Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Divernan

(15,480 posts)
105. Here's why, Part II
Thu Sep 26, 2013, 01:59 PM
Sep 2013

I researched and wrote this in reply to a question as to why I was picking on poor Chelsea, because "there are far more expensive residences in NYC"

I'm so glad you asked!

(1)Because some here promote the idea that she will go into politics also, so we need to take a close look at how she chooses to live her life.

(2) She has sought publicity, whether in exclusive interviews and glamour photo shoots for high end mags like Vanity Fair and Vogue or on this current highly photographed trip with her father.

But most significantly, because it's worth looking at where the money for this lavishly extravagant purchase came from. (And you're wrong if you think there are 30-something couples purchasing "far wealthier residences in Manhattan - but I'll get to that later.)

(3) The money to purchase this came from where? You say, not "public funds". I say that the vast wealth of this young couple stems from their jobs, their families or some combination thereof. And all of those link back to the connections made by their parents while holding public office, which offices were funded by we taxpayers. Marc's' jobs were at hedge fund 3G Capital & investment banking for Goldman Sachs. (Unlike many people fleeced by scams backed by Wall Street firms like Goldman Sachs, he likely did not use a balloon note to pay for the $4 million apt. he bought in 2008, or the more recent $10.5 Million place.)

Post Palo Alto,Chelsea opted to join a private international consulting firm, McKinsey and Company and then a hedge fund, specifically the Avenue Capital Group, big campaign donors for both her parents. These firms hire young people with connections - and this young couple definitely had blue chip family connections.

Marc's father was heir to a small supermarket chain fortune, but none of the 3 other in-laws were millionaires when they went into politics. They accumulated their wealth when they left office. (Marc's mother was a Congresswoman who is still talking about running for office again.) Marc's father, Edward, former congressman and head of Pennsylvania's Democratic party, lost millions and ended up penniless. He was convicted of fraud and served time in federal prison for shady business deals that had prosecutors calling him a "one-man crime wave." Prosecutors claimed that in 20 years of doing business between 1980 and 2000, every single deal he consummated displayed aspects of fraud. After his indictment in 2001, he pleaded guilty to 31 charges of bank fraud, mail fraud, and wire fraud. He tried to raise a defense of diminished capacity due to his suffering from bipolar disorder, but the judge disallowed it.

On Sept. 27,2002, he admitted that he bilked investors who handed over more than $10 million, including friends, law clients and even his late mother-in-law, and was sentenced to nearly 7 years in prison. Some tried to paint this as though he was the victim of scams. It started out that way, with him losing his own money - but then he kept doubling down and losing money of any one he could talk into "investing" with him. His rip-off of almost $10 million (ironic - there's that $10 million number agani!) got him seven years in ClubFed . He and his wife, Marc Mezvinsky's mother, eventually divorced. He reportedly is estranged from his son. http://congressionalbadboys.com/Mezvinsky.htm

Ed Mezvinsky got out of the federal lock-up in 2008. He remained on federal probation through 2011, and still owes $9.4 million in restitution to his victims. So safe to say the young couple got no financial help from him.
http://www.zoominfo.com/p/Edward-Mezvinsky/242942968


But getting back to parental connections stemming from holding elected offices, leading to very high paying first jobs, I'd call that "public funds" once removed.

I think one's choice of employment, especially when one is not faced with grabbing the first minimum wage job that comes along in order to survive, says a lot about one's character. And I think her recent move to pick up a master's in public health is a stragetgic move to improve her credentials for an eventual run for public office. She's not out working at some grotty public health office, "in the field" - she's doing occasional broadcasts for NBC. She is also teaching graduate level classes at Columbia - unprecedented for someone who does not have a Ph.D. to be teaching at the graduate level! Another boost to the resume and example of how she benefits from her parents' prestige/status.

"Hedge funds as they are now constituted were illegal from 1933 to 2000, as their type of activity was outlawed as it was considered as destabilizing speculation that helped cause the Great Depression. In the year 2000, Bill Clinton turned his back on 67 years of proven financial regulation and signed a bill legitimating speculation. Hillary was running for the U.S. Senate in the State of New York, Moloch's Big Town, and needed the big bucks from the free-booting financiers.

Hedge funds have been major financial backers of Democratic candidates ever since Bill Clinton made like Abe Lincoln, the Great Emancipator, and set them free. Chelsea's mother Hillary received mucho hedge fund loot during her 2008 bid for the Democratic Presidential nomination. Hedge fund managers hedge their bets, and they also heavily backed Barack Obama, who rewarded them with a watered down "financial reform" bill that left hedge funds unmolested and hedge fund mangers' incomes taxed at the lower capital gains tax rate.


(Do we all recall former Goldman Sachs trading desk honcho Rahm Emmanul became President Obama's chief of staff, whilst his Supreme Court nominee, Elena Kagan, worked as a paid "adviser" to the financial power house? Goldman Sachs is what J.P. Morgan and the House of Morgan and Paul Mellon and the Mellon Bank were to Republican Administrations in previous years, the marionette master who pulls the strings.)

As predicted by naysayers, within seven years of Clinton legitimating financial speculation, hedge funds and other speculative financial schemes helped bring the U.S. economy back on its knees in the worse political catastrophe since the Great Depression.

Since it was Bill Clinton's "centrist" Democratic Leadership Council that sold the soul of the Democratic Party to Wall Street, it is fitting that Chelsea Clinton should be marrying the son of a convicted felon who works for the titan of Wall Street, a firm that engages in legal robbery. It recently got off easy from double dealing in the subprime mortgage market.


It was recently revealed that Goldman Sachs, the poster child for Wall Street arrogance and cupidity, used some of its bail-out funds to finance overseas operations. Gobs of taxpayer-provided dollars were used to fund its bonus pools, making employees like Marc Mezvinsky very happy indeed. Wall Street perpetrated a massive fraud on America, made possible in part by Marc Mezvinsky's future father-in-law, but got away relatively scot-free, unlike his own father.


http://voices.yahoo.com/who-marc-mezvinsky-chelsea-clintons-husband-is-6490028.html?cat=49

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Anyone over George P. Bush. onehandle Sep 2013 #1
While I genuinely like Chelsea... TDale313 Sep 2013 #2
Exactly... Decaffeinated Sep 2013 #15
+1 mr clean Sep 2013 #36
o. Dark n Stormy Knight Oct 2013 #144
+ another Scuba Sep 2013 #62
I am feeling that too -- no Bush or Clinton monarchies anneboleyn Sep 2013 #137
Agreed Jawja Sep 2013 #142
Nope. The Velveteen Ocelot Sep 2013 #3
Looking at her resume - I'd say NO. Tx4obama Sep 2013 #4
+1 JustAnotherGen Sep 2013 #76
I think she has a lot of her mother's mannerisms. femmocrat Sep 2013 #5
If we need another Clinton she is the one I would want n/t doc03 Sep 2013 #6
Hedge fund comes to mind. nt AtomicKitten Sep 2013 #7
The US Presidency is not a god damn birth entitlement! longship Sep 2013 #8
Never said it was. nt kelliekat44 Sep 2013 #9
Then why promote Chelsea Clinton as a Presidential hopeful? longship Sep 2013 #14
I have a theory about that, but you have hit on some of it. R. Daneel Olivaw Sep 2013 #17
Very well said. woo me with science Sep 2013 #21
"already flapping", indeed. For quite a while now, actually. Wilms Sep 2013 #23
"there is no fucking birthright for office under our Constitution" Dragonfli Sep 2013 #55
Message auto-removed Name removed Sep 2013 #91
"I love lamp!" Guy Whitey Corngood Sep 2013 #120
+++ RedCappedBandit Sep 2013 #64
Fucking A. n/t X_Digger Sep 2013 #28
Nor are genetics a disqualifying factor for the office of Presidency... LanternWaste Sep 2013 #81
Just lack of political experience. That will do. nt longship Sep 2013 #100
And boy does it ever help to have parents who truedelphi Sep 2013 #126
Except if you're born poor. Then it is a complete barrier. nt Romulox Sep 2013 #109
Perhaps they should be. Orsino Sep 2013 #122
I saw the same thing written on the face of Cheryl Begay last week. Zorra Sep 2013 #10
First Dine' president? Sounds good! Lizzie Poppet Sep 2013 #20
yes'm, good catch. Zorra Sep 2013 #25
Pass. nt City Lights Sep 2013 #11
Please, no more dynasties. The Velveteen Ocelot Sep 2013 #12
+1 nt Live and Learn Sep 2013 #43
Nope. But I wouldn't mind to get Bill and Hillary back in quinnox Sep 2013 #13
Ew! cui bono Sep 2013 #113
Not really. R. Daneel Olivaw Sep 2013 #16
Does any part of you think that the automatic dynasty effect is just....wrong? nt Bonobo Sep 2013 #18
No more wrong than the knee-jerk reaction that a family tree should automatically disqualify a poten LanternWaste Sep 2013 #82
Message auto-removed Name removed Sep 2013 #92
ONE OF US. ONE OF US. GOOBLE GOBBLE. GOOBLE GOBBLE. WE ACCEPT HER. WE ACCEPT HER. Gravitycollapse Sep 2013 #19
I saw a movie that did that line fadedrose Sep 2013 #42
As it happens, "Freaks"... JHB Sep 2013 #63
It had to be released after 1945... fadedrose Sep 2013 #94
Either you saw something that was recycling this one, or else... JHB Sep 2013 #96
she is in her 30s and hasn't done much to show she wants or should be in elected office JI7 Sep 2013 #22
No thank you , I have had my fill of Clintons and the like bowens43 Sep 2013 #24
Well, since we don't have a Royal Family, Nye Bevan Sep 2013 #26
I wouldn't write her off. Scootaloo Sep 2013 #27
If she has any electoral office ambitions SheilaT Sep 2013 #29
True, she maybe happy running the CGI long after her parents are gone davidpdx Sep 2013 #49
Yeah, President of the Clinton Foundation. n/t PoliticAverse Sep 2013 #30
Can we stop with the dynasties? davidn3600 Sep 2013 #31
I think it depends on if her mother runs and wins. hrmjustin Sep 2013 #32
no Marrah_G Sep 2013 #33
Oh my God. Really?! kiawah Sep 2013 #34
Welcome to DU! cui bono Sep 2013 #115
+1 n/t Orsino Sep 2013 #119
I am against Republican Dynasties Steerpike Sep 2013 #35
We need someone LEFT of Center for a change. RC Sep 2013 #37
Forgot the sarcasm tag I hope fletchthedubs Sep 2013 #89
I hope so too. "Charming?" truebluegreen Sep 2013 #116
People complaining about dynasties??? How about judging each person JaneyVee Sep 2013 #38
These people are very difficult to judge Steerpike Sep 2013 #40
Okay, then, let's discuss her political experience and expressed interest in running for office. winter is coming Sep 2013 #56
I think that's an accusation it's fairer to level at advocates of a Chelsea Clinton presidency. Donald Ian Rankin Sep 2013 #59
Precisely. Excellent post. nt Union Scribe Sep 2013 #80
I agree. Let's just people on their merits. RedCappedBandit Sep 2013 #66
Agreed. treestar Sep 2013 #79
To which *other* 33 year old with no political experience are we comparing her? Romulox Sep 2013 #110
Nope (nt) Ino Sep 2013 #39
NO MORE DYNASTIES. GreenStormCloud Sep 2013 #41
This. Why? PowerToThePeople Sep 2013 #46
Chelsea is married to an Ex-Goldman Sachs Investment Banker. That qualifies her... n/t PoliticAverse Sep 2013 #52
I agree. Chelsea Manning stood up for the constitution. xfundy Sep 2013 #44
Thanks. (nt) enough Sep 2013 #71
Nope. n/t winter is coming Sep 2013 #45
I will not vote for another Clinton. Llewlladdwr Sep 2013 #47
Chelsea Manning for President! avaistheone1 Sep 2013 #48
It makes more sense than OP. n/t Smarmie Doofus Sep 2013 #57
That thought occured to me too. dipsydoodle Sep 2013 #60
I think she's intelligent but the President needs to be a civil servant. joshcryer Sep 2013 #50
Hopefully not in my lifetime... wundermaus Sep 2013 #51
No--she'd be doing something in government by now if that were the case. MADem Sep 2013 #53
This is pathetic LittleBlue Sep 2013 #54
Shouldn't she distinguish herself in some lesser capacity first? Smarmie Doofus Sep 2013 #58
Is this politics, or team sports where you mindlessly support whatever brand? Lee-Lee Sep 2013 #61
I think it's a problem that people think people are qualified to run the country RedCappedBandit Sep 2013 #65
Yup. That's "prefer to have a beer with" thinking... JHB Sep 2013 #70
I think this sort of pining for New Camelot has been one of the most... JHB Sep 2013 #67
Super GeorgeGist Sep 2013 #68
Nepotism is so unimaginative. nt bemildred Sep 2013 #69
Oh, come on. Iggo Sep 2013 #72
I don't think so. HappyMe Sep 2013 #73
What is wrong with you??? cali Sep 2013 #74
I hope not bigwillq Sep 2013 #75
I'd rather someone who comes up through that ranks treestar Sep 2013 #77
Good Lord. LWolf Sep 2013 #78
Chelsea Clinton? Uh, no. She's very smart and I like her but I see 'not running for office' Bluenorthwest Sep 2013 #83
Not me. Let her run for some office and we'll see MineralMan Sep 2013 #84
I see the same thing in my great granddaughter tularetom Sep 2013 #85
No. She seems a little too... Phentex Sep 2013 #86
She needs to wait her turn Capt. Obvious Sep 2013 #87
I see "future president" written on Jimmy Carter's grandson's face and actions Generic Other Sep 2013 #88
I don't disagree with you. I never said I support "dynasties" either. I merely expressed my op. kelliekat44 Sep 2013 #93
Don't you think she should have some Sissyk Sep 2013 #140
Message auto-removed Name removed Sep 2013 #90
When I ask folks why they think Hillary is most qualified to be President fadedrose Sep 2013 #95
If I recall correctly, if Bill hadn't been the nominee and another Democrat... JHB Sep 2013 #134
Another + for Hillary, but fadedrose Sep 2013 #135
Based on what qualifications? bighart Sep 2013 #97
Gawds help us. bunnies Sep 2013 #98
trolling for "Clinton bashers"? bobduca Sep 2013 #99
I have no idea what Chelsea Clinton's position is on any issue. I only care about candidates on the Douglas Carpenter Sep 2013 #101
Written on her face? HangOnKids Sep 2013 #102
Hey, I'm not responsible for what I do after we've had a few and the other person cui bono Sep 2013 #114
Her demeanor is going to be pissed! n/t HangOnKids Sep 2013 #118
In which case Jeb Jr. is probably passed out somewhere with "Future President", a giant cock and a Guy Whitey Corngood Sep 2013 #127
Please stop! HangOnKids Sep 2013 #128
Does it look like this? Generic Other Sep 2013 #143
post like this make me ashamed of this forum and fearful of the future Douglas Carpenter Sep 2013 #103
No, and here's why (Part One) Divernan Sep 2013 #104
Here's why, Part II Divernan Sep 2013 #105
Here's why, Part III Divernan Sep 2013 #106
Thank you. woo me with science Sep 2013 #107
You're very welcome. Divernan Sep 2013 #112
Looks like Chelsea would make a fine representative of the 1%, bvar22 Sep 2013 #133
Awesome research! Sissyk Sep 2013 #141
Wow ... "'Wives eyes light up when they see the closets" Myrina Sep 2013 #123
Tells you the typical One Percent couples with that kind of money to spend. Divernan Sep 2013 #129
Not just there ... Myrina Sep 2013 #130
$$$$$$$$$$ nt Romulox Sep 2013 #108
kelliekat44anything. nt Romulox Sep 2013 #111
I'm sure you are doing that just to get a rise out of the people with Clinton fatigue. :D Pretzel_Warrior Sep 2013 #117
Bearing a strong resemblance to one's biological parents isn't a job qualification. n/t Orsino Sep 2013 #121
Get back to me when her face appears on a tortilla or underpass. Tierra_y_Libertad Sep 2013 #124
Nope. Myrina Sep 2013 #125
No. Not interested in any more Clintons. PeteSelman Sep 2013 #131
We are not a Monarchy.... Agnosticsherbet Sep 2013 #132
Jesus fuck. Can we stop trying to create a fucking dynasty? nt Codeine Sep 2013 #136
Nope Boom Sound 416 Sep 2013 #138
No cordelia Sep 2013 #139
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»I see "future Presid...»Reply #105