Jerome Corsi outlines plans in ‘Partners in Crime’
(WND) – Hillary Clinton’s run for the White House a second time, after her 2008 campaign as the Democrat’s “presumed nominee” failed, is certainly her last chance to capture the prize she has desired her entire adult life.
For the Clinton family, getting Hillary in the White House would return Bill Clinton as “first spouse.”
But for this most political of married couples, the real opportunity of a Hillary presidency would be not only to wield the power of the U.S. government as chief executive but to position the Clinton Foundation for another round of criminal philanthropy that could well dwarf all previous efforts.
Exclusively at WND, you can read chapter nine of two-time New York Times bestselling author Dr. Jerome Corsi’s “Partners in Crime: The Clintons’ Scheme to Monetize the White House for Personal Profit.”
SPECIAL: Donate today and help the Tea Party STOP the Hillary Crime Machine’s commandeering of America before it’s too late!
Corsi presents the detailed research and expert testimony proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Clinton Foundation is “a vast, criminal conspiracy,” also described in these pages as “a slush fund for grifters.”
You can also order “Partners in Crime: The Clintons’ Scheme to Monetize the White House for Personal Profit” in bulk at the WND Superstore, so you can have copies of this hugely important work to hand out to friends still unconvinced “Crooked Hillary” isn’t right for the White House.
THE ‘HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT 2016’ SCAM
By Jerome Corsi
Hillary Clinton’s run for the White House a second time, after her 2008 campaign as the Democrat’s “presumed nominee” failed, is certainly her last chance to capture the prize she has desired her entire adult life. For the Clinton family, getting Hillary in the White House would return Bill Clinton as “first spouse.” But for this most political of married couples, the real opportunity of a Hillary presidency would be not only to wield the power of the U.S. government as chief executive but to position the Clinton Foundation for another round of criminal philanthropy that could well dwarf all previous efforts
Not satisfied with the historic possibility of being the first husband-wife team to be elected each as president, the Clinton family has positioned Chelsea Clinton as head of the Clinton Foundation, where she can be groomed, conceivably, to take the Clinton charity crime enterprise into a second generation. As Clinton Foundation head, she would be positioned to leverage a Hillary Clinton presidency into inurement riches and “pay-to-play” dollars that could increase Clinton wealth exponentially.
WHO IS ED MEZVINSKY?
On July 31, 2010, Chelsea Clinton, then thirty, married New York hedge fund manager Marc Mezvinsky, son of a Nixon-era congressman who served a five-year term in federal prison for cheating investors out of millions of dollars.
Ed Mezvinsky grew up in Ames, Iowa, the son of a Jewish grocery store owner. There, he went from being the “golden boy” of Ames local high school sports, the former all-state football player and member of the Ames High School state championship basketball and track teams of 1955, to privately being dubbed by lawyers as “Fast Talking Eddie” in the 1970s. In 1974, Rep. Ed Mezvinsky, a Democrat who represented Iowa’s First Congressional District in the House of Representatives for two terms, 1973-1977, was one of the thirty-eight members of the House Judiciary Committee who voted to submit three articles of impeachment against sitting Republican president Richard Nixon to the full House.
In a profile of Mezvinsky written in 2003, the Des Moines Register described his investment schemes in Africa. “Mezvinsky’s most common fraud was telling victims that he needed money to deposit in a trust account that would not be moved. He needed it, he would say, to show he had the financial wherewithal to make an investment,” the newspaper noted. “He promised a hefty return.” But instead of investment returns, those who trusted Mezvinsky found themselves defrauded. “He then spent the money on African schemes, used it to cover debts, or paid off those who complained the loudest about not being paid back from previous bogus deals.” Prosecutors said Mezvinsky, in advancing what amounted to a massive Ponzi scheme, habitually dropped the names of Bill and Hillary Clinton and boasted of his friendship with them, as he bilked family, friends, and institutions out of $10 million in the 1990s.
WHAT DOES MARC MEZVINSKY DO?
Rob Copeland of the Wall Street Journal reported on February 3, 2015, that Eaglevale Partners, LP, the hedge fund Marc Mezvinsky cofounded with two former colleagues from Goldman Sachs, had suffered a loss of 3.6 percent in 2014, largely because of ill-timed bets on the Greek economy, far trailing the 5.7 percent rise for similar hedge funds, as tracked by a respected rating agency. A smaller Eaglevale hedge fund focused solely on Greece lost a stunning 48 percent in 2014. “Our recent predictions regarding Greek politics have proved incorrect,” Marc Mezvinsky and the other Eaglevale founders wrote to investors after a radical leftist party won national elections in an upset of Europe’s political order. “We are reticent to render decisive predictions at this time.” According to Copeland, Eaglevale is a “relatively small player in the hedge-fund world,” managing approximately $400 million, pursuing a “so-called macro strategy that looks to profit from macroeconomic trends.” The Journal also reported that Eaglevale since its founding has spent twenty-seven of its thirty-four months in operation below its “high-water mark,” a term that describes whether a Day One investor is in the black. Eaglevale’s annualized rate of return from inception is 0.87 percent, according to investor documents examined by the newspaper.
Andrew Stiles, in a Washington Free Beacon article titled “Don’t Give Your Money to Clinton Son-in-Law Marc Mezvinsky,” had a slightly different take on the value of an investment in Eaglevale.
“This is not to say that giving your money to Eaglevale is a bad investment,” Stiles wrote. “Of course, if your primary concern is short-term profit, you should probably look elsewhere. But if you are a wealthy Democratic donor who places a high value on long-term political access to one of America’s most powerful families, Eaglevale is the fund for you. Not surprisingly, the fund’s early group sessions for prospective investors attracted ‘standing-room-only crowds.’” Stiles noted that prominent investors in Mezvinsky’s hedge fund included Lloyd Blankfein, chairman and CEO of Goldman Sachs, where Mezvinsky used to work. “Blankfein has contributed generously to Democrats over the years, and has hosted fundraisers for Hillary Clinton,” he wrote. Another Democratic supporter, Marc Lasry, the billionaire hedge fund manager who co-owns the Milwaukee Bucks NBA team, is also an investor in Mezvinsky’s hedge fund. “Lasry, who used to employ Chelsea Clinton at his $13.3 billion hedge fund, Avenue Capital Group, is a longtime Democratic donor and figures to be one of Hillary Clinton’s top fundraisers in 2016,” Stiles commented. “Lasry had been President Obama’s choice to serve as U.S. ambassador to France, but was forced to withdraw his name over his ties to an alleged poker ring run by the Russian mob.”
MARC MEZVINSKY LEARNS TO PLAY THE CLINTON FAMILY GAME
On December 7, 2015, Chuck Ross reported in the Daily Caller that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had sought to help “her wealthy hedge fund son-in-law,” who was seeking a meeting with the State Department and Clinton herself to discuss a deep-sea mining company in which he had invested. Ross noted that an investor named Harry Siklas emailed Marc Mezvinsky on May 25, 2015, to see if a meeting could be set up with someone at the State Department to discuss Neptune Minerals, a sea-floor sulfide mining company founded in 2011. “Both Siklas and Mezvinsky had worked at Goldman Sachs, which itself has been cozy with Clinton. The Wall Street behemoth was the fourth largest corporate donor to Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign.” Ross said it was unclear what came of the request for a State Department meeting. Neptune Minerals did not respond to a request for comment, Ross reported, nor did the Clinton campaign. An email the Daily Caller sent to an address listed for Siklas was returned undeliverable.
In December 2015, the conservative watchdog group Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust (FACT) filed a complaint with the U.S. Office of Government Ethics, accusing Clinton of giving special government access to Harry Silas, an investor in Neptune Minerals because of his connections to Clinton’s son-in-law, Marc Mezvinsky. In May 2012, as Time magazine reported, Siklas had asked Mezvinsky to connect him with officials at the State Department to discuss mining regulations affecting his investments. Siklas noted that he was lobbying for access on behalf of a friend who had founded the deep-sea mining firm. “Hey bud,” Siklas wrote in his note to Mezvinsky.
“I need a contact in Hillary’s office: someone my friend Josh (and I perhaps) can reach out via email or phone to discuss mining and the current legal issues and regulations.” Time further reported that three months later, State Department emails show that Clinton forwarded the message to another department official, Deputy Secretary of State Thomas Nides, asking, “Could you have someone follow up on this request which was forwarded to me?” Nides replied, “I’ll get on it.” This email exchange was made public by the State Department’s release of Clinton’s e-mails and was first reported by the Associated Press.
“Clinton’s email usage is already the subject of federal probes in her and her aides’ handling of classified information on the private server she maintained in her Westchester, N.Y., home,” the Time article noted.
Fox News, reporting the backstory of the Neptune Minerals affair, noted that at the time Clinton was advocating for an Obama administration push to win Senate approval for a sweeping law-of-the-sea treaty. “The pact would have aided U.S. mining companies scouring for minerals in international waters, but the Republican-dominated Senate blocked it.” In the email, Siklas also said that his then employer, Goldman Sachs, was representing Neptune. “Before joining Eaglevale, Mezvinsky also had worked for eight years at Goldman, partly during Siklas’ tenure there between 2004 and 2007,” Fox News reported.
“Members of the influential New York firm were one of Clinton’s top funders in her 2008 presidential race, giving more than $225,000 that cycle. The firm has also been a major donor to the Clinton Foundation, giving between $1 million and $5 million.”
CHELSEA GROWS UP TO BECOME JUST ANOTHER CLINTON
On May 18, 2015, Richard Johnson triggered a controversy when he reported at PageSix.com that “Chelsea Clinton is so unpleasant to colleagues, she’s causing high turnover.” Johnson said several top staffers had left the Clinton Foundation since Chelsea became vice chair in 2011. Johnson noted that former Clinton Foundation CEO Bruce Lindsey was “pushed upstairs” to be board chair in 2013, so Chelsea could bring in her McKinsey colleague Eric Braverman, who, as previously noted, appeared to have quit in a dispute over what he considered to be failures in Clinton Foundation financial audits and regulatory reporting. Johnson’s source told him that Braverman was “Chelsea’s boy,” but he was pushed out because he tried to hire his own communications professionals and “actually tried to run the place.” Rather than side with Chelsea, Johnson’s report ended up being critical of the Clinton family’s overall management of the Clinton Foundation, noting that Chelsea was now as culpable as her parents. “Instead of being something Hillary can point to with pride,” Johnson’s report concluded, “the foundation has become a bloated slush fund that some critics say deserves an official investigation. And Chelsea’s fingerprints are all over it.”
But Chelsea’s reported abrasive personality has not prevented her from campaign fund-raising for her mother, while continuing her pursuit of charitable donations in her role as Clinton Foundation vice chair. On January 19, 2016, CNN reported that Chelsea was heading to London to headline a February 23 Clinton campaign fund-raiser to be attended by Vogue editor-in-chief Anna Wintour and hosted by Natalie Sara Massenet, the founder of the fashion website Net-a-Porter, with tickets between $1,000 and $2,700, the maximum an individual can contribute to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. Chelsea was also scheduled to cohost fund-raisers for her mother in California, Florida, and New York City.
With the Clinton Foundation rolling along in 2015 donations, Chelsea appeared to be fitting right in to the family business, undistracted by any possible conflicts of interest her campaigning for her mother in 2016 might entail as Clinton Foundation vice chair. The Washington Post reported on October 29, 2015, that Clinton Foundation donations are on the rise, measured both in dollars and in the number of contributions to the charity, after Hillary emerged early in the 2016 presidential campaign as, once again, the “presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party.” According to the Post, the Clinton Foundation announced that it had raised more money since the start of 2015 than it had during the same period in 2014, “pushing back against suggestions that the family’s global charity has been adversely affected by scrutiny associated with Hillary Clinton’s presidential run.” Quite the contrary appeared obvious. Calculating that Hillary might be president on this second try, donors and prospective donors apparently began to realize it was time to make their contributions before the proverbial train left the station.
Hillary Clinton opened her office to dozens of influential Democratic Party fund-raisers, former Clinton administration and campaign loyalists, and corporate donors to her family’s global charity, according to State Department calendars obtained by the Associated Press. Clinton spoke by phone with nearly one hundred corporate executives and longtime Clinton Foundation charity donors during her four years at the State Department between 2009 and 2013, according to her calendar records. The AP further reported these formally scheduled meetings involved heads of companies and organizations that pursued business interests with the Obama administration, including with the State Department while Clinton was in charge. While it’s unlikely Chelsea could be White House chief of staff during her mother’s presidency and still keep her title as vice chair of the Clinton Foundation, it remains highly probable Clinton Foundation donors and campaign contributors would have no less access to the Oval Office in a Hillary presidency than they had to the secretary of state’s office.
NO LUXURY DENIED
Increased involvement in her mother’s presidential campaign did not stop Chelsea from vacationing at one of the world’s most exclusive resots. Morgan Chalfant reported on January 19, 2016, in the Washington Free Beacon, Chelsea and her husband, and their daughter, Charlotte, were spotted at the Amanyara Resort on Providenciales Island in Turks and Caicos. Chalfant reported that Chelsea, “who is pregnant, appeared to taking a break from campaigning for her mother.” Chalfant calculated that rooms at the resort, rated as one of the world’s most expensive, begin at $1,500 per night during the slow season, with Amanyara’s most exclusive accommodations, its six-bedroom villa, cost $34,000 per night during the resort’s busy season. One night in the top villa easily costs more than the average American worker makes in a year, Chalfant added, taking the latest measure of per capita income over twelve months at $28,555, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. The Daily Mail in London reported that back in Iowa, Chelsea gave a speech casting her mother in glowing terms when telling a crowd of five thousand, “I can’t imagine a better role model for me as a woman, as a Democrat, as a progressive, and as a working mom.”
Chelsea’s attacks on the Democratic Party’s admittedly socialist candidate for president, Bernie Sanders, over his health care reforms drew instant pushback from political pundits shocked to see Chelsea grow up to act just like another Clinton political attack dog. Michelle Cottle, writing in the Atlantic on January 19, 2016, noted how disturbing it was to realize Chelsea was just another “political hack,” as some critics immediately charged. Cottle quoted Chelsea saying in a 2014 interview, “It is frustrating, because who wants to grow up and follow their parents? I’ve tried really hard to care about things that were very different from my parents.” But Cottle had to concede that “the Clinton gravitational pull” is strong. “And, her many talents notwithstanding, there is arguably no job for which Chelsea is more qualified – or, for now, more needed – than professional daughter,” Cottle wrote. “But woe be unto her mom’s campaign if she behaves like your typical political veteran and picks any more fights.” In her new adult roles, Chelsea might have to shed the softening touch she gave her mother’s political campaigns by playing the role of “first daughter.” But if the money continued to flow, both to the foundation and the campaign, a bit of adverse press from Democrats displeased to see Chelsea on the attack might end up being a small price the Clinton family would be more than willing to pay.
HILLARY: ‘NO ONE IS TOO BIG TO JAIL’
In the fourth Democratic presidential debate with Sanders, in response to being challenged over her extensive financial ties to Wall Street, Hillary Clinton made a statement that could haunt her in the future.
“There’s no daylight on the basic premise that there should be no bank too big to fail,” she said, “and no individual too powerful to jail. We agree on that.” The remark, tweeted out by the Clinton camp to Hillary’s five-million-plus Twitter followers, caught the Clinton campaign by surprise. Dozens on Twitter responded within seconds that the remark applied to Hillary herself. Responders on Twitter brought up the FBI investigation of Clinton’s private email server, as well as political corruption allegations regarding the Clinton Foundation. Thomas Lifson, editor and publisher of the American Thinker, attributed the remark to a guilty conscience. “There may still be a reasonable debate on whether or not Hillary Clinton has a conscience, but Sunday night’s Democratic presidential debate proves that she does have a sub- conscious,” Lifson wrote. “That part of her mind put words into her mouth that her conscious mind would rather not admit.”
On August 27, 2015, Quinnipiac University released a poll that showed Americans overwhelmingly think Hillary Clinton is a habitual liar. In fact, “liar” is “the first word that comes to mind” more than others in an open-ended question when voters think of Hillary Clinton.
The poll further reported that 61 percent of voters say Hillary is not honest and trustworthy. A Fox News poll released August 14, 2015, showed 58 percent of responders believe Hillary Clinton knowingly lied when denying her private email system at the State Department contained no classified information. Only 2 percent of the respondents believed she had told the truth about her private email server. The results have held consistent through polling conducted by Quinnipiac at the end of 2015. The inevitable conclusion: the majority of Americans have seen through the Hillary Clinton façade, judging that she will lie – presumably either through her own misrepresentations or through the “spin” of her surrogates – whenever it’s politically advantageous.
BILL CLINTON VIEWED AS ‘SERIAL RAPIST,’ HILLARY AS ‘ABUSER’ OF HIS VICTIMS
In the 1990s, Bill Clinton skated by accusations of serial rape and numerous other sexual infidelities simply by having Hillary Clinton “stand by her man,” while the cute and devoted child Chelsea held their hands. Meanwhile, Bill Cosby, once a television comedian loved by millions of Americans, is facing accusations by nearly sixty women of sexual assault since the mid-1960s, and criminal charges have been filed in one case.
A 2015 book by Roger Stone and Robert Morrow, The Clintons’ War on Women, has spotlighted the documentation dating back to the earliest days of the Clintons’ relationship, detailing woman by woman the sordid accusations against Bill and Hillary’s cover-up campaign to demonize and terrorize the accusers. In 2016, however, the Clintons’ ability to cover up this disgrace appears to be coming to a rapid end. In what might be termed the “Cosby Effect,” sexual assaults by a male politician appear no longer excusable, despite the efforts of a calculating wife with the skills of an attorney and the power of a family fortune.
Stone has openly charged that Hillary Clinton promotedg herself as an advocate for women and children is hypocrisy, calling her “an enabler of rape. She has been the person to enable the serial rape and sexual assaults by her husband Bill Clinton. Some of which are known publicly: Paula Jones, Juanita Broaddrick, and Kathleen Willey.”
But Stone has charged there are “many, many who are not publically known.” He accused Bill Clinton of violating the women physically, followed by Hillary coming to his aid by hiring detectives to gather information that could be used to silence the victims. Stone has charged that Hillary has gone to great lengths to do “horrific things” to the victims, including killing their pets – as Willey claimed was done to her cat, slashing tires, smashing windshields, leaving bullets in the front seat of their cars, and late-night, anonymous phone calls.
“Far from her public image, Hillary Clinton is a violent, scheming, ambitious, foul-mouthed woman with an insatiable appetite for luxury, money, and power,” Stone and Morrow wrote. “Hillary is also a physically violent person, famous for hitting, scratching, and throwing things at her cheating husband. She is a classic abuser of anyone who gets in the way of her drive for power.”
Increasingly, Hillary and Bill are being confronted at campaign rallies about the allegations against Bill and Hillary’s role in attacking his accusers. On December 3, 2015, at a campaign event in New Hampshire, a woman in the audience asked Hillary Clinton, “You say that all rape victims should be believed, but would you say that about Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, and Paula Jones? Should we believe them as well?” Clinton, taken aback, responded awkwardly, “Well, I would say everybody should be believed until they are disbelieved based on evidence.”
Then in Derry, New Hampshire, at Hillary’s first town hall meeting in 2016, Katherine Prudhomme-O’Brien, a state representative, confronted the candidate about claims that her husband had sexually assaulted Broaddrick and Willey. “I was a Democrat, but I became a Republican because of this, because of this stuff. Because of what I saw happen in the Clinton years, the hypocrisy of so-called women who fight for women,” said Prudhomme-O’Brien, interrupting Clinton’s town hall meeting.
GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump has charged that Bill Clinton’s sexual history is fair game in the 2016 presidential campaign. “Hillary is an enabler,” Trump alleged. “She is married to an abuser,” he charged in another context. “If Hillary is going to play the woman’s card, it’s all fair game.”
SHE IS OFTEN CONFUSED
On November 16, 2015, Judicial Watch released more than thirty-five pages of emails from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s aide Huma Abedin revealing that Abedin had advised Clinton aide and frequent companion Monica Hanley that it was “very important” to go over phone calls with Clinton because the former secretary of state was “often confused.”
In May 2014, responding to former George W. Bush adviser Karl Rove’s assertion that Hillary had suffered brain damage after falling in December 2012, Bill Clinton revealed that his wife’s injury “required six months of very serious work to get over.” Clinton was frank in discussing the extent of his wife’s injury. “They went to all this trouble to say she had staged what was a terrible concussion that required six months of very serious work to get over,” he said. “It’s something she never low-balled with the American people, never tried to pretend it didn’t happen.”
On December 15, 2012, the New York Times revealed Clinton had fainted and suffered a concussion after striking her head falling, when she was alone at her home in Washington. The report said the incident was precipitated when Clinton became dehydrated because of a stomach virus she contracted during a trip to Europe. The State Department confirmed that the concussion was not diagnosed until several days after the fall but was serious enough to postpone Clinton’s scheduled testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House Foreign Relations Committee investigating the September 11, 2012, attack on the American diplomatic outpost in Benghazi that took the life of U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens. When Clinton finally did testify to Congress, a spokesperson confirmed the thick glasses she had been wearing since her fall and concussion were prescribed to deal with the lingering effects of her health problems, including a blood clot that supposedly had developed. Investigating further, the New York Daily News reported on January 24, 2013, that a Fresnel prism taped to Clinton’s eyeglasses was designed to treat the double vision resulting from the concussion and blood clot.
Investigative reporter Ed Klein, in an article published by Newsmax on December 15, 2015, revealed that concerns about Hillary Clinton’s health problems had not diminished. Hillary continued to suffer from blinding headaches, exhaustion, insomnia, and a tremor in her hands.
“As a precaution against the spectacle of fainting in public, which could easily doom her candidacy, Hillary now travels with a personal physician on all her major campaign trips,” Klein wrote. “There have been several incidents in which she has nearly collapsed. For example, after her 11-hour testimony before the Trey Gowdy Benghazi committee, Hillary swooned as she walked to a waiting car. She had to be supported in the arms of her aides and helped into the back seat.” Klein also noted that tension headaches continued to plague Hillary and often make it hard for her to maintain her grueling schedule. “Huma Abedin, deputy chief of staff and her closest adviser, frequently orders campaign aides to alter Hillary’s schedule at the last moment so the candidate can catch her breath and take out time for naps,” he wrote. “This may explain why Hillary is often as much as two hours late for a campaign appearance.”
$1 BILLION GOAL AND THE ‘LAST HURRAH’
The Last Hurrah, a 1956 best-selling novel, tells the story of an aging former governor named Frank Skeffington, generally taken for a fictionalized version of former Boston mayor and Massachusetts governor James Michael Curley, who suffers a massive heart attack and dies shortly after losing a tough battle to be elected mayor of an unnamed Eastern city. Hillary Clinton, born October 26, 1947, would be sixty-nine if she were to be inaugurated president on January 20, 2017, and Bill Clinton, born August 19, 1946, would be seventy. It would make her the second-oldest president at the time of her inauguration, with the oldest being Ronald Reagan.
While age is no disqualification to being elected president of the United States, for the Clintons this is clearly their “last hurrah.” With Chelsea positioned at the helm of the Clinton Foundation, there is nothing to indicate the Clinton family has any intention of closing down the foundation should Hillary be elected president. Given the increase in donations to the Clinton Foundation as Hillary’s 2016 presidential campaign kicks into high gear, there is no reason to presume the game the Clintons tested while Hillary was secretary of state would not be perfected should Hillary win the White House.
The history of the Clinton Foundation may not predict the future, but it’s a good way to bet. While a donation to the Clinton Foundation might not be a precondition of obtaining an Oval Office audience or getting a favorable policy determination from the administration of Hillary Clinton, the odds are it would be well received, to say the least. Aging dictators in Third World countries pad their coffers to die in style and position their progeny to enjoy in luxury an anticipated generational succession of power. Would a Hillary Clinton presidency reduce the United States of America to the level of a Third World banana republic?
Will we be documenting in 2020 the next round of “Clinton scams,” which we predict that the crime partnership President Hillary Clinton and “first spouse” Bill Clinton will be happy to sponsor, should the Clintons regain the White House?
http://www.wnd.com/2016/09/would-president-hillary-set-up-a-criminal-philanthropy/
The post Would President President Hillary Set up a ‘Criminal Philanthropy’? appeared first on Tea Party.