« US demands Russia stop bombing Syria's opposition. By Walrus. | Main | Syria, 5 February 2016 »

05 February 2016

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

BabelFish

Ringling Brothers could not stage a better show. "My hands will never leave my wrists as I twirl a rainbow of BS for your delight!"

Bill Herschel

I want to know who to vote for. The so-called foreign policy of the United States is an immoral disaster. Who will lead us out of that horror? HC will not.

SAC Brat

La Abuela de Muerte will unlimber her chancla at Wall Street? Not picturing it.

cynic

Double headed coins probably aren't cheap. Someone's got to keep making the money.

bks

The real news is on the business page. Same as it ever was.

rjj

Hard to forget the kind of wealth MM was born to .....

Author: News correspondent
Date: April 9, 2008
Publication: Gazette, The (Cedar Rapids-Iowa City, IA)
Page: 1A

WASHINGTON -- Edward Mezvinsky, who was an Iowa congressman in the 1970s, is scheduled to be released from prison Saturday after serving five years for bilking strangers, friends and family out of more than $10 million in get-rich-quick-schemes that sealed his ruin.

Mezvinsky, 71, pleaded guilty to 31 counts of fraud -- bank, mail, wire -- and other offenses involving financing bogus oil development and other trade deals in Africa.
Mezvinsky entered prison on Feb. 10, 2003,...

Cameron

One person I would hope she would not consult is her daughter's father-in-law, a former Congressman who did several years in prison for fraud.

Valissa

If anyone wants to see who funds Hillary at the highest level, here's some info at Open Secrets
Top Donors http://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/contrib.php?cycle=2016&id=N00000019&type=f

If you want to see donor information by Industry or other formats, there are tabs in the above link for that. btw, "Securities & Investments" is the largest donor group to Hillary.

Carter not afraid to say the US is now an oligarchy...

Jimmy Carter: Citizens United 'Gives Legal Bribery a Chance to Prevail' http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/02/03/jimmy-carter-citizens-united-gives-legal-bribery-chance-prevail/
Carter told interviewer John Humphrys that the ruling would have prevented a "relatively unknown farmer" like himself from emerging as a serious candidate. "Now," he said, "there's a massive infusion of hundreds of millions of dollars into campaigns for all the candidates." … "In a way," Carter said, "it gives legal bribery a chance to prevail because almost all the candidates, whether they are honest or not, and whether they are Democratic or Republican, depend on these massive infusions of money from very rich people in order to have money to campaign."

Carter contrasted today's elections from when he was running for office, saying, "In those days when I ran against Gerald Ford, who was incumbent president, or later Ronald Reagan, who challenged me, we didn't raise a single penny to finance our campaign to run against each other. We just used the $1 per person checkoff that every taxpayer indicates at the end of his or her income tax return. But nowadays, you have to have many hundreds of millions of dollars to prevail."

Humphrys said that another change that seems to have occurred over the decades is that "many members of the middle class and working class, white people, have been disaffected form the political process"—something that Carter attributed to the fact that "they have, in effect, been cheated out of a proper opportunity to improve their lot in life" because "rich people finance the campaigns," and "then when candidates get in office they do what the rich people want." … "We've become, now, an oligarchy instead of a democracy."
--------------------------

"Political language -- and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists -- is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." -- George Orwell

kao_hsien_chih

I think there will be two separate threads developing out of HRC's Wall Street Connections.

A lot of attention will be needlessly focused on the "speeches." Corporations/rich folks inviting "celebrities" to give some bland pep talk (or be wedding guest props) for large sums of money is, like it or not, common, especially if such "celebrity" is already a "good friend" of the corporation/rich person in question. That such large sums should be paid for such trivialities is disgusting and that someone with presidential aspirations should do so is vile, but a smoke will be thrown up for the (likely) fact that she said nothing improper and that there was no explicit quid pro quo involved, ignoring the bigger questions.

I am hoping that people will dig through deeper, even if "journalists" do not, beyond the obvious "money" links (which will be plentiful enough). Corporations (and other moneyed interests) don't give money to politicians to buy or rent them, either to do something specific or in general. They do so because the politicians being paid are already close friends (and in this case, family). These payoffs are reminders of how good friends they already are. No quid pro quo is needed, because the politicians already do what is in the interests of corporations.

The Beaver

Colonel,

Correct , he was not on the platform ( may be was babysitting Charlotte?)
This is interesting:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/hillary-proposes-mother-in-law-tax-on-cayman-fund-run-by-chelseas-hubby/article/2580211

A. Pols

"Economic Royalists" on the hoof...

rjj

Oops. Dead wrong. SORRY.

Mom must have had the money. Dad was Iowa hometown lad whose irregular enterprises dated from the 90s when the kid was in his teens.

Jack

Sir

It's even more absurd. She received $675,000 for 3 speeches from Goldman Sachs. And the Clinton Foundation receives tens of millions from Wall St. And she is arguing there is no patron-client relationship. In fact daring Sanders to prove the quid pro quo. But Pravda on the Hudson had this to say, "For Mrs. Clinton, the key question should not be whether she received generous checks from Wall Street, but whether she did their bidding in return." Yeah!

