That is an absolute lie, Sanders says of college claims

[TomCADem]

Source: MSN/USA Today

BURLINGTON, Vt. — Facing more questions about Burlington College, Sen. Bernie Sanders is denying that his office exerted any pressure to help secure a loan for the small liberal-arts school once led by his wife.

Appearing Thursday night on MSNBC, the Vermont independent and former candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination responded directly to allegations from a prominent Republican lawyer regarding the senator's involvement in helping Jane O'Meara Sanders secure financing for the now-shuttered college.

"That is an absolute lie," Sanders told journalist Chris Hayes, host of the show All In. They spent the bulk of the seven-minute segment discussing health care.

Lawyer Brady Toensing, a former official with the state Republican Party and Donald Trump's presidential campaign, filed complaints with various federal agencies last year against Jane Sanders. At issue is a land deal she helped broker in 2010 for Burlington College to buy the former headquarters of the state Roman Catholic Diocese in Burlington for $10 million.

Read more: http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/%E2%80%98that-is-an-absolute-lie%E2%80%99-sanders-says-of-college-claims/ar-BBDtnpN?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

[Thinkingabout]

1. Wonder if Bernie is going to throw Jane under the bus or is he going to attempt to defend her.

[Chasstev365]

6. That is a really awful comment! If Benedict Donald said that, you'd be outraged!

Why do some here still blame Bernie for Hillary not being president?

[George II]

7. "That is a really awful comment!" - who mentioned Hillary Clinton?

[NurseJackie]

12. A: It wasn't the OP.

[LiberalLovinLug]

16. my gawd!

I wish there wasn't this technicality that some use to hide behind on DU about attacking Democrats, or their families. Bernie votes with the Democrats, he brings in new members by the bushload, and even at his age, fights on the front lines alongside prominent Democrats to battle Trump and the GOP....

....but he doesn't wear the D badge. Unlike say, Joe Manchin, Heidi Heitkamp, or Joe Donnelly and other DINOs, so he's fair game. And so is his wife apparently.

[R B Garr]

19. Yet the Vermont newspapers and other media outlets are discussing this fraud

investigation because it is current news. Those are the facts no matter how much you want to make it personal. There is an ongoing fraud investigation and no one here is to blame for it.

[LiberalLovinLug]

21. I am making it personal?

When does calling someone out FOR making it personal, for making an insulting innuendo about the character of a Democratic ally who there is no history of that kind of deplorable personality, in fact the opposite.......make it myself that is "making it personal"?

So please stop your finger wagging.

And even IF Jane is found to have been in the wrong...which has not been proven...why the need to pile on along with Trumpublicans? How is this going to help exactly? I will wait and see just how many are eager to pounce if that comes to be. To drag down such a figure that is so important and productive for the Democratic party And if that happens, I'd really like to know the why, if it is not pent up resentment for simply daring to almost beat Hillary in the primaries.

[R B Garr]

24. Nice try, but your posts blaming everything on the primaries are

not even remotely accurate.

[lunamagica]

31. Almost beat Hillary? Seriously? He never came even close. The fact that he remained in the race

for months after he knew there was no chance of getting the nomination doesn't mean he "almost beat her"

[LanternWaste]

22. Seems poster #1 made it "personal", the responses merely in kind...

Seems poster #1 made it "personal", the responses merely in kind... those are the fact as well, no matter how much you want it otherwise.

[R B Garr]

23. Nice try, but that response was about current news -- the current

investigation. There was no reference to the primaries.

[virtualobserver]

29. wondering if "Bernie is going to throw Jane under the bus" IS personal.....

and that person is responsible for that rude comment.

[R B Garr]

30. Your reply is not in context to the subthread.

You should go back and see the responses in context. And also the OP about current news.

[virtualobserver]

33. you must be getting confused...

it is very simple

Thinkingabout responded to the op

1. Wonder if Bernie is going to throw Jane under the bus or is he going to attempt to defend her.

LiberalLovinLug responded to thinkingabout


16. my gawd!

