# Bernie and Jane Sanders under investigation for bank fraud **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [June 24, 2017, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bernie-and-jane-sanders-under-investigation-for-bank-fraud/789781 "2017-06-24T19:01:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2017, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bernie-and-jane-sanders-under-investigation-for-bank-fraud/789781/61 "2017-06-29T01:31:19Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > I get that Democratic Party loyalists, as a rule, hate Bernie as much as does the OP. I get that they are just crowing in glee that he and his wife proved to be just as corrupt as the Democrats. > > But how does this make Democrats look good? It shows that the great social-democratic hope has feet of clay. He’s another crook on the left, or at least another ridiculous fool like Anthony Weiner. That doesn’t help the center-left party. It helps the Republicans in public perception now and in future elections. > > This is amazing news for Trump and for the present GOP leadership. It demonstrates convincingly to swing voters and reformers that voting for reformers and outsiders is useless. Mitch McConnell should be very happy, and Trump should be ecstatic, because Donald Trump, never indicted, is now the uncontested hero of the American people, the one hope we all have. > > Congratulations, Democrats and forces of the left. Another unforced error has led to your utter and lasting defeat. > > _Tell me I’m wrong._ You’re not so much wrong as WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?!? ---
**Author:** ![dalej42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@dalej42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dalej42)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2017, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bernie-and-jane-sanders-under-investigation-for-bank-fraud/789781/62 "2017-06-29T01:34:53Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > I get that Democratic Party loyalists, as a rule, hate Bernie as much as does the OP. I get that they are just crowing in glee that he and his wife proved to be just as corrupt as the Democrats. > > But how does this make Democrats look good? It shows that the great social-democratic hope has feet of clay. He’s another crook on the left, or at least another ridiculous fool like Anthony Weiner. That doesn’t help the center-left party. It helps the Republicans in public perception now and in future elections. > > This is amazing news for Trump and for the present GOP leadership. It demonstrates convincingly to swing voters and reformers that voting for reformers and outsiders is useless. Mitch McConnell should be very happy, and Trump should be ecstatic, because Donald Trump, never indicted, is now the uncontested hero of the American people, the one hope we all have. > > Congratulations, Democrats and forces of the left. Another unforced error has led to your utter and lasting defeat. > > _Tell me I’m wrong._ It helps because the sooner Bernie Sanders exits stage left, the better. Rather than Bernie running to every microphone, it’s time for the loudest voices to be Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Al Franken, Tammy Duckworth, Kirsten Gillibrand, Amy Klobuchar, Gavin Newsome, Sherrod Brown, among others. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk ---
**Author:** ![Evan\_Drake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b487fb/32.png) [@Evan\_Drake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evan_Drake)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2017, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bernie-and-jane-sanders-under-investigation-for-bank-fraud/789781/63 "2017-06-29T01:46:15Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > I get that Democratic Party loyalists, as a rule, hate Bernie as much as does the OP. I get that they are just crowing in glee that he and his wife proved to be just as corrupt as the Democrats. I’m not sure Democrats consider Democrats the gold standard for corruption. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2017, 8:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bernie-and-jane-sanders-under-investigation-for-bank-fraud/789781/64 "2017-06-29T08:46:50Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > You’re not so much wrong as WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?!? In the eyes of the American voters that you need to win elections, Bernie is another crook like Hillary. And he did it to himself. His unforced error. Democrat party/Clintonista loyalists—I don’t mean progressives, I mean people like the OP—are jumping up and down in glee that Bernie—the one guy that could have won for them—is destroyed. Do they just really want to stay in the minority party? > [@dalej42](#): > > It helps because the sooner Bernie Sanders exits stage left, the better. Rather than Bernie running to every microphone, it’s time for the loudest voices to be Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Al Franken, Tammy Duckworth, Kirsten Gillibrand, Amy Klobuchar, Gavin Newsome, Sherrod Brown, among others. > Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Sherrod Brown I would consider worth running. He has a union background. Are you sure \*you \*want him on that list, Clinton-lover? Most of the rest are “identity politics” corporate Democrat stuffed suits, who will easily go down in flames for you so you can keep the GOP in charge, which is apparently what you want. > [@Evan\_Drake](#): > > I’m not sure Democrats consider Democrats the gold standard for corruption. I’m not sure Democrats _consider_ anything. ---
**Author:** ![bobot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bobot/32/21622_2.png) [@bobot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bobot)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2017, 11:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bernie-and-jane-sanders-under-investigation-for-bank-fraud/789781/65 "2017-06-29T11:00:38Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > … > But how does this make Democrats look good? _…_ Take my own view on it: That if Bernie or his wife broke the law, they should pay the price. Like anyone else. This attitude displays an open mindedness that strays from blind partisanship, imo, and therefore shows that Democrats aren’t merely blind partisans. That makes Democrats look good. YMMV. ---
**Author:** ![Superdude](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/superdude/32/13450_2.png) [@Superdude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superdude)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2017, 11:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bernie-and-jane-sanders-under-investigation-for-bank-fraud/789781/66 "2017-06-29T11:04:40Z")
> [@Backwater\_Under\_Duck](#): > > Did you understand what I said? :smack: Upon rereading it, I see where I misinterpreted it. My apologies. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2017, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bernie-and-jane-sanders-under-investigation-for-bank-fraud/789781/67 "2017-06-29T13:20:32Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > Huh? Are you serious. Obtaining a loan on false pretenses is a felony. Lying about the amount of pledges in order to get a bigger loan than you’d otherwise get is thus, a felony. > > Maybe that’s where the confusion is, that you guys don’t realize misrepresenting financials to get financing is a serious enough criminal act that it’s categorized as a felony offense. To again quote CBS News: MAYBE. Or maybe I’m not confused on that at all. MAYBE you quoted me saying, > [@me](#): > > This seems an excellent example of not attributing to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity. > [@](#): > > So I go back to my original point, if either of these allegations are true they would represent an actual crime on Jane’s part and either a crime or an ethical violation on Bernie’s part. I do not know (and none of you do either) whether Sanders is actually being investigated or if it’s just Jane, I’m just saying if the allegations hinted at are true, they aren’t “nothing.” If. But there’s precious little reason right now to think the allegations are true, so let’s slow our roll, m’kay? This isn’t like the Jefferson case, where the FBI removed tens of thousands of dollars of cold cash from his freezer. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2017, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bernie-and-jane-sanders-under-investigation-for-bank-fraud/789781/68 "2017-06-29T14:11:24Z")
There’s plenty of reason to think the allegations against Jane Sanders are true (in the form of statements by several ostensible donors denying having made the pledges she represented to the bank). The allegations against Bernie are very weak, at this point. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2017, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bernie-and-jane-sanders-under-investigation-for-bank-fraud/789781/69 "2017-06-29T15:18:23Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > There’s plenty of reason to think the allegations against Jane Sanders are true (in the form of statements by several ostensible donors denying having made the pledges she represented to the bank). Is there plenty of reason to think she deliberately misrepresented the pledges? That’s the bit that seems weak to me: evidence of deliberate malfeasance, rather than incompetently trying to put her best face forward in a way that was technically truthful but aspirational, the way everyone does when getting a bank loan. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2017, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bernie-and-jane-sanders-under-investigation-for-bank-fraud/789781/70 "2017-06-29T15:29:20Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Is there plenty of reason to think she deliberately misrepresented the pledges? That’s the bit that seems weak to me: evidence of deliberate malfeasance, rather than incompetently trying to put her best face forward in a way that was technically truthful but aspirational, the way everyone does when getting a bank loan. Okay, I just read the actual complaint, including all the exhibits attached. The “smoking gun” seems to be a spreadsheet in which certain pledges have an X by them that means “confirmed.” I don’t understand how that X got there. Is it that potential donors were wined and dined, and over dinner said, “Sure, I think you can put me down for $400,000,” and they got an X by their pledge? It seems to me that it’s going to depend on details like this. Right now, it’s very silly to treat this like a smoking gun–especially since the person bringing the complaint is someone who has worked for Trump, previously brought unsuccessful lawsuits against Sanders, and has a vested fucking interest in taking Sanders out. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2017, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bernie-and-jane-sanders-under-investigation-for-bank-fraud/789781/71 "2017-06-29T15:30:14Z")
You have to look at the details. I don’t know how you can get past donors who claim they never promised the amounts (or terms) that she put down in her names. If you call that “aspirational” then I guess you would call bank fraud “aspirational”. The whole point of a bank needing collateral for their loans is that they don’t want to rely on “aspirational” - they want reliable actual collateral. I’m not aware that “everyone” does that when getting bank loans. I’ve gotten bank loans and don’t recall providing any “aspirational” items. > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Right now, it’s very silly to treat this like a smoking gun–especially since the person bringing the complaint is someone who has worked for Trump, previously brought unsuccessful lawsuits against Sanders, and has a vested fucking interest in taking Sanders out. What’s “very silly” is to try to divert the issue by focusing on who brought the complaint. The facts are what matter. The guy who brought the complaint - or his motivation - is completely irrelevant. Unless you’re alleging that the guy fabricated these documents. Hard to slip that past the FBI. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2017, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bernie-and-jane-sanders-under-investigation-for-bank-fraud/789781/72 "2017-06-29T19:00:32Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > You have to look at the details. I don’t know how you can get past donors who claim they never promised the amounts (or terms) that she put down in her names. I thought I followed all the links in this thread, and I didn’t come across these specific claims. Can you show me where to find them? ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2017, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bernie-and-jane-sanders-under-investigation-for-bank-fraud/789781/73 "2017-06-29T19:08:38Z")
See e.g. [here](http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/06/22/bernie-sanders-jane-sanders-lawyer-bank-fraud-investigation-burlington-college-215297): > [@](#): > > The records showed that Sanders had assured People’s United Bank and the state bonding agency that the college had $2.6 million in pledges to secure the loan. Internal college audits showed that only $676,000 in actual donations came in from 2010 to 2014. Sanders listed two people as having confirmed pledges for more money than they had offered; neither knew their pledges had been used to support the loan. A third donor had offered a $1 million bequest, to be paid upon her death. Instead, the college’s loan application counted it in funds to be paid out over the next few years. > > The donor, Corinne Bove Maietta, told VTDigger she had made the bequest contingent on her death, but was surprised the college counted the $1 million toward paying off the land loan. “They had me in increments?” Maietta asked, from her home in Florida. “No, never.” She and her accountant said Sanders asked Maietta to sign documents confirming the donations, but they declined. It’s in most of the articles I’ve seen on the subject. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2017, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bernie-and-jane-sanders-under-investigation-for-bank-fraud/789781/74 "2017-06-29T19:37:53Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > See e.g. [here](http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/06/22/bernie-sanders-jane-sanders-lawyer-bank-fraud-investigation-burlington-college-215297):It’s in most of the articles I’ve seen on the subject. Let’s take this bit by bit. > [@your cite](#): > > Sanders listed two people as having confirmed pledges for more money than they had offered; neither knew their pledges had been used to support the loan. That doesn’t say that they hadn’t made pledges. There’s no fraud in using pledges in a loan-support document without telling the pledgers you’re doing it. Do you have any evidence that their pledges weren’t made? > [@](#): > > A third donor had offered a $1 million bequest, to be paid upon her death. Instead, the college’s loan application counted it in funds to be paid out over the next few years. This is a little worse. But what does “the next few years” mean? If she’d actually confirmed that bequest, and the college listed it as a confirmed donation, I don’t see the problem. You claimed that there were “donors who claim they never promised the amounts (or terms) that she put down in her names.” Do you actually have a cite for that? ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2017, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bernie-and-jane-sanders-under-investigation-for-bank-fraud/789781/75 "2017-06-29T19:49:49Z")
Is there any reason you skipped over some of the very words that you quoted? Again, with the relevant part in bold: > [@](#): > > **Sanders listed two people as having confirmed pledges for more money than they had offered** ; neither knew their pledges had been used to support the loan. That would be an example of “donors who claim they never promised the amounts […] that she put down in her names”. The other person promised money to be paid at her death. Unless Sanders had some way of knowing with surety that she would die in the next few years, then she was misstating the donation in saying she had a pledge for funds coming in over the next few years. That would an example of “donors who claim they never promised the […] terms that she put down in her names”. And again, I’m not saying she’s clearly guilty of anything. Only that there is a smoking gun and in contrast to your claim to the contrary. ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2017, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bernie-and-jane-sanders-under-investigation-for-bank-fraud/789781/76 "2017-06-29T20:02:34Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > I get that Democratic Party loyalists, as a rule, hate Bernie as much as does the OP. I get that they are just crowing in glee that he and his wife proved to be just as corrupt as the Democrats. > [@foolsguinea](#): > > Democrat party/Clintonista loyalists—I don’t mean progressives, I mean people like the OP—are jumping up and down in glee that Bernie—the one guy that could have won for them—is destroyed. I understand that it’s important to you to believe that some Democrats are “crowing in glee” and “jumping up and down in glee” (at the same time?) about the Sanders allegations. But is this just one more of your delusions? Or do you have some actual evidence that this is occurring? I’d particularly like to see the Crowing while Jumping Up and Down; that seems as though it would be entertaining to watch. How about a link? > [@foolsguinea](#): > > In the eyes of the American voters that you need to win elections, Bernie is another crook like Hillary. Another delusion. Only Putin’s poodles believe that Hillary is a crook. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2017, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bernie-and-jane-sanders-under-investigation-for-bank-fraud/789781/77 "2017-06-29T22:17:39Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Is there any reason you skipped over some of the very words that you quoted? :smack: Somehow I missed that part of the sentence. My apologies. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2017, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bernie-and-jane-sanders-under-investigation-for-bank-fraud/789781/78 "2017-06-29T22:25:49Z")
[Digging further into the cites](https://vtdigger.org/2015/09/13/jane-sanders-overstated-donation-amounts-in-loan-application-for-burlington-college/), I’m finding this, which I believe accounts for those two donors: > [@VTDigger](#): > > Former trustee Ron Leavitt is listed in a chart in the loan document as Rle (to differentiate him from another donor and former trustee Robin Lloyd). Next to his name is an ‘x’ in the confirmed donor column. His pledge is listed at $60,000 in two payments of $30,000 to be made in fiscal years 2011 and 2012. > > Leavitt did make the first $30,000 contribution, and even discussed making a second gift of $30,000 with an official from the school, but he said in an email that he “certainly never made a full formal pledge of ($60,000).” > … > 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. > > “It is curious,” Michalak said, that he would be listed at $5,000. Again, this is not exactly smoking gun material: one donor who discussed making a donation then never committed, and another one who can’t really remember the discussion. For a total of $65,000 – far less than the amount at the heart of the investigation. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2017, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bernie-and-jane-sanders-under-investigation-for-bank-fraud/789781/79 "2017-06-29T23:40:35Z")
Probably thought they were making a pledge to public TV, without realizing how ruthless those people can be. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2017, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bernie-and-jane-sanders-under-investigation-for-bank-fraud/789781/80 "2017-06-30T00:53:05Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#): > > I understand that it’s important to you to believe that some Democrats are “crowing in glee” and “jumping up and down in glee” (at the same time?) about the Sanders allegations. But is this just one more of your delusions? Or do you have some actual evidence that this is occurring? _The original post of the thread you are posting in is my evidence._ > [@](#): > > Another delusion. Only Putin’s poodles believe that Hillary is a crook. You just declared the majority of American citizens to be Putin’s poodles. The Democratic Party is down a hole and you’re digging the pit deeper. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bernie-and-jane-sanders-under-investigation-for-bank-fraud/789781.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bernie-and-jane-sanders-under-investigation-for-bank-fraud/789781.md?page=5)