Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Elizabeth Warren sure is secretive about her fancy Cambridge house

Elizabeth Warren sure is secretive about her fancy Cambridge house

In 2012 she insisted her home was “off-the-record” for visiting reporters, and now the Free Beacon reveals she didn’t disclose a line of credit.

http://aol.it/Sp6PLS

It’s certainly understandable that so much attention has focused on Elizabeth Warren’s claim to be Native American for employment purposes as she was climbing the law professor ladder.

It’s a story which exposes her weak spot — she has perfected the politics of victimhood, yet she victimized one of the most historically victimized groups, the Cherokee, by using their identity to aid her career.

Her inability to acknowledge what she did and apologize reveals a character trait that is not very becoming.

Yet there are many other scandals and peculiarities in her past, as we have documented at ElizabethWarrenWiki.org, from inaccurate descriptions of her corporate legal work, to nickel-and-diming the federal electronic court docket system despite an almost million-dollar-a-year family income, to the flat out bizarre claim that she was the first nursing mother to take the New Jersey Bar Exam.

There was one other peculiarity from the 2012 Senate campaign that I also remembered when I saw a Free Beacon article about Warren’s non-disclosure of a home equity line of credit.

First, the Free Beacon article, The Time Elizabeth Warren Used Loophole to Avoid Disclosing $1.3M Line of Credit:

A U.S. senator who took advantage of a loophole in ethics laws to avoid disclosing a $1.3 million credit line against her home is now warning that incomplete financial disclosures from cabinet nominees put the country at risk.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s (D., Mass.) warning came in the Washington Post, where she wrote that “it is critical that each nominee follows basic ethics rules to ensure that they will act for the benefit of all the American people.”

Warren argued that financial disclosures are needed to “reveal potentially damaging information that may undermine fitness to serve” and that nominees with “complex financial histories” need to be “forthcoming and transparent.”

Warren, meanwhile, continues to skirt congressional ethics laws by failing to include a $1.3 million line of credit against her Cambridge, Massachusetts, home on financial disclosure forms.

The line of credit was extended to Warren and her husband Bruce Mann in 2007 through financial giant Bank of America. It was first noted by the Boston Herald after Warren failed to included the line of credit as a liability on her 2014 financial disclosure filing. It was also absent from her 2015 filing.

An aide for Warren, who is worth millions, defended the omission, stating at the time that a home equity line of credit like the one that Warren received from Bank of America doesn’t have the same reporting requirements as a typical home mortgage, which would have to be reported.

The STOCK Act, which was signed into law in 2012, mandated that all members of Congress disclose details of any mortgages on their personal residences in their annual filings.

The legislation, however, does not mention home equity lines of credit, which banks offer as alternatives to a mortgage.

The Warren aide said that the senator had yet to borrow on the line of credit, which allowed her to leave it off disclosure forms.

I don’t know if Warren’s non-disclosure of the home equity line of credit violated any laws or Senate rules. But the story jogged my memory about how secretive she was during the 2012 Senate campaign about her apparently-luxurious multi-million dollar home in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

I recalled that Warren had a ground rule for reporters allowed into her home; the inside of the house was deemed “off the record” and could not be reported on. It must be quite impressive for her not to want people to know about it given her political persona demonizing people who got rich:

“I hear all this, you know, ‘Well, this is class warfare, this is whatever,’” she said. “No. There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody.

“You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear: you moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for; you hired workers the rest of us paid to educate; you were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did.

“Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea? God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”

An otherwise glowing 2011 article in NY Magazine described the procedure, A Saint With Sharp Elbows (emphasis added):

The contrast between the Massachusetts Everyman and the Harvard Professor is one that Republicans are eager to make—and one that Warren’s campaign has spent much of its time trying to rebut. Indeed, Warren’s advisers can be almost paranoid about how she is portrayed. When another reporter recently went to interview Warren at the house she shares with her second husband, a fellow law professor, Warren’s campaign allowed it only on the condition that the house itself—a restored Victorian a few blocks from Harvard Square that, according to financial-disclosure forms, is valued between $1 million and $5 million­—was off the record.

Strange, huh?

A recent poll in Massachusetts indicated that support for Warren may be slipping, and she would be vulnerable to a challenge from Republican Governor Charlie Baker in 2018. Warren also is considered a likely candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020.

I don’t know why she’s so secretive about her home. But whatever it is that she wants to hide, I doubt it will stay hidden in 2018 0r 2020.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

I don’t see that there’s much “there” there. The house doesn’t sound extraordinary—$1 to $5 million for a house within pistol shot of Harvard Square is close to chump change. And a “line of credit” just means that she’s all set to borrow on it. It doesn’t mean that she has borrowed on it. Its only resemblance to a mortgage is that real estate is involved. Maybe you can think of it as a mortgage she doesn’t have. If she doesn’t have it, it would be weird to require her to report it.

Warrren’s a major-league jerk, but failure to disclose a mortgage she doesn’t have isn’t why.

    Gunstar1 in reply to tom swift. | January 25, 2017 at 7:55 pm

    There wouldn’t be a anything “there” if she wasn’t a hypocrite and major league jerk.

    However if you are saying that others must disclose all financial dealings even if they are not required because they are a Republican appointee, then you should report everything about yourself.

    If you are for the little people and class warfare against the rich, why is make the contents of your home off-limits?

    sully408 in reply to tom swift. | January 29, 2017 at 9:34 pm

    Tom,
    I respectfully disagree. Her line of credit is liquid and it was given to her by BOA after the examined her debt to income ratio. At any given moment she can cash a check from that line of credit for up to 1.3 million. This has to be disclosed.
    Think of it this way….if you had a line of credit and you wanted to buy a house. This line of credit amount would be a liability even if you had not drawn a penny down on it.
    Warren is many things and this is one of them. Letting her off on this one is simply not accurate.

It’s called the Obama disease—a press pass. If you’ve been immunized by the press once, you’ll act as if it’s a lifetime grant. Obama bet right and as long as Spreading Bull was protected by the Boston Globe and local broadcast media, she was too.

Alas, things are changing. Lie-A-Watha’s latest WBUR poll numbers aren’t so hot. And here in the Bay State, she’s got a potential competitor whose WBUR numbers are very hot: Governor Charlie Baker. If the guv goes for the senate, Warren is finished. Because of her prominence among the leftists, her re-elect will be a national event, and enough national media wasn’t in on Faux-cahantes’ first press pass. In short, she’s inevitable the same way Hillary was.

She didn’t build that…

Kowabunga! Expecting a Senator and Law Professor to act ethically? Been there, done that, right Barry?

The residents of the People’s Republic of Massachusetts reelected Ted “Chappaquiddick” Kennedy every 6 years like clockwork and with few exceptions pull the lever for any Democrat the party puts up. I doubt Fauxcahontas will have a problem.

“But whatever it is that she wants to hide, I doubt it will stay hidden in 2018 0r 2020”

I hate to disagree with the Professor but Obama was actually President for 8 years and most of his life (and his sudden large fortune) remains hidden to this day.

Liberal and MSM hypocrisy knows no bounds. Warren is as good a hypocrite as there is and she will evade any serious inquiries – except those done by people like yourself.

I wonder how man illegal aliens Elizabeth Warren employs as servants?

The article is interesting but could use a clearer summary, so I’ll weigh in. I think the issue is that Elizabeth Warren believes that everyone else’s private economic choices should be subject to government approval, or more precisely her approval. But at the same time, she not only wants to make her own economic choices, but also to keep them private.

BTW Most people associate Warren with banking but it turns out she had big plans for dealing with the “problem” of freelancers in the next administration – i.e. The Hillary presidency that wasn’t. (Yes, I read TNR sometimes just so you don’t have to, you’re welcome!)

Warren was going to lead he effort to reclassify freelancers – Uber drivers, office temps, Ebay sellers, etc – as a new kind of employee so that the government could take out social security and other employer & employee deductions from their paychecks. It would also “solve” the problem of health insurance for freelancers by – you guessed it – pushing them onto the Obamacare exchanges to buy insurance.

Why? Because Elizabeth Warren doesn’t want workers to be without this “safety net”. Never mind that freelancers don’t want any of this – well, they may want health insurance, but definitely not Obamacare because they can’t afford it without subsidies, and the rest of us can’t afford to subsidize it for them. Their expressed wants & needs simply make no difference to her.

I dunno, seems to me the story should be how she got a $1.3 million line of credit on a teepee.

Is it just me? Or do her hands seem disproportionately large?

Elizabeth Warren is a corrupt, cynical fraudster, lying her way and extorting her way to a fortune – she’s akin to Al Sharpton.

And those are her good qualities.

I have come to believe that to be a dumbacrat you must excel in manipulating the truth.

Henry Hawkins | January 26, 2017 at 1:23 pm

Say what you want, but in the topmost, still shot, wearing the blue jacket with that come hither look of promise in her cool reptilian eyes, Liz Warren is HOT.

    What did you do with the money you were supposed to get new glasses with? Your wife wants to know why there is a ‘Pac-Man’ machine in the garage.

Zillow.com estimates that the property is now worth $2.67 million, six times the price paid in 1995. Very shrewd investment.

If Curt Schilling runs for Senate in MA, can he beat her?

    sully408 in reply to Mercyneal. | January 29, 2017 at 9:39 pm

    unfortunately no. I was born and raised right here in Cambridge. Still work on Memorial Drive. I am out numbered 9-1 in this city and 60/40 in the state. very sad. i will support shilling and offer to help if he decides to run against her but i just am not seeing it. the press around here hates shilling so they will tear him up. that deal with RI and his studio going bankrupt is a tie around his neck for the libs up here.

Tribes and tribal members did not need to repay HUD for the houses they built. Nor do tribes have to put a reasonable valuation on a home. So a 200000 square foot monster on a beach can be sold for $70k. No I did not drop a couple zeros.

Plus if they default on the loan the house can be left with the owner who still gets the property and the US taxpayer picks up the entire tab.

Wait, Warren isn’t an enrolled tribal member, you know a real Indian? Never mind.

She is helping her opponents to build a dossier against her. Let her continue.

$1.3 million….wonder what that comes to in wampum?

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend