Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 38

Thread: Chelsea Clinton reaps $9 MILLION from corporate board position

  1. #1

    Chelsea Clinton reaps $9 MILLION from corporate board position

    This STINKS...

    Chelsea Clinton has reaped $9 million in compensation since 2011 for serving on the board of an internet investment company, according to Barron’s, the financial publication.

    Barron’s reported Sunday that Clinton has profited handsomely as a board member for IAC/InterActiveCorp, a media and internet investment company that has an ownership stake in 150 well-known brands, such as Vimeo, Tinder, Angie’s List and Home Advisor.

    Clinton, the only child of former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, has served on IAC’s board since 2011 and receives an annual $50,000 retainer and $250,000 worth of restricted IAC stock units, Barron’s reports.

    She reported owning $8.95 million worth of IAC stock to the Securities and Exchange Commission at the end of December.

    Barron’s notes that IAC’s stock has risen 89 percent, 50 percent and 36 percent in 2017, 2018 and 2019, respectively, a far steeper rise than the broader stock market.

    Clinton’s public profile has proved a valuable commodity.

    She earned an annual salary of $600,000 working as a special correspondent for NBC News in 2013 and part of 2014.

    Clinton was named to the board of Expedia Group in March of 2017, a position that typically earned $250,000 in 2015, according to a report at the time by The Guardian.

    Both IAC and Expedia are controlled by Barry Diller, the business and television mogul, who is a friend of Hillary Clinton.
    https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...board-position



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    That's what crony capitalism is all about. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

    There needs to be restrictions placed on lobbyist and career politicians and other conflicts of interests.
    "No one is useless in this world who lightens the burdens of another.” ~ Charles Dickens

  4. #3
    The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by donnay View Post
    That's what crony capitalism is all about. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

    There needs to be restrictions placed on lobbyist and career politicians and other conflicts of interests.
    I'm sure @Krugminator2 will be along later to tell us that this is capitalism and nothing is wrong. No, its crony capitalism and blatant nepotism and I wish something was done.

  6. #5
    A truly free market capitalism would level the playing fields. This is why so many politicians and big businesses are against it.
    "No one is useless in this world who lightens the burdens of another.” ~ Charles Dickens

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by donnay View Post
    That's what crony capitalism is all about. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

    There needs to be restrictions placed on lobbyist and career politicians and other conflicts of interests.
    She hasn't been a lobbyist or politician as far as I know. are you proposing restricting the choices of children based on their parents professions?

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by specsaregood View Post
    She hasn't been a lobbyist or politician as far as I know. are you proposing restricting the choices of children based on their parents professions?
    Nepotism needs to be recognized some how. Hunter Biden, Paul Pelosi and now Chelsea Clinton. Do you see a pattern here? All of them are enriching themselves obscenely off their family connections.

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by specsaregood View Post
    She hasn't been a lobbyist or politician as far as I know. are you proposing restricting the choices of children based on their parents professions?
    I agree with @Warlord, the nepotism is an extension of crony capitalism.

    Hunter Biden joins list of West Wing kids landing lucrative corporate gigs
    https://www.foxbusiness.com/money/hu...helsea-clinton
    "No one is useless in this world who lightens the burdens of another.” ~ Charles Dickens



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Warlord View Post
    This STINKS...
    Quote Originally Posted by Warlord View Post
    Nepotism needs to be recognized some how. Hunter Biden, Paul Pelosi and now Chelsea Clinton. Do you see a pattern here? All of them are enriching themselves obscenely off their family connections.
    Do you know what stinks even more that the Clintons?!?
    That are our deaf, dumb and blind Trump-supporting media that only see the crimes of the crooked Clintons, while the nepotism of the Trump-Kushner crime syndicate continues to be somewhat underreported.

    Chabad-Lubavitcher Len Blavatnik (what is Russiagate?) is the interesting one in this tale of corruption...

    Quote Originally Posted by Firestarter View Post
    Barry Diller and his wife Diane von Furstenberg are good friends with Josh Kushner (Jared’s brother) and his supermodel fiancée Karlie Kloss.
    Diller had this to say of Ivanka Trump (and the "evil character" Donald):
    I mean, we were friendly.
    I would sit next to her every once in a while at a dinner. And I, as everyone did, was like, ‘Oh, my God, how could this evil character have spawned such a polite, gracious person? I don’t think we feel that way now.

    Quote Originally Posted by Firestarter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Firestarter View Post
    In September 2011, when Barry Diller appointed Chelsea Clinton (married to a Goldman Sachs banker), he also appointed Sonali de Rycker (of the Accel of James Breyer, Facebook, and Goldman Sachs) to the board of IAC. At this time Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State.

    (...)

    Facebook insiders sold a large bundle of shares 3 days after its initial public offering, insider trading, including:
    James Breyer and Accel Partners;
    The number 1 Facebook insider trader Accel in reality is controlled by "Britain’s richest man" Sir Len Blavatnik. Blavatnik is the founder of Access Industries that now owns Warner Music Group.
    Blavatnik and Viktor Vekselberg hold a 15.8% joint stake in the Rusal of Nat Rothschild's friend and business partner Oleg Deripaska.

    In April 2017, Blavatnik’s Access Entertainment purchased James Packer’s ownership share of RatPac Entertainment.
    RatPac is a partner in RatPac-Dune Entertainment with Dune Entertainment, which was led by Goldman Sachs, Bonesman Steven Mnuchin. Since 2006, Dune partnered with Warner Brothers and Fox Filmed Entertainment (of Rothschild agent Rupert Murdoch).
    Mnuchin sold his stake before becoming Treasury Secretary without disclosing to whom.

    Quote Originally Posted by Firestarter View Post
    Interestingly some of the “insiders” that made more than 13 billion dollars in the IPO of Facebook have (also) funded the Cadre.

    In 2015, Yuri Milner “invested” $850,000 in the Cadre start-up in New York, owned by Jared and his brother Joshua Kushner (with a third associate). The complete group of investors included Peter Thiel, Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank and Blackstone: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post6633986
    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...nsider-trading
    Do NOT ever read my posts. Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...he-world/page3

    Donald Trump, another puppet controlled by the international elite: https://www.lawfulpath.com/forum/vie...=1038&start=60

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Warlord View Post
    Nepotism needs to be recognized some how. Hunter Biden, Paul Pelosi and now Chelsea Clinton. Do you see a pattern here? All of them are enriching themselves obscenely off their family connections.
    I understand that it is obscene and obvious. But do you really want to put restrictions on children based on their parents decisions?

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by specsaregood View Post
    I understand that it is obscene and obvious. But do you really want to put restrictions on children based on their parents decisions?
    I don't know what can be done. I'm not a lawmaker...

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Warlord View Post

    I'm sure @Krugminator2 will be along later to tell us that this is capitalism and nothing is wrong. No, its crony capitalism and blatant nepotism and I wish something was done.

    I have no idea why you linked to my name or why I wouldn't think this is nepotism or cronyism.

    My guess is it has something to do with the Mitt Romney thread and you being a socialist. Only a guess though.

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Warlord View Post
    I don't know what can be done. I'm not a lawmaker...
    It is quite easy. We have a First Amendment. Nothing can or should be done, comrade. There should be no campaign finance laws at all.

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    I have no idea why you linked to my name or why I wouldn't think this is nepotism or cronyism.

    My guess is it has something to do with the Mitt Romney thread and you being a socialist. Only a guess though.
    You were defending obscene enrichment in that thread.. i'm no socialist.

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    I have no idea why you linked to my name or why I wouldn't think this is nepotism or cronyism.

    My guess is it has something to do with the Mitt Romney thread and you being a socialist. Only a guess though.
    I'm already sick of "either/or" lesser of two evils false choices. Why should I buy the baloney that anyone who speaks out against corporate-government fascism must therefore be a socialist?
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    I don't really care if I happen to be wrong about your positions, you are wrong about mine.
    Quote Originally Posted by nikcers View Post
    My tax dollars paid to fund ISIS and make fake beheading videos. Are you saying we shouldn't get our monies worth??

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Warlord View Post
    You were defending obscene enrichment in that thread.. i'm no socialist.
    It isn't obscene. It is how things should work. Tons of studies show financial capitalism has made the United States more prosperous. https://www.amazon.com/New-Financial...8414850&sr=8-1 Halfway through this book written by a Harvard economist that I bought a month or so back in response to the first thread.

    Find a free market economist who agrees with your anti-venture capital stance. In the meantime I haven't read this by Yaron Brook but maybe you should. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0...api_tkin_p1_i2

    You want to know who else agrees Ron Paul

    "“I think it’s a big distraction,” Paul said. “And they’re picking up on this and those who are condemning him for it, I think, are arguing like Democrats.“You know, they come in and say, look, restructuring in the free market is a good idea, and I don’t know anything about Bain, so I’m not taking a position on that, and I haven’t looked at it and I have no idea what he did or didn’t do, but the principle of restructuring is a good thing in the marketplace,” he said.
    https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...t-bain-attacks


    You want to know who is on your side? Robert Reich https://robertreich.org/post/20930554256 and Elizabeth Warren https://www.wsj.com/articles/elizabe...ds-11563454803



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    I'm already sick of "either/or" lesser of two evils false choices. Why should I buy the baloney that anyone who speaks out against corporate-government fascism must therefore be a socialist?
    But he isn't speaking out against corporate-government fascism. He is speaking out against voluntary private sector transactions with no government involvement with a person (Mitt Romney) who wasn't connected to government in any way.