Of course, Goldman Sachs is an equal opportunity employer. They also fund Mrs. Cruz who is an employee on leave of absence to campaign for her husband and "lent" her husband's campaign funds. They also have sent their CEO to become Treasury Secretary under both parties. Rubin in the Clinton administration when Glass-Steagall was repealed and then he moved on to become Chairman of Citi. And Paulson in the GW Bush administration who threatened financial collapse to get taxpayers to bailout his net worth and Rubin's Citi investment. It seems the Borg is working overtime to get the fix in. We'll then get the faux competition of Hillary vs Rubio. And back to square one.

Jack

All

Our Borgist political system is paid for and run by the 0.01%. As George Carlin noted, the owners of America.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9dY4WlxO6i0


The Clinton System in NY Review.

http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/01/30/clinton-system-donor-machine-2016-election/

MRW

OT, but related:

The Ron Paul Institute interviews the filmmaker of a three-part series on the neocons. Antiwar.com announced it: "Breaking The Neocon Stranglehold On Washington." http://antiwar.com/blog/2016/02/02/breaking-the-neocon-stranglehold-on-washington/

It's short. 15 min. Worth your while to see if you want to watch Part 1, free for this week on a site they mention (filmsforaction.org).

I just watched Part 1, which is just over an hour. All told in the actual words of the Borg. It's the juxtaposition of words and clips the filmmaker chose over the last 20 years that is enlightening and damaging. Pulls it together brilliantly for those you know who have been asleep, or lulled by Fox, CNN, and MSNBC's pro-war and anti-Putin screeds. I thought it was pretty powerful stuff. Hillary does not come across well. Ditto those the Colonel calls The Children's Crusade. I will be paying the few bucks required to watch Part 2.

Kooshy

Col. Lang

First, thank you for putting this on the board today. second, last night after the democratic debate a CNN pundit was saying that her (HRC) answer when asked, why Goldman Sachs would pay someone $675000 for three speeches was well said and well justified and she is great debater. FYI her answer was ( paraphrasing) "I don’t know that’s what they offered". I wonder if she becomes president, what kind of “offers she can’t refuse”. Now days that’s what we are dealing with here our politicians get offers that they wouldn’t refuse.

Liza

Mezvinsky is clearly not the next Warren Buffett. He's lost more money than he's gained for investors at his hedge fund, and still managed to afford a $10 million Manhattan apartment that takes up an entire city block. He lost a fortune last year by betting on Greece. He had dinner with the prime minister of Greece and was persuaded to make a sizable investment. He apparently ignored the fact that the Greek economy is now based almost entirely on loans from the IMF and the EU.

Mezvinsky's major benefactor has been Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs. This financial association could prove embarrassing for Hillary if she wins the presidency. Goldman's credit default swap risk has been rising, indicating that Blankfein's firm may have suffered massive losses from the bankruptcy of the fracking industry, the collapse of the high yield bond market and the escalating crisis in China and other emerging markets. Should Goldman demand another taxpayer-funded bailout, the influence of Mezinsky's financial relationship with Blankfein should be raised, as well as the issue of the lucrative speaking fees Hillary received from Goldman.

I hope that Hillary will be questioned about the ethical issues associated with her son-in-law's career (although I very much doubt she will be). The issue of whether she would grant favors to his investors should be examined. Two critical questions: First, did Hillary grant favors to his investors as Secretary of State ? And second, why did Mezvinsky continue to attract investors after he lost their money ? What was the payoff ?

Incidentally, Mezvinsky is the son of former Iowa Congressman Ed Mezvinsky. Ed Mezvinsky was convicted and jailed for defrauding investors of $10 million in a ponzi scheme. Investors whom he defrauded included his own mother-in-law, who was taken for $300,000.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-03/chelsea-clintons-husband-suffers-massive-hedge-fund-loss-greek-investment

Fred

rjj,

But sons do not inherit the sins of their fathers. Unless they are Sons of Confederate Veterans.

Balint Somkuti

Or are from a country which fought on the Axis side in WWII.

Emad

"I don't remember MM to have been on the platform when his mother-in-law declared victory in Iowa."

Perhaps it's because the moneyed class has a habit of leading from behind.

Will

the media say Chelsea and Ivanka are close friends. Ivana converted to Judaism, but Chelsea has not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivanka_Trump
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea_Clinton#Personal_life


this is interesting: "Mezvinsky is the son of former members of Congress Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky and Edward Mezvinsky." His parents are divorced. If HRC succeeds, then Chelsea's children will have two congress-peoples and two presidents as grandparents.


Fred

Indeed. The proprieties of political opportunism must be maintained.

Fred

Mr. Mezvinsky only makes a paltry $2,000,000 per year (unlike those investing in his fund). How can he maintain a middle class Manhattan lifestyle on a paltry income like that? I'll be he's second homeless too. The horror.

cynic

The Clintons are coining it.

turcopolier

beaver

these people have baby sitters. IMO they were hiding him. pl

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

July 2020

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  
Blog powered by Typepad