I wish there wasn't this technicality that some use to hide behind on DU about attacking Democrats, or their families. Bernie votes with the Democrats, he brings in new members by the bushload, and even at his age, fights on the front lines alongside prominent Democrats to battle Trump and the GOP....

....but he doesn't wear the D badge. Unlike say, Joe Manchin, Heidi Heitkamp, or Joe Donnelly and other DINOs, so he's fair game. And so is his wife apparently.

you posted

19. Yet the Vermont newspapers and other media outlets are discussing this fraud

investigation because it is current news. Those are the facts no matter how much you want to make it personal. There is an ongoing fraud investigation and no one here is to blame for it.

I responded to you

29. wondering if "Bernie is going to throw Jane under the bus" IS personal.....

and that person is responsible for that rude comment.

Are you having an easier time following that?

[R B Garr]

37. Wrong. You do realize the posts are numbered, and that

indicates the sequence. I was talking about making it personal about posters here, not about the first reply in the thread. People are just discussing a current news development.

[virtualobserver]

39. each post is a response to a specific post.....

the post that you responded to was a complaint about someone posting that they were wondering if Bernie would throw his wife of 29 years under the bus.

You, rather than respond to that detail, accused the poster of "getting personal"

So, I responded by re-applying the term "personal" to the rude comment about Bernie because it was personal in its own way, not based on the case at all. I was re-framing.

You were just avoiding the ugly detail of that post with smoke and mirrors.

[R B Garr]

40. Wrong again. Still wrong. This is ridiculous. The first post was

not about other posters here. It simply wasn't, not matter what you think of it, it wasn't about other posters here. And don't tell me what I was doing, since you obviously can't figure it out, it's best just to move on.

And you still are ignoring all the numbered posts.........LOL.

[virtualobserver]

41. I laid it out for you, and you still can't follow it.

I showed it step by step, post and response. I even included the numbers in my post.
I explained my use of the word personal and how it differed from yours, because I was re-framing the issue to deal with the fact that response 1 was trashing Bernie, a detail which you ignored.

I can't help you further.

[R B Garr]

42. You are obviously missing something and just can't see it, so move on.

You didn't lay it out, obviously. Your "re-framing" is probably where you went wrong. The first post is not about other posters here. No matter how you "re-frame" it, my post was about being personal with other posters here. Others are commenting on current news, and there is nothing wrong with that.

And I don't need your help and didn't when you first posted.

Also, there are other posts in this thread that are numbered...........not just the ones you reference.........oh nevermind.

[virtualobserver]

43. my response was to reuse the term "personal".....

and apply in a different way.

You chided a poster in which you state that they were getting "personal" rather than focusing on the facts of the case.

My "reframe" was to take your judgment of that poster and express my view that asking if Bernie is going to throw his wife of 29 years under the bus is not commenting on the facts, it is a personal commentary on Bernie.

Not personal in terms of DU, but in terms of Bernie.

You apparently believe that modifying the concept of "personal" in my response to you violates some fundamental law of the universe.

[R B Garr]

44. At least you admit here and a previous post that you"reframed" what I

wrote to pursue another tangent.

You don't get to reframe my posts. Like I said, your admission to "reframing" is where you went wrong.

Maybe you should start another thread with your own views instead of forcing your "reframing" on me. Thanks.

[virtualobserver]

45. I don't get to?

Jeez.

This is not your thread. You were responding to someone else, and I responded to you.

[R B Garr]

46. You "reframed" what I wrote, admittedly.

Thank you for admitting you reframed what I wrote. That's obviously where your confusion started.

We determined that several posts back.

[virtualobserver]

47. which I can do....

"admitted"....

You have been charged with the heinous crime of re-framing on DU.

How do you plead?

Guilty, Your Honor.....and I throw myself on the mercy of the court.

[R B Garr]

48. LOL, moar tangents. It's hilarious, actually.

[LiberalLovinLug]

49. Thanks virtualobserver

for calling that out.

But this poster always needs to have the last word.

I think what rankled her most was my footnote about asking why. I suggested it is maybe because some have not gotten over that Bernie dared to challenge Hillary, and came close to winning. But I also asked...if not that, then why this ongoing snark by some? I'd really like to know because Garr and others vehemently insist it has nothing to do with that. So why the vitriol then on such an ally? I am just curious. Please tell us.

[virtualobserver]

51. It is hard for me to let this stuff go

I will defend Bernie to the death on most issues, but questioning whether Bernie would throw his wife under the bus is beyond the pale.

I sometimes think that some feel the same way about Bernie as they do Trump.

[R B Garr]

53. "It is hard for me to let this stuff go"

That explains a lot, especially about the "reframing" even when it was out of context.

[virtualobserver]

54. trashing bernie will always get a response from me

which WAS the broader context......the narrow perspective of your individual post, and your obsession with that perspective, is of no interest to me.

[R B Garr]

55. Wrong again. You obsessed on my post even admitting

to "reframing" it to make some revenge sidebar point completely unrelated to the thread or what was said. Then you admit to not letting things go. Sounds like your "obsession" not mine.

And Bernie wasn't trashed.

[virtualobserver]

56. asking if he would throw his wife under the bus wasn't trashing him?

oh please.

[R B Garr]

57. Oh please yourself. It looked like a tongue in cheek

ironic reference to those he accuses of fraud on a regular basis. That's it.

[virtualobserver]

58. you are just making this stuff up as you go along

goodbye

[R B Garr]

59. This from someone who admitted to reframing

my post and taking it out of context -- which would actually be making stuff up, lol.

[R B Garr]

52. And thanks to you for making my point again!

You've posted multiple times on this thread, but never about the subject matter. Only about other posters and their perceived wrongdoings, so thanks for proving me right again.

BTW, the subject matter is definitely current news. It's always trending on a lot of sites. That's reality.

[Demit]

36. You say Sanders brings in new members to the Democratic party by the bushload.

I tried to look that up but could find no story about it. Do you have a source?

I did find a story about how membership has tripled in the organization called Democratic Socialists of America: http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-democratic-socialists-20170308-story.html That's what Bernie is, right? A Democratic Socialist?

If you can show me how Bernie has increased the membership of the Democratic Party I would greatly appreciate it.

[LiberalLovinLug]

50. All I can do is refer you to these articles by the Hill and Business Insider

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/329049-democrats-welcome-bernie-takeover

"Democrats previously reticent to welcoming Sen. Bernie Sanders into their fold are coming around.

More than a dozen Democrats interviewed by The Hill say the Vermont Independent has become a powerful and welcome voice for a party struggling to find its identity after a devastating defeat in 2016.

While misgivings remain about giving too much leadership to a politician who technically isn’t a Democrat, a clear warming trend is on the rise.

“It continues to drive me a bit nuts that he continues to register as an Independent, but the bottom line is that he is a good Democrat,” said Jim Manley, a Democratic strategist who supported Hillary Clinton during the Democratic presidential primary and openly worried then about Sanders’s allegiances to the party."

and this one about attracting young Democrats:

http://www.businessinsider.com/bernie-sanders-is-busy-promoting-young-leaders-in-the-democratic-party-2017-4

"Bernie Sanders, who attracted millions of college-aged and young adults to his presidential campaign last year, is following through on a promise he made when he left the race: to promote younger leaders for the Democratic Party."


He is energizing the base. And if the Democratic party is smart, they will continue to heed Sanders and Warren's advice and leap frog Republicans, instead of offering the luke warm alternative. And if they do that, even most of those that call themselves "Democratic Socialists" will vote Democrat. It is all in our hands if we are smart about it.

[Demit]

60. Yes, well, unfortunately neither of those stories supports your assertion.

In fact, the "powerful and welcoming voice" he has become, according to The Hill, has not translated into wins for the candidates he has stumped for. So, no evidence of a busload of new members for the party there.

And the Business Insider story just emphasizes the fact that he attracted young people to himself during his presidential campaign. He hasn't changed his message. He hasn't been telling his audience that the Democratic Party is the place to be, he's telling them what's wrong with it. That doesn't translate to busloads of new members for the party either.

If Bernie Sanders really wanted to strengthen the Democratic Party, he would join it. But as long as he keeps the party at arm's length, so will his adoring fans. And the observable evidence of that is the surge in numbers of new Democratic Socialists.

[LiberalLovinLug]

61. Thats your opinion

IMO he IS bringing people in , especially young people. I don't know how much more you want from him if he himself is "following through on a promise he made when he left the race: to promote younger leaders for the Democratic Party." (Not to promote new Independents)

He does not call himself a Democrat. But there is a silver lining to that. He is also showing them that if you do call yourself an Independent, you still can and should vote Democrat. But this overblown reaction that he is only saying what is wrong with the Democratic party is a red herring to stifle discussion. How about listening first instead of the knee jerk rejection. Maybe, just maybe, he may have a point or two.

Another silver lining IMO is that he is in the perfect position, a unique position, to be a critic. He has worked with Democrats for decades, he knows them inside and out, but the fact that he doesn't have the D name that others do who may feel compelled NOT to ruffle D leadership by saying what is necessary. When has staying in lock-step and adherence to the Party can do no wrong or does not need any new ideas or improvement and cannot get any better...ever been a healthy approach? But attacking the messenger has always been easier than listening to the truth. Its a lazy, regressive response....IMO

Why do Democrats on the hill praise him and his efforts and are more than willing to work with him but some in here reject the example of our Democrat leaders and foment division, I'll never know.

[Demit]

64. "In your opinion" he is bringing people in. LOL, okay.

Your opinion is not based on any evidence. Your opinion is a wish. A hope. Promoting young leaders is NOT the same as bringing in busloads of new members to the Democratic Party. Which was your original claim.

Next time don't make such bald assertions if you can't back them up.

[LanternWaste]

20. As I wonder how thin your veneer of civility

As I wonder how thin your veneer of civility.

Six of one, half a dozen of the other... and each petulance designed by bias rather than critical thought.

[R B Garr]

25. Yet the reality is that the Vermont Senator himself bases his reputation

on calling out fraud. And here he has a current fraud investigation of his own to contend with. That's what the first poster was referring to.

[lunamagica]

32. Right, but we're supposed to just ignore that.

[LisaM]

2. They need to focus on Jane, not Bernie.

Obviously, he should be aware of whatever she did, but I don't think we should raise a false flag about what his office did! This is counter productive. Go after her apart from him. Ask why she thought Burlington should be exempt from offering tenure, among other things.

[nocalflea]

4. This is counter productive. To what ? Justice ?

The search for truth ?

The same standard that applies to Trump, should be applied here. If he is innocent, he has nothing to worry about and should want to clear his name.

[LisaM]

11. I am not interested in this distraction.

Last edited Fri Jun 30, 2017, 12:10 PM - Edit history (1)

Anyone who knows me here can read between the lines that I am not a big Bernie fan. However, in this case, I think that Jane should fall on her own sword.

[George II]

3. That's why there's an investigation.

[aintitfunny]

5. No doubt:

"Lawyer Brady Toensing, a former official with the state Republican Party and Donald Trump's presidential campaign." This says all that needs to be said.

[liberal from boston]

8. Jane Sanders

Suggest you read this link: https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2017/05/investigating-nothing-the-jane-sanders-fbi-non-con.html

http://digital.vpr.net/post/catholic-church-rejects-claim-sanders-wife-caused-financial-harm#stream/0

[LisaM]

15. The second link is interesting....

Last edited Fri Jun 30, 2017, 01:36 PM - Edit history (1)

why did the college offer $4 million more than the property was worth?

[liberal from boston]

38. Jane Sanders

The college wanted to expand to include more students & needed the land for additional buildings, dormitories.

Christopher Coyne, however, says the harm to which Toensing refers does not exist. And he says the church wants no part in any political grudge match."

“We don’t obviously want to get involved in any political battle involving presidential candidates,” Coyne said Monday afternoon. “We’re not pushing this at all. We’re satisfied with the outcome (of the sale to Burlington College).”

“We’re very satisfied with the outcome at the end, even though we didn’t receive the full $10 million,” Coyne says of the settlement. “We walked away with a pretty good price, and at this point we’re not interested in pursuing any further matter in this.”

Coyne said Toensing didn’t reach out to him, or any other employee or agent of the diocese, prior to filing the complaint alleging harm to the church.

[Igel]

9. Not a good place to go.

Only (D) can investigate (D)?

How about "only (R) can investigate (R)"? Oh, wait. Partisans can't investigate their own. Unless they're clearly immune to temptation and letting partisanship get in the way. (Which effectively rules out humans.)

It's good for Mr. Sanders to stick up for his wife. I'd think much less of him if he didn't.

Future candidate Senator Sanders needs to stick up for himself.

But Senator Sanders has to also say, "I've taken an oath to support the laws and institutions of this country, and will place my confidence in their ability to function. Let the investigation show what it has to show, I have nothing to hide." Otherwise we're basically saying that the truth is whatever we advertise it to be.

Everybody has a set of conflicting obligations that we need to balance. I tend to take omitting one entirely to indicate you don't want that obligation any more.

Now, the implication is that we're always better than them (or that they're always worse than us). If true, then it's even more important for Sanders to not omit all three roles, and to my mind the one least important is the one that's most easily repaired: the role of future candidate Bernie Sanders.

Truth without power at least gets you truth. Power without truth gets you oppression and dictatorship and Truth (tm). It's really hard for those who have gained great power to fight the temptation to oppress, and truth is one of the bulwarks to fight that temptation. It's even who have abandoned first principles, once given power, to find them them. Such should not have power (and take that as a moral principle).

[hrmjustin]

27. Not really. Complaints to the FBI are sent for partisan reasons all the time.

[David__77]

10. I couldn't care less. I do find the salivation flow pretty disgusting.

...

[Bayard]

13. Rethugs trying to shut Bernie up

On healthcare. Distract, distract, distract.

[LiberalLovinLug]

17. And so to a few thin skinned Democrat voters

That for the life of them cannot let go of the primaries, that someone running against Hillary dared to be critical, which I thought was part of the job as candidate....and the kicker is, their candidate won and they STILL can't let it go!

[R B Garr]

18. This is not about the primary. Only a few people here keep trying this distraction,

but it is not about the primaries. It's a current and ongoing FBI fraud investigation. Those are the current facts.

[Gothmog]

14. The proper thing is to let the investigation proceed and find out the facts

[hrmjustin]

26. I take Sanders at his word that he wasn't involved in this.

In the end Jane Sanders actions are really not in doubt. The real question is whether they are criminal, and I hope they are not.

But it is clear her actions helped lead to the end of Burlington College.

[VermontKevin]

62. I am sure Senator Sanders is not involved in this beyond him sending encouragement to the bank.

I don't think that was wrong. Burlington College was a good school.

[hrmjustin]

63. Yes it was.

It is a shame mismanagement brought it down.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

28. I'm going to enjoy this...

(Insert clip of Freddy Quimby chugging champagne here)

[delisen]

34. Jane is getting the same treatment Clinton got for decades from the Republicans

Unfortunately it is something Democrats who enter politics have to be prepared for. Possibly it will help Jane develop some empathy for Clinton.

The Toensing/DiGenova family of Republican lawyers has been engaged in vicious partisan politics for decades.

Ken Starr smeared, arrested, jailed, and shackled, and had a role in bringing false charges against non-political citizen, Susan McDougal, in his attempt to get Bill Clinton. She was heroic in that she refused to lie despite Starr's evil attempt to basically batter her into lying, and eventually she was vindicated. She was a person of very strong character.

....and of course we know how Ken Starr eventually fell into a shame pit due to his misogynistic rule at Baylor.

[StevieM]

35. I am not a Sanders fan, but I do not give any credence to this line of attack against him or Jane.

Saying that the FBI is investigating you doesn't mean that the FBI has a good reason to investigate you.

They showed how they treat Democrats in the last election. And I no longer trust them.