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    It isn't obscene. It is how things should work.
    So you figure a revolving door between corporations and D.C. is the perfect way to ensure the free market a level playing field?

    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    But he isn't speaking out against corporate-government fascism. He is speaking out against voluntary private sector transactions with no government involvement with a person (Mitt Romney) who wasn't connected to government in any way.
    Ever hear of a guy named George Romney?
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    I don't really care if I happen to be wrong about your positions, you are wrong about mine.
    Quote Originally Posted by nikcers View Post
    My tax dollars paid to fund ISIS and make fake beheading videos. Are you saying we shouldn't get our monies worth??

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    You want to know who else agrees Ron Paul

    "“I think it’s a big distraction,” Paul said. “And they’re picking up on this and those who are condemning him for it, I think, are arguing like Democrats.“You know, they come in and say, look, restructuring in the free market is a good idea, and I don’t know anything about Bain, so I’m not taking a position on that, and I haven’t looked at it and I have no idea what he did or didn’t do, but the principle of restructuring is a good thing in the marketplace,” he said.
    https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...t-bain-attacks


    You want to know who is on your side? Robert Reich https://robertreich.org/post/20930554256 and Elizabeth Warren https://www.wsj.com/articles/elizabe...ds-11563454803
    Ron is against crony capitalism/corporatism of this kind:


    https://youtu.be/MP-Nwnmk5yc

    He thinks the focus should be on the monetary system and the Fed.
    Last edited by Warlord; 01-07-2020 at 10:48 AM.

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Warlord View Post
    Ron is against crony capitalism/corporatism of this kind:

    Nope. He isn't. Supported Mitt Romney's work, as evidenced by link. Sees it as a clear benefit. Not cronyism or corporatism in any way. It is raw capitalism.

    I don't think you know what words mean.

    Corporatism- the control of a state or organization by large interest groups

    I don't see government controlling anything when a venture capital firm buys a business.

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    So you figure a revolving door between corporations and D.C. is the perfect way to ensure the free market a level playing field?



    Ever hear of a guy named George Romney?

    As far as I know, George Romney had nothing to do with Bain Capital, it's success, or helping Mitt Romney with deals.

    Being the child of a politician doesn't mean you should have to work as a garabage man (not that there is anything wrong with that).

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    Nope. He isn't. Supported Mitt Romney's work, as evidenced by link. Sees it as a clear benefit. Not cronyism or corporatism in any way. It is raw capitalism.

    I don't think you know what words mean.

    Corporatism- the control of a state or organization by large interest groups

    I don't see government controlling anything when a venture capital firm buys a business.
    I'm not talking about the Romney's. Perhaps you can address my concerns over Hunter Biden, Paul Pelosi and Chelsea Clinton?

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Warlord View Post
    I'm not talking about the Romney's. Perhaps you can address my concerns over Hunter Biden, Paul Pelosi and Chelsea Clinton?

    Well. You actually are talking about Mitt Romney. That is why you linked to me. And you are defending your disgusting views against people like him. You called making money through voluntary transactions "obscene enrichment".

    And then you conflated capitalism working (i.e. private equity) with using the children of politicians to trade favors because well... no one knows.
    Last edited by Krugminator2; 01-07-2020 at 11:00 AM.

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    Well. You actually are talking about Mitt Romney. That is why you linked to me. And you are defending your disgusting views against people like him.

    And then you conflated capitalism working (i.e. private equity) with using the children of politicians to trade favors because well... no one knows.
    You didn't answer my question...

    So your happy with the obvious and obscene nature of the nepotism that is being displayed by these characters? Is it really the case that 'nothing can be done' because it's 'raw capitalism'?



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Warlord View Post
    You didn't answer my question...

    So your happy with the obvious and obscene nature of the nepotism that is being displayed by these characters? Is it really the case that 'nothing can be done' because it's 'raw capitalism'?

    I think its bad. It isn't remotely comparable to private equity. Employing Chelsea Clinton and Hunter Biden in positions they are likely not qualified for is cronyism and favor trading. It isn't free market capitalism.

    The way you would deal with it is limit the amount government can spend so there isn't the money to giveaway that would incentivize bribing politicians.

    Ron Paul has already weighed in on this issue. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politi...ns_of_Ron_Paul

    "Paul opposes federal attempts to regulate campaign spending and speech intended to influence elections. "

    "
    Commenting on the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United, in 2010 Paul said, "You should never restrict lobbying because the Constitution is rather clear about the people being allowed to petition Congress, and whether you're an individual or you belong to a [special interest group] ... you should be allowed to do that."[108] He argues that corporations should be able to spend their money in any way that they want.[108] He also opposes taxpayer-funded public campaign financing.[109]"

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    I think its bad. It isn't remotely comparable to private equity. Employing Chelsea Clinton and Hunter Biden in positions they are likely not qualified for is cronyism and favor trading. It isn't free market capitalism.

    The way you would deal with it is limit the amount government can spend so there isn't the money to giveaway that would incentivize bribing politicians.

    Ron Paul has already weighed in on this issue. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politi...ns_of_Ron_Paul

    "Paul opposes federal attempts to regulate campaign spending and speech intended to influence elections. "

    "
    Commenting on the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United, in 2010 Paul said, "You should never restrict lobbying because the Constitution is rather clear about the people being allowed to petition Congress, and whether you're an individual or you belong to a [special interest group] ... you should be allowed to do that."[108] He argues that corporations should be able to spend their money in any way that they want.[108] He also opposes taxpayer-funded public campaign financing.[109]"
    OK, well we agree on something... I'm not talking about campaign finance. This is racketeering. Guilani who has 30 years experience as a lawyer (although a lousy politician) says he can prosecute the Biden's and presumably others if he's given a staff and a small budget.

    There are RICO laws or whatever. I'm not a prosecutor or lawmaker.

    AS for PE (private equity) Ron is against the cheap money that these 'shops' can raise. This goes back to his wider point on the Fed and the monetary system. In a truly free market with no Federal Reserve they wouldn't be able to raise the money for their corporate 'raids' which so many on here find objectionable (in that other thread).

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Warlord View Post

    AS for PE (private equity) Ron is against the cheap money that these 'shops' can raise. This goes back to his wider point on the Fed and the monetary system. In a truly free market with no Federal Reserve they wouldn't be able to raise the money for their corporate 'raids' which so many on here find objectionable (in that other thread).
    Completely false. Corporate raids and the height of private equity was in the early 1900's when there was no Federal Reserve.

    From the book I am reading now " During the year 1897-1904, some 4,277 American companies consolidated into 257 corporations."

    "A new breed of investment bankers played key roles in promoting and financing these transactions, often with high levels of debt. The signature deal of the era, the 1901 amalgamation of eight steel companies into U.S. Steel Corporation, had a total capitalization of $1.2 billion - an astonishing amount equivalent to seven percent of the gross national product. It was financed by a syndicate headed by J.P. Morgan, the preeminent financier of his time, who had built his reputation by restructuring ailing railroads. With $550 million in 7 percent convertible preferred stock, $550 million in common stock, and $304 million 5% gold bonds, U.S. Steel's capital structure was in effect 61% leveraged."
    Last edited by Krugminator2; 01-07-2020 at 11:32 AM.

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    Completely false. Corporate raids and the height of private equity was in the early 1900's when there was no Federal Reserve.

    From the book I am reading now " During the year 1897-1904, some 4,277 American companies consolidated into 257 corporations."

    "A new breed of investment bankers played key roles in promoting and financing these transactions, often with high levels of debt. The signature deal of the era, the 1901 amalgamation of eight steel companies into U.S. Steel Corporation, had a total capitalization of $1.2 billion - an astonishing amount equivalent to seven percent of the gross national product. It was financed by a syndicate headed by J.P. Morgan, the preeminent financier of his time, who had built his reputation by restructuring ailing railroads."
    Morgan is the exception to the rule. Most of these 'shops' now are raising cheap money because the Fed is handing it out. They are risky investments in any true free market and they would find it harder to get finance.

    I suppose we will have to disagree on this.

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Warlord View Post
    Morgan is the exception to the rule. Most of these 'shops' now are raising cheap money because the Fed is handing it out. They are risky investments in any true free market and they would find it harder to get finance.
    So you won't admit you were wrong despite the roundhouse kick you got and all the work I put into finding that and writing that out. Got it.

  34. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    So you won't admit you were wrong despite the roundhouse kick you got and all the work I put into finding that and writing that out. Got it.
    No... My point is the Fed is the chief enabler. Not everyone is JP Morgan who was a giant on his time. Most of these PE firms would find it much harder to attract finance. The same thing can be said of Hedge funds or Quantum computer funds or whatever the hell they are. They are all being enabled because of the Fed and the advent of cheap money.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Please, God, Stop Chelsea Clinton from Whatever She Is Doing
    By timosman in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 01-05-2018, 08:20 AM
  2. Replies: 19
    Last Post: 09-28-2013, 02:40 AM
  3. Chelsea Clinton Buying $10 Million NYC Apartment
    By green73 in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 03-15-2013, 12:15 PM
  4. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 09-27-2011, 10:14 AM
  5. Chelsea Clinton married Ex-Con's Son.
    By Lib111 in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 08-03-2010, 10:24 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •