• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Federal interview of Burlington College trustee shows investigation active in fall

j-mac

j-mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
41,104
Reaction score
12,202
Location
South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
A federal grand jury heard evidence from a former member of the Burlington College Board of Trustees in late October regarding fundraising that took place before school's purchase of its new North Avenue campus.The deal in 2010 was orchestrated by Jane O'Meara Sanders, who was at that point president of the now-defunct college. The property was purchased from the Roman Catholic Church for $10 million.
Burlington College blamed debt when it closed in May of 2016.
Federal authorities, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Attorney's Office, have been investigating the property deal.

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/local/2018/01/07/federal-grand-jury-interview-burlington-college-trustee-shows-investigation-active-october/1011510001/
Click to expand...


Things not going well for the hero of the left, and former Presidential candidate, and champion of the never ending jealous of the wealthy Bernie Sanders. His wife, possibly with his help is under investigation for bank fraud.

Rick Moran in the American Thinker posed this question:

"[FONT=&quot]Did Jane Sanders fraudulently represent the amount of donations the school would receive for the land deal on a loan application? Or did she innocently misunderstand what the donors were willing to give? Well, that's what pledge agreements are for. That one large donor can't remember signing a pledge agreement at all is significant. That others claim their pledge agreements were either altered or misrepresent the amounts they were willing to give is also telling.[/FONT][FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]Shortly after the loan fiasco, Sanders was asked to resign by the college board. She left the small school in a financial hole it was unable to fix.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]So, is Sanders an idiot, or a crook?"

[/FONT]http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/01/grand_jury_in_jane_sanders_burlington_college_case_hears_testimony.html

Isn't it just a little rich that Sanders who rails against the rich, has his wife who is up to her neck courting them for donations....Then when she clearly couldn't lock them in, she misrepresents to lenders, gets a loan and bankrupts the college she worked for.....This should show you that their views of how to run things are failures....[/FONT]
 
j-mac said:
This should show you that their views of how to run things are failures....[/FONT][/COLOR]
Click to expand...

So how does his wife's actions dictate what Bernie would do? Seems you are trying to use a guilt by association fallacy here.
 
j-mac said:
Things not going well for the hero of the left, and former Presidential candidate, and champion of the never ending jealous of the wealthy Bernie Sanders. His wife, possibly with his help is under investigation for bank fraud.

Rick Moran in the American Thinker posed this question:

"[FONT="]Did Jane Sanders fraudulently represent the amount of donations the school would receive for the land deal on a loan application? Or did she innocently misunderstand what the donors were willing to give? Well, that's what pledge agreements are for. That one large donor can't remember signing a pledge agreement at all is significant. That others claim their pledge agreements were either altered or misrepresent the amounts they were willing to give is also telling.[/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=#000000][FONT="][FONT="]Shortly after the loan fiasco, Sanders was asked to resign by the college board. She left the small school in a financial hole it was unable to fix.[/FONT][/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#000000][FONT="][FONT="]So, is Sanders an idiot, or a crook?"

[/FONT]http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/01/grand_jury_in_jane_sanders_burlington_college_case_hears_testimony.html

Isn't it just a little rich that Sanders who rails against the rich, has his wife who is up to her neck courting them for donations....Then when she clearly couldn't lock them in, she misrepresents to lenders, gets a loan and bankrupts the college she worked for.....This should show you that their views of how to run things are failures....[/FONT]
Click to expand...

I'll start with saying I don't know what sort of legal consequences Jane faces if this plays out into the worst possible scenario for her. I suppose the optical damage to Bernie is the reason conservative blogs are picking it up.

But did she personally profit from this deal? What were her possible motivations for over extending the colleges credit and coming up short on donations? The seller was the Catholic Church so it's not like she's a secret shareholder or some such and some of that money made its way into her pockets. What is the possible motive for getting a college to take a loan out it can't afford to buy a piece of property from the Catholic Church. Bad judgement? Sure. But if this is deliberate fraud, what could the motive be?
 
j-mac said:
Things not going well for the hero of the left, and former Presidential candidate, and champion of the never ending jealous of the wealthy Bernie Sanders. His wife, possibly with his help is under investigation for bank fraud.

Rick Moran in the American Thinker posed this question:

"[FONT="]Did Jane Sanders fraudulently represent the amount of donations the school would receive for the land deal on a loan application? Or did she innocently misunderstand what the donors were willing to give? Well, that's what pledge agreements are for. That one large donor can't remember signing a pledge agreement at all is significant. That others claim their pledge agreements were either altered or misrepresent the amounts they were willing to give is also telling.[/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=#000000][FONT="][FONT="]Shortly after the loan fiasco, Sanders was asked to resign by the college board. She left the small school in a financial hole it was unable to fix.[/FONT][/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#000000][FONT="][FONT="]So, is Sanders an idiot, or a crook?"

[/FONT]http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/01/grand_jury_in_jane_sanders_burlington_college_case_hears_testimony.html

Isn't it just a little rich that Sanders who rails against the rich, has his wife who is up to her neck courting them for donations....Then when she clearly couldn't lock them in, she misrepresents to lenders, gets a loan and bankrupts the college she worked for.....This should show you that their views of how to run things are failures....[/FONT]
Click to expand...

J- I think when you post a link inside a quote it removes the ability to open that link.
 
Praxas said:
So how does his wife's actions dictate what Bernie would do? Seems you are trying to use a guilt by association fallacy here.
Click to expand...

" The facts in the case do not fit well with Mr. Sanders’s populist image. "...

"Sanders fans and Democratic strategists agree that the investigation, no matter its outcome, could be used by operatives in both parties to undermine the senator. Rival Democrats could use the case to try to wrest the progressive mantle from Mr. Sanders..."

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/15/...sanders-investigation-burlington-college.html

"Sen. Bernie Sanders and his wife, Jane Sanders, have reportedly hired lawyers amid a federal investigation into allegations of fraud connected to a bankrupt college where Jane Sanders was once president, according to a report."

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/24/bernie-sanders-and-his-wife-reportedly-lawyer-up-amid-fbi-probe.html

So you tell me Praxas....Why would Sanders need to "lawyer up" himself, if it is only as you say?
 
shagg said:
I'll start with saying I don't know what sort of legal consequences Jane faces if this plays out into the worst possible scenario for her. I suppose the optical damage to Bernie is the reason conservative blogs are picking it up.

But did she personally profit from this deal? What were her possible motivations for over extending the colleges credit and coming up short on donations? The seller was the Catholic Church so it's not like she's a secret shareholder or some such and some of that money made its way into her pockets. What is the possible motive for getting a college to take a loan out it can't afford to buy a piece of property from the Catholic Church. Bad judgement? Sure. But if this is deliberate fraud, what could the motive be?
Click to expand...

So that is the standard now? Fraud is only fraud if one personally profits from the fraud?
 
JANFU said:
J- I think when you post a link inside a quote it removes the ability to open that link.
Click to expand...

When did that change? I was wondering why it was that the links I am posting are showing up in black, meaning they have to be copied and pasted....I'll try it....
 
j-mac said:
When did that change? I was wondering why it was that the links I am posting are showing up in black, meaning they have to be copied and pasted....I'll try it....
Click to expand...

Not sure, but only been here since end 14, and I always posted links outside of the quote box.
Easy enough to check- post a reply to me- 1 with the link inside the quote box add a few comments , and same link outside of the quote box.
 
j-mac said:
" The facts in the case do not fit well with Mr. Sanders’s populist image. "...

"Sanders fans and Democratic strategists agree that the investigation, no matter its outcome, could be used by operatives in both parties to undermine the senator. Rival Democrats could use the case to try to wrest the progressive mantle from Mr. Sanders..."

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/15/...sanders-investigation-burlington-college.html

"Sen. Bernie Sanders and his wife, Jane Sanders, have reportedly hired lawyers amid a federal investigation into allegations of fraud connected to a bankrupt college where Jane Sanders was once president, according to a report."

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/24/bernie-sanders-and-his-wife-reportedly-lawyer-up-amid-fbi-probe.html

So you tell me Praxas....Why would Sanders need to "lawyer up" himself, if it is only as you say?
Click to expand...

If hiring lawyers is admission to guilt, than Trump has been guilty more times than anyone currently in office. Are you seriously now saying lawyering up is admission of guilt?
 
j-mac said:
So that is the standard now? Fraud is only fraud if one personally profits from the fraud?
Click to expand...

I'm trying to establish intentional vs unintentional. Fraud is fraud when one intentionally deceives in certain ways. Why would she intentionally do this? I don't see how anyone had any potential gains here, besides the church.

You seem really excited to find a bit of dirt you can hold against Bernie. Just like when his wife inherited a house, sold it, and bought another house, conservatives on this board were accusing him of keeping his campaign contributions, and had a plethora of right wing rags and blogs spelling it all out. Then, when that was thoroughly debunked, they rolled into the "Why does a socialist need a $600k house? He should give his money away!" straw man.
 
shagg said:
I'm trying to establish intentional vs unintentional. Fraud is fraud when one intentionally deceives in certain ways. Why would she intentionally do this? I don't see how anyone had any potential gains here, besides the church.

You seem really excited to find a bit of dirt you can hold against Bernie. Just like when his wife inherited a house, sold it, and bought another house, conservatives on this board were accusing him of keeping his campaign contributions, and had a plethora of right wing rags and blogs spelling it all out. Then, when that was thoroughly debunked, they rolled into the "Why does a socialist need a $600k house? He should give his money away!" straw man.
Click to expand...

Hmmm....Isn't it funny how when there is a liberal, or a socialist interest that has some legal jeopardy "intent" must be proven, however, if the target is say a President that one hates, then we don't need no stinkin' intent....
 
j-mac said:
Hmmm....Isn't it funny how when there is a liberal, or a socialist interest that has some legal jeopardy "intent" must be proven, however, if the target is say a President that one hates, then we don't need no stinkin' intent....
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I'm just working with the definition of Fraud here:

a : deceit, trickery; specifically : intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fraud

If the President were being accused of fraud, intent would be equally important. You're moving of the goal posts and lack of argument are noted. Maybe you'll get him next time, eh?
 
shagg said:
I'm sorry, I'm just working with the definition of Fraud here:

a : deceit, trickery; specifically : intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fraud

If the President were being accused of fraud, intent would be equally important. You're moving of the goal posts and lack of argument are noted. Maybe you'll get him next time, eh?
Click to expand...

Maybe I'll get him???? What an odd thing to say...It's not up to me...But, If you are relying on Webster to make your argument then I would say that is pretty weak...

I'll ask you again...In a fraud case like this one can you show where 'intent' is a necessary component of the crime?
 
j-mac said:
Maybe I'll get him???? What an odd thing to say...It's not up to me...But, If you are relying on Webster to make your argument then I would say that is pretty weak...
Click to expand...

You're assertion was so weak all it took was Webster to discredit it. You're logical and well thought out response of "well that's pretty weak" really knocked me back on my heels, and has me questioning everything I've ever held as true.

I'll ask you again...In a fraud case like this one can you show where 'intent' is a necessary component of the crime?
Click to expand...

Who's definition would you like to use? I've been going with google search results, but I can be flexible.

Legal Dictionary | Law.com

fraud

n. the intentional use of deceit, a trick or some dishonest means to deprive another of his/her/its money, property or a legal right


That's the legal definition.

I guess that's why intent would be necessary to qualify as fraud, criminally speaking?
 
shagg said:
You're assertion was so weak all it took was Webster to discredit it. You're logical and well thought out response of "well that's pretty weak" really knocked me back on my heels, and has me questioning everything I've ever held as true.
Click to expand...

This thread isn't about me, I suggest you be less emotional, and stick to topic.

Who's definition would you like to use? I've been going with google search results, but I can be flexible.

Legal Dictionary | Law.com

fraud

n. the intentional use of deceit, a trick or some dishonest means to deprive another of his/her/its money, property or a legal right


That's the legal definition.

I guess that's why intent would be necessary to qualify as fraud, criminally speaking?
Click to expand...

Both Bernie and Jane have hired lawyers, and Bernie keeps missing deadlines to report his finances to the Ethics committee, wonder why that is?
 
As I remember these Bundy creeps and the goons that follow them were claiming they didn't recognize the United States or the Federal government..or it's laws...If they were Black or god forbid Muslims , I doubt they would get much sympathy from the trump crowd
 
Saladin4 said:
As I remember these Bundy creeps and the goons that follow them were claiming they didn't recognize the United States or the Federal government..or it's laws...If they were Black or god forbid Muslims , I doubt they would get much sympathy from the trump crowd
Click to expand...

Care to comment in the correct thread....:doh
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom