Monday, May 16, 2016

The skeleton in Bernie's closet

Finally, we get a glimpse into the Sanders family closet. Guess who's in there? Mr. Bones!

Here's the gist: Some years ago, a Catholic diocese in Vermont sold some land to pay off a sexual abuse settlement. The purchaser was Burlington College, whose president was -- until recently -- Jane O'Meara Sanders.

She took out a loan for $10 million dollars. She said she had $2 million in fundraising pledges all lined up to start paying off the debt. I have no doubt, personally, that she sincerely thought she had the money all lined up.
As Ms. Sanders pursued financing for the land acquisition, she repeatedly said that Burlington College had received more than $2 million in fundraising commitments and pledges, according to numerous records.

But in fiscal year 2011, Burlington College raised only $279,000—though the college had earlier claimed to have secured $1.2 million in confirmed pledges.
Very strange. You see, most of the time the vast majority of fundraising pledges (as in more than 90 percent) sail through. But not in this case.

So what happened?

I'm not sure, exactly. I don't know who pledged the money and later backed down.

The upshot is clear: Jane was forced to leave the college, receiving a rather hefty $200,000 severance package. And now, Burlington College is no longer going to be an accredited institution of higher learning, because "insurmountable" financial problems have left the college on very shaky economic grounds.

Now, there is plenty of ammo here for oppo research -- as in: "How can Sanders claim that he has the ability to run the American economy?" The right-wing blogs will surely make that argument.

That line of attack is, in my view, a cheap shot.

A more interesting line of inquiry: Who reneged on those pledges?

Was his name Donald? Was it someone acting as a cut-out for Donald?

Did someone offer to pay off the debt? Was his name Donald?

Did Jane Sanders do anything -- accidentally or wittingly -- that would render her susceptible to prosecution?

I think we are beginning to get a clearer picture as to how Bernie Sanders was manipulated. The Bernie we are seeing now is not the Bernie was saw a year ago. Someone has been pulling his strings.

Did you know that Roger Stone has been praising Bernie to the skies lately? And yet, as recently as 2014, Stone had tweeted that Bernie Sanders deserves to be shot.

I find it interesting that Bernie was on Roger's mind at that time.

Stone constantly studies the Democratic party, looking for cracks and fissures. He doesn't like Democrats, but he sure knows how to manipulate them.

Incidentally, here are Roger Stone's recent thoughts as given to Breitbart:
“I think that gives Trump a real entrée to almost a third of Bernie’s supporters in a general election,” he then added. “I don’t mean his hard-left, ultra-liberal supporters, but I mean the blue-collar Democrats in Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and New York who feel left behind by the new world order economy..."
The use of right-wing conspira-speak is interesting. I wonder how if Stone really believes that "new world order" crap, or is he simply flattering the Alex Jones crowd?

More importantly: This is how Roger Stone always operates. He fractures the Dems, and then scoops up bits and pieces -- whatever he can get -- for his client.

The genius of the 2008 strategy now -- finally -- becomes clear to me: The manipulators set a black man against a woman in the Democratic primary. If the woman had won, McCain would have picked a black veep. But the black man won, so McCain picked a woman veep.

From the GOP point of view, the task in 2008 was not to choose a side in the Hillary/Obama contretemps, but to insure that the fight was much more vicious than it should have been -- and to keep everything on the level of identity politics.
Few months back at the height of the republicans primaries zoo battles, my fears were in the end the democrats not the republican who will disintegrate.
Maybe Roger Stone works for George Soros. Because in 2008 a LOT of democrats voted, and that ultimately foiled the Republicans from winning the presidency, but Soros got to study who would be more complicit to him, and the most complicit was probably not Hillary Clinton.
Is Trump playing for the Kremlin?

In 2014, Stone called Bernie a "Soviet agent". The USSR disappeared in 1991.

But if the Kremlin are backing one US presidential candidate more than another, it's likely to be Trump himself.

Check out Trump's Russian links. You don't need a Manchurian Candidate scenario. Putin has openly praised Trump. Trump is linked to oligarch Araz Agalarov and his wife Irina Agalarova who has been involved in the US for a long time. If I'm not mistaken, it was after a visit to Moscow in which the oligarch Trump met many of his fellow oligarchs in Russia that he announced he was running for the US presidency.

David Cameron's office recently accused the pro-Brexit Tory Boris Johnson, former mayor of London, his fellow Old Etonian and the bookies' favourite as the next prime minister, of being a Kremlin asset. Or in the "understatement" that is usually preferred in Britain to Stone's linguistic violence, they called him a "Putin apologist".

That flap then got swamped by some crap to do with Johnson saying the aims of the EU were similar to Hitler's. But the Russian reference was far more interesting.
I am watching this space. Discourse between the two sides is getting nastier. Just waiting for Bernie to take the bait regarding independent run and I will consider you case proven.

If Bernie was being promised help with Jane Sanders financial problems at Burlington, why has Burlington today announced it will close? Shouldn't the debts have actually been paid if Bernie has been doing what he was asked to do? This doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Fair enough, Corby. My presumption was that it was hoped that the college could limp along until the election.

If my theory is correct, Bernie may now be a free man. On the other hand, there may yet be a financial skeleton or two.

You have admit: It IS odd for financial pledges not to go through to that degree. Maybe Jane got into trouble because she fantasized pledges that didn't really exist...? That doesn't seem very likely. So what happened?

Interesting: Jake called Bernie a liar on air. Regarding to his lies that he released his taxes. He concluded, "you are entitled to your opinion, but not to the facts."

Someone on the Hillary campaign must have noticed because they harkened back to that very line when a woman interrupted Hillary on the campaign trail last night: only Hillary was saying you need to learn the facts, not listen to the rightwing misinformation.

I think Bernie won't run independent. I think he can't risk releasing those tax returns.

Joseph, I'm curious which black vp nominees you think were in prospect.

As to political figures, I can only think of Alan Keyes and J.C. Watts. Colin Powell? Condie Rice (also a woman, a two for)? Clarence Thomas? Samuel Pierce? No deep bench there.

Thinking out of the box, Thomas Sewell, or Walter Williams?

I do like your theory. This part hangs me up.


XI, I never gave that much thought. Powell would have been ideal, but he obviously wanted no part of it. I guess Condi. Sowell would have been too old, but otherwise an interesting choice. Williams, the same -- and the inflexible libertarianism was not McCain's style. Keyes is out. I'm surprised the GOP has not done more with Watts -- that's a strange one, because they should have groomed him for a role like that. Maybe there's a skeleton in the closet?

Here's a mind-blower: James Earl Jones.

Hell, even I want to vote for Darth Vader.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is 

powered by Blogger. 

Isn't yours?