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
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: CBS Poll: 85% of Democrats approve of a Clinton candidacy [View all]Divernan
(15,480 posts)55. 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.
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 shes 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.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
234 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Just in case you haven't seen Hillary's Unfavorable ratings, they're at an 8 year high.
leveymg
Jan 2015
#159
That negative is almost all from the Rethugs. DUers against Hillary comprise a small fraction
pnwmom
Jan 2015
#166
Right. At this point in the '08 cycle, HRC's Q scores were tracking this same way.
leveymg
Jan 2015
#191
She doesn't need to shake anything. 85% of Democrats are happy with her as is. nt
stevenleser
Jan 2015
#224
I'd say about 45 percent. Otherwise, Hillary would be President right now instead of Barrack.
leveymg
Jan 2015
#225
It's so early.. I'm going to treasure these last two years of Obama being President. It will be
Cha
Jan 2015
#2
So will I, Cha. So will millions upon millions of Americans. I wish President Obama could run for a
BlueCaliDem
Jan 2015
#155
Oh well looks like my 35+ yeras of being a memebr of the Democratic Party will be ending soon
ChosenUnWisely
Jan 2015
#3
You'll not get any sympathy from this thread's OPer… They meant DLC Democrats...
MrMickeysMom
Jan 2015
#122
Agreed. This is fun thread for rubbing DLC's noses into inconvenient truths re HRC.
Divernan
Jan 2015
#128
Does it occur to you that not being a member of A doesn't automatically enroll you in B?
hobbit709
Jan 2015
#9
Nope. Because we have a two-party, system like it or not. So leaving A gives by default
BlueCaliDem
Jan 2015
#154
Don't actually agree, but would vote for a 3rd party cand. if s/he is progressive. Four years of
drynberg
Jan 2015
#64
How so? What good jobs, ability to pay for your own health care, and what ability to own a home and
TheKentuckian
Jan 2015
#12
Fortunately she is a totally lousy candidate, & the more people hear her the less they like her
peacebird
Jan 2015
#61
What's ironic is the things she got crucified for on the tour were for saying things DUers like.
DemocratSinceBirth
Jan 2015
#70
except for the fact that 85% of REAL Democrats like seem to like her...
VanillaRhapsody
Jan 2015
#197
So the past history of the father-in-law of her daughter is now Hillary's responsibility? BS!!!
66 dmhlt
Jan 2015
#79
Anyone the LEAST bit influenced by that would NOT vote for HRC anyway. Give it up!
66 dmhlt
Jan 2015
#221
It was also Bill Clinton who said on National TV several times that HIS taxes should be raised...
VanillaRhapsody
Jan 2015
#196
"1/10th/10x the president Obama is" = fixed. "The president OF Obama" just adds another kind of
ND-Dem
Jan 2015
#183
Too simply put to answer the questions. What is it you think she is going to do to create a better
TheKentuckian
Jan 2015
#229
As Hillary is one of the architects of TPP I just want to say. Thank you Hillary.
Katashi_itto
Jan 2015
#26
Proof please....this War Mongering meme has GOT to fucking stop on DU....
VanillaRhapsody
Jan 2015
#198
A poll of 1000 people who have listed phone numbers isn't representative of Americans. nt
RiverLover
Jan 2015
#17
Of the 1000 ppl polled, how many called themselves Democrats? It doesn't say.
RiverLover
Jan 2015
#31
Yeah you keep clinging to that....whatever gets you through the night I suppose...
VanillaRhapsody
Jan 2015
#199
"The M$M continues to set the narrative for low information voters. "
DemocratSinceBirth
Jan 2015
#53
Interesting. Politifact's and Media Matter's investigations differ from your "research."
wyldwolf
Jan 2015
#96
You've gone from "I researched this in 2008" to "I recall learning about this in 2008"
wyldwolf
Jan 2015
#228
If you call 'research' parotting a conservative source from last year... then
wyldwolf
Jan 2015
#231
I have a better chance of dating Miss Universe than the Pugs have of beating Hillary The Great./NT
DemocratSinceBirth
Jan 2015
#57
Hillary Clinton as madam president will make corporations bathe in gold and sleep well in nights.
TRoN33
Jan 2015
#35
I've had graduate level classes in statistics - you'll just have to trust me on this.
Divernan
Jan 2015
#112
These are from 2002-2006, not meaningful, and if you really look at the numbers,
RiverLover
Jan 2015
#51
Discounting the significance of actual votes is a personal decision. You are welcome to it.
pampango
Jan 2015
#52
Elections are often won by only a few percent. We may just have a GOP President in 2016.
leveymg
Jan 2015
#56
The comparison is unfair to Coakley. The difference is the intensity of the negatives against HRC
leveymg
Jan 2015
#97
I agree so I "un-rec'd" an OP this morning anyway. Made me feel better. nt
snappyturtle
Jan 2015
#87
All this means is that Dems want an open primary, and that Hillary is the front runner.
bluedigger
Jan 2015
#69
I sometimes wonder if the anti-Hillary people might not be happier at FREE REPUBLIC....
brooklynite
Jan 2015
#130
An I wonder if the pro-Hillary people might not be happier at THIRD WAY.org
LondonReign2
Jan 2015
#163
Gee, ELIZABETH WARREN, HOWARD DEAN, and BARNEY FRANK are Third Way members?
brooklynite
Jan 2015
#168
I admire your relentless effort to push the Democratic party to the right
LondonReign2
Jan 2015
#172
The unstoppable train. If only she could cut that smelly baggage car loose.
Tierra_y_Libertad
Jan 2015
#102
I've never met a single person in my "real" life who likes Hillary Clinton.
RiverLover
Jan 2015
#110
I've met a lot of Elizabeth Warren supporters who support Hillary Clinton...
brooklynite
Jan 2015
#142
What would it take to disqualify her, then, if not her influential Iraq War vote?
leveymg
Jan 2015
#133
Yeah, Canada offers a much better representation of US public sentiment, I'm sure. /nt
Marr
Jan 2015
#132
Between name recognition, and the fact that nobody is currently running, this poll seems useless n/t
arcane1
Jan 2015
#202
If the Democratic Party nominates H. Clinton, they will have sold their souls to the devil (Oligarch
rhett o rick
Jan 2015
#218
Speaking of selling 1's soul, watch HRC laugh about getting a guillty rapist off.
Divernan
Jan 2015
#223