Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and wife Jane Sanders walk in Philadelphia during the final day of the Democratic National Convention, July 28, 2016. Sanders remains under federal investigation for a land deal she made as president of Burlington College in Vermont in 2010.
Save
A federal investigation launched in 2016 into possible bank fraud by Jane Sanders, wife of U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, is still underway -- with "a potential" grand jury review possible.

The probe could thwart Sanders' 2020 presidential ambitions -- as well as the Vermont political plans of Jane Sanders' daughter, Carina Driscoll.

Individuals questioned by the FBI confirmed to Fox News that the investigation was still open, with FBI agents interviewing at least one witness within the last six weeks.

Jane Sanders is under investigation following a land deal she clinched when she was president of Burlington College in Vermont in 2010.

In order to expand the college, Sanders sought to obtain a tract of land from a Roman Catholic parish. She secured a $6.7 million loan from a bank and a $3.6 million loan from the parish from which she planned to purchase the property.

But she resigned in 2011 amid allegations that she purposely inflated and made up the amount of money donors have pledged to the school and provided incorrect information to a bank to get the loan. Multiple individuals, who were listed as college donors, have since come forward denying the commitments.

Questioned recently

Former Burlington College Board Chairman Yves Bradley told Fox News that the investigation was still underway. He said he was visited by FBI agents in the last six weeks and was questioned about Sanders' involvement in the alleged bank fraud.

more here

I don't know much about this subject buy that statement that the church was going to ( or did) make a $ 3 million loan raises my eye brow.
I was in church a few weeks ago ( had to go.. not generally where you will find me on a weekend)

They now pass the basket twice...claiming they need the money for operations, the poor and others stuff.

They fail to tell you they are bankers on the side.

umm..tax EXEMPT bankers...

Sounds pretty felonious. But with the standards and supporters they have. Prolly just a spanky.

Just got done watching footage of a government board meeting on YouTube. Titled (The Most Outrageous Government Board Meeting Ever.)
This is what they don't want you to see. The normalcy of it today. I'm only speculating folks.
Probably only a few bad apples out there.
A little

Even if she did it she won't get in any real trouble. She would pull out that " old person" card and claim dementia or poor health. They all do it.

look at Cosby. One day he is doing tap dancing in a night club, sharp as a whip the next his lawyers have to help him climb up a sidewalk curb... he's all bewildered and confused.

Meh. Based on reports by Fox "news" the NSA is looking at everyone.
Google and Amazon and Apple and LG products with cameras and Facebook are trying to look at everyone.


So basically she did what millions of Americans did to get a home loan, especially before Dodd Frank was enacted. i.e. "liar loan," or stated income loan, and padded their income.
Before dodd frank it was found at least 50% of all stated income loans were "padded."

I have no doubt she did it.
But in a case like this they'd have to prove criminal intent.
IMO little different than the Hillary investigation.
Did she specifically set out to commit fraud, or was it just wishful thinking? Can it be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that she knew there was absolutely no way at all she could get the endowments she planned on but reported them anyway, willfully attempting to deceive the creditors? Or is it at all possible she thought she could get the money she reported she would have for the loan?
Or was it clerical errors, she was just really bad at her job, incompetence?

IMO in order to effectively try her and win you'd need an email or witness that heard her say something like "Oh yeah, I totally lied to the bank for that loan. I fudged the crap outta those numbers. OMG! I hope they don't check into it!"


It shouldn't.
Especially since it was a "loan from the parish from which she planned to purchase the property."

You want to buy a house. The owners are asking $100. The bank will only qualify you for $90. The owners don't want to take less than $100. So you give them the $90 you got from the bank and promise to pay them the $10 over time.
That promise to pay them $10 is put into a contract (promissory note) and is legally considered a "loan" from the owners to the buyers.
AKA seller/owner financing.
Nothing nefarious. It's pretty common. No special church powers.


Churches tend to only be exempt from taxes for property that is specifically used for religious or religious educational purposes.
They pay taxes on things like parking lots, and investment properties they don't have churches on.

If the liar loan lady was buying unimproved land from the church, the church was probably paying taxes on it. Depends on the state, depends on what's on the land. The article has little information.

It's not like diplomatic immunity in the movies.
A priest doesn't go into McDonald's and buy a coke, then whip out his holy badge and yell "taxiplomatic immunity!" and have his bill lessened while cops stand around saying "there's nothing we can do! He's got immunity!" which is IMO implied by all upper case "exempt."

Did they find this raisin yet?