HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Divernan » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 ... 21 22 23 24 25 26


Profile Information

Member since: 2002
Number of posts: 15,480

Journal Archives

Chelsea's hubby's the hedge fund trading son of 2 failed grifter/politicians.

Look up her in-laws - both former members of congress. Her father-in-law, or as some refer to him "felon-in-law" is Ed Mezvinsky

(F)ederal prosecutors said Ed Mezvinsky habitually dropped the Clintons' names and boasted of their friendship during the 1990s as he defrauded friends, family members and institutions out of more than $10 million.

Ed Mezvinsky was sentenced in 2003 to serve 80 months in federal prison after pleading guilty to a massive fraud that prosecutors said amounted to a Ponzi scheme. He was released from custody in April 2008, but remains under federal probation supervision.
Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/mezvinsky.asp#W86TSmhCqGEkOYkR.99

After serving five years in federal prison, he was released in April 2008. He remained on federal probation until 2011, and still owes $9.4 million in restitution to his victims.

And the groom's mother, Marjorie Margolies? Well, she tried to file for bankruptcy but the bankruptcy judge wasn't having it. Somehow the female bankruptcy judge didn't believe a woman who had served in the US Congress when said woman whined that she had no knowledge of her family's finances because her husband took care of all finances.

Shortly thereafter, she filed for bankruptcy,[20] but failed to receive a discharge from her debts, based on 11 U.S.C. §727(a)(5). The court found Mezvinsky had failed to satisfactorily explain a significant loss of assets in the four years prior to her bankruptcy filing. The bankruptcy judge stated, in her published opinion, "I find that the Debtor has failed to satisfactorily explain the loss of approximately $775,000 worth of assets (the difference between the $810,000 represented in May 1996 and the $35,000 now claimed in her Amended Schedule B)." Sonders v. Mezvinsky (in re Mezvinsky), 265 B.R. 681, 694 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2001).

When she filed for bankruptcy, a judge rejected her assertion of ignorance in a scathing decision that, depending on how you read it, either calls her feminism into question or suggests she knows more than she’s letting on. “Her consistent response to questions asked by her creditors about the disposition of her assets is lack of knowledge or ‘my husband handled it,’ a mantra that is completely at odds with her public persona, background, and accomplishments,” the judge wrote.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2013/12/the-clinton-in-law-marjorie-margolies-100696_Page3.html#ixzz3PH7Y4Lsv

Who would HRC seat these 2 grifters next to at state dinners? Whomeve they might be, they'd better hang onto their wallets. Oh, and since Ed Mezvinsky's own mother-in-law was one of his fraud victims, HRC would be smart not to invest in her son-in-law's hedge fund.

63% want "ideological purity"; they won't vote for a DINO-1%-Wall Street BFF

There's an obvious inconsistency in the results of this poll, which can only be explained by the fact that the 63% of registered Democrats, or self-identified Dems who responded "it's more important to have a nominee who agrees with them" have not yet been made aware of HRC-Sach's intimate ties with and kow-towing to Wall Street, Big Banks and the One Percenters.

She poor-mouthed the Clintons' dire financial straits because she measures her and Bill's $80 million net worth (http://www.therichest.com/celebnetworth/politician/president/bill-clinton-net-worth/) against the One Percent crowd, which the Clintons are lusting to join. They're on the fringes of that group now, but only in the sense of being bought-and-paid-for politicians. Because to the 1 %ers, politicians are people one hires (like a well-dressed, well-spoken servant) to act in one's best interests - not social equals. In Bill's case, amusing to have as a guest at a party, but for god's sakes don't leave him alone with your wives or daughters.

As far as the really wealthy go, the Clintons will always be parvenues, arrivistes and NOKD (Not Our Kind Dear, as they say in St. Barths and Palm Beach). A parvenue is someone who has risen to a higher economic class but not gained social acceptance.
An arriviste is a person who has recently acquired unaccustomed status, wealth, or success, especially by dubious means and without earning concomitant esteem. "Dubious" is appropriate re the Clintons' wealth because that + $100 million the 2 of them have raked in for speaking fees can accurately be considered as $100 million of debt they have incurred to sponsors expecting payback if HRC makes it to the Oval Office.

(As far as the poll goes, no 1%ers were contacted. They don't have listed numbers and they have people who answer their phones.)

Bottom line: HRC's "ideological purity" as that is defined by Democrats, will not pass the test of either a primary or final campaign for the presidency.

Your choice of quoted paragraphs is disingenuous & deceptive

This in depth article of some 40 paragraphs has significant insight into the force for change Elizabeth Warren exerts on the Democratic party, not least of which is wanna be candidate Clinton. That is why the article is headlined as it is by the WaPo. But you delve nearly to the bottom to quote 2 critics - an anonymous sore loser supporter of Weiss and MOST AMAZINGLY, you include a nasty quote from that name-calling columnist Sorkin, well known for his friendship with Wall Street. If you want to attack Warren, have the guts & integrity to spell it out in your thread title. To do otherwise destroys your credibility on DU.

