info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
chelsea clinton's husband's family
196 views
Skip to first unread message
bob
Oct 30, 2016, 9:58:21 PM10/30/16
to
http://freedomoutpost.com/who-is-ed-mezvinsky-and-why-is-he-so-important-to-the-clinton-crime-family/
The Clinton's are inextricably linked to Edward “Ed” Mezvinsky, a
former Democratic congressman who represented Iowa’s 1st congressional
district from 1973-1977. More significantly, he sat on the House
Judiciary Committee and voted for all three articles of impeachment
against former president Richard Nixon. In 1974, TIME reported
Mezvinsky saying that Nixon should be held “to account for the gross
abuse of office.”
At the same time, the then 27-year-old Hillary Clinton got herself
hired and fired by the same Judiciary Committee. According to Jerry
Zeifman, a long-time Democrat and 17-year-long congressional staffer
who supervised Hillary:
<Because she was a liar. She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She
conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the
rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”
Hillary was fired for lying to her superior, and for her unethical.>
It should not be a surprise that her behavior has not changed 42 years
later.
Back to Mezvinsky, who had an affair with NBC News reporter Marjorie
Sue Margolies, which prompted his wife divorced him and the loss of
his congressional seat. He ended up marrying Margolies, who next ran
for Congress and served one term from 1993-1995. (She was one of 34
democrats defeated in the 1994 Election dubbed the “Republican
Revolution.”
By 1993, Bill Clinton was in the White House and Marjorie
Margolies-Mezvinsky was a freshman Democrat in Congress. But even more
significant– was that she cast the deciding vote, which pushed through
Congress Bill Clinton’s controversial tax bill.
Fast-forward to 2001, and Ed Mezvinsky was indicted (and pled guilty)
to 31 of 69 counts of bank fraud, mail fraud, and wire fraud. He was
finally caught embezzling more than $10 million through a Ponzi scheme
he devised involving a Nigerian e-mail scam. He was sentenced to 80
months in federal prison (6.66 years), but served less than five.
After his release and probation, he still owes $9.4 million in
restitution.
The Clinton Foundation surely has enough funds to cover his debts.
After all, Medvinsky is a long-time friend of the Clintons. Not to
mention, since 2010, actually, family.
Ed Medvinsky’s son, Marc, is Chelsea Clinton’s husband.
The Houston Chronicle reported that the Chelsea’s and her husband’s
parents’ lives were personally and politically intertwined for
decades, well before they announced their engagement in 2009. It
writes:
The Clintons and Mezvinskys have long been political allies and
friends.
In 1993, Margolies-Mezvinsky, then a freshman Democrat, cast the vote
that got President Bill Clinton’s controversial tax package through
the House of Representatives.
“She earned an honored place in history, with a vote she shouldn’t
have had to cast,” Bill Clinton wrote in “My Life,” his 2004 memoir.
On a darker note, federal 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. Both he and his
wife were forced into bankruptcy, and they quietly divorced in 2000.
Margolies-Mezvinsky was not implicated in any wrongdoing, but the
scandal effectively ended her political ambitions. She founded and
remains at the helm of Women’s Campaign International, a nonprofit
dedicated to the political empowerment of women.
Ironically, the new Mezvinsky couple (Chelsea and the son) was able to
purchase a $10.5 million apartment in New York City– $1.1 million more
than what their father-in-law owes. Sadly, the crime saga continues,
as Clinton Cash and numerous reports reveal. The only question is when
will Americans send Hillary to prison, following the footsteps of her
daughter’s father-in-law, Ed Mezvinsky?
same ole.
bob
The Clinton's are inextricably linked to Edward “Ed” Mezvinsky, a
former Democratic congressman who represented Iowa’s 1st congressional
district from 1973-1977. More significantly, he sat on the House
Judiciary Committee and voted for all three articles of impeachment
against former president Richard Nixon. In 1974, TIME reported
Mezvinsky saying that Nixon should be held “to account for the gross
abuse of office.”
At the same time, the then 27-year-old Hillary Clinton got herself
hired and fired by the same Judiciary Committee. According to Jerry
Zeifman, a long-time Democrat and 17-year-long congressional staffer
who supervised Hillary:
<Because she was a liar. She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She
conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the
rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”
Hillary was fired for lying to her superior, and for her unethical.>
It should not be a surprise that her behavior has not changed 42 years
later.
Back to Mezvinsky, who had an affair with NBC News reporter Marjorie
Sue Margolies, which prompted his wife divorced him and the loss of
his congressional seat. He ended up marrying Margolies, who next ran
for Congress and served one term from 1993-1995. (She was one of 34
democrats defeated in the 1994 Election dubbed the “Republican
Revolution.”
By 1993, Bill Clinton was in the White House and Marjorie
Margolies-Mezvinsky was a freshman Democrat in Congress. But even more
significant– was that she cast the deciding vote, which pushed through
Congress Bill Clinton’s controversial tax bill.
Fast-forward to 2001, and Ed Mezvinsky was indicted (and pled guilty)
to 31 of 69 counts of bank fraud, mail fraud, and wire fraud. He was
finally caught embezzling more than $10 million through a Ponzi scheme
he devised involving a Nigerian e-mail scam. He was sentenced to 80
months in federal prison (6.66 years), but served less than five.
After his release and probation, he still owes $9.4 million in
restitution.
The Clinton Foundation surely has enough funds to cover his debts.
After all, Medvinsky is a long-time friend of the Clintons. Not to
mention, since 2010, actually, family.
Ed Medvinsky’s son, Marc, is Chelsea Clinton’s husband.
The Houston Chronicle reported that the Chelsea’s and her husband’s
parents’ lives were personally and politically intertwined for
decades, well before they announced their engagement in 2009. It
writes:
The Clintons and Mezvinskys have long been political allies and
friends.
In 1993, Margolies-Mezvinsky, then a freshman Democrat, cast the vote
that got President Bill Clinton’s controversial tax package through
the House of Representatives.
“She earned an honored place in history, with a vote she shouldn’t
have had to cast,” Bill Clinton wrote in “My Life,” his 2004 memoir.
On a darker note, federal 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. Both he and his
wife were forced into bankruptcy, and they quietly divorced in 2000.
Margolies-Mezvinsky was not implicated in any wrongdoing, but the
scandal effectively ended her political ambitions. She founded and
remains at the helm of Women’s Campaign International, a nonprofit
dedicated to the political empowerment of women.
Ironically, the new Mezvinsky couple (Chelsea and the son) was able to
purchase a $10.5 million apartment in New York City– $1.1 million more
than what their father-in-law owes. Sadly, the crime saga continues,
as Clinton Cash and numerous reports reveal. The only question is when
will Americans send Hillary to prison, following the footsteps of her
daughter’s father-in-law, Ed Mezvinsky?
same ole.
bob
Court_1
Oct 30, 2016, 10:17:54 PM10/30/16
to
The Iceberg
Oct 31, 2016, 6:55:38 AM10/31/16
to
bob
Oct 31, 2016, 10:13:56 AM10/31/16
to
bob
bob
Oct 31, 2016, 10:14:04 AM10/31/16
to
woman willing to testify that donal trump assaulted you - pay rate
negotiable."
bob
Gracchus
Oct 31, 2016, 10:39:05 AM10/31/16
to
On Monday, October 31, 2016 at 7:13:56 AM UTC-7, bob wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Oct 2016 19:17:50 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
> On Sun, 30 Oct 2016 19:17:50 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
> >Freedomoutpost, lol. Another Socialist propaganda site? That's an unbiased news source according to you? Piss off.
> was there anything untrue in the article?
That's my first thought as well. There are news sources I distrust on first sight (Fox News for example), but when all is said and done, the material is true or false. C1 has a knee-jerk response whenever she sees anything associated with "the left," and decides in advance that either (a) it must be false (b) the source has an anti-capitalist agenda [whatever that even means] and thus the article should be dismissed without viewing whether true or not.
> was there anything untrue in the article?
But no matter. In this faux "election," very few people will be swayed by what they read or hear about either side at this point. Last week I had relatives visiting that vote Republican in every election. This year, for the first time ever, they're choosing not to vote at all because both choices are unacceptable. So even though I differ a lot from these people politically, we've ended up pretty much at the same place.
The best that can be hoped for concerning the "election" of 2016 is that it opens up enough eyes to produce some meaningful activism in the aftermath. But it's a slim hope.
Rodjk #613
Oct 31, 2016, 11:08:48 AM10/31/16
to
On Monday, October 31, 2016 at 9:13:56 AM UTC-5, bob wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Oct 2016 19:17:50 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
> <olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, October 30, 2016 at 9:58:21 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
> >> http://freedomoutpost.com/who-is-ed-mezvinsky-and-why-is-he-so-important-to-the-clinton-crime-family/
> >>
<SNIP>
> On Sun, 30 Oct 2016 19:17:50 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
> <olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, October 30, 2016 at 9:58:21 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
> >> http://freedomoutpost.com/who-is-ed-mezvinsky-and-why-is-he-so-important-to-the-clinton-crime-family/
> >>
> >>
> >> bob
> >
> >Freedomoutpost, lol. Another Socialist propaganda site? That's an unbiased news source according to you? Piss off.
>
> was there anything untrue in the article?
>
> bob
http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/zeifman.asp
Quite tellingly, Zeifman made absolutely no mention of having "fired" or "terminated" Hillary Rodham, nor of telling her that he "could not recommend her for any further positions," in his 1995 book; he only started claiming so much later. Back in 1995 he noted that Hillary had remained with the inquiry staff up until the end, leaving only when President Nixon's August 1974 resignation made the issue of impeachment moot and the Judiciary Committee's impeachment inquiry staff was therefore disbanded:
Hillary was twenty-seven when the impeachment inquiry staff was disbanded. The next morning she took a train down to Little Rock, Arkansas. She moved in with Bill Clinton and they eventually married.
And again in 1998, Zeifman was quoted in a Scripps Howard News Service article as unambiguously confirming that not only did he not "fire" Hillary, but that it was not even within his power to do so:
Jerome Zeifman, chief Democratic counsel on the House Judiciary Committee in 1974 ... does not have flattering memories of Rodham's work on the committee. "If I had the power to fire her, I would have fired her," he said.
So yeah, the article is a spin job and it took all of 30 seconds to find out that one of the first points was completely untrue.
Too bad you didn't make any kind of fact checking effort before posting; but of course, that is your usual SOP.
Rodjk #613
Court_1
Oct 31, 2016, 7:08:13 PM10/31/16
to
On Monday, October 31, 2016 at 10:39:05 AM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
> That's my first thought as well. There are news sources I distrust on first sight (Fox News for example), but when all is said and done, the material is true or false. C1 has a knee-jerk response whenever she sees anything associated with "the left," and decides in advance that either (a) it must be false (b) the source has an anti-capitalist agenda [whatever that even means] and thus the article should be dismissed without viewing whether true or not.
Pot calling the kettle black? You just said you automatically distrust Fox News so you do the exact same thing you are accusing me of, i.e. have a knee-jerk reaction when you see Fox News, CNN, NY Times,etc because you distrust anything coming from elitist sources.
> That's my first thought as well. There are news sources I distrust on first sight (Fox News for example), but when all is said and done, the material is true or false. C1 has a knee-jerk response whenever she sees anything associated with "the left," and decides in advance that either (a) it must be false (b) the source has an anti-capitalist agenda [whatever that even means] and thus the article should be dismissed without viewing whether true or not.
Yes, as soon as I see an anti-capitalist agenda or a Socialist site, I am skeptical. These type of sites always have an axe to grind and are not credible news sources for the most part. All news sources lean one way or another and you have to get your news from some place right? We all make our own choices.
Court_1
Oct 31, 2016, 7:12:21 PM10/31/16
to
On Monday, October 31, 2016 at 11:08:48 AM UTC-4, Rodjk #613 wrote:
> Too bad you didn't make any kind of fact checking effort before posting; but of course, that is your usual SOP.
Yep, that's Bob for you!
> Too bad you didn't make any kind of fact checking effort before posting; but of course, that is your usual SOP.
Gracchus
Oct 31, 2016, 7:33:45 PM10/31/16
to
On Monday, October 31, 2016 at 4:08:13 PM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
> On Monday, October 31, 2016 at 10:39:05 AM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
> > That's my first thought as well. There are news sources I distrust on first sight (Fox News for example), but when all is said and done, the material is true or false. C1 has a knee-jerk response whenever she sees anything associated with "the left," and decides in advance that either (a) it must be false (b) the source has an anti-capitalist agenda [whatever that even means] and thus the article should be dismissed without viewing whether true or not.
> Pot calling the kettle black? You just said you automatically distrust Fox News so you do the exact same thing you are accusing me of, i.e. have a knee-jerk reaction when you see Fox News, CNN, NY Times,etc because you distrust anything coming from elitist sources.
And to be fair, I acknowledged being distrustful of those sources in my post. So why are you claiming I have a double standard about it?
> On Monday, October 31, 2016 at 10:39:05 AM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
> > That's my first thought as well. There are news sources I distrust on first sight (Fox News for example), but when all is said and done, the material is true or false. C1 has a knee-jerk response whenever she sees anything associated with "the left," and decides in advance that either (a) it must be false (b) the source has an anti-capitalist agenda [whatever that even means] and thus the article should be dismissed without viewing whether true or not.
> Pot calling the kettle black? You just said you automatically distrust Fox News so you do the exact same thing you are accusing me of, i.e. have a knee-jerk reaction when you see Fox News, CNN, NY Times,etc because you distrust anything coming from elitist sources.
Court_1
Oct 31, 2016, 7:51:04 PM10/31/16
to
On Monday, October 31, 2016 at 7:33:45 PM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
> On Monday, October 31, 2016 at 4:08:13 PM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
> > On Monday, October 31, 2016 at 10:39:05 AM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
>
> > > That's my first thought as well. There are news sources I distrust on first sight (Fox News for example), but when all is said and done, the material is true or false. C1 has a knee-jerk response whenever she sees anything associated with "the left," and decides in advance that either (a) it must be false (b) the source has an anti-capitalist agenda [whatever that even means] and thus the article should be dismissed without viewing whether true or not.
>
> > Pot calling the kettle black? You just said you automatically distrust Fox News so you do the exact same thing you are accusing me of, i.e. have a knee-jerk reaction when you see Fox News, CNN, NY Times,etc because you distrust anything coming from elitist sources.
>
> And to be fair, I acknowledged being distrustful of those sources in my post. So why are you claiming I have a double standard about it?
Because you said you were distrustful of Fox News and then went into your attack mode saying "I" have a knee-jerk reaction when I see some anti-Capitalist or Socialist source. I just found it pretty ironic.
> On Monday, October 31, 2016 at 4:08:13 PM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
> > On Monday, October 31, 2016 at 10:39:05 AM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
>
> > > That's my first thought as well. There are news sources I distrust on first sight (Fox News for example), but when all is said and done, the material is true or false. C1 has a knee-jerk response whenever she sees anything associated with "the left," and decides in advance that either (a) it must be false (b) the source has an anti-capitalist agenda [whatever that even means] and thus the article should be dismissed without viewing whether true or not.
>
> > Pot calling the kettle black? You just said you automatically distrust Fox News so you do the exact same thing you are accusing me of, i.e. have a knee-jerk reaction when you see Fox News, CNN, NY Times,etc because you distrust anything coming from elitist sources.
>
> And to be fair, I acknowledged being distrustful of those sources in my post. So why are you claiming I have a double standard about it?
As I said, we all have to get our news from some place and I'm not going to Freedom Outpost for my news, I don't know about you. Bob goes on and on about how biased CNN and the NY Times are and then he posts an article from Freedom Outpost and he doesn't see how biased a news source like that one is? His hypocrisy and stupidity are endless it seems.
bob
Nov 2, 2016, 8:32:59 PM11/2/16
to
that bothers me more than anything was the % of mainstream media that
took such an incredibly strong stance as if working for 1 candidate's
campaign. it's as if it's not a free press, which scares me.
if we wish to say faux news always did it, well the other 99% of
agencies just joined in the other side just as strongly. been
sickening to watch, i don't watch news anymore, i pick bits and pieces
and see if they make sense. like the link above for ex.
bob
bob
Nov 2, 2016, 8:36:14 PM11/2/16
to
mezvinsky, feel free to catch any lies. btw, the man was in prison for
31 charges of fraud. can't make this stuff up. :-)
bob
bob
Nov 2, 2016, 8:38:02 PM11/2/16
to
as the main premise. that's your main SOP.
bob
Rodjk #613
Nov 3, 2016, 4:15:11 PM11/3/16
to
Why not respond to what I said?
Rodjk #613
bob
Nov 3, 2016, 6:32:42 PM11/3/16
to
On Thu, 3 Nov 2016 13:15:09 -0700 (PDT), "Rodjk #613"
and you found a small part that was partially true, based on opinion.
good. there are many pts made in the article.
bob
good. there are many pts made in the article.
bob
0 new messages