouragement here in weeks.
artislife
(9,497 posts)What? They work together on his foundation.
Indepatriot
(1,253 posts)severely limit his ability to accomplish things? Sign NAFTA?!!!!!! If we're gonna hold spouses accountable in this primary HRC's gonna flame-out even quicker than she already is.... didn't he look America in the eye and LIE TO US about Monica? I don't give a damn about what consenting adults do behind close doors, but he pointed his finger at us and LIED TO US about it, rather than taking responsibility for his actions...
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)She was appointed to two commission positions by Shumlin shortly after Sanders helped him on the campaign trail. She has headed his campaigns in the past and has been paid by Sanders for her service. Numerous articles about how she forms positions with him along with strategy. And you think it should be hands off. She is knee deep in all of it including willfully taking part in political paybacks. They aren't in the same club we are.
bigdarryl
(13,190 posts)OR blaming Hillary for Former President Clinton's crime bill as some are saying.So my bottom line is you can't have it both ways
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)since they are justifying this Newsmax-Daily Caller trash that made its way to VtDigger
Team Hillary has officially sunk to 2008 levels
Snap the Turtle
(73 posts)and yes, here's some nice cuppa o' joe... 
99Forever
(14,524 posts)It's what they are, It's in their DNA.
AppalachianAmerican
(42 posts)
They're going to make a lovely First Couple.
MissDeeds
(7,499 posts)The desperation is rearing its ugly head.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)is that the kind of nonsense that we will be printing here?
840high
(17,196 posts)AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Last edited Sun Sep 27, 2015, 02:53 AM - Edit history (1)
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)If Camp Weathervane wants to go there, I'm sure we can find more damaging stuff....it's the Clintons fer Christ sakes.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Before you go claiming there are more prestigious news outlets than VTDigger, don't you think we should see what the site looks like if it ever comes back up? You know what they say: don't judge a book by its 404 error.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)shouldn't I apply that thinking universally?
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)My point, which was made in jest, was that the OP has brought serious accusations, but has not provided a working link. And I require better documentation from this particular OP than he has provided.
But I love Sanders' 404 page...it's a clever use of the wildcard feature.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)I read the article.....weak tea.
The initial "investigation" and spin of this came from a Daily Caller - Newsmax pair of articles.
They spun this story in the worst possible way back in April..........
I've worked in fundraising for Colleges.........comparing pledges to donations and finding that people might not honor them is not some shocking thing. Colleges don't normally harass people who do not honor the pledges. Having a reporter calling around and asking people who did not send money in if they actually pledged is a great way to embarrass people and some of them would say no, that they didn't pledge......most reasonable people would not assume fraud on the part of the college.
The fact that the college presented the pledges to a bank for consideration in terms of a loan....does not magically turn it into fraud. But Newsmax and the gang....that is how they would spin it....and the Hillary gang are lapping it up, albeit through a secondary source (prompted by Brock emails? who knows?),
RandySF
(58,684 posts)
MADem
(135,425 posts)It's a VERMONT-based enterprise. They've been covering "Bernie's Bid" since before he announced.
They don't shy away from details, though--they welcome corrections to their reporting, too, so if you see something that they've mis-stated, let them know and they'll correct it.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)You're welcome.
MADem
(135,425 posts)And OPPO research usually involves something called "research," conducted by campaigns, not doing what we do every day here on DU, which is post a link and talk about it.
You're unclear on the concept.
Also, FWIW, that "OPPO" stands for OPPOSITION, not "opponent."
Some background to help you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_research
You're welcome.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)It's not a synonym for fact - based reporting.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)That you feel the need to quibble about language is busy (and pointless) work in your part.
MADem
(135,425 posts)It's not "quibbling about language" when a word doesn't mean what you insist it does.
You are keeping the thread visible, though that's likely not your goal, so...do go on.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)artislife
(9,497 posts)
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Always reaching, never quite getting there...
And now the alerter has to go sit in the corner for 24 hours.
MADem
(135,425 posts)
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)keep wishing on those rosary beads - no wammies!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=626539
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Catholic mocking towards someone who may or may not be Catholic or even religious?? This is not a 'liberal' or progressive attitude. Poster needs to back off.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Sep 27, 2015, 02:07 AM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Sorry alerter, but you are not the arbiter of what is liberal or progressive.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Actually, the Alerter needs to back off.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I'm Catholic, and I am wondering why on earth this was alerted on.
Goodness.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No TOS violation here. Leave it.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)thanks! cheers
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)today for stupid shit. All toward Bernie supporters with verbiage from the alerter similar to what I see from Hillary supporters. Nah, there's no stalking going on. 
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)
cui bono
(19,926 posts)AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)
unfreakinbelievable mythology
(9,527 posts)It's not like there haven't been Clinton supporters who have a similar style who have also gotten time outs.
How many times do the admins have to say that there is no real alert stalking before people will realize that if you post in a particular style, you will get hides for that posting style. It's really not that hard to not call people names.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Last edited Sun Sep 27, 2015, 04:17 PM - Edit history (1)
What I did and am saying is that after the protracted harangue about how put upon Clinton supporters are with alleged alert stalking - never proven, just the accusation - low and behold it turns out there was an actual dialogue at another site regarding taking Cali out. My point was that - just like the GOP does - that group of people was accusing an opponent's supporters of doing something they themselves are doing large as life on the internet for all to see. The hypocrites have been exposed.
Response to Le Taz Hot (Reply #93)
AtomicKitten This message was self-deleted by its author.
m-lekktor
(3,675 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)And the fact that the alerter can't abuse the alert function for 24 hours.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)disgusting
MADem
(135,425 posts)You'd know this if you read all the VTDigger coverage of "Bernie's Bid."
She's not just a wife--she's enjoying the same scrutiny HRC got when she chaired the Health Care Commission.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)go to it, then....enjoy
MADem
(135,425 posts)And Mrs. Sanders is a public figure in VT as a consequence of her position at that college, and her position down the years as a member of her husband's staff.
She will be called to answer--this isn't her private life at all.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)Pretending something doesn't exist doesn't make it go away.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)this was written by tiny VtDigger's health care reporter, about Jane as a private citizen
so enjoy...
MADem
(135,425 posts)She is not a private citizen--she is a campaign staffer.
This article was written about Jane Sanders, political advisor and aide to her husband, Bernie Sanders, who was also working in a very PUBLIC capacity as the President of Burlington College up until her hasty and unpredicted early departure from that institution.
We're not talking about someone sitting at home dusting the knick-knacks. She was running a school in the town where her husband served as Mayor, and fucking it up spectacularly, too.
And VT Digger? They're being quoted in major dailies. Why? Because they SOURCE their work. None of this "Some people say" stuff--they name names. If you read the piece, you'd see. They QUOTE people. They NAME them. Their work stands up because of this.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)bogus. I can think of a number of explanations starting with the fact that the value of pledged donations can be disputed and can be calculated through various mathematical formulas it would seem to me.
Current value. Future value. Lots of problems with the accusation. If she was given a sum of money after a discussion, then she won the discussion.
That's the way these deals work.
Pretty pathetic.
Reminds me of the e-mail controversy against Hillary. Just pathetic.
MADem
(135,425 posts)If I were to guess, they were about to fire her, and she negotiated a graceful exit so they could slide omeone else in there quickly instead of having her dig in her heels and fight it.
There is no "calcuation" here. When she tells the bank "Joe Blow says he'll give five grand" and Joe Blow says "That's not true" there's either some major mis-hearing or LYING going on. And the idea was to plump up the money to qualify for the loan, to buy the land the college ended up selling at a loss.
I think you need to read the article.
When actual NAMED donors are quoted as saying she misstated their pledges, there's a problem. When bank documents show that she used the "collateral" of a pledge in a ;ast will and testament FROM A GUY WHO WAS STILL ALIVE to secure a loan that needed to be serviced, there's a problem.
So no--that's not the way these deals work. She's got trouble with her personal integrity, regardless of whether or not this rises to any great scandal levels. I doubt it will, because it is chump change in the big scheme, and no one, frankly, gives a shit about that college--it's one of those places where no one fails, where rich parents park their "failure to launch" children for four to seven years while they find themselves--no grades, no syllibi, the students basically pay a fortune to do whatever the hell they want. It's a bit grifter-ish--the school, itself, and the financing. Hard to say which is worse.
But this is nothing like the email controversy against Hillary. This is about playing smoke and mirrors in order to get a bank loan to buy land that they couldn't afford to keep, and then selling it to a developer (so much for keeping those spaces "pristine" with few buildings) in order to prevent the college--the ENTIRE college--from going bankrupt.
The only thing that could be worse is if the deal was engineered in order for the developer to grab that land at a fire sale price, and someone got a kickback. No evidence of that--yet. And Sanders was long gone before the sale happened, so she'd likely be off the hook.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)I do know how these deals work. And there is probably no real scandal behind these claims any more than there is behind the e-mail claims against Hillary.
The Hillary camp is desperate to find something, no matter how lame, to throw in dirty negative ads against Sanders.
Well. It won't work. I was out campaigning for Sanders tonight.
Just mention his name to anyone under 30 and you get cheers and cries of joy. Sanders is here to stay, and he has a very good chance of winning.
My neighbor across the street, staunch Obama supporters, came to visit me the other day. I told her I was for Sanders. She said she was too. Her daughter, not old enough to vote, told her she should vote for Sanders.
People watch a Sanders video and know he is their candidate.
No matter how many pies Hillary supporters throw and Sanders or his wife, the meringue is only going to land on Hillary's face.
Voters will forgive mistakes, but they will not forgive a candidate who has clearly sold out for millions and millions of dollars to the cheaters on Wall Street.
Look. Quite frankly, the "foreclosure crisis" was probably history's biggest grand theft. Millions of Americans thought they had built equity, savings in their homes. The banks and mortgage companies used every trick in the book to weaking the owners, those paying the mortgages. Here in California they offered second mortgages which meant that under our Depression laws, they would be able to claim a deficiency judgment when the homes foreclosed. It's a little complicated. Just trust me. I know what I am talking about on this issue, and I believe that you know I know what I am talking about. Every possible trick was used.
On my street prior to the crash, on my lower middle-class street with our old, run-down houses, prices sky-rocketed. I asked my neighbor how it could be that people could pay those prices which had risen when pay scales had not risen. ANY BANKER WORTH HIS SALT SHOULD HAVE ASKED THAT QUESTION. I do not believe that with the talented mathematicians that banks and Wall Street hire, they did not foresee the crash long before 2008. It was inevitable, obviously inevitable.
That foreclosure crisis, as I said, was the biggest theft of middle class wealth the world has probably ever seen. (OK. I agree. The middle class was never that wealthy before.)
The scandal of the foreclosure crisis and the theft it concealed and allowed to happen is felt, not understood by ordinary Americans. It was "unfair." It was actually a huge crime that involved almost an entire industry.
Americans are not going to care about some minor incident of possible misreporting of the estimated values of promised donations when they have seen the big banks, the hedge funds and Wall Street steal from their families and friends and get away with it.
Sanders does not take money from Wall Street. He has promised not to appoint Wall Streeters to his cabinet.
That is a huge draw. Americans are sick of the big-time corruption in Washington. Hillary is in the middle of it. The Sanders are not an extremely wealthy couple. That appeals to people.
Sorry. But trying to push some scandal onto the Sanders is not going to work. Jane Sanders did not receive any personal advantage from anything she is accused of doing. Hillary ----- ?????? The money she was paid for speeches to Wall Street firms?????? That's where the big money was.
MADem
(135,425 posts)The "golden parachute" isn't the big deal--no one cares about that. It was probably part and parcel of her contract, that if she left early, she got bought out, and maybe got some paid leave too. THAT's not the issue. Every published report says pretty much the same thing--they shoved her out of there, if she didn't leave, she would have been fired. They gave her the parachute and an emeritus title and said "There's the door."
The issue is the banking, the fudging of documents, the misstatement of the pledges. It's a problem because the people PLEDGING the money to the school are saying she misstated their pledged amounts. They all can't be lying, can they? And how do you get past her using as "collateral" money in a will from a guy who was not dead? THAT's the icing on the cake, there. Well, and lying to the bank--of course, if there's no intent (just...stupidity, or something?) then she might be able to wriggle away, assuming she can play dumb or blame someone else
I do think this speaks to her integrity AND/OR her intelligence (and not in a good way). You don't fudge figures that close to the bone, especially when there are individual line items that can be traced to individual people who are ready and willing to say "That's not the amount I pledged." And they have said it. In the paper. On the record. Plus, the money coming in wasn't enough to service the loan, not even with the most wildly optimistic enrollment and endowment figures. One has to wonder what in hell she was thinking. It's like buying a new Cadillac on a used Ford Pinto budget.
Nothing to be 'sorry' about, but this is a problem for someone who plays the Holier Than Thou card. And that is part of the Sanders bag of tricks, as you noted, that they're "better" than the others. Well, maybe they aren't--maybe they're just not as good at working the system and raking in the big bucks, but it's not for lack of trying...?
And you're insisting that "Americans don't care about.....????" Tell that to John Kerry. He was SWIFT BOATED. It became a phrase, swift-boating. And he really didn't do anything wrong. There was no dodgy bank statements, or pledge lists, or enrollment figures....but he still got swift boated. So, whatever.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)that is uncertain is very difficult.
That the university paid her $200,000 severance pay suggests they could not prove any wrongdoing that would have broken her contract.
And what would she personally have gained from the actions she is accused of?
Swift-boating was Kerry's problem. I really liked him, but he did not strongly respond to the charges against him. He also did not insist on a re-count in Ohio. I worked on voter protection on election day in 2008 in Ohio. I also worked on voter protection in 2004 in the Kerry campaign. Kerry should have had stronger voter protection at the pools in Ohio in 2004. Personally, I think he actually won in 2004.
Sanders is unassailable on his integrity.
Tell me what Jane Sanders had to gain if she did do what she is accused of doing? Was there any personal gain in it for her? I seriously doubt it.
It was a bureaucratic snafu at the college if anything.
MADem
(135,425 posts)It's a GAG ME pricey tuition school that provides a crappy, no-grades, elite education for failure-to-launch mostly wealthy students whose parents can afford to spend money at a place that doesn't give grades and is ON PROBATION re: accreditations. https://burlington.edu/discover/about/accreditation/
And WHY are they on probation? Because of the college's shaky FINANCIAL RESOURCES.
She wasn't planning on leaving that school. She wanted to build it up into a massive campus and increase the enrollment. She intended to stay at that gig for awhile. Her "ideas" though, didn't bear fruit because she suffered from "Everyone thinks like I do"-itis.
Instead, she nearly bankrupted the place--it's still in hot water, and her actions had an adverse impact on what little reputation the place had. If the place fails, the finger of blame will be pointed right at her.
Sanders may be unassailable, but his wife isn't--and she's running his campaign. And no, it wasn't a "bureaucratic snafu." She fucked up with the money, and the long-range planning, she almost destroyed the place, and she got fired for it. That's what happened.
jfern
(5,204 posts)Christine Plunkett, not Jane Sanders. Here one of the founders is saying how she was angry with Plunkett.
http://www.wcax.com/story/29993682/fresh-start-for-burlington-college-after-years-of-financial-chaos
MADem
(135,425 posts)who 'misstated' the school finances in order to secure the loan. Then, when it was discovered what she had done, the board held the door open and let her depart, and the CFO who was her partner in bad finance took over and took the blame--but Sanders made that horrible deal, Sanders didn't do any work to try and increase enrollment, Sanders was the one who signed the document misstating the financials, and when they couldn't service the loan, the land had to be sold at a loss. The college lost money, and the community is going to end up with an overdeveloped area instead of a nice open space. Will the college survive? That's still an open question.
The nicest thing you can say about her tenure at Burlington is that she woefully mismanaged the place. If it closes, it will be on her head.
jfern
(5,204 posts)That President didn't continue Jane Sander's fundraising campaign.
MADem
(135,425 posts)And Sanders was cough-- fired --cough -- allowed to resign because her fundraising sucked.
How can you "continue" something that wasn't happening in the first place?
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)A lot of organizations, individuals and businesses, some well run, some not so well run, collapsed during that time period.
I have personal friends who had great businesses going, had them going for years, and then lost out during those years. The stock market crash took its toll on a lot of good people and a lot of good institutions.
Burlington College was trying to expand at that unfortunate time. I think it would be impossible to blame any individual for expanding any enterprise, including a college, at a time when the economy was retracting.
This does not alarm me at all now that I know the facts.
2004-2011. A lot of enterprises went under, a lot of properties lost value, a lot of homes and businesses and properties were foreclosed during that time. That was the fault of fraud on Wall Street, and a lot of people were caught in the aftermath and current of the downward pressure in our economy.
Actually, that makes me trust in the sincerity of Bernie Sanders more than ever. The fraud on Wall Street caused a lot of problems. I know of non-profits and for-profits that suffered terribly.
And a lot of people overestimated the value of donations or of their homes and properties during that period in our economy. There is nothing to see here.
The questions must arise as to how the Clintons managed to become richer during those treacherous years. That is what I am wondering about.
Others were losing their homes, but the Clintons increased their wealth? How did that come about?
MADem
(135,425 posts)Bill also did a lot of lucrative speech making in his post-POTUS career--he was, and still is, a HUGE DRAW. The guy can speechify, make no mistake. HRC gets a good paycheck for a speech, too, though she hasn't done as much of it, and she's put that on hiatus since she declared her candidacy.
I'm confused as to why you would affect a naivete about this topic--it's kind of odd that you didn't look up their FEC filings, since you were "wondering" so mightily. Or at least used the Google, where you could get a simplified accounting of their finances via the print media.
So, given those rather obvious, easily accessed, and well reported sources of income, I'm entirely amused at why you are "wondering" about how they "managed" to become richer. The answers are at your fingertips--and they always HAVE been.
I'd wonder if they DIDN'T manage to improve their financial cicumstances, given those book and speech deals.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Compare that to Jane's severance pay at Burlington College where she worked from 2004-2011.
Why was Hillary paid so much for speeches? Were those payments really bribes? Was there something underhanded going on?
Anyone can pose these questions. After all, one can argue that Goldman Sachs where Hillary delivered one of her high-priced speeches received favors from Bill Clinton (as did other Wall Street players with the signing of the repeal of Glass-Steagall).
My point is that the gottcha game can be played by anyone against anyone.
The claims about Jane Sanders are really very low.
She is probably bound by a confidentiality agreement not to discuss the matter.
Bill Clinton, on the other hand, could discuss his favors for Wall Street. But he won't.
The Telecommunications Act anyone? Favors. Favors. Favors.
We need a constitutional amendment that gets corporate and wealthy donors' money out of our elections. It would be difficult to write one that still protects freedom of speech, but we have to do that.
MADem
(135,425 posts)A good chunk of that 'take' goes to charitable causes, so good for her.
Also, her payday from those speeches is a lot -- for a woman. But for a man of similar profile? Not so much.
There's not even equality in the honoraria game. Maybe President H R Clinton can improve that, and other situations where women aren't paid equally for the same experience and the same work.
Sanders' successor at the college (who was also given the bum's rush) hasn't had any trouble talking about this matter, so claims of "confidentiality" seem a bit bogus to me. Also, if someone was lying about her in a blatant material fashion, she could easily ask a surrogate to correct the record for her, but she hasn't done that. I don't think the bank documents lie, in any event. The financial papers say what they say--and she SIGNED them.
Bill Clinton didn't misstate donor pledges (worst case translation: lie to a bank) in order to secure a loan, so I fail to understand your attempt to compare/contrast. It just doesn't fly.
And, speaking of scenarios, just imagine your candidate makes the cut and becomes the Democratic nominee. Do you seriously think the GOP are going to take a "Hands Off" attitude with regard to this matter? Because, ya know, it's really "low" to say anything? Please. Do you seriously think the GOP strategists will shoot that down with "Shhhh--you'll hurt feelings if you mention THAT!"
Mrs. Sanders, rightly or wrongly, is going to be accused of all sorts of "financial malfeasance," and this "land deal" is going to be trotted out like it's the Whitewater of the North. She'll be painted as a wild-eyed zealot with a warped vision who carelessly blew the hard-earned dollars held in trust for a boutique university in a pastoral setting....for her own selfish purposes the tag-line will read. Every picture will be unflattering. Her husband will be painted as either clueless as to her "machinations" or even worse, complicit. The TV commercials write themselves.
You're not going to get that "constitutional amendment" between now and Nov 2016. You gotta dance with the ones what brung ya, so you'd best be prepared.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)after our primaries are finished. That will be more of a problem for Democrats if Hillary is our nominee than anything that happened during the recession at Vermont College.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Your tactic is obvious and not working. Start a thread on that if you really want to hash it out.
It seems to me that "Benghazi, Libya and Syria--OH MY!!!!" have been beaten to death. There's nothing out there that we don't already know. But if there is, fine, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.
But this stuff? This is all NEW. It's FRESH. It's a new soap opera, with new characters--and the American public LOVES that shit.
And it's not about a " recession" either--you'd know that if you bothered to read about the financial mismanagement. It's about lying to a bank to qualify for a loan, and making unrealistic projections during a time that no student enrollment outreach was even happening. And all that fell squarely on the shoulders of the BOSS--who happens to be married to a POTUS candidate.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Really! I don't think that story will have wings.
The story about arming ISIS aka the moderate rebel groups in Syria???? Maybe.
MADem
(135,425 posts)If you want to talk about ISIS, you know how to start a thread, if there aren't several on the subject on the board already. This thread is about a different topic.
I think this event has potential to resonate, especially if the current owner of the property has trouble servicing the loan for whatever reason (like, say, the good citizens of Burlington object to all that housing crammed onto the parcel and the guy can't make his money back). The bank IS going to get its money one way or another, even if they have to go to court and subpoena her. Those documents were fudged/forged/misstated--that is not in dispute. And she signed them.
Even if the loan is paid off without any issues, should Sanders win the DNC crown, the GOP will come at him--AND her, and her daughter, especially, who has made money off the college and has worked for the campaign-- with both barrels. There won't be any of that "family off limits" stuff--not when they've benefitted from business relationships in that manner. This aspect will be a mere warm-up, but it will be used if he is the standard bearer.
SunSeeker
(51,545 posts)
GeorgeGist
(25,316 posts)sympathetic enough to grifters.
Cartoonist
(7,314 posts)The only thing that could be worse is if the deal was engineered in order for the developer to grab that land at a fire sale price, and someone got a kickback. No evidence of that--yet.
---
What a slimy thing to say. You are essentially accusing her of engineering a kickback. Have you no shame?
MADem
(135,425 posts)And I did no such accusing--but you accusing me of accusing? Now THAT's a slimy thing to say!
That "scenario" IS making the rounds. You think I shouldn't mention that fact because it might hurt tender feelings? Let's give everyone the mushroom treatment, keep 'em all calm, happy and in the dark?
I haven't seen any dot connecting that places her in the middle of anything like that, but as we all know, a) It's not necessary to connect the dots to create a conspiracy; b) The GOP are skilled at this sort of thing; c) They aren't going to "go easy" on an opponent out of some misguided sense of Marquess of Queensberry rules, or chivalry, or what-have-you.
Big picture, this is probably not the worst of her problems. If things don't get better with Putin, her "honeymoon" with her 2nd husband will be more than enough grist for the GOP mill, in the highly unlikely event that it should ever come to that. Fair? Probably not. Doesn't mean they won't use it, though.
Cartoonist
(7,314 posts)You are promulgating it. That's slimy. I am merely pointing out the slime peddler.
MADem
(135,425 posts)What are you going to do if your candidate wins, and the GOP leads with that, and other fun stuff?
You certainly can't counter it if you've never even heard it. And yelling at me, characterizing me rather crudely, too, for simply telling you that it's out there? Well, that's fine and dandy, if that's your play, but it's not going to help you beat down the rumors, is it?
artislife
(9,497 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)IMPEACHMENT is simply the act of bringing charges, it's a formal ACCUSATION, nothing more--and in Clinton's circumstance, the vote to impeach was more or less along party lines (see why it's important to have a majority in the House--where all important things, like votes to impeach and appropriations--begin).
After charges were voted on, and two managed to slide through--perjury and obstruction of justice, IIRC--he was tried in the Senate, with the Chief Justice in a weird robe that he sewed Naval Officer's braid upon. Very pompous, that robe, IMO.
Anyway, as I'm sure you remember...
He was acquitted of all charges.
artislife
(9,497 posts)I am just pointing out that if someone wants to play the spouses are fair game, H is going to lose.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Most people don't care about Bill's sexual improprieties anymore, especially nowadays, with his heart disease, veganism, "hate the sin/love the sinner" POV, and his Grampa-like ways.
But do try to make hay over old, well-vetted, and re-hashed peccadillos, if you'd like. Some call them a fault, some call them a failing, and some even call them a feature.
But pretty much everyone calls them old news.
artislife
(9,497 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)We don't want to go down the "sexual indiscretions" road, at any rate--because there's plenty of that stuff to go around. Do a little homework, and you'll see--I won't say more than that.
I think O'Malley and Chaffee (and their spouses) have clean slates, if that's helpful.
artislife
(9,497 posts)referring to. Are you the one who didn't like that he protected the child, he had? Or was it one of the others?
I can't remember, but I feel when you bring an innocent into the picture their right to privacy trumps all.
MADem
(135,425 posts)quite RECENTLY:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/07/bernie-sanders-vermont-119927
A 46 year old who was a full-grown 22 year old adult when his father settled into the House (by now, he surely knows who his mama is, don't you think?) doesn't need "protecting." But no one brought that up, then--so that whole "protecting" argument is a canard.
That discussion--and Sanders' aggressive response-- about his history happened very RECENTLY--in the context of his POTUS candidacy--and I doubt Sanders was protecting his kid. He was more likely protecting himself from any disussion of his draft status, which improved markedly (from IA to 3C) with parenthood. This was not uncommon back then--Dick Cheney did it, certainly.
It will be discussed, though, if he breaks through to the nomination--it's something he should be prepared for...that whole "I don't want to talk about that, I want to talk about this" schtick doesn't work on a national level. The response to that is that people can walk and chew gum at the same time.
FWIW, he wasn't passing off the child as Jane's--it was the first wife who got 'credited' for the child, even though it was the girlfriend who actually is the mother. All that is in the piece.
There was no need to lie on his OWN biography about whose kid that was. There was no need to go into any detail at all. If they wanted to be cute, they could say they have a "blended" family of four adult children, or something. Or they could have just said he had one son, and she had one son and two daughters. Or he had one son and three stepchildren. No one would care. It's embellishment that turns out to be inaccurate that is problematic, it always is.
Had he just not mis-stated in the first place, in this day and age, the circumstances of Levi's birth would have been a total ho-hum not even worthy of a POLITICO article. After all, Ronald Reagan was divorced--didn't hurt him one bit. Gerald Ford's wife was a divorcee, and she was beloved. Grover Cleveland overcame a much greater scandal, and that was many years ago.
It's never the crime, it's the cover-up...!
Skwmom
(12,685 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)That's all campaign tweets, with cheerleading replies.
They have ready access to years of archives and history that ordinary news outlets would have to send someone to the Northeast Kingdom to dig up.
They are a nonprofit outfit that is dedicated to getting well-sourced and accurate information out to the citizens of VT. They pride themselves on sources, facts, details, and ORIGINAL documentation. They aren't rumor mongers. Read their "about" page--it's pretty clear they are on the up-and-up.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Oops...Hillary.
MADem
(135,425 posts)getting. This is a well sourced article, too.
This part is disturbing--they're using a "pledge" as collateral that would only be available if the donor DIED:
Oops, the mortgage loan is due--go clunk old Eggbert over the head with this tire iron!
There's a ways to go before any fraud is proven, and given that the bank is going to get their money after that land was sold to the developer (though the school may not survive) they might not be inclined to get into all that:
First, there must be a showing that the fraud was “knowingly and intentionally” committed, he said. Misstatements that result from ignorance or negligence don’t constitute criminal fraud, but could result in a civil action, Waples said.
In the case of Burlington College, it appears that Sanders overstated the pledges in the loan document, and misstated the nature of the $1 million bequest. Whether Sanders made misstatements intentionally or out of ignorance or negligence is unknown. VTDigger was unable to interview Sanders or Plunkett, and additional records were not available.
Secondly, prosecutors would need to show that the fraud was material, meaning that it could have impacted the plaintiff’s decision (in a case against Sanders or Burlington College, the plaintiff would be People’s United Bank). A showing of materiality doesn’t rely on whether the fraud did influence a plaintiff’s decision, only that it could have, Waples said.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)It looks to me like she exercised some bad judgement and/or got caught in a bad situation trying to take advantage of an opportunity to expand the college. It's one of those ambiguous situations where once the momentum gets going, a few mistakes take on a life of their own. That's also not all that unusual for college presidents or the heads of similar institution. It's a job with a fairly high mortality rate.
As objectively as I can be, I'd say it's similar to the pickles the Clintons have gotten themselves caught up in over the years.
Felony? I got highly doubt it.
Corruption? It doesn't look like personal gain was involved.
In short, not great for Sanders to have to deal with. But not all that unusual, and not an end of the world campaign killer.
And....issues. Remember them?
MADem
(135,425 posts)I don't necessarily buy off on it so I won't give it any play here, but as you noted, these things do take on a life of their own. And vetted "pickles" for some odd reason (see Reagan/Iran-Contra) take on a teflon coating that causes any shit flung at them to just slide away. The American public is sometimes like a temperamental child who has seen that toy already, and demands a new one. It's the oddest thing.
Anyone who thinks that personal details (translation--scandals, quirks, "stories," what-have-you), too, will be put aside in favor of 'issues' in a general election scenario is pipe dreaming. The issue framing, the compare-and-contrast, happens very early in the general. After that, it's the whole 'beer' thing (which was weird with Bush, since he was a recovering alcoholic...but it didn't matter to some people). Minds are made up quickly, even though there's a massive segment (as there is every Presidential election) of assholes who pretend to be oh-so-coyly undecided, so that people might pay attention to them and try to "convince" them of something they've already figured out on their own.
About the only time that an emphasis on personal details can backfire is when the opposition takes it a step too far. Scott Brown's campaign was gaining traction with the "Fauxahontas" accusations, but then, when a bunch of his bone-headed supporters confronted a bunch of Warren supporters on the street and started doing the "Tomahawk Chop" and "war whoop" -- and someone, mercifully, was there WITH A CAMERA--that is when the tide started to turn. People were repulsed at the unbridled racism, frankly.
As for the primaries, the candidates on our side have pretty much sketched out their stances on the issues. Two clicks and you're there if you're confused about any stance. People don't really want a discussion of "issues," they want to compare and contrast appearance and tone. They want to cheerlead. Each thinks their candidate will do better at the "acting" that is involved on the political stage. And for the clueless who might tune in, who aren't even wired into the candidates at all, it's all about the acting and the "show."
It's not "issues" that have put Donald Trump in front of the GOP field--he has his head up his ass, talking about what he'd do like he's a king who doesn't have to get every appropriation vetted by Congress (once the field is narrowed, he'll be called to answer on that score). What has put him out in front to this point is that clownish show he's been putting on...the bellowing, the name-calling, the blunt sexism, the outlandish, pie-in-the-sky proclamations that appeal to the lizard brain... it's "That's Entertainment!" on the political stage.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Last edited Sun Sep 27, 2015, 04:39 PM - Edit history (1)
If Democratic voters get incensed because the wife of a candidate was a bad administrator, and if that causes them to decide to vote for another primary candidate, then nothing can be done. If the activities of a spouse is so important (even to those who believe that women should have independent careers and identities) then that's the will of the people, and he'll lose.
And if it doesn't scuttle Sanders in the primary and he becomes the candidate -- and if voters say "Oh I have to vote for Jeb Bush (or Trump or whomever) because Sanders wife mismanaged a fund drive at a dinky little college" then this election will have been for naught.
But my hunch is 1) It won't be a major concern -- or even a minor one -- for most people, and 2)The Sanders campaign has already figured out how to handle it when it does come up.
MADem
(135,425 posts)She touts herself as his 'political advisor' and campaign manager. Their desks are "side by side." This is being touted as a "two for one" candidacy.
And it isn't just "bad administration." It's a bit more than that. There's mismanagement at a minimum, and worst case, fraud. Further, there's a load of nepotism up in there, too.
I do agree with you that this won't be a huge issue in the primary, absent some bombshell revelation coming out of the People's United Bank, or something. I do, however, see it as having potential to derail him if he made it through to the general (a prospect I personally believe is not very likely, but ya never know). I also don't think this is something that can be "managed." Unless, of course, they've found someone else to fall on their sword and take all the blame.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)and lie about it?
MADem
(135,425 posts)There was an IMPEACHMENT involved, too, if you remember.
Are you saying that VTDigger shouldn't look into this ....? Because, .... WHY?
shenmue
(38,506 posts)
840high
(17,196 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)Would you give a pass to Clinton's campaign manager? I doubt it.
Jane Sanders serves as an advisor to her husband, presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders. Their desks sits side by side at his campaign headquarters in Burlington. Seen on Thursday, August 6, 2015. (Photo: GLENN RUSSELL/FREE PRESS)
Sanders shares an office with her husband at campaign headquarters in Burlington, their desks side by side. Her role seems to merge the personal and the political.
"Right now it's being with Bernie. Traveling with him. Supporting him. And thinking through policy and strategy with him," she said. "So basically really supporting Bernie both in the way I always have both as a life partner in a loving couple, but also as a political adviser."
Sanders' proximity to politics has exposed her to public criticism. In particular, she has faced questions about her presidency at Burlington College, a private liberal arts school that has been plagued by financial troubles and sagging enrollment.
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/politics/2015/08/17/jane-sanders-talks-bernie-politics-winning/31715059/
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)Last edited Sun Sep 27, 2015, 11:09 AM - Edit history (1)
do you reckon that molehill is?
MADem
(135,425 posts)DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)just wondering.
murielm99
(30,730 posts)Go start you own OP if you want to rehash that old, tired story.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)So yes, my post was very much about Hillary, and as with every other facet of my life for every day I've lived it, I didn't seek permission from you before proceeding.
MADem
(135,425 posts)hard to change the subject, though--and it's obvious.
You're free to start a hundred threads on that topic if you'd like, but I doubt you'd like it if people interrupted your threads with unrelated material. It's not a question of "permission"--it's just a blatantly uncivil thing to do.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)And the day you make policy at DU will be the day I leave. Do let me know if that's in the works. Until then, see you around.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Suspected defrauding of a bank is not the same as an email non-scandal that everyone and their mother--save Republicans, mind you--says has no "there" there.
It's not the same at all.
Who is claiming (save you) that "I" make policy at DU? If I made policy at DU, the way things are going here, I'd bring back moderators and vigorously enforce the TOS...so obviously, I'm not making policy here.
Not sure what you're getting upset about, there. But have a nice evening.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)No one is claiming that you make policy at DU, including me. Try reading the whole thing again. Your reply doesn't really have much to do with anything I've said.
MADem
(135,425 posts)DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)"unwell?" That's your tactic?
Funny-sad. But sad.
Sorry you ran out of argument and had to reduce yourself to this:
100. You'll feel better soon. Or you won't.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)Sufficient contrast for me...!
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)murielm99
(30,730 posts)
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)peacebird
(14,195 posts)She FLAT OUT LIED about it, later had to walk it back. Tired rehash? No, just Hillary being Hillary. Unable to tell the truth, or to realize this is the age of internet, where people can look up the video of that airport reception and see for themselves that she was greeted not by sniper fire, but by a smiling young gurl with a bouquet.
murielm99
(30,730 posts)Try to understand that.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)murielm99
(30,730 posts)But please keep in mind that there are so many threads about it that we are all bored to tears.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)But thanks for your concern!
murielm99
(30,730 posts)Bye.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)Uncle Joe
(58,334 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)See if that works.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)according to google
MADem
(135,425 posts)They have acknowledged that they're having a tough time keeping up with all the hits they are getting since Sanders announced. They've been covering him for years, and they have reporters and stories that go way back.
Their coverage is thoughtful and complete. Attempts to paint them as "oppo" or hit pieces just don't match the reality of their work.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)agencies are accessing it. Not sure why you have to get personal and stoop to characterizations when we're discussing a report that is nothing but fact-based, here.
All you need to do is google VT Digger and you'll see how often they've been cited as a resource. They do have their finger on the pulse of the state. They haven't been "mean to Bernie" either--they just report facts, kind of like the old days.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)It doesn't involve Jane's actions as a staff member for Bernie.
MADem
(135,425 posts)work running his campaigns, and she has put one of her KIDS on the payroll too.
Given that it looks like she might have trouble handling money, it is salient to ask who is keeping the books over at Team Bernie. If it's Jane, they need to find someone else to do that work. One needs to ask if she has any checks and balances in place when she decides to spend money on behalf of the campaign--is there anyone who verifies her obligations, double checks the figures?
This incident with the bank loan also speaks to her integrity--if she did, indeed, misrepresent those pledges, that is dishonest at best, criminal at worst. If she simply made a huge mistake, and "misheard" pledge after pledge after pledge, then maybe her hearing or her judgment are problematic and that could cause difficulty in her management of the campaign.
If a Presidential candidate has someone on their staff who lied about money, lied about donors, told lies to banks to GET money, or even just, in a stumble-bum way, misheard, misunderstood, got confused, etc., that is a problem.
It IS a salient matter.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)Is this the kind of salient matter that you are referring to?
MADem
(135,425 posts)on, yourself--but it doesn't negate or diminish the issues raised in the OP.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)then I don't mind these unproven allegations.
MADem
(135,425 posts)She did misstate the pledge amounts.
She did lie to the bank. She did put the accreditation of the school in a probationary status due to financial resource mismanagement.
The only question is "Did she do it with the INTENT to commit fraud?"
That's a question for the courts, if it ever gets taken that far.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)their pledges and how they were inflated on the documents that were provided to the bank.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)Only two names that were named *from the article
Luck said he did not realize Leavitt was listed as a $60,000 confirmed contribution on the loan document. While he may have given Sanders a “hopeful” impression about the second $30,000, he does not recall telling her it was a “signed and sealed” pledge.
may have given? does not recall?
Former trustee Rob Michalak is a Burlington College alumni who now works at Ben & Jerry’s. Michalak is listed on the loan document as a $5,000 confirmed pledge. He recalls being asked to contribute to the school’s capital campaign along with other faculty and trustees.
However, he doesn’t recall pledging at the $5,000 level. After reviewing his own financial records, Michalak confirmed he did make a pledge and donation, but not for $5,000. He did not wish to share the actual amount of his contribution.
Once again "doesn't recall" - people make pledges to Colleges without honoring them or only partially honoring them ALL THE TIME.
I've worked in this field with Colleges and with Hospitals - pledges fall through- and people are embarrassed if they are called out on them. So colleges don't pressure them.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Even if their pledges were written off, it appears they should never have been recorded as “valid and enforceable” in the loan agreement.
...In the case of Burlington College, it appears that Sanders overstated the pledges in the loan document, and misstated the nature of the $1 million bequest. Whether Sanders made misstatements intentionally or out of ignorance or negligence is unknown. VTDigger was unable to interview Sanders or Plunkett, and additional records were not available....The overstated pledges VTDigger has identified total less than $35,000, and would be unlikely to be considered material. However, close to $620,000 in confirmed pledges were never realized and are no longer being sought by the college, which means other pledges could have been overstated as well.
http://vtdigger.org/2015/09/13/jane-sanders-overstated-donation-amounts-in-loan-application-for-burlington-college/
And again, this is the go-to source for VT news--they are a non-profit and they are invested in quality journalism. They have a page devoted to Sanders' bid for POTUS and they carry his updated twitter feed on it. Any attempt to paint this site as "the bad guys" is a fail. They are "the news guys." So sorry, I don't buy your "bullshit" comment. Here--read up on them: http://vtdigger.org/about-vtdigger/
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)goodbye
MADem
(135,425 posts)virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)This is home-grown, local, VT product.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)now that we know from Huffington post that David Brock sends helpful emails prompting people to write negative things about Bernie.
Why does the Health Care reporter for VtDigger suddenly write an article about
Jane Sanders actions 5 years ago.
Your assertions about this sound much more like the Newsmax and Daily Caller spin on this.
MADem
(135,425 posts)This report deals with the People's Bank documentation that details the pledge "overstatements"--this isn't about rumor or innuendo, it is about what was written on paperwork signed by the college president and CFO.
Again--they are all about DOCUMENTS--not rumor, not innuendo, but source material, like this:
LOAN AGREEMENT
http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2401607-loan-agreement-2010-with-burlington-college.html
AUDIT REPORT, signed as an accurate representation by Jane Sanders
http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2401609-bc-documents-certs-reps-and-audit-reports-re.html
They provide these documents to the public--you can read them and come to your own conclusions. The reporting has a goal of explaining the documents, and you are free to check their work and send in a correction, if you'd like.
As for the slam on the reporter's bona fides, if you look at the "about" page of VT DIGGER, their focus is on accurate information and they don't have a problem with their reporters working outside their designated wheelhouse. Further, if you look at Morgan True's resume, you'd learn that he has no shortage of experience (at some credible New England publications, too) covering political and other issues:
Morgan True is VTDigger's health care reporter. A Seattle native, he graduated from Boston University with a Bachelor of Science in Journalism before working for several publications in Massachusetts. He came to VTDigger in December 2013 from The Brockton Daily Enterprise, where he covered government, schools and hospitals in a city of about 100,000 people. Before joining The Enterprise, he worked for The Associated Press in Concord, N.H., where he served as a relief reporter in the Statehouse. He previously worked for The Quincy (Mass.) Patriot Ledger and as an intern at the Worcester (Mass.) Telegram & Gazette.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)I'll say this again
I've worked in fundraising operations for Colleges
People are embarrassed when they don't fulfill their pledges, especially when it is due to economic hardship.
They might even say that they didn't pledge, or they might fulfill it only partially.
We would always tread lightly in those circumstances.
They don't normally have reporters exposing the fact that they didn't fulfill it.
Unfulfilled pledges happen all the time for financial reasons.
Newsmax and the Daily Caller spun this story into existence back in April.
This is just smear and spin....no evidence of fraud
MADem
(135,425 posts)a major university that shall remain nameless. Full - time jobs, with fabulous compensations. One is recently retired, the other one is still on the job.
Both of them say she fucked up and--at a MINIMUM--she made a serious error of judgment when it came to the pledges. Both say that misrepresenting a bequest in the way that she did was fraudulent. Not a mistake--fraudulent.
And, FWIW, one of the two is a rather ardent "Bernista," and he is unable to come up with a rational reason why she'd confuse that unless she was trying to cook the books. The phrase "No one could be that stupid," was used.
A million bucks (and that was the bequest amount) is not chump change--and like I said, the only way she could be sure to get the money is to go club the donor to death with a tire iron, and hope they read the will quickly.
I'll believe my relations before I believe you--sorry.
This is not spin, or smear--this is documents. You can click on the links and read the actual documents, and see Ms. Sanders' signature. But hey, rationalize away if you must. It doesn't change the fact that she signed that certification of her financials, and what she signed wasn't true.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Jane Sanders left and was given money when she left.
The other person who, based on her title, may have had more responsibility for accounting for money and reporting on donations (but who knows) became president after Jane Sanders left. The other person then left and was not given any money when she left.
It's a very small school, not well established, with an idealistic mission, and it has reorganized itself. There is more to the story than what was reported in the article you cited.
MADem
(135,425 posts)That point isn't helpful to her case, you realize. Now you're trying to paint the BOSS, the responsible individual, as "clueless?" Manipulated by the CFO? Well, that doesn't say much for her manegerial/leadership skills EITHER...! Stupidity has never been a mitigating factor.
Not sure where you're getting the "not well established" part where you describe the school. The school is OVER FIFTY YEARS OLD. It was founded in 1972. It WAS well established, and doing a fine job at what it was about (a shitload of non-traditional learning, in essence) until the President squandered the money the institution had built up on an unrealistic pipe dream where she placed herself as the expansive visionary who was going to create a massive campus "with a beach" --and when it all started unravelling and the board started calling for her head, she skeedaddled.
No matter what way you parse it, that's how it comes out.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)and legacies were being decimated thanks to the repeal of Glass-Steagall, Greenspan's libertarian economic policies and Bush II's failure to enforce financial services regulation on banks and Wall Street.
Even the State of California nearly went broke.
There is no shame in that story. As I said, I have friends who lost their homes, their businesses, their retirement funds, nearly everything.
The economy went down. That is why so many people who were trying to expand their businesses or buy new homes lost so much.
When telling a story, it is impotant to tell the whole story.
MADem
(135,425 posts)If you're trying to suggest that the President of a college was so clueless that she couldn't take into account financial vicissitudes in a normal economy, you're basically saying she is even MORE incompetent than a simple "plumping" of the pledges and misstating of the endowments.
This isn't about "telling a story." It's about lying to a bank and fudging documents to get a loan. That's the core of the apple, here.
Snap the Turtle
(73 posts)NOT QUITE.
I know this because I'm nearly 40 and was born in 1976.
jfern
(5,204 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)It sounds like a very liberal, socially minded school. It's graduates probably don't make a lot of money.
I gather that it is a very small, experimental school. Interesting.
Not a very old or well established school.
It would be a shame if it failed.
A real loss.
Jane Sanders was brave to accept a job there. Knowing what I do about raising money, I rather admire her trying to raise money for that kind of educational experience. Can't judge the problems with raising that money too harshly.
It is relatively easy to raise money for schools like Yale and Harvard -- and to invest their endowments which have built up over a couple of centuries.
Sounds like an interesting school that gives students chances they might not otherwise have.
MADem
(135,425 posts)If you're going to spend thirty grand for room and board, and then more, of course, for books and materials and so forth, you'd be better off going to a good state school that is not on probation for financial resource issues.
Right now, with their probationary accreditation, I don't think even a "unique learner" would be smart to enroll there. It's like flushing money down the crapper. They are having serious trouble keeping students--they transfer out as fast as they enroll, and this is problematic for their future. The accept pretty much everyone who applies, and they have rolling admissions--it's small, but certainly not exclusive.
It would have been fine, for what it is, had management not gotten all Trump-Grandiose and tried to make it into something more than what it was established to be--a small, quirky place for students who often learn diferently, with "unusual" offerings for people with unique interests.
She wasn't "brave" at all (what a weird thing to say) --she wanted that 200K salary for what looked like an easy gig. She was familiar with academia, she worked at Goddard before this.
Had she stuck to a conservative growth agenda, instead of trying to buy up the Catholic Church's mess (they used that cash they got from that sale to pay abuse victims), that school would have been FINE. She broke it. If they fail and go under, it's on her head--and that is the truth no matter how much she tries to distance herself from the mess she made. She was a horrible steward of that place.
She wanted to turn a tract house into a mansion, in essence, and it didn't work.
Snap the Turtle
(73 posts)I think you need to go get remedial math if you think the college is over 50 years old, and you said it was founded in 1972.
TeacherB87
(249 posts)That is all.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)any more than bill clinton and his foundation activities
flame bait....don't fall for it
president sanders has a nice ring to it..
and i am pretty sure hrc will not be part of his cabinet thank goodness
MADem
(135,425 posts)She was also paid by her husband to manage his reelection campaigns. http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050414/NEWS/504140364/1002/NEWS01
She is a public figure who was responsible for the management of that college when it went into extreme financial distress and disarray.
Why wouldn't Bill Clinton and his foundation activities be subject to scrutiny as well? Not sure your argument holds up, especially since I've seen a few threads about that posted here on DU.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)on everybody
but i sure hope those whining about the emails stop now. i mean the candidate herself is under fbi investigation.
that certainly is a campaign issue if jane sanders is
MADem
(135,425 posts)about unrelated subject matter. Your choice--every post kicks the thread, though so knock yourself out.
Jane Sanders is a member of Sanders' Presidential Campaign. She is an advisor. She's been paid to manage Sanders' campaigns in the past, as has at least one of his step-children. She has served on his Congressional staff as well.
This isn't just Annie Romney and Rafalca, here--this is the conduct of a public figure we are talking about.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)i am losing interst in these issues, on both sides.
it is getting too ugly
and yes, you are correct about kicking...i have often stayed away from criticisms in order not to provide a kick
good reminder..thx
Dawson Leery
(19,348 posts)
R B Garr
(16,950 posts)Sounds like someone in a privileged position who felt entitled.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)and cooked books (or servers)
someone .....wait...the name will come to me
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)But they'll be made to understand.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)that is a string they would really like to pull on
i guess desperation causes odd behavior
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)They're going to throw everything at anyone we nominate. And Hillary is the most vulnerable. Which is why she's the worst choice if that's your primary criterion.
R B Garr
(16,950 posts)and maligning the Clintons and nothing has worked. Maybe a dip in the polls here and there, but that's it. In the meantime, all their detractors especially from the impeachment era are washed up career wise. They were used up and thrown away, and the Clintons are still standing. That's reality.
MADem
(135,425 posts)for a few brief years flinging shit at Bill and Hill.
The ones that aren't six feet under are in Nowhere Land.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)First, it was years ago, and if anything illegal was done it would have been investigated shortly afterwards.
Second, a College President does not unilaterally take out a loan. The College will have a Board, accountants, and lawyers involved in the process. So will the lending institution.
If Camp Weathervane is counting on this, it's a bet they'll lose. You'd be better off donating to Hillary's legal fees.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,658 posts)aidbo
(2,328 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)reddread
(6,896 posts)or one last desperate gambit before D Day.
MADem
(135,425 posts)What's "unwise" is blaming this very local story--which the citizens of Burlington have followed very closely for a long while--on "Clinton supporters."
The Republicans are also interested in this story, because they believe they'll be able to use it downstream when Sanders runs for re-election for his Senate seat in 2018--if that college crashes and burns, they will make hay over it.
This story has been a subject for discussion well before Sanders ever declared his presidential candidacy.
If a college in your small town (and Burlington, if located anywhere else, would be a small to middling town, not 'the big city') was in danger of collapsing because of financial misconduct or mismanagement on the part of the college president--throwing many local JOBS in danger of being lost, and many sources of community INCOME out the window--wouldn't you be concerned? The school is on academic probation because of their failure to keep their books in order--bad financials do impact that.
jfern
(5,204 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)They pledged, but the amounts were cooked to make the bank think there was more money coming in than they actually were promised.
It was Ponzi-esque.
jfern
(5,204 posts)It sounded like they discussed giving more, but didn't for some tax reason. The bank should know that a lot of pledged donations will never materialize, especially during a recession.
MADem
(135,425 posts)The way it is phrased is that she "overstated" them. This is pretty UNambiguous:
JANE SANDERS OVERSTATED DONATION AMOUNTS IN LOAN APPLICATION FOR BURLINGTON COLLEGE
http://vtdigger.org/2015/09/13/jane-sanders-overstated-donation-amounts-in-loan-application-for-burlington-college/
Former Burlington College president Jane Sanders overstated donation amounts in a bank application for a $6.7 million loan that was used by the college to purchase a prime 33-acre property on Lake Champlain in 2010.
Sanders told People’s United Bank that the college had $2.6 million in pledged donations to support the purchase of the former Roman Catholic Diocese of Burlington property on North Avenue. The college, however, received only $676,000 in actual donations from 2010 through 2014, according to figures provided by Burlington College.
That’s far less than the $5 million Sanders listed as likely pledges in the loan agreement, and less than a third of the $2.14 million Sanders had promised People’s Bank the college would collect in cash during the four-year period.
Two people whose pledges are listed as confirmed in the loan agreement told VTDigger that their personal financial records show their pledges were overstated. Neither were aware that the pledges were used to secure the loan.
This is not a 'hit piece' site. They are a non-profit and they do quality journalism.
VTDigger.org is a statewide news website that publishes watchdog reports on state government, politics, consumer affairs, business and public policy.
VTDigger.org is a project of The Vermont Journalism Trust, a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization. The two organizations merged in October 2010. VJT became the official publisher for VTDigger.org in March 2011.
We post original news reporting, video, audio and photos, in addition to raw information in the form of press releases and government documents. .....
A group of concerned citizens and journalists created VTDigger.org as a beta news website in September 2009. Our objective was to create a platform for consistent delivery of in-depth reports on matters of public interest and to serve as a catalyst for more open debates on key issues that impact Vermonters’ daily lives.
We launched our official web platform in September 2009 and began covering the Vermont Legislature in January 2010. A few months later, we expanded our website to include commentaries and press releases. By May, our readership had jumped to 14,000 unique readers a month. Over the course of the summer and fall 2010 election cycle, we solidified our place in Vermont’s media landscape. Since then, VTDigger.org has become a go-to news source for stories about state politics, public policy, business and consumer issues.
Whenever possible, we post original source materials – budget spreadsheets, memos, state reports and documents. We also run video and audio footage of press conferences and special events at the Statehouse....
http://vtdigger.org/about-vtdigger/
On their "Bernie's Bid" page, they display a live-updated twitter feed from Sanders' campaign.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Quite understandable if someone pledged x dollars before their portfolio crashed.
Also possible donations were stocks or RE that realized much less when sold than when donated.
What is there is the effects of an economic recession. Camp a Weathervane is grasping at straws, as usual.
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)And using the unbiased Vermont Digger story to do it. See my reply downthread.
MADem
(135,425 posts)of a million dollars that was credited as though the bequeather were already dead, when he was alive and kicking and that million bucks was NOT available, unless someone went and "offed" the guy. The bank was deceived on that score--that is quite plain by the documentation.
And none of those interviewed said "Well, I WAS going to donate that amount, but I got into hot water." They said the amounts were overstated. There is a reason that the VTDIGGER headline reads as it does--it's because the documents, linked at the bottom of the page, substantiate it. Sanders can't say she didn't know, her signature is all over those documents. She attested to their accuracy.
It wouldn't surprise me if that stunt caused the million dollar fellow to change his will. I would -- and I'd advertise it loudly, too. I'd be worried about someone wanting to knock me off for the cash!
delrem
(9,688 posts)She did it in service to the college, not herself.
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)If there's an investigation maybe we'll have a story on our hands.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Last edited Sun Sep 27, 2015, 06:09 AM - Edit history (1)
--- like a cloud of stankass vapors
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)More feces flung by a desparate campaign. Truth doesn't matter to them.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Desperate smelling smoke.
highprincipleswork
(3,111 posts)I seriously can't believe that folks would be disseminating this kind of trash in this location. To what purpose?
Is it a sign of trying to "win" at any cost?
That is what is so off-putting about this.
Listen, if this is a story, it will find its way into the light. And if it's a relevant story, it will go further.
But to fan the flames, with some kind of glee.
I just don't understand.
Fairgo
(1,571 posts)It isn't sanitary.
jkbRN
(850 posts)To take down the sanders campaign just like they tried to do to Obama in 2008
...and they failed.
History always repeats itself.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)it's early yet and Bernie hasn't completely pulled ahead. When he does they are going to go on a rampage or simply implode.
Ino
(3,366 posts)Let's open some cans of worms about the Clinton Foundation, shall we? Here's just one...
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html
As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.
And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)You call out Bernie supporters for complaining about real deeds she did and then attack Bernie's wife? Wow.
Is it now fair for Bernie supporters to use all the Bill Clinton accusations against Hillary? Because he has a lot more than dirt than Jane does behind him.
The hypocrisy here is amazing.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)You guys are using old methodology which flat just doesn't work anymore. David Brock should have showed you that. But I think you should double down. Next time go after the kids, then the grandkids.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)People’s United Bank stipulated that at the time of the closing in December 2010, the school would provide a report as part of the loan agreement detailing “fundraising collections, commitments and grants equal to $2,270,000” and information that would satisfy the bank that pledges were “valid and enforceable commitments of the respective donors and granting parties.”
Sanders and the college responded with a record of confirmed and potential donors. The document lists $2.6 million in confirmed pledges and a total of $5 million in potential contributions from 31 donors. The loan agreement was signed by Sanders and Christine Plunkett who was then the vice president of administration and finance for Burlington College.
http://vtdigger.org/2015/09/13/jane-sanders-overstated-donation-amounts-in-loan-application-for-burlington-college/
Joe the Revelator
(14,915 posts)Seriously, trollish, baiting thread worked, then Clinton types get mad when their plan worked and make themselves look even more petty. That about sum it up. Why yes, yes it does.
MADem
(135,425 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Combine this with some of the political favors Sanders secured for his his wife when he helped Schumlim and a pattern develops. I thought it was blatant cronyism. Could be even deeper.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Her daughter ran a woodworking school, how convenient.
Her daughter, who just happened to own a woodworking school, was paid a hundred and eighty some odd thousand per year to lease out her digs for the woodworking major at the college.
http://www.sevendaysvt.com/vermont/pass-or-fail-what-happens-if-burlington-college-drops-out/Content?oid=2420094
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)But I believe his daughter was on Sanders payroll up until just before this. I know she was on his payroll, I just don't remember the years.
From payroll to pay day.
MADem
(135,425 posts)WASHINGTON —The news that House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-TX, paid his wife and daughter $473,801 as campaign staff members was just the beginning. At least 38 other members of Congress, including Vermont Rep. Bernie Sanders, have paid spouses, children, or other relatives out of campaign funds, or have hired companies in which a family member had a financial interest, according to news reports.
Since 2000, Sanders has used campaign donations to pay his wife and stepdaughter more than $150,000, according to records filed with the Federal Election Commission.
His wife Jane O’Meara Sanders received $91,020 for “consultation” and to negotiate the purchase of television and radio ads. Approximately $61,000 of that was “pass through” money used to pay for the ads, O’Meara Sanders told the Bennington Banner. She kept about $30,000 as pay for her services.
Her daughter Carina Driscoll, Sanders’ stepdaughter, earned $65,002 from the Sanders campaign between 2000 and 2004, records show.
......What Sanders did is technically not illegal, but it’s astonishing that someone campaigning on the removal of big money in politics used campaign funds to pay large sums of money to members of his own family.
jfern
(5,204 posts)There are cases of a campaign paying 6 digits to a spouse in a single election.
MADem
(135,425 posts)jfern
(5,204 posts)I'm sure that was plenty of time for the college to reconsider that if they were doing that only because of Jane Sanders. And the other school has 10 faculty members, so that might include instruction too. After all, it says
Most of the credits for the Woodworking and Fine Furniture-Making B.F.A. are offered at the Vermont Woodworking School, a modern facility in an historic post-and-beam barn in Fairfax, Vermont.
https://burlington.edu/academics/areas-of-study/artdesign/woodworking-and-fine-furniture-making-bfa/
MADem
(135,425 posts)major was taken away when the president departed.
They're bleeding students as it is--taking away their majors isn't the way to keep them enrolled.
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)The Vermont Digger report from 9/13/2015 doesn't draw the conclusions OP is trying to make. It presents all the relevant info here without any slant:
http://vtdigger.org/2015/09/13/jane-sanders-overstated-donation-amounts-in-loan-application-for-burlington-college/
I suspect the story was investigated because of some chatter about the issue raised by a Newsmax article dated 3/27/2015 titled "Report: Did Bernie Sanders' Wife Commit Loan Fraud?" http://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/634817
Interesting that the OP is using the Vermont Digger article to push the Newsmax slant...
djean111
(14,255 posts)requiring donations to the Clinton Foundation for favors, and more. Doesn't matter one bit if it is old news, the public is going to lap it up. Doesn't matter how Hillary weathers it, or whether it bothers her personally. It will be red meat to GOP voters. That's all that counts. Well, she tried flinging shit last time, and lost. No lesson learned. Plus - today, we can investigate for ourselves. There is more to the internet than cute pink emojis.
More than ever, i know i am supporting the correct candidate, by supporting Bernie.
TM99
(8,352 posts)is taking the real article and slanting it towards the Newsmax interpretation.
Nothing in the VTDigger one suggests that an investigation has begun or is ongoing. They even lay out the case that there is very unlikely to even be a civil action in this situation.
But of course, maybe they can deflect just a little bit of heat away from the actual FBI and government investigations into the Clinton email server fiasco. 
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Repackaging Newsmax articles and posting them on DU.
Wow, I'm shocked.
MADem
(135,425 posts)I think the VT DIGGER article is all about the DOCUMENTS at the bottom--click the links at the end of the piece, and the actual DOCUMENTS, with the Sanders signature, are provided.
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)And there's no slant to the VT Digger article like I said.
MADem
(135,425 posts)The first document in this group is dated 2010, the last page in this link is 2013--but that's not when this was uploaded--is there a code to this that I don't see? If so, I'd be open to learning how to figure it out:
http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2401609-bc-documents-certs-reps-and-audit-reports-re.html
This loan agreement is dated 2010, but I don't think it was uploaded back then, either:
http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2401607-loan-agreement-2010-with-burlington-college.html
This pledge analysis has no date on it, so I don't see any help there.
UGH on edit--I clicked on your 'other' link (I avoid those guys on principle) and from there went to the UGH DC link. None of them have the DOCUMENTS and they also don't have interviews with bank people, pledge donors or a bequeather. The rightwing links like to put a dire tone on everything, the VT Digger piece just provides facts. That said, though, the VT Digger headline is not what the OP headline is. There's no coy questioning, it's a declarative statement: JANE SANDERS OVERSTATED DONATION AMOUNTS IN LOAN APPLICATION FOR BURLINGTON COLLEGE.
There is a discussion of the question of "intent" in the piece, as well, and it's fairly complete. I think this treatment covers all the bases, and provides original source material--which is always better than having someone else tell you what is in the document.
It's a topic that might come up again. Time will tell, I guess.
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)Which is exactly the point I was making. The OP was using the VT Digger to try to fuel the Newsmax spin on the issue. The Digger article doesn't support that spin. The Digger article is newer and was most likely an investigation into the more salacious Newsmax slant...which OP was trying to push.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Whether those mistakes will rise to the level of fraud, time will tell.
The optics are poor, in any event.
wendylaroux
(2,925 posts)fantastic job!!!
jfern
(5,204 posts)HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Could this be Hillarys '16 version of calling Obama a Muslim? IDK...I don't think her cesspool has a bottom, she'll keep going deeper.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)For instance:
Sanders told People’s United Bank that the college had $2.6 million in pledged donations to support the purchase of the former Roman Catholic Diocese of Burlington property on North Avenue. The college, however, received only $676,000 in actual donations from 2010 through 2014, according to figures provided by Burlington College.
A pledged donation is a promise to donate. It isn't the same as an actual donation, and unless everyone fulfilled their pledge immediately, the amount pledged would obviously be a larger number than the amount actually donated.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)It could be there were pledged donations that didn't follow through when she left. That would fall on the shoulders of the following president.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)I love it when a sig line comes together.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)
Sid
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)
marym625
(17,997 posts)AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
On Sun Sep 27, 2015, 07:20 AM an alert was sent on the following post:
Yes, things that stick out are like that. Hemorrhoids for example. nt
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=626898
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Disgusting and uncivil response. How does this contributeto the conversation?
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Sep 27, 2015, 07:30 AM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: SMDH.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: If we hid everything that doesn't contribute to the conversation (every SidDithers reply, for example), DU would be a ghost town.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Mindless opinion
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It's a back-and-forth exchange. Silly alert.
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
Carry on
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)One of your forum Hosts, ladies and gentlemen. Using their knowledge of who sends alerts, to ridicule a member.
No wonder Hosting is such a hot mess.
Sid
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)substance that you demand ought to be purged from discussion.
By the way the goings on in the host forum are not a secret. This is not du2. Oh, and your position on conspiracies you don't want discussed is widely known.
Plus hosting is doing just fine. At least as far as the admins are concerned, not a hot mess at all. Perhaps it is some other aspect of du that has you so upset?
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)
Sid
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)R B Garr
(16,950 posts)sometimes hours after the results were in, so it was obvious she wasn't on the jury. There had to be a motive for that.
Thanks again, Sid. I've found your intuitions to be very valuable.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)Sorry, but if you are going to start dragging spouses into this then you better be prepared for garbage like this.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)The rotten stench of the Clintons overpowers all the other candidates.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Sleazy people saying sleazy things.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)I am back to my 2008 level loathing of Team Hillary and their approach.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Tone deaf, power-mad people are incapable of being decent human beings for any length of time.
in_cog_ni_to
(41,600 posts)Digging in the muck now for garbage on spouses since the candidate is so untouchable. Pretty low, even for you.
I don't think you want to go there. Bill Clinton has an awful lot of history you don't want people going through. Did you like all the shit brought up about Michelle Obama? Me either!
Shame on you.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)in_cog_ni_to
(41,600 posts)All in one week they've gone after his wife and on their "other" site, displayed an underlying religious bigotry. I have to say, Clinton's slime will definitely be her undoing.
CanadaexPat
(496 posts)all of her work-related emails already. Stop making something out of nothing and carrying water for the vast RW conspiracy.
Did I get them all? probably not....
INdemo
(6,994 posts)..in the Sewer that is. This is obviously Bill's work to go down in the sewer and did up this shit.
Hillary's campaign must be getting very nervous....it shows
Remember Bill's work on the Rev Wright issue in 2008? Yep this is Bill working "behind the scenes" as he calls it.
JackInGreen
(2,975 posts)But a bit thin. Shit was resolved, no?
treestar
(82,383 posts)how dare anyone question this? Like the right wing would not do it if BS were the nominee.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)And by this I mean repackaging a Newsmax hit piece on the wife of a Dem candidate and posting it here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=626787
treestar
(82,383 posts)Plan to deal with it when the real right wing gets on it?
Armstead
(47,803 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Amirite?
R B Garr
(16,950 posts)But that seems to be okay with you.
P.S., The Starr report is very right wing.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)and others actively participate in a site known for its anti-Semitism I don't think you guys should be throwing any stones.
If you know what I mean.
R B Garr
(16,950 posts)Do it now. Or you are a hypocrite about taking about right wing talking points.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I don't need to do anything just because you demand it, dear.
You need to denounce everything ever said by every Hillary supporter everywhere right now!!!
See how that works?
You are hilarious, all outraged about something I didn't say in a thread based on a hit piece from Newsmax.
R B Garr
(16,950 posts)Denounce what I say, no context needed. Just do it.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)Especially since he has made at least 5 million while in Congress. They will want to know why all of his "assets" are in his wife's name and where is "Bernie's" money. He will be suspected of hiding money in an offshore account and if there is one, it will be found.
neverforget
(9,436 posts)
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Inquiring minds want to know.
CanadaexPat
(496 posts)I'll take her actions over his any day.
Logical
(22,457 posts)INdemo
(6,994 posts)Just like he did with Rev Wright and Obama. How did that work out Bill?
The Clinton campaign must be in a serious downturn from her campaign internal polling.
Probably much worse than the corporate media is reporting.This is Bill churning up this pot of shit.
This is typical Bill Clinton style of fishing but one should note that the networks wouldn't touch this BS so he floated it and this blogger picked it up..
Whats next Bill?
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)INdemo
(6,994 posts)all the more reason to believe the Clinton Campaign is faltering.....
The 2008 Clinton Campaign Part II Episode 2
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)Looks to me like if you make an attempt to commit fraud and then get asked to leave your position, it's your own damn fault, not Bill Clintons.
Indepatriot
(1,253 posts)repeatedly about sniper fire in Bosnia?
SunSeeker
(51,545 posts)DefenseLawyer
(11,101 posts)Was pretty sketchy. I believe she came armed with a poem as well. It was like something out of Apocalypse Now. The horror... The horror...
SunSeeker
(51,545 posts)Cute little girls with flowers died in that war zone. Like the one greeting Hillary. That fact that Hillary was greeted by a little girl with flowers did not mean the area was safe. No one was safe in Tuzla. Tuzla, Bosnia, where Hillary was talking about being in March 1996, was in fact a war zone, under constant threat of sniper fire. It was where a recent massacre had occurred:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuzla_massacre
In March 1996, the humiliated UN troops were still there, to be replaced a month later by the greater firepower of the US Army.
Hillary readily acknowledged she misspoke when she said in a campaign speech that she was under fire. She should have said she was under threat of fire. Either way, she was just recounting an event from 12 years earlier based on fuzzy memory. She was not signing loan documents under penalty of perjury about the current economic state of an institution she was in charge of, like what Jane did.
TBF
(32,032 posts)we are going to need a big page for Bill's many events.
Gothmog
(145,046 posts)In early 1990s, I saw a number of prosecutions of persons who made false statements for loans from federally insured financial institutions. If the bank that made the loan had failed, then the federal govt. could have looked into the matter. Almost every S&L in Texas failed during the Southwest Plan and the federal govt. looked closely at loan files to go after people who made false statements to obtain loans. The fact that the bank did not fail or suffered a loss due to the transaction explains the lack of prosecution. During the days of the old Southwest Plan, I watched the federal regulators look at loan files for failed institutions to see if there were cases to be pursued. Even today, the government look for fraud at failed banks http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/11/17/fdic-launches-50-criminal-investigations-into-failed-banks/
It is clear than Sanders evidently over paid for the land in that land was sold for less than the price paid to the seller. It is not clear if the bank suffered a loss but it is clear that the bank did not fail and is still around which explains the lack of interest in pursing any charges here.
Since this bank did not fail, the chances of any regulator pursing any claims against Jane Sanders is remote. Making false statements to a federally insured lender is not a good thing to do but she was fortunate that this particular bank did not fail. Most of the prosecutions for filing false statements are brought by the regulators after a bank fails
Vinca
(50,250 posts)I can't imagine his wife personally filled out the application. Most likely the underlings in finance did it and she signed it. Wow . . . that sounds just like Hillary's email excuse. In any case, it might be wise to leave spouses alone unless you want to revisit the wild and crazy Clinton White House years, blue dresses and other assorted unimportant items.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Not only no, but FUCK NO and boy, don't you look silly for asking?
MineralMan
(146,282 posts)on anything. Bogus issue, and no relevance to the primaries.
I'm sorry, but this is reaching for something that isn't worth having. It's irrelevant.
I wish we'd all stop this nonsense and focus on real issues, instead. Really, I do.
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)don't forget the GOP will Swiftboat Hillary until she has to resign.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)about stupid email will jump right on this hot potato.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)SunSeeker
(51,545 posts)Please tell us. I don't read the Daily Caller. But it is my understanding all those right wing propaganda outfits are holding fire on BS hoping he gets the nomination. I remember reading DU posts showing right wing sites telling their readers to support BS as a way to hurt HRC.
artislife
(9,497 posts)Unfortunately, it seems it only is something suffered by H according to her minions.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)
Turbineguy
(37,312 posts)from the GOP.
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)Turbineguy
(37,312 posts)but in any case, this sort of stuff is not conducive to either side (if there should be sides).
MadrasT
(7,237 posts)Jesus Christ, weaksauce, man.
SunSeeker
(51,545 posts)virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)She has never run in a General Election. The right wing will run ads against her
that Obama never would.
This story about Jane is just that, a story. We don't know anything about how any of this actually came about. Both Jane and the VP of the college signed off on the documents, yet the VP (who succeeded Jane as President when she left) said that it was years later she learned that one of the donations was actually a bequest.
Both Jane and the VP are ultimately responsible for the college, but there is nothing here that suggests that Jane knew that detail either. It is actually the former finance VP who has behaved a little more defensively about this particular pledge.
This article is just speculation.
SunSeeker
(51,545 posts)Hillary was involved in two general election presidential campaigns with Bill. And she campaigned for Obama.
Bernie Sanders has led a sheltered life in deep blue Vermont.
ibegurpard
(16,685 posts)That's why she's still being dogged by the stupid email bullshit
SunSeeker
(51,545 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)It took a tiny news organization in Vermont to get this story.
The media won't look into his background.
To me it would be unacceptable to have a nominee that isn't vetted.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)No matter who you are.