Chelsea Clinton lands new high paying gig

MountaineerWV

Sophomore
Sep 18, 2007
26,324
191
0
Why must you do this? You blasted the other side for going after Ivanka. Leave the kids out of it. Geez. You people are despicable. And hypocritical.
 

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
Why must you do this? You blasted the other side for going after Ivanka. Leave the kids out of it. Geez. You people are despicable. And hypocritical.

Libs have gone after Ivanka and Trump's other kids with a vengeance. They have even gone after his 10 year old son. BTW, I never blamed Libs for going after Ivanka or Melania.

Frankly, Ivanka and Chelsea are both now on their own and old enough to handle this stuff. Chelsea was involved in the campaign as was Ivanka. Chelsea tweets political comments. Both are fair game.

My criticism is that the Clinton's continue to get these deals. Why in the heck would NBC pay Chelsea $800K with zero experience? They wanted an in with the Clinton's. They wanted to be in the inner circle with the Dems. They are corrupt. The same with Expedia. She has no business experience that would earn her this board seat? Expedia wants an in with the Dem hierarchy.
 

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
While the Trumps profit from the Presidency every day.

LMAO. The Clintons and now the Obama's will profit directly and ONLY because of their political positions. The Trump's were very, very wealthy before entering office. Nice try.
 

WVU82_rivals

Senior
May 29, 2001
199,095
686
0
Chelsea Clinton is joining the board of directors of online travel booking site Expedia.

Documents filed with securities regulators say the daughter of defeated U.S. presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has joined its 14-member board. The company is controlled by Barry Diller. Chelsea Clinton is also a director of another company that Diller controls, IAC/InterActiveCorp.

The Expedia filing on Friday came a day after publishers Penguin Young Readers announced it will publish a children's book by Chelsea Clinton on May 30. The book is called "She Persisted."

-------------------------------------
IAC
Chelsea Clinton And IAC: While Some Companies Argue About Women On Boards, IAC Just Does It
SEPTEMBER 30, 2011
BY ALICE KORNGOLD - FAST COMPANY

While others debate whether boards should have one woman or two or three, whether quotas should be mandated or not, where on earth to find a woman who has adequate experience or intellect, and whether or not a woman might degrade shareholder value, IAC/InterActiveCorp did something bold.

This leading global internet company elected two women directors who will each contribute unique value to the IAC board: Chelsea Clinton, 31, who is pursuing a doctorate at Oxford University and is working at the Clinton Global Initiative; and Sonali de Rycker, 38, a general partner at Accel Partners, where she focuses on investments in the consumer Internet and digital media sectors.

---------------------------------
Barry Diller
Trump's presidential run is an 'evil miracle,' Barry Diller says
Media executive Barry Diller called Donald Trump's presidential run an "evil miracle," telling CNBC on Tuesday that he can't believe the GOP presidential candidate's campaign is still going.

"The idea that clown, bad clown, could actually be president of the United States, it just insults all of us," the chairman of IAC/InterActive and Expedia, Inc. said.

This isn't the first time that Diller and Trump have butted heads. At the Bloomberg Markets Most Influential Summit in New York, Diller said he would move out of the country if Trump won the election. He also called him a "self-promoting huckster who found a vein. A vein of meanness and nastiness." Trump tweeted on Saturday that Diller was a "sad and pathetic figure," pointing out Diller's losses on The Daily Beast and Newsweek and saying the executive was "100 percent clueless on Internet."

Diller also expressed his belief that Hillary Clinton would win the election in his interview with CNBC, despite intense scrutiny. He said that he believed Clinton's long time in the political spotlight had made her a target.

Overall, Diller expressed disgust at the "horrible process we found ourselves in."

"The only thing that I would like for [the election] is to be over because he has lasted too long," Diller said. "And, I really hope that the one thing that comes out of this is we will, first of all, say 'Please do not speak of politics for at least another year and a half.' Although I fear the next hour of the next day, we'll be off to the races again."

Diller's comments came at Virtuous Circle 2016, in Menlo Park, California. The conference brings together internet business leaders and elected officials to talk about industry trends, policy and innovation. IAC is the parent company of such internet businesses as Match Group, Home Advisor and Vimeo, as well as publications like The Daily Beast and CollegeHumor. It also owned Expedia, which it spun out into Expedia, Inc. in 2005.
 

mneilmont

Sophomore
Jan 23, 2008
20,883
166
0
LMAO. The Clintons and now the Obama's will profit directly and ONLY because of their political positions. The Trump's were very, very wealthy before entering office. Nice try.
While the Trumps profit from the Presidency every day.
Moe, do you not realize The Donald is taking a little bit of a salary cut at his new position. He proves private industry pays a bit better than Uncle Sam. Hell, he has talked some others with him to make financial sacrifice for the good of the country.
 

mneilmont

Sophomore
Jan 23, 2008
20,883
166
0
Moe, do you not realize The Donald is taking a little bit of a salary cut at his new position. He proves private industry pays a bit better than Uncle Sam. Hell, he has talked some others with him to make financial sacrifice for the good of the country.
The older kids of both administrations have placed themselves in the limelight. Thus, they are elgible
 

MountaineerWV

Sophomore
Sep 18, 2007
26,324
191
0
While the Trumps profit from the Presidency every day.

But that's different......they aren't the Clintons so it's OK. ;)

We have a guy judging qualifications for employment on here. And gets bent out of shape when companies pull the line of clothing of a specific Trump child......
 

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
But that's different......they aren't the Clintons so it's OK. ;)

We have a guy judging qualifications for employment on here. And gets bent out of shape when companies pull the line of clothing of a specific Trump child......

The Clintons and the Obama's will become extraordinarily wealthy based ONLY off their time in government. Trump made his money in the private sector. Putting up capital. Taking risks. Employing people. Paying huge amounts of state taxes (property, sales, etc.).

Chelsea was NOT QUALIFIED for that NBC job. She got it ONLY because of her parents political connections. Same with Expedia. She has ZERO business experience running anything, so what qualifies her for a board position like this?

I await your demonstration of her qualifications for either job.
 

moe

Sophomore
May 29, 2001
32,572
152
63
LMAO. The Clintons and now the Obama's will profit directly and ONLY because of their political positions. The Trump's were very, very wealthy before entering office. Nice try.
At least you don't deny it.
 

dave

Senior
May 29, 2001
60,573
756
113
At least you don't deny it.
Deny what? The only people who didnt realize the Trumps were wealthy already are the readers of whatever garbage site that cuntrytard reads religiously.
 

dave

Senior
May 29, 2001
60,573
756
113
Getting board jobs during the off years is normal activity for pols regardless of party. This is why I always laugh when pols talk about CEOs getting huge salaries.
 

old buzzard

Senior
Dec 30, 2005
6,253
555
113
Chelsea should just copyright the image of her face and start suing carvers of Jack O Lanterns for using her likeness without permission. Surefire way for her to get rich quick.
 

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
It's good to be the President's daughter, ask Ivanka.

Ivanka ran her own company. She made lots of money through her company (s). She made that money before Trump became President. Chelsea is living off the Clinton's political connections.

Trump's made money without feeding from the public trough. The Clinton's have made virtually all their money feeding off that trough. Again, one made money through government the other through the private sector. Chelsea is not qualified to run a popsicle stand.
 

Airport

All-Conference
Dec 12, 2001
82,114
2,290
113
The Clintons and the Obama's will become extraordinarily wealthy based ONLY off their time in government. Trump made his money in the private sector. Putting up capital. Taking risks. Employing people. Paying huge amounts of state taxes (property, sales, etc.).

Chelsea was NOT QUALIFIED for that NBC job. She got it ONLY because of her parents political connections. Same with Expedia. She has ZERO business experience running anything, so what qualifies her for a board position like this?

I await your demonstration of her qualifications for either job.
The clintons have lost money due to bill's settling lawsuits brought by women he has attacked.
 

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
The clintons have lost money due to bill's settling lawsuits brought by women he has attacked.

I know he paid Paula Jones $800K or so, but that is easily paid by making a speech or two. Especially after Hillary become Sec State.
 

moe

Sophomore
May 29, 2001
32,572
152
63
Ivanka ran her own company. She made lots of money through her company (s). She made that money before Trump became President. Chelsea is living off the Clinton's political connections.

Trump's made money without feeding from the public trough. The Clinton's have made virtually all their money feeding off that trough. Again, one made money through government the other through the private sector. Chelsea is not qualified to run a popsicle stand.
 

WVU82_rivals

Senior
May 29, 2001
199,095
686
0

http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...cratic-party-dinesh-dsouza-clinton-foundation

How the Clinton Foundation Got Rich off Poor Haitians

January 2015 a group of Haitians surrounded the New York offices of the Clinton Foundation. They chanted slogans, accusing Bill and Hillary Clinton of having robbed them of “billions of dollars.” Two months later, the Haitians were at it again, accusing the Clintons of duplicity, malfeasance, and theft. And in May 2015, they were back, this time outside New York’s Cipriani, where Bill Clinton received an award and collected a $500,000 check for his foundation. “Clinton, where’s the money?” the Haitian signs read. “In whose pockets?” Said Dhoud Andre of the Commission Against Dictatorship, “We are telling the world of the crimes that Bill and Hillary Clinton are responsible for in Haiti.” Haitians like Andre may sound a bit strident, but he and the protesters had good reason to be disgruntled. They had suffered a heavy blow from Mother Nature, and now it appeared that they were being battered again — this time by the Clintons. Their story goes back to 2010, when a massive 7.0 earthquake devastated the island, killing more than 200,000 people, leveling 100,000 homes, and leaving 1.5 million people destitute. The devastating effect of the earthquake on a very poor nation provoked worldwide concern and inspired an outpouring of aid money intended to rebuild Haiti. Countries around the world, as well as private and philanthropic groups such as the Red Cross and the Salvation Army, provided some $10.5 billion in aid, with $3.9 billion of it coming from the United States. Haitians such as Andre, however, noticed that very little of this aid money actually got to poor people in Haiti. Some projects championed by the Clintons, such as the building of industrial parks and posh hotels, cost a great deal of money and offered scarce benefits to the truly needy. Port-au-Prince was supposed to be rebuilt; it was never rebuilt. Projects aimed at creating jobs proved to be bitter disappointments. Haitian unemployment remained high, largely undented by the funds that were supposed to pour into the country. Famine and illness continued to devastate the island nation. The Haitians were initially sympathetic to the Clintons. One may say they believed in the message of “hope and change.” With his customary overstatement, Bill told the media, “Wouldn’t it be great if they become the first wireless nation in the world? They could, I’m telling you, they really could.” I don’t blame the Haitians for falling for it; Bill is one of the world’s greatest story-tellers. He has fooled people far more sophisticated than the poor Haitians. Over time, however, the Haitians wised up. Whatever their initial expectations, many saw that much of the aid money seems never to have reached its destination; rather, it disappeared along the way. Where did it go? It did not escape the attention of the Haitians that Bill Clinton was the designated UN representative for aid to Haiti. Following the earthquake, Bill Clinton had with media fanfare established the Haiti Reconstruction Fund. Meanwhile, his wife Hillary was the United States secretary of state. She was in charge of U.S. aid allocated to Haiti. Together the Clintons were the two most powerful people who controlled the flow of funds to Haiti from around the world.

The Haitian protesters noticed an interesting pattern involving the Clintons and the designation of how aid funds were used. They observed that a number of companies that received contracts in Haiti happened to be entities that made large donations to the Clinton Foundation. The Haitian contracts appeared less tailored to the needs of Haiti than to the needs of the companies that were performing the services. In sum, Haitian deals appeared to be a quid pro quo for filling the coffers of the Clintons. For example, the Clinton Foundation selected Clayton Homes, a construction company owned by Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway, to build temporary shelters in Haiti. Buffett is an active member of the Clinton Global Initiative who has donated generously to the Clintons as well as the Clinton Foundation. The contract was supposed to be given through the normal United Nations bidding process, with the deal going to the lowest bidder who met the project’s standards. UN officials said, however, that the contract was never competitively bid for. Clayton offered to build “hurricane-proof trailers” but what they actually delivered turned out to be a disaster. The trailers were structurally unsafe, with high levels of formaldehyde and insulation coming out of the walls. There were problems with mold and fumes. The stifling heat inside made Haitians sick and many of them abandoned the trailers because they were ill-constructed and unusable. The Clintons also funneled $10 million in federal loans to a firm called InnoVida, headed by Clinton donor Claudio Osorio. Osorio had loaded its board with Clinton cronies, including longtime Clinton ally General Wesley Clark; Hillary’s 2008 finance director Jonathan Mantz; and Democratic fundraiser Chris Korge who has helped raise millions for the Clintons. Normally the loan approval process takes months or even years. But in this case, a government official wrote, “Former President Bill Clinton is personally in contact with the company to organize its logistical and support needs. And as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton has made available State Department resources to assist with logistical arrangements.” InnoVida had not even provided an independently audited financial report that is normally a requirement for such applications. This requirement, however, was waived. On the basis of the Clinton connection, InnoVida’s application was fast-tracked and approved in two weeks. The company, however, defaulted on the loan and never built any houses. An investigation revealed that Osorio had diverted company funds to pay for his Miami Beach mansion, his Maserati, and his Colorado ski chalet. He pleaded guilty to wire fraud and money laundering in 2013, and is currently serving a twelve-year prison term on fraud charges related to the loan. Several Clinton cronies showed up with Bill to a 2011 Housing Expo that cost more than $2 million to stage. Bill Clinton said it would be a model for the construction of thousands of homes in Haiti. In reality, no homes have been built. A few dozen model units were constructed but even they have not been sold. Rather, they are now abandoned and have been taken over by squatters. THE SCHOOLS THEY NEVER BUILT USAID contracts to remove debris in Port-au-Prince went to a Washington-based company named CHF International. The company’s CEO David Weiss, a campaign contributor to Hillary in 2008, was deputy U.S. trade representative for North American Affairs during the Clinton administration. The corporate secretary of the board, Lauri Fitz-Pegado, served in a number of posts in the Clinton administration, including assistant secretary of commerce.The Clintons claim to have built schools in Haiti. But the New York Times discovered that when it comes to the Clintons, “built” is a term with a very loose interpretation. For example, the newspaper located a school featured in the Clinton Foundation annual report as “built through a Clinton Global Initiative Commitment to Action.” In reality, “The Clinton Foundation’s sole direct contribution to the school was a grant for an Earth Day celebration and tree-building activity.”

USAID contracts also went to consulting firms such as New York–based Dalberg Global Development Advisors, which received a $1.5 million contract to identify relocation sites for Haitians. This company is an active participant and financial supporter of the Clinton Global Initiative. A later review by USAID’s inspector general found that Dalberg did a terrible job, naming uninhabitable mountains with steep ravines as possible sites for Haitian rebuilding. Foreign governments and foreign companies got Haitian deals in exchange for bankrolling the Clinton Foundation. The Clinton Foundation lists the Brazilian construction firm OAS and the InterAmerican Development Bank (IDB) as donors that have given it between $1 billion and $5 billion. The IDB receives funding from the State Department, and some of this funding was diverted to OAS for Haitian road-building contracts. Yet an IDB auditor, Mariela Antiga, complained that the contracts were padded with “excessive costs” to build roads “no one needed.” Antiga also alleged that IDB funds were going to a construction project on private land owned by former Haitian president Rene Preval — a Clinton buddy — and several of his cronies. For her efforts to expose corruption, Antiga was promptly instructed by the IDB to pack her bags and leave Haiti. In 2011, the Clinton Foundation brokered a deal with Digicel, a cell-phone-service provider seeking to gain access to the Haitian market. The Clintons arranged to have Digicel receive millions in U.S. taxpayer money to provide mobile phones. The USAID Food for Peace program, which the State Department administered through Hillary aide Cheryl Mills, distributed Digicel phones free to Haitians. Digicel didn’t just make money off the U.S. taxpayer; it also made money off the Haitians. When Haitians used the phones, either to make calls or transfer money, they paid Digicel for the service. Haitians using Digicel’s phones also became automatically enrolled in Digicel’s mobile program. By 2012, Digicel had taken over three-quarters of the cell-phone market in Haiti. Digicel is owned by Denis O’Brien, a close friend of the Clintons. O’Brien secured three speaking engagements in his native Ireland that paid $200,000 apiece. These engagements occurred right at the time that Digicel was making its deal with the U.S. State Department. O’Brien has also donated lavishly to the Clinton Foundation, giving between $1 million and $5 million sometime in 2010–2011. Coincidentally the United States government paid Digicel $45 million to open a hotel in Port-au-Prince. Now perhaps it could be argued that Haitians could use a high-priced hotel to attract foreign investors and provide jobs for locals. Thus far, however, this particular hotel seems to employ only a few dozen locals, which hardly justifies the sizable investment that went into building it. Moreover, there are virtually no foreign investors; the rooms are mostly unoccupied; the ones that are taken seem mainly for the benefit of Digicel’s visiting teams.

In addition, the Clintons got their cronies to build Caracol Industrial Park, a 600-acre garment factory that was supposed to make clothes for export to the United States and create — according to Bill Clinton — 100,000 new jobs in Haiti. The project was funded by the U.S. government and cost hundreds of millions in taxpayer money, the largest single allocation of U.S. relief aid. Yet Caracol has proven a massive failure. First, the industrial park was built on farmland and the farmers had to be moved off their property. Many of them feel they were pushed out and inadequately compensated. Some of them lost their livelihoods. Second, Caracol was supposed to include 25,000 homes for Haitian employees; in the end, the Government Accountability Office reports that only around 6,000 homes were built. Third, Caracol has created 5,000 jobs, less than 10 percent of the jobs promised. Fourth, Caracol is exporting very few products and most of the facility is abandoned. People stand outside every day looking for work, but there is no work to be had, as Haiti’s unemployment rate hovers around 40 percent. The Clintons say Caracol can still be salvaged. But former Haitian prime minister Jean Bellerive says, “I believe the momentum to attract people there in a massive way is past. Today, it has failed.” Still, Bellerive’s standard of success may not be the same one used by the Clintons. After all, the companies that built Caracol with U.S. taxpayer money have done fine — even if poor Haitians have seen few of the benefits. Then there is the strange and somehow predictable involvement of Hillary Clinton’s brother Hugh Rodham. Rodham put in an application for $22 million from the Clinton Foundation to build homes on ten thousand acres of land that he said a “guy in Haiti” had “donated” to him. “I deal through the Clinton Foundation,” Rodham told the New York Times. “I hound my brother-in-law because it’s his fund that we’re going to get our money from.” Rodham said he expected to net $1 million personally on the deal. Unfortunately, his application didn’t go through. Rodham had better luck, however, on a second Haitian deal. He mysteriously found himself on the advisory board of a U.S. mining company called VCS. This by itself is odd because Rodham’s resume lists no mining experience; rather, Rodham is a former private detective and prison guard. The mining company, however, seems to have recognized Rodham’s value. They brought him on board in October 2013 to help secure a valuable gold mining permit in Haiti. Rodham was promised a “finder’s fee” if he could land the contract. Sure enough, he did. For the first time in 50 years, Haiti awarded two new gold mining permits and one of them went to the company that had hired Hillary’s brother.

The deal provoked outrage in the Haitian Senate. “Neither Bill Clinton nor the brother of Hillary Clinton are individuals who share the interest of the Haitian people,” said Haitian mining representative Samuel Nesner. “They are part of the elite class who are operating to exploit the Haitian people.” Is this too harsh a verdict? I wouldn’t go so far as to say the Clintons don’t care about Haiti. Yet it seems clear that Haitian welfare is not their priority. Their priority is, well, themselves. The Clintons seem to believe in Haitian reconstruction and Haitian investment as long as these projects match their own private economic interests. They have steered the rebuilding of Haiti in a way that provides maximum benefit to themselves. No wonder the Clintons refused to meet with the Haitian protesters. Each time the protesters showed up, the Clintons were nowhere to be seen. They have never directly addressed the Haitians’ claims. Strangely enough, they have never been required to do so. The progressive media scarcely covered the Haitian protest. Somehow the idea of Haitian black people calling out the Clintons as aid money thieves did not appeal to the grand pooh-bahs at CBS News, the New York Times, and NPR. For most Democrats, the topic is both touchy and distasteful. It’s one thing to rob from the rich but quite another to rob from the poorest of the poor. Some of the Democratic primary support for Bernie Sanders was undoubtedly due to Democrats’ distaste over the financial shenanigans of the Clintons. Probably these Democrats considered the Clintons to be unduly grasping and opportunistic, an embarrassment to the great traditions of the Democratic party.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...cratic-party-dinesh-dsouza-clinton-foundation
 
Last edited: