Saturday, June 24, 2017


June 24, 2017

Bernie and Jane Sanders lawyering up for FBI fraud investigation

Just when Bernie and Jane Sanders thought they had it made as the icons of the American left, along comes a mean old Republican to spoil it with accusations so serious that the FBI is investigating.  In a long and sympathetic article, Politico Magazine explains:
Jeff Weaver, Sanders' longtime top political adviser who heads Sanders' political organization, Our Revolution, confirms to Politico Magazine that Bernie and Jane Sanders have lawyered up. The couple has retained Rich Cassidy, a well-connected Burlington attorney and Sanders devotee, and Larry Robbins, the renowned Washington-based defense attorney who has represented I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby and disgraced former Rep. Bill Jefferson, to represent Jane Sanders in the matter.
Now, President Donald Trump's Justice Department is handling an investigation that will proceed at the discretion of a U.S. attorney of Vermont that Trump has yet to appoint.
Jane is portrayed as a victim.  The story is going to be that enemies of Bernie are hounding poor Jane:
"I made it clear I didn't want him to run," she told me at their campaign headquarters at the time, "but if he decided to, I would be behind him 100 percent."
The Snidely Whiplash villain in this piece comes from conservative aristocracy.  LawNewz:
The investigation stems from an Jan. 10, 2016 letter sent to the then-U.S Attorney for Vermont, Eric S. Miller. The law firm diGenova & Toensing LLP, [that would be Joe diGenova and Victoria Toensing – ed.] representing local parishioners, contend that Burlington College President Jane Sanders engaged in fraud when her school purchased land from a Catholic diocese.
In 2010, the now-defunct Burlington took out a bank loan to make the deal, but that required a minimum commitment of $2.27 million in grant and donations. The letter, authored by Bracy C. Toensing, said she supplied evidence saying they had $2.6 million in the needed money.
But it didn't turn out to be the case, Toensing said.
"At the end of fiscal year 2001 (six months after closing on the loan), Ms. Sanders had collected only $279,000 in donations, which was less than 25 percent of the $1.2 million Ms. Sanders guaranteed to the bank that she would have collected in that year," he wrote.
Politico elaborates:
Backed by six exhibits and a dozen documents, the four-page letter described how Jane Sanders had "orchestrated" the purchase of 33 acres along Lake Champlain in Burlington, Vermont's largest city, where her husband had minted his populist political brand as mayor. The deal closed in 2010, when the senator's wife was president of Burlington College, a tiny, obscure, nontraditional school that always seemed to be struggling for students and funds. The letter alleged that to secure a $10 million loan and execute her grand plan to expand the college, Jane Sanders had falsified and inflated nearly $2 million that she'd claimed donors had pledged to repay the loans.
Sanders had "successfully and intentionally engaged in a fraudulent scheme to actively conceal and misrepresent material facts from a federal financial institution," the letter alleged. It pressed for a federal investigation into potential bank fraud.
The media ignored the letter, but the FBI didn't.
Here is how the deal fell apart.
When Jane Sanders made the offer to the Roman Catholic Diocese, Burlington College was nearly broke – with an annual budget just below $4 million. In order to finance the property, Sanders secured a $6.5 million loan from People's United Bank in the form of a tax exempt bond purchase, and the Catholic Church agreed to carry a $3.65 million second mortgage on the property. Sanders told both institutions that Burlington college had $5 million in likely donor pledges and $2.4 million in confirmed pledges to be used to pay off the debt.
But wait – that was just for the property!
What Jane Sanders didn't plan for was the $6 million or so required to actually build out the campus on the property to include green space, athletic fields, lecture halls, and walkways. Oops!
Sanders' original claim of $2.4 million in confirmed donor pledges was quickly reduced to $1.2 million according to documents filed in the first fiscal year after the purchase – yet in records obtained by VTDiggerBurlington College received only $279,000. Despite hopes by Sanders and college trustees that they could boost enrollment and expand the student body, nothing changed – and the school failed at raising the money to satisfy it's loans.
And then Jane Sanders was fired, with a $200,000 severance package.
In order to try and avoid bankruptcy, Burlington college sold off pieces of the 33 acre property to a local developer – which allowed the institution to pay off some of the debt Jane Sanders had accumulated, however in April 2016 the bank called it's loan – and on May 28th, the college closed it's doors after 44 years in operation.
Joe Patrice offers a defense of sorts for Jane Sanders:
You can have confirmed, contractual deals for $1.2 million and only actually receive $279,000. Those are two completely different things. One could argue that only actualizing about a quarter of the total committed says something about the trajectory of the college's finances, but that's a much more nuanced argument than these two sentences suggest.
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.
Um… welcome to accounting. This account sounds shady, but – without vouching for any specific accounting principles – recognizing revenue in installments even if it's coming in a lump sum is perfectly acceptable. Again, that's not saying it was the appropriate way to account for this request, but the way this report reads makes counting funds over time seem like an insane tactic when it's just not.
Um...people do go to prison over accounting decisions on recognizing revenue and misleading shareholders, regulators, or lenders.
For the moment, Jane Sanders probably is less worried about being convicted by a Vermont jury than she and Bernie are about paying for those lawyers.  For all their posturing against greed, Bernie and Jane are thrilled with the financial consequences of Bernie's campaign.  They rushed out and spent more than their reported net worth on a third house last August like some seven-figure jackpot lottery winners.  Saving and financial planning are not their strong suit, which is why people like Bernie and Jane should never be put in charge of anything, even a little hippie college.
I have known ambitious leftists like them – affluent, but with modest net worths – and almost without exception, they feel underprivileged when it comes to wealth, no matter how comfortable they may appear.  Envy is the fuel of their radicalism, and they resent people who have more than they do.  Deep down, they want the same stuff.
Paying for lawyers can ruin the net worth of a couple like Bernie and Jane.  We'll know that the case is serious when they launch a legal defense fund.





Sander's fraudulent claims to be leading a “political 
revolution” against the “billionaire class” were designed to 
corral popular anger and promote illusions in the 
Democratic Party, one of the two parties of the American 
corporate-financial aristocracy, as a party representing the 
interests of working people.

"Democrat Elizabeth Warren, who parlayed 
her brief tenure as a rubber-stamp banking 
regulator during Obama’s first term into a 
Senate seat."

Hey Bernie! Welcome to the millionaire’s club!
By Tom Hall
13 June 2017
Personal finance disclosure forms submitted by Bernie Sanders, and widely reported in the media, reveal that Sanders’ income was more than $1 million last year. This figure includes both his $174,000 annual salary as a senator and $858,750 from book royalties, including a nearly $800,000 advance for a book, Our Revolution, about his 2016 presidential primary campaign.
The threshold for the wealthiest 1 percent by annual income 
in the United States is $389,436, according to the Economic 
Policy Institute. Sanders’ income would put him somewhere 
in the top one-fifth of one percent, according to US Census 
The wealth of the average US senator and representative has skyrocketed in recent years, earning Congress a reputation as a “millionaire’s club.” In 2014, the average personal wealth across both houses of Congress surpassed $1 million for the first time in history, with the median net worth of the Senate surging from $2.5 to $2.7 million.
However, few members of Congress are able to amass as much wealth in a single year as Bernie Sanders did last year. shows that Sanders’ book royalties alone would been the third-highest outside income in the Senate in 2014, the last year for which the site has figures. At $1.2 million, first place that year went to fellow “progressive” Democrat Elizabeth Warren, who parlayed 
her brief tenure as a rubber-stamp banking 
regulator during Obama’s first term into a 
Senate seat.’s records show that, for years, you have been forced to subsist on income levels at or around the threshold of the top 1 percent, in the low-to-mid six figures. This, no doubt, is what you had in mind during a primary debate last year when you described yourself as “one of the poorer members of the United States Senate.”
But 2016 was a turning point in your career. The $1 million 
payday you received last year is payment for services 
rendered during your intervention in last year’s Democratic 
primaries. Your fraudulent claims to be leading a “political 
revolution” against the “billionaire class” were designed to 
corral popular anger and promote illusions in the Democratic
Party, one of the two parties of the American corporate-
financial aristocracy, as a party representing the interests of 
working people.
And while you attracted considerable interest from left-leaning workers and young people with your false claims to be a socialist, you rejected basic socialist measures such as the nationalization of key industries, endorsed American imperialism’s wars of conquest, and defended a truculent nationalism which pitted American workers against their brothers and sisters internationally.
Your intervention was all the more crucial as the Democratic Party was preparing to nominate Hillary Clinton, who was widely and deservedly hated as a stooge of Wall Street and the military. You threw your support to her in the Democratic National Convention and presented her candidacy as a continuation of your so-called “political revolution.” You declared that electing Clinton was an urgent necessity to defeat Trump, in spite of the fact that her pro-war, anti-working class agenda was no less reactionary than Trump’s.
But your work was not yet done. When this produced a debacle for the Democrats in the November election, you were elevated to a more responsible position within the Democratic political hierarchy, working closely with Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer, whose election campaigns have received tens of millions of dollars in funding from Wall Street. You crossed the country stumping for Democrats with the new chairman of the Democratic National Committee, former Obama cabinet member Tom Perez.

You have even emerged as a de facto leader of a wing of the Democratic Party concerned that the party’s focus on the right-wing campaign over Russia against Trump at the expense of posturing over social issues could open the door to the emergence of a mass popular movement outside the control of the Democrats, a potential threat to capitalism. Nevertheless, you have supported the Democrats’ unsubstantiated accusations of Russian collusion with Trump, which are designed to force a confrontation with the world’s second largest nuclear power.
In your campaign to corral social opposition behind the Democrats, you have received the crucial aid of the middle class, pseudo-left organizations which function as satellites of the Democratic Party. They all presented as good coin your calls for a “political revolution” and either endorsed your candidacy, as in the case of Socialist Alternative and the Democratic Socialists of America, or, like the International Socialist Organization, issued mildly worded tactical criticisms of your decision to run as a Democrat rather than continuing the charade of running statewide in Vermont as an “independent.” As with your own campaign, their goal was to prevent the emergence of a genuine socialist movement within the working class capable of challenging American capitalism. Many of them made the trek to Chicago this weekend to hear you speak at the People’s Summit, an annual gathering of what passes for the Democratic Party’s “left.”
The pseudo-left is also being handsomely rewarded for their services to capitalism. Last year, the Ford Foundation announced that it was donating $100 million to Black Lives Matter; it has since cashed in through such investments as a “black debit card” and other projects promoting black capitalism.
Last year’s million, you have reason to hope, will be the first of many. Given the explosive character of the political and economic conditions in the United States, and the broad hostility workers feel towards both the Trump administration and his Democratic opponents, the ruling class will very likely continue to value your political services.


Senator Bernie Sanders Takes the Crooked Road For Obama’s Crony Banksters for KILLARY KROOKED KLINTON

Much more here:

“The response to the publication of these speeches by so-called “socialist” Bernie Sanders exposes the utterly fraudulent character of his entire presidential bid. While he postured during the Democratic Party primaries as a proponent of a “political revolution” against the “billionaire class,” Sanders now functions shamelessly as a sideshow for the Clinton  campaign, browbeating his (now much smaller) audiences with admonitions to vote for the preferred candidate of the “billionaire class”  he claimed to oppose.”


As Barack Obama invites hordes to jump our borders jobs, welfare offices and voting booths…. WHAT IS LEFT FOR THE AMERICAN MIDDLE CLASS HE HATES SO MUCH?


Transcripts released by WikiLeaks of Clinton speeches to Wall

Street bankers, for which she received six-figure paychecks,

show her praising the recommendations of the 2010 Simpson-

Bowles deficit-reduction commission, which called for sweeping

cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid; the elimination

of 200,000 federal jobs; a tax on employees’

"Hillary Clinton is a known liar, a criminal of monstrous proportions; others have gone to prison for crimes she has committed over and over: lying to Congress, lying to the FBI, violating national security laws by which she was bound as Secretary of State, etc. It's a long list."


Clinton, the candidate favored by most of Wall Street and the corporate elite and large sections of the Republican Party establishment, is seeking to assemble something akin, within the framework of the US political setup, to a grand coalition between the Democratic Party and the Republican leadership.

Transcripts released by WikiLeaks of Clinton speeches to Wall Street bankers, for which she received six-figure paychecks, show her praising the recommendations of the 2010 Simpson-Bowles deficit-reduction commission, which called for sweeping cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid; the elimination of 200,000 federal jobs; a tax on employees’ health benefits; and huge cuts in income taxes for the wealthy and corporate taxes.

“But what the Clintons do is criminal because they do it wholly at 

the expense of the American people. And they feel thoroughly 

entitled to do it: gain power, use it to enrich themselves and their 

friends. They are amoral, immoral, and venal. Hillary has no core 

beliefs beyond power and money. That should be clear to every 

person on the planet by now.”

Wikileaks exposes Obama’s bankster-infested



BARACK OBAMA …… the banksters’ RENT BOY!

 “Citigroup’s recommendations came just three days after then-President George W. Bush signed into law the Troubled Asset Relief Program, which allocated $700 billion in taxpayer money to rescue the largest Wall Street banks. The single biggest beneficiary was Citigroup, which was given $45 billion in cash in the form of a government stock  purchase, plus a $306 billion government guarantee to back up its worthless mortgage-related assets.”


“As president, Obama not only funneled trillions of dollars to the banks, he saw to it that not a single leading Wall Street executive faced prosecution for  the orgy of speculation and swindling that led to the financial collapse and Great Recession, and he personally intervened to block legislation capping  executive pay at bailed-out firms.”
“So when Clinton was hobnobbing with  Goldman Sachs CEO Blankfein in 2013, while  investigations of wrongdoing by Goldman and the other Wall Street banks were still ongoing, she was consorting with a man who belonged in prison.”



And while the Obama administration worked systematically 

to bail out the banks and make the financial oligarchy richer 

than ever, shielding the architects of the Great Recession 

from criminal prosecution, it did impose fines for some of 

the banks’ grossest swindles, including the sale of worthless 

subprime mortgage-backed securities, the rigging of key 

global interest rates such as the London Interbank Offered 

Rate (Libor), drug money laundering, illegal home 

foreclosures and other illicit activities.




There’s more than one way to destroy America’s white middle class!

HSBC laundered hundreds of millions 

and perhaps billions of dollars for drug 

cartels responsible for the deaths of tens 

of thousands of people over the past 

two decades. The bank transferred at least 

$881 million of known drug trafficking 

proceeds, including money from the Sinaloa 

Cartel in Mexico, which is known for 

dismembering its victims and publicly 

displaying their body parts.




"But the Clintons personify this corruption just as much as 

Trump, even if they made use of a different mechanism and 

on a somewhat smaller scale. They amassed a fortune 

exceeding $150 million in the decade after Bill Clinton left 

the White House, mainly through six-figure fees for 

addressing corporate and Wall Street audiences. Barack 

Obama will shortly take a similar path, reaping his reward 

from the financial aristocracy whose interests he safeguarded 

so assiduously over the past eight years."

No comments: