Press "Enter" to skip to content

Regents Exec Warner, EB-5 Czar Bollen to Answer GOAC Questions Next Week

Bob Mercer agrees that the EB-5 scandal is far from over. Next Thursday the Legislature's Government Operations and Audit Committee meets to discuss what went wrong in then-Governor, now Senator-Elect Mike Rounds's EB-5 visa investment program. GOAC chairman Senator Larry Tidemann (R-7/Brookings) has invited Board of Regents exec Jack Warner to talk about changes in the contract authorization process (which obviously broke down when EB-5 czar Joop Bollen wrote himself an illegal and lucrative private contract while working for the state).

The language Tidemann uses to invite Warner is different from the language he uses to invite Bollen. To Warner, Senator Tidemann says, "The Committee requests that you be present...." To Bollen, Senator Tidemann says, "I would like to request that you respond...." And while Warner, who has done little if anything wrong in the EB-5 mess other than not realizing Bollen was running a scam for himself and his friends from the NSU campus, is called to appear in person, Bollen is permitted leave to write a letter from his comfy home in Aberdeen.

Bollen is also allowed to miss deadlines. Senator Tidemann's September 30 request asked Bollen to reply by November 5 so that committee members would have time to review his response. They'll need that time: the September 30 letter includes 75 questions. Bollen could have written up three a day and still had plenty of time to finish, but GOAC still has no Bollen response on its agenda documents page. A knowledgeable source tells me that Bollen and his lawyer (that's EB-5 player Jeff Sveen) plan to respond on Monday, November 10.

Given Joop Bollen's willingness to lie to federal officials, we should probably not expect much. But we wait with bated breath for 75 repetitions of "I do not recall," "I decline to share confidential business information, " "I plead the Fifth," and maybe, just once, please, Joop, "Go ask Mike Rounds—it was his idea."

144 Comments

  1. mike from iowa 2014.11.07

    Has he stated that info is "need to know" and you don't need to know?

  2. Kate 2014.11.07

    For some reason I have little confidence the republican investigators will look too closely at anything.

  3. WayneF 2014.11.07

    I think Kate's right. This is all formality with little substance. Now that the election's over, don't expect much interest in EB-5 from the republicans.

    Even if the best happens ... MMR is indicted and forced to stand down ... DD gets to appointment a replacement.

    All so sad.

  4. Daniel Buresh 2014.11.07

    What could you possibly indict Rounds on? Anyone? Anyone?

  5. larry kurtz 2014.11.07

    That he covered up Bendagate as a front for human trafficking: fraud, perjury, conspiracy....

  6. larry kurtz 2014.11.07

    That PP had access to Bendagate dox should scare the spit out of every South Dakotan.

  7. Daniel Buresh 2014.11.07

    So....You are hoping that is true, based on no proof whatsoever.....and the conspiracy theories will fly when he is vindicated. You guys are going to make your party even more irrelevant.

  8. larry kurtz 2014.11.07

    Noem jumped on the human trafficking bandwagon out of the blue after someone tipped her off on the federal Bendagate probe.

  9. Roger Cornelius 2014.11.07

    Daniel,
    You repeatedly ask where is the evidence of Felon-Elect Rounds involvement with EB-5. The "FBI active" investigation all about that, finding the truth. As a Rounds apologist you imply you have some evidence that will exonerate Rounds from prosecution, what is it.
    There are literally thousands of documents, wire transfers, bank statements, emails, etc. that have yet to revealed, do you know for certain if all those documents will exclude Rounds?

  10. Roger Cornelius 2014.11.07

    Noticeably absent from Tidemann's "request" is a subpoena for Felon-Elect Mike Rounds.

    Will Jack Warner be giving sworn testimony or will he be allowed to roll over GOAC.

    About a month ago, Bollen said he "vowed to answer GOAC questions and retracted that comment to say he wouldn't answer GOAC questions. It is probably a safe assumption that he will do that again.

  11. mike from iowa 2014.11.07

    Obstruction,interference with official acts,deliberate discombobulation of dumbass wingnut officials, being short,being a closet Socialist,delaying justice,being a prick,being a former insurance agent and bragging about it,imitating a christian human being,not playing nice,not debating,being overpaid for doing nothing,putting two legged foxes in charge of the chickens,perjury,....how many charges do you want?

    What I could indict him on and what crony wingnuts won't bother to indict him on are mucho different venues.

  12. Les 2014.11.07

    When our own state is suing the pants off Shirley Scwaab and Brandon Talifano for trying to protect our children, an F is too high a grade for state actions. Failing is simply not doing enough but working to foil a weak system as happened here is criminal at best!
    .
    EB5 doesn't compare to this.

  13. mike from iowa 2014.11.07

    Roger C-if this investigation by the FBI can be sandbagged until the new wingnuttier congress is sworn in,then it most likely will be forced to close or the FBI will have their budget slashed. The only way wingnuts will allow the FBI to stay in operation is as an investigative arm for Darrell-my brother did it-Issa in his witch hunts against Obama and other Dems.

  14. WayneF 2014.11.07

    Mike from Iowa: Hilarious list of indictable offenses! Feds need to keep building a case against MMR. Do we really know they are?

  15. leslie 2014.11.07

    db- u yourself said its complicated.

    we don't have info due to the SDGOP cover-up via daugaard, tidemann, GOAC, its lawyers, joop's unauthorized, ultra vires acts, stolen files, his lawyers protection, NSU, it's lawyers, GOED, its lawyers, regents, its lawyers, that kept a wrap on most files until the day before the election except those selectively leaked/released to Tyler, Jackley's refusal to thoroughly investigate wrapping his investigation 6 mos. or more ago after finally admitting the focus was only on benda, Jackley's 100 lawyers that monitored all of the above and advised SDGOP agencies involved, private law firms hired by the state to cover various weaknesses, thousands or tens of thousands of members of state law enforcement that will not, have not investigated all the issues the public have raised because of SDGOP politics (repub police chiefs, sheriffs, highway patrol), lack of appropriate audits and accountability of all those mentioned oversight offices mentioned above, responsible for all EB5 funds and monkey business, including rounds, banking commission manipulation, failure to subpoena witnesses and documents, deletion of primary players email accounts, yadadadah. we could afford one lawyer to dig 3 months ago. we can go on.

    this is the democrats fault??

  16. Daniel Buresh 2014.11.07

    "You repeatedly ask where is the evidence of Felon-Elect Rounds involvement with EB-5. The "FBI active" investigation all about that, finding the truth. As a Rounds apologist you imply you have some evidence that will exonerate Rounds from prosecution, what is it."

    I don't have any evidence. I don't need any evidence until there is any indication of a crime. Burden of proof lies on the prosecution and your entire hand is based on the possibility that something may be found. They haven't found squat. It's apparent because you guys get so defensive when anyone points it out and you resort to name calling.

    "There are literally thousands of documents, wire transfers, bank statements, emails, etc. that have yet to revealed, do you know for certain if all those documents will exclude Rounds?"

    No, but I'm not the one saying that something will be found. Democrats are the ones making the assumption and trying to make it appear as fact. Rounds won't be indicted because there is no indication at all that a crime was committed by him. You guys are basing it all on hopes and wishes because you seek the answer you want and it's clouding your judgement.

  17. Lanny V Stricherz 2014.11.07

    Are you shittin me? A year after Kathy Tyler asks the Legislature's GOAC to open an investigation into the EB-5 doings and a scant 2 1/2 days after the election that allowed the former Governor to be elected to the US Senate, because they refused to do so for that entire year, and that same Kathy Tyler to be kicked out of the legislature, that same GOAC announces an investigation into the same. Why does anyone stay in this corrupt and God forsaken state?

  18. Daniel Buresh 2014.11.07

    "Feds need to keep building a case against MMR. Do we really know they are?"

    No, you don't. Which is exactly my point. You guys already labeled him a felon, with no proof. You are trying to make it appear that he committed crimes.....with no proof. You imply there is a crime but it is all being covered up....with no proof. You guys are throwing everything you can at the wall to push your agenda. I get it. Repubs would do the exact same thing, but don't sit here and try to act like it is perfectly logical. Show me a crime, and I'll change my tune. You guys want to hang the man on pure speculation.

  19. mike from iowa 2014.11.07

    Clinton impeached by wingnuts for the high crime of adultery.

    Mass murdering,war criminal dumbass dubya-not investigated by wingnuts.

    That is all you need to know!

  20. Daniel Buresh 2014.11.07

    "db- u yourself said its complicated."

    Exactly, which is why I ask myself why so many armchair lawyers think they have the case closed. You guys haven't found anything to support the speculation.

    "we don't have info "

    Ding ding ding....we have a winner. You have nothing to prove any of the speculation. You can't even back up the supposed reasoning for why you don't have anything. It's all speculation.....but hey, if you repeat it enough.....you start to believe it.

  21. Daniel Buresh 2014.11.07

    "Clinton impeached by wingnuts for the high crime of adultery."

    Someones trying to rewrite history. Clinton was impeached for lying under oath.

    "Mass murdering,war criminal dumbass dubya-not investigated by wingnuts."

    Interject non-relevant info when losing the argument....check

  22. mike from iowa 2014.11.07

    Fox Bollen-what is the staus of EB-5 chickens?

    All accounted for,sir.

    Did you mean all were present and accounted for?

    No,sir.

    Are you saying some chickens are/were departed?

    No,sir. We pretty much ate them whole.

    Fox Bollen,are you saying you destroyed evidence?

    No,sir. What I'm saying is,Hey,how about Tuesday's election?

    Anything more to add,Fox Bollen?

    Yes,may I be excused to use the facilities? Chicken feathers give me gas.

  23. Lanny V Stricherz 2014.11.07

    Daniel Buresh, to your post at 15:33, you are correct and that is exactly why it is so ridiculous that the Republican legislature, the Republican Governor and any and all Republican office holders in the state have stonewalled this investigation for the past year. Then on top of that your party kicked out the Democrat who brought this issue before the GOAC. a year ago. Hypocrisy much? To be pleading for him at this late date, just because he has been elected. What if he is guilty? How will you feel then? How bad will it make our State look?

  24. mike from iowa 2014.11.07

    db-my analogies are dead on. Your side dismisses crimes unless a Dem is charged or in Darrell-my brother did it-Issa's world the object of witch hunt/fishing expeditions.

  25. mike from iowa 2014.11.07

    db-since you see no discernible difference between adultery and mass murder,why didn't you wingnuts at least look into war crimes for bush?

  26. Daniel Buresh 2014.11.07

    Who has stonewalled it and how?

    "What if he is guilty? "

    If he is guilty, then he should be punished. Assuming that before proof is found is wrong.

    "How will you feel then?"

    I will feel that he is a criminal. Until that point, I try not to judge a person. I've seen wrongly charged people go free. The least we can do is wait for charges before we condemn a person, but even that is premature unless the trial is over and the charges stick. I know your side would expect it, but this is for political points so it's all's fair in your mind.

    "How bad will it make our State look?"

    So we should base our entire decision making ability on speculative "what ifs"?

  27. Daniel Buresh 2014.11.07

    Sounds like you are running the witch hunt suggesting so many crimes with no proof. You have nothing. You are basing your logic on nothing. Want me to answer your questions? Use your name. You can call out a person but you don't even have the guts to put your name behind it.

  28. larry kurtz 2014.11.07

    It's unlikely that the Justice Department leaked a memo to DB about testimony being heard in the federal grand jury investigating Bendagate.

  29. Lanny V Stricherz 2014.11.07

    DB to your post at 15:52 First the Governor stonewalled, when he found out that there were wrongdoings and closed down the GOED portion of EB=5. Then the legislative GOAC stonewalled when they failed to at least look into the possibility that there needed to be an investigation when requested by Kathy Tyler. The Attorney General stonewalled when he refused to release any information regarding the alleged suicide of Benda, citing family privacy and finally the rest of Republicans in public office stayed silent until three weeks ago when Rep Steve Hickey and a few others called for an investigation. Whoops my bad, Stace Nelson called for some truth telling during the legislative session and also during the primary debates.

    And you all stood by and allowed the lies to be told about Kathy Tyler to kick her out of the legislature simply because she was doing her job in asking the GOAC to open the investigation.

  30. larry kurtz 2014.11.07

    DD can deny access of dox to Marty but do Rounds' files still enjoy executive immunity?

  31. Daniel Buresh 2014.11.07

    "DB to your post at 15:52 First the Governor stonewalled, when he found out that there were wrongdoings and closed down the GOED portion of EB=5. Then the legislative GOAC stonewalled when they failed to at least look into the possibility that there needed to be an investigation when requested by Kathy Tyler. The Attorney General stonewalled when he refused to release any information regarding the alleged suicide of Benda, citing family privacy and finally the rest of Republicans in public office stayed silent until three weeks ago when Rep Steve Hickey and a few others called for an investigation. Whoops my bad, Stace Nelson called for some truth telling during the legislative session and also during the primary debates."

    One side calls it stonewalling, the other side says show us proof. Amazing how things can be interpreted. If Brendan Johnson comes out and says there was no prosecutable wrongdoing, you guys will throw him under the bus as well.

    "And you all stood by and allowed the lies to be told about Kathy Tyler to kick her out of the legislature simply because she was doing her job in asking the GOAC to open the investigation."

    Yep, I didn't do a dang thing to stop the lies, just like you aren't doing a dang thing to stop the lies about Rounds. Instead of waiting and finding out what the Feds say, you guys have already labeled him. Your party leader even tried to use that speculation to claim he couldn't even be elected. Some lawyer he is. He made himself look like a fool.

  32. WayneF 2014.11.07

    Yep. Stonewall. Stonewall again. And Again. That's how government works in a one-party state. Eventually voters and non-voters just give up.

  33. larry kurtz 2014.11.07

    Janklow didn't release his papers until after he was dead.

  34. Francis Schaffer 2014.11.07

    November 10 in which year?

  35. Bill Fleming 2014.11.07

    Daniel, how do we know you are using your real name?

  36. Bill Fleming 2014.11.07

    We all saw Mike Rounds lie in the last televised debate at least one time about each of his opponents, Daniel. We also watched him obfuscate and dodge questions. The evidence for his propensity to do this is empirical and on record in numerous formats. Had he been under oath at any of those moments he would be guilty of perjury. You know this as well as we do.

  37. Disgusted Dakotan 2014.11.07

    I am curious. Is Steve Hickey against summoning people before the GOAC as he voted during session, or is he for it once there was publicity in the press? Does he still say we have all we need to know as he did during the legislative session or does he still say we need to know more?

    Does he still believe Mike Rounds was "four times removed" from the scandal (Benda/Bollen) or has someone explained to him that Richard Benda worked directly for Mike Rounds?

  38. Lanny V Stricherz 2014.11.07

    When someone who is authorized to ask for an investigation and the person in charge refuses to do the investigation, "show us proof" doesn't work. That is stonewalling.

  39. Roger Cornelius 2014.11.07

    Daniel,
    A couple of simple questions, why didn't Tidemann subpoena Rounds to appear before GOAC and answer questions under oath? No it is not evidence, but it is a red flag.
    The second, since you appear to have inside information, what are the contents of the Daugaard federal subpoena that he won't reveal? And why doesn't he show real transparency in government and release that information?

  40. Roger Cornelius 2014.11.07

    Bill, you know as well as I do that when someone comments on a blog and another challenges them or ask questions, it is common to cop out by asking the challengers name. It usually implies that they can't answer the question.

  41. caheidelberger Post author | 2014.11.07

    Daniel, Rounds fails the EB-5 test far short of indictment for a crime. EB-5 was his idea. He interviewed Bollen. He let him run without a leash. He let him steal millions from the state. He let him break laws and did not punish him. He let him cheat Darley. He let him write an unauthorized contract to himself that guaranteed him a remarkable income stream. He rewarded Bollen with a no-bid contract. And now, even after we know everything Bollen did was wrong, Rounds sticks up for him. We have documentary evidence for every one of those claims.

    Don't try forcing us into the false dilemma of federal conviction or total vindication. Rounds facilitated and now defends corrupt and illegal behavior. I feel no obligation to excuse or defend Rounds's behavior in EB-5 or to accept that we can trust him to be an honest Senator.

  42. Steve Sanchez 2014.11.07

    Daniel, are you satisfied with the answers Mike Rounds has provided when asked about his participation and oversight of the EB-5 program? Do you believe he has told the truth and the whole truth in that regard? Are you satisfied with his implementation and oversight of the program? How do you feel about the contract Joop Bollen signed with the Rounds administration? Was it terminated without cause in your opinion?

  43. mike from iowa 2014.11.07

    Fall back on what's your name. What is this,a quiz show. My name is mike,I am from iowa,I released my name twice here since September. What difference does my name make to you? How do you verify it? By suggesting I have nothing but speculation or innuendo? Wingnuts have stalled and stonewalled then claimed privilege as reasons for the cover-up they have been perpetrating on citizens of this state.

    Why did Jackley close the investigation into the money Benda stole a year ago and then mysteriously re-open it this June? Did they have to wait and find a wingnut law firm they could overpay to get the money back from Benda's family?

    Passing this off as unprovable because your side gets to control all evidence is pure BULLSHIT!

  44. leslie 2014.11.07

    dipsheit Daniel- you evaded most all of my points. I am a name calling lawyer; rounds evaded having to testify under oath by tidemann and then lied in writing to the committee, got called on it by documentation in a Rapid City Journal front page article, and you say dems don't deserve an investigation.

    we see lots, lots, lots of smoke (see above dipsheit). we have been thru this with dozens of you people coming here doing what you are doing. we don't get paid for it. it is called integrity. your party has no credibility right now.

    rounds said this thing has been investigated to death, told his dad that's all we got and debated the issues once at KELO. he did not tell voters there is a pending FBI investigation. He dared the US Attorney to violate his oath. we honor it. we have waited for at least a year, and dang if the election didn't go by with a successful cover-up likely perpetrated on every one of the 800,000 people in SD.

    stop wasting our time as you work for who ever you are likely working for.

  45. Bill Fleming 2014.11.07

    Yes Roger I know. And it's a bad strategy, because it obliges him to answer questions he may not want to. Besides, he has no idea whether the name a person supplies is accurate or not.

    So in the end, it just makes him look foolish, uppity and paranoid, none of which are likely to be the case. But as we in marketing know, appearances are everything. And Daniel damages his brand with that "tell-me-your-name-or-I-won't-talk-to-you" act.

    Besides, there are people here whose names I don't even want to know. Grudznick for example. LOL

  46. Daniel Buresh 2014.11.07

    "Daniel, how do we know you are using your real name?"

    If I didn't, Cory would have already publicly condemned me and removed my posts. You guys ask for the names of people all the time. Why can't I?

  47. Daniel Buresh 2014.11.07

    "We all saw Mike Rounds lie in the last televised debate at least one time about each of his opponents, Daniel. We also watched him obfuscate and dodge questions. The evidence for his propensity to do this is empirical and on record in numerous formats. Had he been under oath at any of those moments he would be guilty of perjury. You know this as well as we do."

    By those standards, Weiland, Howie, and Pressler would be charged with perjury as well. Too bad it doesn't matter if they aren't under oath and saying so would be lying.

  48. Daniel Buresh 2014.11.07

    "When someone who is authorized to ask for an investigation and the person in charge refuses to do the investigation, "show us proof" doesn't work. That is stonewalling."

    Anyone can ask for an investigation, but that doesn't make the claim any more valid.

  49. Daniel Buresh 2014.11.07

    "A couple of simple questions, why didn't Tidemann subpoena Rounds to appear before GOAC and answer questions under oath? No it is not evidence, but it is a red flag."

    I don't believe Tidemann nor the GOAC have the authority to subpoena private citizens.

    "The second, since you appear to have inside information, what are the contents of the Daugaard federal subpoena that he won't reveal? And why doesn't he show real transparency in government and release that information?"

    I don't have any information. I am simply claiming you can't legitimately call rounds a felon. I don't know, maybe you could email and ask him?

  50. larry kurtz 2014.11.07

    Fleming, how do i know i'm using my real name?

  51. Roger Cornelius 2014.11.07

    Holy Wow!
    If you haven't read the letter and accompanying questions that Tidemann sent to Bollen, it is a must read.
    The first thing that came to mind was that Cory's coverage of EB-5 is the narrative for the questions asked of Bollen and asks many of the same questions that we here on Madville have asked.
    After reading the questions, I'd say Bollen is a fool to answer any of them and had better hire competent legal council, there are plenty of opportunities for Bollen to implicate a whole bunch of lawyers, consultants, legislators, and higher up.
    Not being a sworn statement, it is likely that Bollen won't be charge with perjury if he does answer and lies. An answer to any group of questions could conceivably lead to indictments and charges for others involved.
    If Bollen refuses to answer, as I expect him to do, he is giving credence to the accusations against himself and the Mike Rounds administration.

  52. Bill Fleming 2014.11.07

    You can. You did. And for the same reason you gave about Cory screening you, it's unnecessary.

    Besides, I've not seen anyone play the "I won't talk to you if you don't" card without losing credibility themselves.

    Plus, promising to answer if you get a name obligates you unnecessarily and sets you up for breaking your word. This is just a blog, Daniel, not a courtroom. Lighten up.

  53. Bill Fleming 2014.11.07

    You don't Kurtz. And that's an awesome spiritual point. Om shanti. LOL

  54. Roger Cornelius 2014.11.07

    Daniel,
    You are becoming a Mike Rounds echo chamber.

    You may not like the words we chose to use, but we are not lawyers, we are South Dakota citizens that obviously got duped by the Mike Rounds administration and want some answers and not the dog an pony show we'll get from the next GOAC meeting.

  55. Daniel Buresh 2014.11.07

    "Daniel, Rounds fails the EB-5 test far short of indictment for a crime. EB-5 was his idea."

    Not a crime.

    "He interviewed Bollen."

    Not a crime.

    "He let him run without a leash."

    Benda was his leash, but he went rogue. Still not a crime on Round's part.

    "He let him steal millions from the state."

    I don't think you know what the definition for steal is. Not a crime Round's committed.

    "He let him break laws and did not punish him."

    You have no proof of that, nor do you know if any laws were broke.

    "He let him cheat Darley."

    You have no proof of that. Not a crime.

    "He let him write an unauthorized contract to himself that guaranteed him a remarkable income stream."

    Still not a crime. His involvement is still not fully know.

    "He rewarded Bollen with a no-bid contract."

    Not a crime as it was less than the required bid process.

    "And now, even after we know everything Bollen did was wrong, Rounds sticks up for him. We have documentary evidence for every one of those claims."

    You have yet to document a crime. You have yet to prove Bollen committed a crime. Definitely may be some ethical concerns on Bollens part, but still not a crime.

    "Don't try forcing us into the false dilemma of federal conviction or total vindication. Rounds facilitated and now defends corrupt and illegal behavior. I feel no obligation to excuse or defend Rounds's behavior in EB-5 or to accept that we can trust him to be an honest Senator."

    I'm not forcing you into any dilemna. I am just asking you to prove the crimes and all i hear is "we don't have that info"...."we don't know".....yet you guys are already ready to throw him in the clink. Our judicial system doesn't work that way.

  56. Bill Fleming 2014.11.07

    Where a are those Q's Roger, I forget?

  57. Roger Cornelius 2014.11.07

    Is grudz really a people? I wonder sometimes.

  58. Daniel Buresh 2014.11.07

    Stay classy, Leslie. I thought this place was getting somewhat better but then you proved me this place hasn't changed.

  59. larry kurtz 2014.11.07

    i did not have sexual relations with that woman, ms. bollen.

  60. Daniel Buresh 2014.11.07

    "You can. You did. And for the same reason you gave about Cory screening you, it's unnecessary.

    Besides, I've not seen anyone play the "I won't talk to you if you don't" card without losing credibility themselves.

    Plus, promising to answer if you get a name obligates you unnecessarily and sets you up for breaking your word. This is just a blog, Daniel, not a courtroom. Lighten up."

    It's not worth my time to speak with people who don't use there name. If I choose that is my basis, that is my choice. Who's the real coward?

  61. Daniel Buresh 2014.11.07

    "Daniel,
    You are becoming a Mike Rounds echo chamber.

    You may not like the words we chose to use, but we are not lawyers, we are South Dakota citizens that obviously got duped by the Mike Rounds administration and want some answers and not the dog an pony show we'll get from the next GOAC meeting."

    If expecting proof before convicting someone, then call me an echo chamber all you want. Even Cory has enough sense not to claim Rounds is a felon. He knows he has no concrete proof which is why when he speculate's, it is always a question. He wants you guys to run with it.

  62. Bill Fleming 2014.11.07

    "By those standards, Weiland, Howie, and Pressler would be charged with perjury as well. Too bad it doesn't matter if they aren't under oath and saying so would be lying."

    Not only is the first part of this false, the last part of it is unintelligible.
    Mike was the only one lying in that debate. He knew it, and so did everyone else. The moderators had to cut them off and break their own rules to save his behind from Mr. Howie.

  63. Daniel Buresh 2014.11.07

    Yet, you can't prove it Bill. You seem to think all the claims by your candidates are truths and only those of Round's are lies. That just proves this argument is pointless. You can't look at things objectively.

    Let me ask you this Bill, is Rounds a felon? Yes or No. Let's keep it simple.

  64. Roger Cornelius 2014.11.07

    Bill, in Cory's blog above highlighted by the blue that says "To Bollen".

  65. Daniel Buresh 2014.11.07

    You better go back and read that Larry. Even Cory uses words like "potential" and "alleged". Even he isn't willing to throw his blogging credibility under the bus until he knows for a fact that Rounds committed a crime. He's smarter than the rest of you when it comes to speculating and making claims that may end up being false.

  66. larry kurtz 2014.11.07

    Felon under South Dakota law felon ≠ felon under federal law.

  67. larry kurtz 2014.11.07

    for those not on twitter or following 100eyes DB is sdwarelephant and tigerblood.

  68. Roger Cornelius 2014.11.07

    Daniel,
    You have absolutely no idea what Cory has access to or who his sources are, like I said, Cory's narrative over the past year about Rounds, Bollen, and Benda have proven fruitful by the questions Tidemann is asking Bollen.

  69. Roger Cornelius 2014.11.07

    Let's give Daniel a break and use the phrase, soon to be indicted Senator-Elect Mike Rounds.

  70. Daniel Buresh 2014.11.07

    hahaha....I'll take that as a compliment. Those guys know their stuff, at least TigerBlood does. Haven't even heard of the other one. I may have ran into them before but I wouldn't know who they are.

  71. Bill Fleming 2014.11.07

    No, Rounds has not been convicted of a felony, nor has he been charged with one. It remains to be seen whether any of the people involved (other than Benda) are suspect enough to be accused by the investigators and indicted by the grand jury for any criminal activity.

    But as we all know, there is sufficient suspicion to have warranted at least three official investigations. No one here is doing anything other than to try to understand and follow it. It is a puzzlement.

    And your willingness to brush it all off is curious. Either you have no curiosity, or you are so blindly partisan that you feel obliged to run interference for no particular reason whatsoever. The election is over, Daniel. Why are you here arguing with these people?

  72. Daniel Buresh 2014.11.07

    "You have absolutely no idea what Cory has access to or who his sources are, like I said, Cory's narrative over the past year about Rounds, Bollen, and Benda have proven fruitful by the questions Tidemann is asking Bollen."

    Yeah I do, because he would have posted it already and whored it out for traffic. Don't kid yourself.

    "Let's give Daniel a break and use the phrase, soon to be indicted Senator-Elect Mike Rounds."

    We are making progress. At least you are willing to admit that calling Rounds a felon is a lie. You aren't giving me any break. I'll sit here and point out the lies that you guys try to pass off as truths for as long as it takes.

  73. Daniel Buresh 2014.11.07

    "No, Rounds has not been convicted of a felony, nor has he been charged with one. It remains to be seen whether any of the people involved (other than Benda) are suspect enough to be accused by the investigators and indicted by the grand jury for any criminal activity."

    And that is all I am waiting for before we start locking people up and destroying their lives. That is not a big thing to ask for.

    "But as we all know, there is sufficient suspicion to have warranted at least three official investigations. No one here is doing anything other than to try to understand and follow it. It is a puzzlement."

    I agree. There is suspicion. Now that the state can't find any criminal activity, they will have to see what the Feds find. Until then, I won't condemn anyone.

    "And your willingness to brush it all off is curious. Either you have no curiosity, or you are so blindly partisan that you feel obliged to run interference for no particular reason whatsoever. The election is over, Daniel. Why are you here arguing with these people?"

    I'm not brushing anything off other than not accepting speculation as truths. I am just sick of this place pushing lie after lie without anything to back it up. Cory baits you with a possibility and a week later you all have repeated it enough to think it is true. I argue with you for the same reason I don't go to the DWC. What is the point of a circle jerk with everyone thinking the same? I come to debate and come to a conclusion based on facts. If I needed to go somewhere where everyone patted me on the back and agreed with everything I said, I'd go to DWC or maybe group therapy.

  74. larry kurtz 2014.11.07

    progress≠gop

  75. Daniel Buresh 2014.11.07

    Larry, I created a twitter account a year ago, made 1 or 2 posts, and never went into it again. @NDRoughneck

  76. Lanny V Stricherz 2014.11.07

    I never once called MMR a felon nor have I convicted him, even though I certainly think that he is guilty. All of what I have said to you Mr Buresh, are questions of why the GOP has not allowed investigation and I stand by that.

    At least larry gave us our first smile during this whole discussion. Your question larry of how do I know that I am who I say I am, was great. It reminds me of the statement the gal makes when she says that she is pregnant and being her boyfriend is always messing around, she is not sure that the baby she is carrying is her own.

  77. Roger Cornelius 2014.11.07

    Daniel,
    You consistently state that there is no evidence against Mike Rounds for anything related to the EB-5 scandal, we also know that the phrase "innocent until proven guilty by a court of law" is a proclamation that applies to our court system.
    There is also the court of public opinion that carries weight when we examine people that have legal problems, courts have to weigh that differences all the time and it often influences the courts and juries. Maybe that court of public of opinion shouldn't influence a courts decision, but it often does.
    Those of us on Madville are the court of public opinion and we have the right to make our decisions and judgments unencumbered with legal jargon.
    Therefore, I will continue to call Mike Rounds a felon until he proves otherwise. Mike had the opportunity to clear his name by testifying under oath at the last GOAC hearing, he chose to ignore them and submitted a campaign letter in response to their questions, he had an opportunity to prove his innocence and chose not to.

  78. Bill Fleming 2014.11.07

    Okay pretty good answers. So do you agree that ther appears to be a concerted effort to minimize, limit, and generally gloss the whole EB-5 issue over? I'll write that off as politics and wanting to focus on winning an election. But now that that has past, why not join us in wanting to get to the bottom of this and find out all the answers once and for all? Why chide people here for wanting to know the whole story?

  79. Daniel Buresh 2014.11.07

    Roger,
    And when you are met with someone who doesn't agree, at least you can be civil and understand that your position holds less weight than does one who is taking a wait and see approach. However you need to justify your judgement is none of my concern, but don't expect others to accept it as fact. The problem with the court of public opinion is they only think they know everything, when they could be entirely ignorant of it all. There is a reason why bloggers aren't considered journalists and protected under law, and part of that reason is there is no obligation to pursue the entire truth and not just the side they want. He has no innocence to prove at this point. The left would never accept what he says during a campaign whether truthful or not.

  80. larry kurtz 2014.11.07

    maybe group sex is more organic than silly jurisprudence.

  81. Daniel Buresh 2014.11.07

    "Okay pretty good answers. So do you agree that ther appears to be a concerted effort to minimize, limit, and generally gloss the whole EB-5 issue over? I'll write that off as politics and wanting to focus on winning an election. "

    Yes, I believe there was during the campaign because that was a no win solution even if it entirely vindicated Rounds. I don't believe they thought "hey, a crime was committed so let's hide it". I think it was more of a "let's avoid it entirely because it will never work in our favor no matter the outcome." It doesn't really matter what an investigation is about because we always take it as negative.

    "But now that that has past, why not join us in wanting to get to the bottom of this and find out all the answers once and for all? Why chide people here for wanting to know the whole story?"

    I am simply waiting for the Feds to come out with it all. I think it will be more about Bollen and his "banking" actions. I am more focused on the controls that go forward. Frankly, we need some huge audit controls. I find it a bit funny that we hold the private sector to different standards, but that is pretty normal. Dem and Repub leaders like to give themselves golden parachutes. And yes, we need some controls on documents and emails, at least based on pay grade. I don't think we need long-term data retention policies for seasonal workers. We can be smart about this.

  82. larry kurtz 2014.11.07

    climax has been very, very good for me.

  83. Steve Sanchez 2014.11.07

    Now that you've returned to the idea of pursuing the entire truth and not just one side of the story, I wonder if you would be so kind as to respond to my questions, Mr. Buresh. It seems you have set aside some time this evening to answer questions and respond to allegations posted here.

    Are you satisfied with the answers Mike Rounds has provided when asked about his participation in and oversight of the EB-5 program? Do you believe he has told the truth and the whole truth in that regard? Are you satisfied with his implementation and oversight of the program? How do you feel about the contract the Rounds administration entered into with Joop Bollen? Do you believe that contract may have been terminated without cause?

  84. Bill Fleming 2014.11.07

    Rogers position is similar to Napolianic Law I think. Those systems assume guilt until proven innocent. So do a lot of cops and States Attornerys. :-)

  85. Lanny V Stricherz 2014.11.07

    Daniel, You wrote, " Frankly, we need some huge audit controls."

    You do realize that is the job of the legislature's GOAC, to which Kathy Tyler appealed for an investigation, don't you?

  86. Daniel Buresh 2014.11.07

    I live on a computer unfortunately. I enjoy it but even I will disconnect at some point.

    "Are you satisfied with the answers Mike Rounds has provided when asked about his participation in and oversight of the EB-5 program?"

    I believe he knows that EB-5 oversight probably wasn't where it should have been, but I also think he is a bit torn about what was going on as far as Benda's attempts to skim and manipulate documents to possible reap some benefits in the end. I think if you spoke with him personally, you would notice someone who had a longtime colleague do something that they wish they could have helped them with before they killed themselves. To us, this is just another bureaucrat who stole from us. To him, it was a lot more emotional. This is so hard to explain through text as I am not much of a wordsmith.

    " Do you believe he has told the truth and the whole truth in that regard?"

    I believe we got the truth, but I don't believe it was everything. Whether he is protecting Benda or protecting himself, I don't know. If the feds don't find anything, I don't think we will ever know.

    "Are you satisfied with his implementation and oversight of the program?"

    Yes and No. I believe initially the entire thing was fine. Where the idea came to privatize is an entirely different story and I think that is where the ball got going. Hypothetical but......It's 2008, and the economy is going down the crapper. Rounds wants to keep EB-5 going b/c that is a huge source of revenue for the people of the state. BOR makes a stir and wants Bollen out. Bollen decides this is his chance to persuade the powers that be to go solo. He has good proof, including 48 states and the perfect way to do it. Rounds says to Benda, go for it, we need to keep this program going and basically subsidizing more economic growth. Bollen, IMO, was in the right place at the right time and he took advantage. So Bollen is now making bank off of fees the state wasn't collecting. Benda notices this after a while and concocts a plan to get Bollen more cash in return for a position and other money he gets from the state. There may be more to that even. Plan collapses and Benda kills himself since he knows he is the only one who did something illegal directly. Now, we can blame the man or we can blame the state for not having controls in place to allow for someone to do it. It won't be the last even if those controls are created, but it might be a deterrent.

    "How do you feel about the contract the Rounds administration entered into with Joop Bollen?"

    That is ethically wrong, but I do question who knew what when and if that was followed through with or not.

    "Do you believe that contract may have been terminated without cause?"

    I believe it was terminated with cause, but I don't know if Rounds knew about the inception of it all or if he was just expecting Benda to handle it all properly. Whether it is Obama or Rounds, these guys put a lot of faith into a lot of people. It only takes one to make them look like a fool.

  87. Daniel Buresh 2014.11.07

    "You do realize that is the job of the legislature's GOAC, to which Kathy Tyler appealed for an investigation, don't you?"

    I am talking in the moment, not after the fact. I still don't see anything that is going to come from the financial side of the state that is someone other than Benda. Put on all the pomp and circumstance and get it over with. I can guarantee you that Jackley reviewed the bank accounts of a lot of people in the Benda investigation. His or the Feds findings are all that really matter. If any indictments come, you can bet that would be a part of it.

  88. Bill Fleming 2014.11.07

    Really? How can you guarantee that, Daniel? Or were you just using a touch of hyperbole. I'm really enjoying your answers by the way. Much better conversation once we made it past the goofiness. ;-)

  89. bret clanton 2014.11.07

    I for one would like to commend Mr. Buresh for posting his convictions in his given name.....Way more refreshing and enjoyable to read than seeing discussions taking place in the form of a string of anonymous postings on other blogs......oh and everyone else also.....

  90. Roger Cornelius 2014.11.07

    As suspected, Daniel is a Rounds and Jackley insider or is being fed information by the attorney general's office.

    "I can guarantee you that Jackley reviewed the bank accounts of a lot of people in the Benda investigation".

    Now Daniel, just how can you make that guarantee when the rest of South Dakota don't have that information? What was found in those reviews of bank accounts, did they include Rounds, Daugaard, and Jackley himself?

  91. Les 2014.11.07

    """documentation in a Rapid City Journal front page article, and you say dems don't deserve an investigation"""" You Dems don't police your own. Don't the citizens of SD deserve an investigation.?
    .
    A cell phone more than likely purchased with cash, used to make robo calls and a pissed off governor. That's all it took for "a state agency that can't find its own ass with both hands" to prove me wrong and brighten the skies with their ability. Stupid is we, Daniel.
    .
    The delay and obfuscation by our party is criminal at best and morally corrupt at least. Does it deserve the attention it's getting here when each and every piece has had to be drilled out and replayed like the crossword puzzle it is? Not only yes, but hell yes.

  92. Roger Cornelius 2014.11.07

    Daniel's comment at 19:15 is full of speculation and yet he chides the rest of us for just that.

  93. Steve Sanchez 2014.11.07

    Thanks. I appreciate your responding to those questions. You were under no obligation to do so, yet you did. Here's where I think MMR and the SDGOP dug themselves a hole. MMR was not required to sit in front of the GOAC and answer questions related to their investigation. It appeared as though he was being protected. From what? When he replied -in writing- to the softball questions lobbed to him, MMR was found to have provided a false statement in one instance. He responded with contempt to a few questions and did not answer others. Follow up questions were asked and responded to by correspondence.

    The suggestion that Mike Rounds and his brother, Dennis, who oversaw all lawsuits against the state didn't once discuss the Darley suit involving such a huge source of revenue is outlandish. Instead of responding to citizen concerns and providing proof there is nothing to be concerned about, there has been a significant effort on the part of Rounds, many attorneys - including AG Jackley, to conceal and withhold documents/evidence that would shed light on the investigation.

    I could point out many other reasons to be skeptical of the handling of this issue but I'm on a phone that is fading faster than the hopes of Joop Bollen coming out of this thing unscathed.

  94. lesliengland 2014.11.07

    db/@tigerblood/@sdwarelephant-

    1. when did you get concerned about EB5?

    2. a special prosecutor should have been considered before the election.

    3. one of the state reporters is a lawyer, too. has he made a fool out of himself?

    4. you complain about name calling and use of real names yet call us liars, grrrr.

    5. rounds' lie to the committee is either a misdemeanor or felony, according to those foolish two lawyers we have working for or leading the dem party. look thru the blog for the sdcl and usca citations.

    6. lawyers are expensive. $500k for fixing joop's lil' screw up of a federal lawsuit against the state that he and his lawyer hid from all joop's bosses.

    we dems don't have the state's budget. how much do you think the dozens if not more lawyers at daugaard's disposal thruout the state have cost the taxpayers?

    7. jackley has no credibility. this blog can tell you why. he is a political animal. there goes the benefit of a state investigation by his 100 lawyers and thousands of law enforcement members that could get to the bottom if allowed to.

    thus the need for a special prosecutor.

    8. you tend to cherry-pick. go back thru my previous post or two and answer the questions. your credibility is not reliable yet.

  95. Daniel Buresh 2014.11.07

    Hyperbole. I can't guarantee that. We do know they would have had full access into Benda's account. Unless they could directly tie the little over 500k to someone else, it would have ended there as far as the state was concerned. Now, if they noticed other things that they suspected may deal with EB-5, that probably ended up in the Feds hands. Though, I suspect the Feds already looked. No, I am not some insider. I should not have stated that in the manner I did.

    "Daniel's comment at 19:15 is full of speculation and yet he chides the rest of us for just that."

    Yes it is, but I'm not going to state it is true. It is simply what I have determined and if someone wants to ask me about it, I will tell them. In no way would I expect it to be taken as true.

  96. jerry 2014.11.07

    You can tell the EB-5 still has legs because it damn sure has a mouth with DB. I am prepared to continue to purchase popcorn and read with much delight as the slow train to indictment rolls on down the line. Many of us will laugh our collective asses off when the train finally reaches its destination to take our little feller off to the hoosegow. Maybe Rounds will have some time to learn Dutch with his cellmate ole Joop whiling away the hours in Marion. Damn, did I say Marion Federal Prison, oh the irony...Marion for Marion Rounds. That should be the Democratic t shirts. Hunter orange with the little fellers mug shot on it.

  97. lesliengland 2014.11.07

    aa-u know what delude means? maybe brett or db@tigerblood@sdwarelephant can help.

    this fed program is/was administered to the tune of $600 or 700 mill. cash flow BY THE STATE OF SD BY TWO GUYS ROUNDS AND DAUGAARD HIRED, MANIPULATED SALARIES FOR, ECT. We do not know how much money, auctioning and manipulation has occurred yet.

    But so far, thats a lot of money in this little state. the feds provided the green cards, the state got the money. then joop and benda did something that rounds and daugaard and jackley, NSU, Regents, and Tidemann are lying about, soft-pedalling and covering up. besides stealing records, making email accounts go away, and setting up Rep. Tyler for a fall by DARK MONEY types in the SDGOP, this train just keeps on rollin', and rounds himself gave up on this "its a fed program" evasion weeks ago. watch his pathetic evasion on the KELO debate.

    Holder is/was likely busy frying bigger fish.

  98. lesliengland 2014.11.07

    db/sdwdumbo/bloodytiger-rounds also influenced the banking commissioners.

    have you read the testimony there, the arbitration testimony, the thousand pages of docs cory found and many of us have read here over the last year?

    and yet you are criticizing that process of squeezing information out of daugaard's state administration that is in full cover-up mode?? he avoided GOAC cross examination too, buddy.

  99. 90 schilling 2014.11.07

    Expecting Dennis Rounds to protect anything but himself is a stretch. Dennis Rounds is no friend of DD and that could be the weak link after Benda. If he was indeed a weak link.
    .
    Can we assume you will work pro bono on this issue, lesliengland? I'll throw $1000 your way for your first conviction of an office holder. It will get too rich for my blood after that when the rats desert the ship.

  100. leslie 2014.11.07

    retired.

  101. Roger Cornelius 2014.11.07

    anon continues the Rounds line of EB-5 is a federal program except that Rounds, Daugaard, Bollen, Benda, Jackley were not federal employees administering the EB-5 program. How does that work anon?
    And Daniel provides us with a Rounds answer about guaranteeing a lot of bank accounts were reviewed by Jackley and having to go back and amend his answer.
    My question remains, how and where Daniel got that information? You don't just announce something as incriminating as that. Daniel's poor explanation leads me to believe his first answer on the guarantee was the right one.

  102. Roger Cornelius 2014.11.07

    Think back to when Jackley announced that the EB-5 investigation was over and Daugaard followed up with basically the same announcement after the audits were completed. At that time any blame they had was for Benda's double billing on travel expenses. The Future Fund grant that Benda kept for himself wasn't fully disclosed until later.
    When they blamed Benda, there was no mention of Bollen and his role in EB-5, by all appearances Jackley and Daugaard were protecting Bollen way back then and continue to do so today. Why?

  103. Jana 2014.11.08

    Hi Anon!

    That EB-5 is a federal program is true. But Rounds and the GOED played it like a Ronald Reagan welfare queen.

    The abuse happened here. Yep, right here in good old South Dakota.

    No federal employee has been implicated in the improprieties.

    This abuse of power is home grown and as nasty as a piece of South Dakota Certified Beef left on a hot porch for a week.

    The "it's a federal program" free pass doesn't work here.

    Care to try again?

  104. leslie 2014.11.08

    it seems as if republicans do not wanting us talking about EB5 anymore.

    at the end of the Darley federal lawsuit settled a month or so before the election(conveniently)in arbitration, rounds and Regents and others proclaimed-"see, no merit to partisan claims, witch-hunt, nasty democrats, purely political, fully exhonorated...." Broad SDGOP cover-up, looks like, wouldn't you say?

    so alano, we have heard this before. so boring.

    then, days before the election (conveniently), the arbitrator denied SD its request for $500,000 atty fees, costs so rounds got to re-exclaim "no foul" all over again, right before the election.

    alano-u may not know this but the judge then severely criticized the state for its monkey business in the litigation, in writing, and so did opposing counsel.

    when this was done, then a third time, the day before the election, Regents publically announced it was making the formal pleadings and evidence and transcripts public. Finally (conveniently). More free electioneering on behalf of rounds and daugaard's races. (convenient)

    you paid for all these shenanigans as a south dakotan (if you are one).

    Mr. alonon -you don't get it. feds don't interfere with elections. they have integrity that way. we hope your people get it.

    you still here?

  105. mike from iowa 2014.11.08

    The language Tidemann used to invite Warner is different from that used to invite Bollen. Perfectly reasonable answer. A person uses different sets of mouth muscles when actually saying words as opposed to puckering up and kissing Bollen's arse.

  106. Bill Fleming 2014.11.08

    Anon may have a point. When states try to prevent certain groups of people from voting, the Feds bust their chops. I wonder if that's what he means. Why do I suspect it's not?

  107. Bill Fleming 2014.11.08

    Trying to find meaning and substance here.

    So far, I see the 4th estate (news media activity) being confused with the Federal Government. I suppose you could say that We the People influence elections via the 1st Amendment, and since We=Government, as per the US Constitution, that means the Fed is 'interfering' with elections. But that would be imbecilic. Are you an imbecile, anon?

  108. larry kurtz 2014.11.08

    The GOP knew that Rounds was compromised so they inserted Larry Pressler into the race to distract the electorate and siphon resources from a strong Democratic contender: it worked.

  109. Bill Fleming 2014.11.08

    Information on Federal activities can be obtained through the Freedom of Information act. A reporter doing his job and a justice employee telling the truth is good, not bad. Only an imbecile or a partisan boot-licker trying to hide something would see it differently.

  110. Bill Fleming 2014.11.08

    Anon betrays his true position by posting anonymously. If he's going to insult named posters, he is a coward if he won't do it face to face. His hiding behind 'anon' proves he wants information hidden. One need not look any further than that. His desire to deceive is obvious before he ever types the first word of his argument.

  111. jerry 2014.11.08

    Watch the new GOP in action now that they have the power in Washington continue to kill Dodd-Frank to protect the 1% greed. Here is just another brick in the wall of how not electing an honest man in the senate will come back to cause great harm to South Dakota and the rest of the country. Thune supports this so you can be assured that Rounds will as his track record has shown. http://www.democracynow.org/2014/11/7/matt_taibbi_and_bank_whistleblower_on

  112. Bill Fleming 2014.11.08

    Rainy days influence elections. Let's blame the Weather Channel and the Federal Government who issued the storm warnings! This guy's a crackpot partisan whiner Cory. Somebody call the wah-mbulance. :-)

  113. Lanny V Stricherz 2014.11.08

    Or you could live in Minnehaha, Les, and have Bob Litz for county auditor, who couldn't run a farting contest much less an election, and yet win his race handily because he has an R by his name. He was promising early returns on election afternoon, because of the new machines and then blamed the voters for not marking their ballots properly, as to why the votes weren't counted until noon the next day.

  114. JeniW 2014.11.08

    I think it is funny that some people acted like it was some type of national crisis that it took a few more hours to count all the ballots.

    It is like hearing people who live their life around football game schedules, when they know full well that the winner of the game will be announced in the late night news, or the next day early news.

    There was a photo of a marked ballot in the local newspaper. The person who marked it used an "x" instead of coloring in the bubble. Well duh....

  115. Bill Fleming 2014.11.08

    If a machine can't tell what a voter intended, it's a bad machine. There is no such thing as a bad voter.

  116. JeniW 2014.11.08

    Machines are made by humans. Humans are imperfect, and so are the things that they make, say, and do.

    You are correct, there is no such thing as a bad voter, but have we all not been trained from our grade school days to fill in the bubble? :)

    (BTW, I did not vote for Mr. Litz.)

  117. Bill Fleming 2014.11.08

    Yes, JeniW but voting isn't an aptitude test or a job application.

    The voters are the boss. Candidates are job applicants. Auditors are the bosses' secretaries.

    If your boss marks your evaluation sheet with an x instead of a check mark, it still means they think you deserve the job.

    A check mark means the same as a filled in circle and should be counted that way. Otherwise, we the people might end up hiring the wrong employees.

  118. JeniW 2014.11.08

    I agree Bill,

    The solution is to have machines that recognize any and all markings.

    Are there machines available yet that can do that? If not, what is the alternative?

  119. leslie 2014.11.08

    stool leg 2 of the GOP is to restrict the vote, leg 1 was obstruction. what will replace that these next few years, and do they have a third leg? it is certainly not limited government. war?

  120. bret clanton 2014.11.08

    lesliengland........I was simply being sarcastic in reference to a certain blog that makes a post and then comments anonymously himself while deleting opposing views......geeeezzz.....

  121. leslie 2014.11.08

    sorry for that brett, got pretty snarky last night.

  122. Bill Fleming 2014.11.08

    Sure there are, Jeni. They have machines that can read your handwriting or listen to your voice and type it for you. We all use technology every day that is more advanced than what these voting machines do. I have no idea why those voting systems are so remedial. But to the degree they can't do the whole job, it should be finished by hand, which it sounds like they did. Or tried to anyway.

  123. JeniW 2014.11.08

    Thank you for the information Bill.

  124. Bill Fleming 2014.11.08

    Anytime, JeniW. :-)

  125. Les 2014.11.08

    Come on, Bill. Don't ya know it is alway computer error. No such thing as man made error. Come to think of it, I haven't heard that in a while. It used to be the go to word speak, back when folks didn't know puters don't genrally make mistakes.

    Brett, I think we need to meet lengland one of these days, he can buy drinks and I'll buy the burgers. Cory has my number if you get close to the Hills.

  126. Jane 2014.11.09

    Daniel, you must be aware of "Ethics Laws". Bollen committed many ethics violations.
    1. During the time he was a regular STATE employee, prior to 2007 contracting, he DID take money from James Park, in the tune of in tens of thousands of dollars.
    2. During the time he was a regular STATE employee, he set up a company in the same line of business. Then he took the business clients, opportunities which was property of the state and transferred it to his private company.
    3. He used the STATE as his tool to market his new company. This was a critical tool, because the foreigners would not have given him a second without it. He did not give the state any type of compensation for using it as a tool.
    4. He also took intellectual and material assets that belonged to NSU without NSU approval. That is called STEALING.
    These are heavey ETHICS violations, and the guys is not properly, legally processed, then that justification needs to be explained.

  127. Jane 2014.11.09

    Daniel, here is another fact. Bollen did pay for his Green Card too. He paid a woman to marry him and gave her tens of thousands in exchange. I challenge you to go and ask him.

  128. Les 2014.11.09

    Jane, don't go hunting alone, we need you.

  129. Jane 2014.11.09

    As for Mike Rounds, if he truly were unaware of Bollen's deceit, he should be pissed as hell for making him look like a stupid clown and incompetent. He would DEMAND a full investigation and prosecution of Bollen and anyone affiliated.
    If his character was defamanted by Bollen, full scale legal action is a no shiet Sherlock. Instead of a response by mail, it should be a face to face inquiry. Otherwise, the audit body is failing to its job.

  130. Jane 2014.11.09

    Daniel, the people on this site are bipartisan. The intelligent conversations have been to provoke thinking. On occasion certain people say bullish name calling to ridicule the conversations. Cory has done an amazing job to keep the debates alive and with "material" information to keep it real and with FACTS.

  131. Jane 2014.11.09

    GOAC needs to treat this seriously and with integrity. Otherwise when the FED investigation exposes all, I'm certain GOAC wants to avoid looking incompetant.

  132. Tim 2014.11.09

    Jane, based on past performance, the GOAC doesn't care if they look incompetent or not. The federal investigation is the only chance we have of getting the truth.

  133. Les 2014.11.09

    "" I'm certain GOAC wants to avoid looking incompetent"" Appearing competent is subjective, Jane. I wouldn't be to certain of anything with Tideman. If this gets much hotter, I wouldn't be surprised if another piece of meat gets thrown to the wolves. I wonder whom that might be? Bet its not Joop!

  134. Jane 2014.11.09

    The vote results were way off the projections. The anaylysis doesn't add up. Since rounds likes "repeal", can his election be repealed?

  135. larry kurtz 2014.11.09

    Mercer just tweeted that regent Randy Morris of Spearditch has croaked. Who's on first?

  136. grudznick 2014.11.09

    The regents will appoint somebody else for life. It is too bad Mr. H doesn't live in spearfish any more because he would be a good one. A blogging regent.

Comments are closed.