Mezvinsky is a Stanford alumnus who has worked as an investment banker at Goldman Sachs and at the hedge fun G3 Capital. Hes also the co-founder of the hedge fund Eaglevale Partners. After leaving G3 Capital, he set out to start his own hedge fund.
Marcs father, Edward Mezvinsky, is a former two-term Iowa congressman. His father had also plead guilty to cheating dozens of investors out of $10 million in 2002, spending 5 years in prison until 2008 for fraud.
Mezvinsky, the father of Chelseas husband, Marc, served five years in federal prison after pilfering $10 million from investors. He was released in April 2008, but hes currently accused of being in violation of his plea agreement because he hasnt paid back his victims!
Its a little irritating that he brags about his sons ($10.5 million) apartment when his son should loan him the money to pay back his debt! one angry victim, Dr. Jason Theodosakis, told The ENQUIRER. He could borrow [the restitution] from his sons in-laws [Bill and Hillary]!
Dr. Theodosakis, co-author of the best-seller The Arthritis Cure, hired Mezvinsky to handle a contract negotiation, but he ended up draining him of more than $600,000, according to court documents.
Another victim, financial consultant Joseph Klieber, says he lost $157,000 to Mezvinsky, and was shocked by how he was repaid a nice handwritten letter from Mezvinsky saying he was sorry.
Mezvinsky, now 77, pled guilty to 31 counts of bank, mail and wire fraud in 2003 after using his friendship with the Clintons to win over his victims.
I just researched the percentage of approval Hillary Clinton has received in Gallup's annual "Most admired man/woman" rankings. My curiosity was piqued by the following statement in the Gallup press release:
Both their numbers are down a little bit: Obama pulled 17 percent against his average of 23 percent, and Hillary Clinton a 13 percent against her average of 16 percent,
Whenever statisticians start throwing averages around, you are wise to look more closely.
So I went to the Gallup website and researched Hill's numbers from 2007 to this year.
Because at the end of 2007 she was all geared up and heading into the 2008 primary election against Obama. She'd have been benefitting from tons of advertising and publicity - as she is now. But apparently the publicity was more favorable back in 2007, and also the advertising - none of the phony, "Luke, I am (just like) your Abuela." nonsense.
Because in 2007, she got 18% of the vote.
But, this year? only 13%.
From 2009 to 2013, she was Secretary of State under Obama, and his popularity carried over to her.
I know her supporters are anxious for any encouraging news, but pesky facts?
Her rating is 5 POINTS LOWER than at this point in her 2008 campaign, and that represents a drop of TWENTY EIGHT PERCENT.
Her rating is EIGHT POINTS LOWER than her 2012 high of 21. That's a drop of THIRTY EIGHT PERCENT.
I know her supporters are getting desperate for any encouraging news, but pesky fact? Her popularity is 5% LOWER than at this point in her 2008 campaign.
So here are the numbers:
2007 - 18%
2008 - 20%
2009 - 16% (with Sarah Palin on her heels with 15%)
2010 - 17%
2011 - 17%
2012 - 21%
2013 - 15%
2014 - 12%
2015 - 13%
And I think it's a TERRIFIC hill - None - Not a single one - of HRC's supporters have ever been able to offer a defense of her pro cluster bomb vote.
Nor has the self-proclaimed, alleged lifelong champion of women and children, ever offered a word of apology or explanation of it.
Here's the reality - and don't you dare forget it!
Shrapnel peppered their bodies. Blackened the skin. Smashed heads. Tore limbs. A doctor reports that all the injuries you see were caused by cluster bombs. The majority of the victims were children who died because they were outside.
Even after wars subside, after treaties are signed, after belligerents return home, cluster bombs wreak havoc on civilian life., only to become landmines that later explode on playgrounds and farmlands. Children are drawn to cluster bomb canisters, the deadly duds that look like beer cans or toys before they explode.
Can't you picture her spending nights alone in the White House, while Bill is private jetting it around with his buddies to parties in glamorous locations? She'll be burning the midnight oil in the Oval Office, poring over her voluminous list of enemies, and plotting revenge. (And to potential jurors, that's HRC word, REVENGE - as documented by one of her few good friends, Linda Blair.) It will be Tricky Dick Nixon redux - she'll be roaming the halls of the White House in the dead of night, talking to the portraits of Dead Presidents. At least poor Dick had a loving wife in residence.