New York Times columnist Andrew Ross Sorkin has earned a reputation over the years for being friendly with the Wall Street giants he covers. If you read his bizarre rant against Senator Elizabeth Warren, it's not hard to see why.

Sorkin admits that Warren could have had a better argument if she wasn't so blinded by her rage:
"It is true that Mr. Weiss doesn't have a lot of experience in the regulatory arena, and at least part of the role he is nominated for involves carrying out the remaining parts of the Dodd/Frank overhaul law. It is also true that Mr. Weiss, if confirmed, will be the beneficiary of a policy at Lazard that vests his unvested shares–some $20 million in stock and deferred compensation–by taking a government job. That creates its own conflicts. Ms. Warren might be more persuasive if she focused on those issues."

Good point: Warren should have focused on his lack of regulatory experience. Oh wait, she did. Right there in the fourth paragraph: "
That raises the first issue. Weiss has spent most of his career working on international transactions–from 2001 to 2009 he lived and worked in Paris–and now he's being asked to run domestic finance at Treasury. Neither his background nor his professional experience makes him qualified to oversee consumer protection and domestic regulatory functions at the Treasury."

Free tip for Andrew Ross Sorkin: Don't say someone should have emphasized a point they in fact raised as "the first issue." It makes it seem like you didn't read the article you're critiquing.

In my opinion, these are the paragraphs you should have quoted, if your intent was to convey the meat of the article, as promised by the headline.
No small amount of speculation has centered on whether Warren herself will run for the White House in 2016. She insists that she will not. But her advisers and longtime allies say that she intends to keep the pressure on Clinton, to make sure the former secretary of state pays more than lip service to the issues that matter to Warren.

She is training her heat vision not on the Oval Office, but two doors down the hall on the Cabinet Room. Warren wants to make sure that Wall Street-aligned figures who have shaped the Clinton and Obama brand of economic policy for the past quarter-century, going back to former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, are not the only ones at the oval mahogany table.

“The worst case for us is that [Clinton] gives a feisty speech now and then, but surrounds herself with the same old” economic gurus, said one longtime Warren ally, insisting upon anonymity to speak frankly.

Former Steeler Dwayne Woodruff seeking state Supreme Court seat

Source: Pittsburgh Post Gazette

Allegheny County Common Pleas Court Judge Dwayne Woodruff showcased his bid for a Supreme Court nomination today with a black-and-gold-tinged news conference in the Allegheny County Courthouse.

Judge Woodruff ceremoniously kicked off his run for one of the nominations for the high court, joining a big field of contenders in a year in which three of the court's seven seats will be decided.

He was joined by his wife, Joy, Judge Livingston Johnson, the chairman of his campaign, and a collection of his former teammates from the Super Bowl-winning Steelers of old. Mr. Woodruff earned his law degree while playing as a cornerback for the team from 1979 through 1990.

More than a dozen candidates have already lined up for the race that could determine the character of the court for a generation. Among the other Democrats seeking the nominations are three sitting Superior Court judges --David Wecht, Christine Donahue, and Anne Lazurus -- and Jefferson County Common Pleas Court Judge John Foradora.

Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/news/politics-state/2015/01/13/Former-Steelers-player-Dwayne-Woodruff-seeking-Pennsylvania-Supreme-Court-seat/stories/201501130177

I practiced law for the same firm as Dwayne back in the 90's, so knew him from that time period. He was introduced at the conference by his former law partner and my former law school classmate, Shawn Flaherty (son of former Pittsburgh mayor, Pete Flaherty).

From Wikipedia:
Career after football:
During his football career, Woodruff obtained his Juris Doctor from Duquesne University School of Law, subsequently becoming a founding member of the law firm Woodruff, Flaherty & Fardo, LLC [1] out of Shadyside in Pittsburgh. Woodruff was elected in 2005 to be a Judge in the Court of Common Pleas in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.[3] Woodruff announced in November 2014 that he would seek a seat on the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in the 2015 election.[4]

Woodruff is a 1979 graduate of the University of Louisville in Kentucky,[5] where his football jersey hangs in Papa John's Cardinal Stadium and where athletes study at the Woodruff Academic Center, named in Woodruff's honor in 2007 upon a significant monetary donation.[6]

Woodruff is married to Joy Maxberry Woodruff. They are the parents of three children; Jillian an Ob/Gyn Physician, Jenyce an attorney and John a law student at the Duquesne University School of Law.[7]
Charitable Work

Woodruff and his wife Joy are currently chairpersons of the "Do The Write Thing" in Pittsburgh. The program is an Initiative of the National Campaign to Stop Violence (NCSV). The Do the Write Thing Challenge gives middle school students an opportunity to examine the impact of youth violence on their lives in classroom discussions and in written form by communicating what they think should be done to change our culture of violence. By encouraging students to make personal commitments to do something about the problem, the program ultimately seeks to empower them to break the cycles of violence in their homes, schools and neighborhoods.[8]
Go to Page: « Prev 1 ... 21 22 23 24 25 26