Hillary Clinton Won't Say How Much Goldman Sachs CEO Invested With Her Son-in-Law

[eridani]

http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/37156-hillary-clinton-wont-say-how-much-goldman-sachs-ceo-invested-with-her-son-in-law

When Hillary Clinton’s son-in-law sought funding for his new hedge fund in 2011, he found financial backing from one of the biggest names on Wall Street: Goldman Sachs chief executive Lloyd Blankfein.

The fund, called Eaglevale Partners, was founded by Chelsea Clinton’s husband, Marc Mezvinsky, and two of his partners. Blankfein not only personally invested in the fund, but allowed his association with it to be used in the fund’s marketing.

The investment did not turn out to be a savvy business decision. Earlier this month, Mezvinsky was forced to shutter one of the investment vehicles he launched under Eaglevale, called Eaglevale Hellenic Opportunity, after losing 90 percent of its money betting on the Greek recovery. The flagship Eaglevale fund has also lost money, according to the New York Times.

There has been minimal reporting on the Blankfein investment in Eaglevale Partners, which is a private fund that faces few disclosure requirements. At a campaign rally in downtown San Francisco on Thursday, I attempted to ask Hillary Clinton if she knew the amount that Blankfein invested in her son-in-law’s fund.

<snip>

The decision for Blankfein to invest in Hillary Clinton’s son-in-law’s company is just one of many ways Goldman Sachs has used its wealth to forge a tight bond with the Clinton family. The company paid Hillary Clinton $675,000 in personal speaking fees, paid Bill Clinton $1,550,000 in personal speaking fees, and donated between $250,000 and $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation. At a time when Goldman Sachs directly lobbied Hillary Clinton’s State Department, the company routinely partnered with the Clinton Foundation for events, even convening a donor meeting for the foundation at the Goldman Sachs headquarters in Manhattan.

Mezvinsky, who married Chelsea in 2010, previously worked at Goldman Sachs and started his fund along with two other former employees of the investment bank. Securities and Exchange Commission disclosures show that Eaglevale required new investors to put down a minimum of $2 million.

[dchill]

1. Nippo, nappo, nopo,..

Nepotism! That's it!

[NanceGreggs]

2. And she should be ...

... disclosing the details (assuming she even knows them) of a business transaction she had nothing to do with?

Are you serious?

[eridani]

3. Silly me. Her daughter and SIL surely don't have such information n/t

[NanceGreggs]

4. And what if they do?

How does that (a) mean that Hillary has the same information, and (b) when did she become obligated to disclose whatever information she may have?

This is so utterly ridiculous. Please enlighten us all as to why Hillary is somehow obligated to disclose the details of a business transaction that she was not involved in, in any way.

[flor-de-jasmim]

5. Agreed!

[eridani]

7. Why do we fhave to put up with bought and paid for politicians?

Especially by shitstains like Blankfein?

[NanceGreggs]

9. You still haven't explained ...

... how Hillary is somehow obliged to disclose the details of a business transaction she was not a party to.

Can you DO that? Some kind of explanation would be so enlightening.

[eridani]

10. But she doesn't benefit from family enrichment? n/t

[NanceGreggs]

12. Poor deflection.

Please explain how Hillary is somehow obliged to disclose the details of a business transaction she was not a party to.

We are all waiting for you to enlighten everyone.

So please proceed, eridani.

[eridani]

13. She benefits from it

It's an example of who her financial backers are

[NanceGreggs]

14. How did she "personally benefit"?

Why do you think she would even know the details of a business transaction that she wasn't a party to?

If she does know such details, why would she be under any obligation whatsoever to reveal them?

In fact, it would be highly unethical for her to do so, given that this was a business transaction she wasn't part of.

So, I'll ask again:

How Hillary is somehow obliged to disclose the details of a business transaction she was not a party to?

[eridani]

15. Oh. Her family members don't support her financially? n/t

[NanceGreggs]

16. You keep evading the question ...

... and it's obvious why.

Again: How is Hillary somehow obliged to disclose the details of a business transaction she was not a party to?

[msongs]

6. oh look this subject tho oft repeated again and again is back from the dead lol nt

[jfern]

8. When she told them to "cut it out", she was telling them to stop

not investing with her son-in-law.

[KoKo]

11. "Democracy Now" had a great report with Lee Fang from "the Intercept" today.

It was pretty damning. Her involvement with Goldman-Sachs is even worse than we thought. And, now the Son-in-Law,.

[JoePhilly]

17. My mother-in-law has zero say in my finances.

Does yours?

[geek tragedy]

18. How many people tell their mother-in-law every last detail of their finances? nt