* Politifact…
Details contained in a lawsuit brought against Gov. Bruce Rauner by a former business associate have called into further question the governor’s insistence that he no longer plays a role in his business investments.
Appearing before the Chicago Tribune’s editorial board Monday, Rauner was asked to address an account from former associate Harreld “Kip” Kirkpatrick III describing how the two discussed the business investment on which Kirkpatrick’s case centers.
“No private business was conducted on public property,” Rauner told the Tribune during a mini-debate with his rival in the March Republican primary, state Rep. Jeanne Ives of Wheaton. “That issue is a contract dispute, contract dispute. It’s not an investment decision. A contract dispute that stemmed from before I was governor.”
Pressed on whether he spoke with Kirkpatrick at all about that dispute, the governor doubled down: “I was not doing private business on state property,” he said.
* The governor was asked again by KWQC TV…
Gov. Rauner: Yeah, so that’s just, that’s just false, I did not do that, um, did not have any business meetings on public property, I wouldn’t do that. And there’s, a lot of people have raised that question, it’s just, there’s no there there, there’s no, no business meetings on public property.
Reporter: But the public schedule said it was a former private business partner, correct?
Gov. Rauner: Um, yeah. Uh-huh. We weren’t discussing any, anything about old business.
Reporter: He says otherwise, correct?
Gov. Rauner: [Laughs] He said a lot of things that were not true.
Reporter: So this isn’t true?
Gov. Rauner: Yep. That’s right. It’s not true.
* DGA…
“Bruce Rauner has a problem being honest with the Illinois public,” said DGA Illinois Communications Director Sam Salustro. “Rauner was caught meeting with a business associate on state property despite promising a blind trust from his business interests. Now that he’s failed the public, Rauner’s trying to lie his way out of the scandal. Rauner needs to fess up and be honest with voters for a change.”
Anybody can sue anybody for anything and say whatever they want in the process. So, maybe they didn’t talk about a private business deal at the mansion. It’s one person’s word against another’s at the moment.
- Just Observing - Monday, Feb 5, 18 @ 10:32 am:
Violating the blind trust (if Rauner did) is something meaningful, but is doing private business on state property illegal? I would venture to guess no. I would imagine, for example, a state rep that owns a restaurant, can take a call from his or her manager on their cell phone while sitting in their statehouse office.
- Real - Monday, Feb 5, 18 @ 10:32 am:
The fact is Rauner met with the guy per his gov schedule. What official business did he have to discuss with a former investment partner?
Fact is Rauner is a liar.
- wordslinger - Monday, Feb 5, 18 @ 10:32 am:
–It’s one person’s word against another’s at the moment.–
I guess we’ll just have to be guided by Rauner’s public record for truthfulness.
- Sir Reel - Monday, Feb 5, 18 @ 10:33 am:
Pot, meet kettle.
- 47th Ward - Monday, Feb 5, 18 @ 10:36 am:
Except one guy says a lot of goofy things, like how he’s offered balanced budgets every year. Is Kirkpatrick a well documented liar too?
- Da Big Bad Wolf - Monday, Feb 5, 18 @ 10:36 am:
Well the Governor’s mansion is his home so why can’t he have all the discussions he wants? The issue is Rauner said his businesses were in a blind trust. But they aren’t.
- Cindy Lou - Monday, Feb 5, 18 @ 10:36 am:
Isn’t this what generally happens to one caught in lies? That when and if they finally may be telling the truth, no one knows whether to believe it this time or not.
- Doofman - Monday, Feb 5, 18 @ 10:37 am:
What was that about Rauner’s grandpa story again?
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Feb 5, 18 @ 10:38 am:
Rauner made a 300% profit.
The discussion, it appears that it wasn’t “good enough”
Rauner wants the discussion to focus on his greed?
Hmm.
“It’s not about my total lack of ethics, it’s about my all consuming greed. Big difference” - Fake Bruce Rauner.
Not a great pivot.
- Chicago Cynic - Monday, Feb 5, 18 @ 11:00 am:
“Except one guy says a lot of goofy things, like how he’s offered balanced budgets every year. Is Kirkpatrick a well documented liar too?”
47, you took the words right out of my keyboard. Rauner is a proven liar. And in this case, the schedule proves he’s lying again, at least insofar as the meeting.
- Bobby T - Monday, Feb 5, 18 @ 11:01 am:
Come on, Rauner.
This is exactly why no one trusts you. Everybody lies but you. And when you get on a lie? “It’s not true what they’re saying.”
Here’s the thing I’ve learned about Rauner (and Trump, too): the more he pushes back, the “more true” it is.
So, yeah, he’s lying. Okay, Bruce. Whatevs, baby.
- Chris P. Bacon - Monday, Feb 5, 18 @ 11:09 am:
Ignoring for now the fact Rauner has multiple homes, if you’re the governor, you have a state owned home, the Mansion. What, you can’t sit at the Mansion kitchen table and write checks for your personal bills? Your life insurance agent can’t come over for coffee while you talk about updating your coverage? I can’t stand Rauner. And there are so many big legitimate issues to hit him on. Never ceases to amaze me how petty and small the so called media is in this state.
- Rutro - Monday, Feb 5, 18 @ 11:09 am:
Bruce, I believe Kirkpatrick, knowing nothing about him and only what I’ve seen from you. Also, I’d be careful calling someone with Dan Webb a liar.
- Pot calling kettle - Monday, Feb 5, 18 @ 11:16 am:
What Rauner said: “That issue is a contract dispute, contract dispute. It’s not an investment decision. A contract dispute that stemmed from before I was governor.”
To Rauner, a contract dispute is not private business. His words. Most of us would consider discussing a contract dispute to be business.
- Langhorne - Monday, Feb 5, 18 @ 11:22 am:
“No private business was conducted on public property,”
We just called each other names, finished our drinks, and he left.
“That issue is a contract dispute, contract dispute.”
A contract dispute……about business. And greed. You cross me, i will sue you.
“I was not doing private business on state property.”
Everyone knows about it, that makes it public business. If it
was business.
“He said a lot of things that were not true.”
So do i, so we’re even.
“But the public schedule said it was a former private business partner, correct?” Think about it, most of my lawsuits are with former business partners. Big deal. People rarely do business with me twice. If they can help it.
- Al - Monday, Feb 5, 18 @ 11:22 am:
Rauner’s word is as valuable as used toilet paper. Like an oRwellian novel character he says what he wants without regard to facts. Balanced budgets, immigrant grandparents, HFS audit results…
- Moe Berg - Monday, Feb 5, 18 @ 11:24 am:
It really could have been anything. Maybe just talking baseball or a donation to Kip’s favorite charity or how much Bruce admires Morgan Fairchild. Yeah. Morgan Fairchild. That’s the ticket.
- Annonin' - Monday, Feb 5, 18 @ 12:01 pm:
Rauner’s problem in this lie is that he claimed everything was in a blind trust — which appears to be false.
Then someone will look into the nature of the “investment” and learn it is a predatory lender that paid the U. S Government via DOJ $48 million fine for some shoddy document work with HUD. But no one went to jail
- Anonymous - Monday, Feb 5, 18 @ 12:48 pm:
Please help me to understand this because I’m not a rich Bond Villain. A rich Bond Movie Villain lets 007 walk all over the grounds, engages him in manly entertainments, all while freely admitting and detailing his Evil Plans, and then of course he orders Bond executed.
In real life, nobody I know invites an enemy whom they are suing, to come from out of town to their house to hang on the front porch and talk about the weather. Not when the enemy is a rival in a multi-million-dollar lawsuit case. My definition of “friend” would be someone who is not suing me.
If I’m suing somebody I’m also in business with, as a policy, I don’t invite them to my porch unless the lawyers also attend. I’m kind of old-fashioned that way.
And yet Governor, you invited this guy to visit you, or accepted his request to visit you, and chatted him up on your Executive Mansion’s porch, without any lawyers or witnesses around, while this multimillion-dollar lawsuit is in play.
And you insist that your lawsuit and your business arrangements with this man never came up. But you won’t detail what you -did- talk about.
Are you a Bond Movie Villain, Governor, and didn’t tell us? Was “OddJob” off on vacation that day?
Your story stinks to High Heaven, sir. You need to explain yourself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQfzwFloVqA
- Albany Park Patriot - Monday, Feb 5, 18 @ 1:20 pm:
Rauner lies about weird things.
- RNUG - Monday, Feb 5, 18 @ 1:32 pm:
== I would imagine, for example, a state rep that owns a restaurant, can take a call from his or her manager on their cell phone while sitting in their statehouse office. ==
Back when I worked for the State, employees were investigated and sometimes punished for actions like that.
That said, Rauner was technically in his house (albeit it State provided) rather than on State property per se.
The issue is the claim of a blind trust.
- Precinct Captain - Monday, Feb 5, 18 @ 1:53 pm:
Rauner says “a lot of things that were not true.”
- @misterjayem - Monday, Feb 5, 18 @ 3:22 pm:
“He said a lot of things that were not true.”
Bruce Rauner’s political epitaph.
– MrJM
- Arthur Andersen - Monday, Feb 5, 18 @ 5:19 pm:
I thought the issue of meeting at the mansion had been debunked. Seems to me the primary issue is, and always has been, that the “blind trust” ain’t.
However, I guess that AA and Annonin’, imagine that, are the only ones who Googled the company that generated all this hubbub.
- wordslinger - Monday, Feb 5, 18 @ 5:36 pm:
AA, now I get it. No wonder Rauner and Kirpatrick made such a sweet score on their investment. Definitely Rauner’s kind of company, from his private sector track record.
–US Department of Justice
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, December 28, 2016
United Shore Financial Services LLC Agrees to Pay $48 Million to Resolve Alleged False Claims Act Liability Arising from FHA-Insured Mortgage Lending
–…“USFS acknowledged that it failed to comply with FHA underwriting and quality control (QC) requirements, resulting in improperly originated mortgages,” said U.S. Attorney John W. Vaudreuil for the Western District of Wisconsin. …that conduct not only resulted in substantial losses of public funds, but also put Wisconsin homeowners at risk of losing their homes or ruining their credit. This large settlement should send a clear message that such conduct will not be tolerated.”–
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/united-shore-financial-services-llc-agrees-pay-48-million-resolve-alleged-false-claims-act
- Da Big Bad Wolf - Tuesday, Feb 6, 18 @ 6:18 am:
So they paid a $48 million dollar fee and they still made a 300% profit? How much are we talking about in Wisconsin “public funds”.
Why would someone who would do stuff like this want to be in politics? Wouldn’t it be safer to do this away from the public eye?