Bernie Sanders Investigation Is The New 'Lock Her Up'
The fall of Burlington College has turned into a federal investigation, and could get ugly (whether nonsense or not).
Anyone who closely followed the 2016 election heard about Burlington College, the small hippie college that Jane Sanders, wife of the Vermont Senator, ran for several years. Most of the discussion revolved around the asinine claim that she got rich running the school — she earned $150K — or suggesting that running a private school contrasted with Bernie’s call for free state school tuition. But the occasional fringe outlet would suggest that the debt-fueled implosion of Burlington College was somehow criminal and that Bernie may even be implicated.
Bernie has called these charges nonsense, but now the Trump administration appears to be seriously considering installing the Senator’s chief troll as U.S. Attorney in Vermont. Welcome to 2017!
From all appearances, Jane Sanders was not particularly good at running this college. In fairness, it’s not like she took over a thriving school. She came in as a turnaround administrator and failed to turn it around — that’s going to happen from time to time. One can question her plan for reviving the school’s fortunes, which put the school under mounds of debt in hopes of drawing new students and sparking alumni enthusiasm, but it’s not like she was dealt a strong hand.
Curbing Client And Talent Loss With Productivity Tech
Jane Sanders made a deal to build a new campus with land that the Roman Catholic Diocese needed to sell for exactly the reasons you suspect. To afford the deal, she had to take out a loan, and that’s where the alleged problems arose. According to Politico’s comprehensive recap of the situation, that’s when attorney and right-wing gadfly Brady Toensing came in. Toensing decided to seek a trove of documents from the Vermont state agency that issued $6.5 million worth of bonds for the purchase and pieced together what he characterizes as a fraud:
For the first fiscal year after the deal was signed, Jane Sanders signed documents that confirmed pledges of $1.2 million. But according to Burlington College financial records obtained by VTDigger, the college received only $279,000.
No, there’s no “but” there! 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.
Sponsored
Curbing Client And Talent Loss With Productivity Tech
Data Privacy And Security With Gen AI Models
Legal Contract Review in Under 10 Minutes? Here’s How
Tackling Deposition Anxiety: How AI Is Changing The Way Lawyers Do Depositions
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.
Anyway, Toensing decided to elevate this theory to the authorities because this is the new “lock her up”:
Brady Toensing wrapped these figures and facts into the January 2016 letter to the U.S. attorney and the FDIC, requesting an investigation into what he termed “apparent federal bank fraud.” In March 2016, Toensing doubled down in another letter to federal officials. This time, he made an allegation that struck to the core of Bernie Sanders’ clean-government image. “As a result of my [initial] complaint,” Toensing wrote, “I was recently approached and informed that Senator Bernard Sanders’s office improperly pressured People’s United Bank to approve the loan application submitted by the Senator’s wife, Ms. Sanders.”
Right here is where you know this is bulls**t. OK, perhaps I shouldn’t say that. “Without having reviewed the documents myself… right here is where you know this is bulls**t.” This may come as a complete shock, but do you know who doesn’t like losing money? BANKERS. If a bank gets defrauded, you can rely on them to get their pound of flesh. It’s kind of their thing. Which is to say that when a bank is aggrieved, they don’t need a Benghazi conspiracy theorist lawyer to fight their battles for them.
Oh, yeah, Toensing works at his mom’s firm pushing bad Benghazi conspiracy theories. Probably worth mentioning. It might also be worth noting that Toensing was the chair of Trump’s Vermont campaign. Not to discount this blind squirrel from finding a nut, but it puts some context on the “bank fraud that the bank doesn’t seem to see.”
Sponsored
Tackling Deposition Anxiety: How AI Is Changing The Way Lawyers Do Depositions
How Thomson Reuters Supercharged CoCounsel With Gen AI Advances
Unfortunately, we’re well aware of the awesome power of the Department of Justice and the mischief that can be kicked up when that power is vested in the wrong people. And there isn’t a U.S. Attorney in Vermont right now:
This week, Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy, a Democrat, and Governor Phil Scott, a Republican, recommended that Assistant U.S. Attorney Christina Nolan become the state’s next U.S. attorney.
Oh, that sounds intriguing. But has Trump moved on that?
Just who could Trump appoint that might fit that bill? Among the names mentioned as a potential nominee: Brady Toensing, the attorney who proved his dedication as Trump’s Vermont campaign chairman.
Are you f**king kidding me?
Jane Sanders Lawyers Up [Politico]
Joe Patrice is an editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news.