WASHINGTON Hillary Rodham Clintons 2008 presidential campaign staffers kept an enemies list of fellow Democrats they believed betrayed her during the fierce primary fight against Barack Obama, a new book claims.
What Clinton insiders called the hit list included then-Sen. John Kerry, the late Sen. Ted Kennedy and two-time presidential hopeful John Edwards, according to excerpts of the book published online by Politico and the Hill.
The book, HRC: State Secrets and the Rebirth of Hillary Clinton, by Politicos Jonathan Allen and The Hills Amie Parnes, is set for release Feb. 11.
The list included rankings on a 7-point scale, with 7 being the worst-magnitude traitor in the eyes of the Clinton loyalists, according to the book.
Kerry (D-Mass.), who eventually succeeded Clinton as Obamas secretary of state, received a 7, the book says.
An unguarded look into the Clintons
Blair's documents give an unguarded look into the lives of Hillary and Bill Clinton, from Bill Clinton's days as Arkansas governor and rising Democratic star to the couple's time in the White House, warts and all.
Blair wrote in her diary that Hillary Clinton called Monica Lewinsky, the White House intern who nearly brought down her husband's presidency, a "narcissistic loony toon." Hillary Clinton defended her husband's adultery by saying it was caused, partly, because "the ugly forces started making up hateful things about them, pounding on them."
Blair also noted a 1994 conversation in which the first lady asked her for advice on "how best to preserve her general memories of the administration and of health care in particular." When asked why she wanted to keep the documents, Clinton replied, "Revenge."
Diary: Hillary kept records for 'revenge'
Diary: Hillary kept records for 'revenge' 02:54
Remember that prison-orange colored one - talk about a clueless choice re image. Whatever happened to her DU supporter who had a montage of HRC in 7 or 8 different loudly colored pantsuits as his/her sig line? At least when she was in her pants suit phase, she'd occasionally be spotted wearing the same outfit more than once. Now that she's matched her public to her private persona and evolved into wearing designer clothing, I haven't seen photos or video of her in the same clothing twice. What a scandalous waste of money - and likely charged up as campaign expenses.
As a long time feminist myself (even taught Intro to Women's Studies back in the '70's at one point) I don't think female candidates of any political persuasion, but especially Democrats, should buy into any notion that they must be clothes horses or slaves to fashion. Or wear elaborate makeup or distracting costume jewelry. Or have entire elite beauty salons closed to other customers for hours while they have a $1200 haircut & dye job.
When I taught trial advocacy classes at a law school (Hey! I'm old! I have a long and varied employment background!), I told my male and female students that when it came to courtroom attire, they should look serious and business-like, and their appearance in general and their clothing in particular should in no way EVER distract from their message, i.e., the evidence they were presenting or the legal arguments they were making to a judge or jury.
HRC's personal shoppers and campaign advisers obviously don't agree with me.
Viewers of the debate will compare and contrast and rank the participants. It may start out as "which one do I dislike the least?".
Marketing experts & psychologists will tell you, and much research has shown, that once a person makes a decision that X is better than Y or Z, they will rationalize to convince themselves they made the right choice. This involves exaggerating the value of positive points, and minimizing any shortcomings. For example, someone in the market for a car faces a choice among both American and foreign made vehicles. Chrysler, GM or Ford; Toyota, Mitsubishi, Volvo (to name a few for purposes of illustration); and then within each brand, which of several different models?
Now throw in this factor - what if there are dealers for Chrysler, GM and Ford all nicely lined up in a row on a highway near their home, but none of the foreign car dealers are closer than 100 miles away. What if the American dealers are open on weeknights and Sundays, but the foreign car dealers are only open 9 to 5 on weekdays?
The buyer can look closely at and test drive models from the American car dealers, but is only exposed to occasional 60 second ads for the foreign car dealers.
They consider - maybe test drive. But once they have made a decision, the rationalization sets in, and whatever model they have chosen, becomes increasingly desirable. Plus, if they have taken a close look at a number of cars, they feel they have done their due diligence and made a responsible decision. Hell, this even applies to what color car they buy. At first they may be leaning toward a light colored model - it won't show the dust. But then the dealer has in stock a car with every feature they want, except it's bright red. They'll have to wait a month to get the color they want. So they get the red one - and then they begin coming up with reasons why red is really the very best possible color. The goal is to feel comfortable with their choice.
The analogy couldn't be clearer. People watched a series of Republican debates, scheduled at good times re audience availability. By the end of the 2nd GOP debate, audience members are choosing. This is further encouraged by the multiple news reports of ratings as to who won the debates.
Debbie is well aware of this, as is Hillary - the expectation that people will be influenced and make choices based on exposure to televised debates is precisely the reason the DNC delayed the initial debate, minimized the total number of same and then carefully, and with malice toward Bernie aforethought, selected dates and times to guarantee the smallest possible viewing audiences. The last thing they want is for Dems to "test-drive" Bernie, i.e., get a close look at his principles, his history, his policies. Because by comparison, HRC will come up lacking, just as she did in 2008 when compared to Obama.
It was stupid. It was lethally short-sighted. It was as stupid and short-sighted as indulging in manipulating regime change in 3rd world countries with fuck-all ability or concern to predict or control the outcomes. In other words, this is a pattern for Hillary Clinton.
You know, the woman who's Enemies List goes back to her years in Arkansas? And at the end of her 2008 failed campaign had that list upgraded, spreadsheeted and downloaded? It is comprised of fellow Democrats, of course.
Danger, Will Robinson!
Her administration would be like a Grimm fairy tale, writ large!
If revenge is a dish best served cold, than the Clintons are in a subzero frenzy of anticipation at the thought of gaining the power of the presidency.
Francis Bacon coined this 'revenge' proverb:
- A man that studieth revenge keeps his own wounds green.
Star Trek II, The Wrath of Kahn, 1982: Kirk, old friend, do you know the Klingon proverb, "Revenge is a dish best served cold"?
This Atlantic article from 2014 documents Hillary's thirst and need for revenge.
In the waning days of her 2008 campaign, staffers for Hillary Clinton put the final touches on a list of people they thought betrayed the candidate, and then ranked their level of betrayal. The problem with losing, however, is that its hard to exact any revenge.t-people-hillary-39-2008-enemies-list-doing-144100158.html;_ylt=A0LEV7gan3pWB1gADIknnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTBydWNmY2MwBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwM0BHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg--
In an excerpt from HRC: State Secrets and the Rebirth of Hillary Clinton, Politico's Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes outline the Clintons' tabulation of all of the campaign's many, many betrayals. Hillary's "Hit List," Politico calls it an Excel spreadsheet delineating those people most and least loyal to Clinton as she unsuccessfully tried to hold off Barack Obama. According to the Politico excerpt, the Clinton camp was gleeful about the fate of some of those who'd failed to see the practical wisdom of endorsing her.
Years later, they would joke among themselves in harsh terms about the fates of folks they felt had betrayed them. Bill Richardson: investigated; John Edwards: disgraced by scandal; Chris Dodd: stepped down, one said to another. Ted Kennedy, the aide continued, lowering his voice to a whisper for the punch line, dead.
Those three are the exception. Allen and Parnes describe a ranking of loyalty from 1 to 7, with 1 being those most loyal to Hillary Clinton during the campaign. The 7s, those people who the Clintons felt betrayed her the most, were added to what "a Clintonworld source" "wouldnt, of course, call an enemies list." Regardless of what it's called, none of them seems to have suffered much from being given that low designation.
Vance Packard's study of the habits of really old money found that they served bowls of salted peanuts at their parties (as opposed to catered selections of elaborate hors d'oeuvres), furnished their vacation "cabins" with sturdy Ethan Allen pieces, and prided themselves on getting "value for the money". The women don't get new wardrobes every season, but rather wore simple, well-made styles (albeit Chanel) which they kept and wore for years.
"That's a nice color on you, Anne." "So kind of you to say - I got this 20 years ago in Paris."
My "Value for the Money" experience.
I lucked into spending an afternoon with some titled Brits at a race meeting in Kent. I took the train down from London to go to the races on a chilly March day. As a crowd of us walked from the train station to the racetrack, I politely asked one elderly gent (in a very lovely camel's hair topcoat) if he could tell me which was the Club House entrance. (You pay more for entrance than to the regular track, but the club area is heated, with a bar and comfy seats, along with big windows overlooking the race course.) He told me. I thanked him and went my solo way - always being careful not to be a pushy American. After watching a few races at trackside, I went indoors to warm up. He came up to me and said, "I've had a spot of luck. Can I buy you an ale?" I accepted, albeit ordered something non-alcoholic.
We talked briefly. He asked me what part of America I was from and how I happened to decide to come to the Kent races. Then I went back outside to watch more races. When next I came back inside, a lovely woman who looked and sounded like Diana Rigg, and her equally elegant husband came up to me and introduced themselves to me. "You must be Nancy, from Pittsburgh." There were about 30 "regulars" in the Club House and I was the only stranger, so they'd all asked Hugh who I was. They were so gracious to me, and we talked thoroughbreds and racing. At another point, "Diana" brought a man up and was waiting to introduce us until I finished talking to someone else.
Being an attorney trained to multitask my listening skills, I heard her describe me: "She's not your typical American. She's got balls!" (this because I had made a last minute, solo trip to London - only my second trip abroad, and enjoyed racing so much I had figured out how to get to the Kent races on my own). She introduced him to me as one of the trainers.
At the end of the afternoon, there were chauffered Bentleys and the like waiting to pick up these folks. The old fellow I'd initially met (whose wife wasn't there because she was at a board meeting for the Royal Ballet) turned down a proffered ride, saying he wanted to take the train back to make sure I got off to London all right (the train only stopped at the Folkestone station on race days.) He got off several stations before mine in London, and gave me a tip for a lovely little restaurant discreetly tucked into a back alley in the Covent Garden (theatre district) area. "Tell the maitre-d that Hugh and Inga sent you. He'll take good care of you. And it's good value for the money."
And I did go to that restaurant, after I went to a matinee of Miss Saigon, and I was taken care of by the maitre'd, and it was very good value for the money. It was really a great afternoon, and a great trip. But the only winner I had at the races that day was from my hunch bet on Jemimah Puddleduck - a character from the stories I used to read to my kids.
Oh, and p.s. - not a one of them ever bragged even remotely about their wealth or status. That, my friends, is class.
Old wealth is mortified at any conspicuous display of one's wealth. I've heard how old wealth describes people like the poster in question. The shorthand phrase is NOKD, which stands for Not Our Kind, Dear!
Social climbers can afford to join private clubs, but they never get asked to serve on boards of same. They swan into the dining rooms and try glad-handing people . . . are met with polite smiles but never asked to "sit down and join us". Why do you think this joker is at DU bragging? Can't find anyone else to hang out with.
As big donors, he & his wife may be invited to the gated estates for a HRC fundraiser, but they'll never be invited back for purely social functions. Probably a similar braggart on the golf course so doesn't have a regular foursome! Amiright, Verne?
and stuff it. I worked for the Dem. caucus in my state legislature for 10 years and am not so politically gullible as to fall for any or all of these DNC sponsored: "Tell RBG you support her" type ads. I know they are simply fishing for contact info to add to their fund-raising lists. That is why I make my political contributions directly to candidates. If I want someone to vote a certain way, or I object to something they have voted for, I am quite capable and willing to phone their offices and tell them directly. And THAT does not require giving out my email addy. Given the timing, and the large number of Bernie donors contacted by the Clinton campaign after the first data breach, not to mention the reputation of Clinton & her campaign tactics from 2008, a reasonable person can conclude Hill & Deb have been up to their old tricks again.
If, as you posit, it is so damn easy-peasy for a political candidate to get names, why would a straight arrow man like Bernie rip-off names from a server and then self-report. You are deep in denial about reality and are projecting on to others the "conspiracy" charges that you worry are at the heart of the relationship between Debbie, Hill and the DNC.
Hillary has practiced situational ethics her entire professional career, going back to her sneaky behavior of hiding legal opinions when she was a researcher for the Watergate committee, to her over-the-top, bully-the-12-year-old-rape-victim, voluntary, unpaid defense of a man she believed (and laughed to an interviewer about) guilty of the rape, to her creation and direction of the Bimbo Eruption Squad to threaten Bill's victims.
You can continue supporting her and trashing a decent man like Bernie Sanders until the cows come home. She and Debbie jumped a Great White this time around and it will cost her the primary election.
I've documented all of these facts in earlier posts. Go to my journal if you want to read about them at the links.
And seriously, consider coming over to the light side - it feels terrific to support an ethical, honest candidate.
Profile InformationMember since: 2002
Number of posts: 15,480
- 2016 (77)
- 2015 (254)
- 2014 (125)
- 2013 (72)
- 2012 (12)