Posted on 05/28/2016 7:07:44 AM PDT by Liz
When Hillary Clinton’s son-in-law sought funding for his new hedge fund in 2011, he found financial backing from one of the biggest names on Wall Street: Goldman Sachs chief executive Lloyd Blankfein.
The fund, called Eaglevale Partners, was founded by Chelsea Clinton’s husband, Marc Mezvinsky, and two of his partners. Blankfein not only personally invested in the fund, but allowed his association with it to be used in the fund’s marketing.
The investment did not turn out to be savvy business decision. Earlier this month, Mezvinsky was forced to shutter one of the investment vehicles he launched under Eaglevale, called Eaglevale Hellenic Opportunity, after losing 90 percent of its money betting on the Greek recovery. The flagship Eaglevale fund has also lost money, according to the New York Times.
There has been minimal reporting on the Blankfein investment in Eaglevale Partners, which is a private fund that faces few disclosure requirements. At a campaign rally in downtown San Francisco on Thursday, I attempted to ask Hillary Clinton if she knew the amount that Blankfein invested in her son-in-law’s fund.
Watch the video:
After repeated attempts on the rope line, I asked the Clinton campaign traveling press secretary Nick Merrill, who said, “I don’t know, has it been reported?” and said he would get in touch with me over email. I sent the question but have not heard a response back.
The decision for Blankfein to invest in Hillary Clinton’s son-in-law’s company is just one of many ways Goldman Sachs has used its wealth to forge a tight bond with the Clinton family. The company paid Hillary Clinton $675,000 in personal speaking fees, paid Bill Clinton $1,550,000 in personal speaking fees, and donated between $250,000 and $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation. At a time when Goldman Sachs directly lobbied Hillary Clinton’s State Department, the company routinely partnered with the Clinton Foundation for events, even convening a donor meeting for the foundation at the Goldman Sachs headquarters in Manhattan.
Clinton has dodged questions about her relationship with Goldman Sachs throughout the campaign. In January, we were the first to ask Clinton if she would release the transcripts of her paid speeches to Goldman Sachs. She responded by laughing and turning away. Since our question, other media outlets, including the New York Times editorial board, have called on Clinton to release the transcripts.
Clinton at times tried to conflate the money she received with campaign finance donations to Barack Obama — though the issues are separate; Obama never personally profited from paid speeches before running for president.
Clinton most recently said she would only release the transcripts if Bernie Sanders and her Republican opponents also reveal transcripts of their paid speeches. Disclosures show Sanders made $1,867.42 from two paid speeches and a television appearance last year, and donated the money to a nonprofit in Vermont that assists low-income families.
The Downside Legacy: http://alamo-girl.com/
He set off to make big commissions on each transaction.
I’m sure that part worked well...:^)
You missed a couple of Clinton classics. The Legal Scholars marching into the impeachment hearings with gowns and books. The Clintons impromptu dancing on the beach during the scandal which was fully setup and filmed by their own people. The trips to church with bibles in hand. Obama tried to use the same tactics when he had the medical scholars wear lab coats to push Obamacare. Sure all medical professionals walk aroung with lab coats and medical instruments.
However, if a person purchased Greek debt at 30 cents on the dollar and then sold it to Hillary's SIL at 40 cents on the dollar, one could make a lot of money fast.
So the key question then becomes, not who lost money speculating in Greek debt, but who might have profited.
This looks like a job for Sauros.
Good point....the buzz was SOME people made a bundle.
I wonder who (smirk)?
Although the fund apparently went broke, it didn’t go bankrupt /s
Yes, corrupt and dumb.
Apparently WRT means ‘with reference to’. Learn something new every day.
....no way bankrupt——G/S’s got deep, deep pockets.....
Gotta be sharp to post on FR.
At a time when Goldman Sachs directly lobbied Hillary Clinton’s State Department, the company routinely partnered with the Clinton Foundation for events, even convening a donor meeting for the foundation at the Goldman Sachs headquarters in Manhattan.
"Hey, Hillary how's about you and Bill coming up to my place for fun and games?"
It would be foolish and unprofitable to purchase Greek debt for 40 cents on the dollar and then to have the value of that debt sink to 4 percent of face value.
However, if a person purchased Greek debt at 30 cents on the dollar and then sold it to Hillary’s SIL at 40 cents on the dollar, one could make a lot of money fast.
So the key question then becomes, not who lost money speculating in Greek debt, but who might have profited.
...
You’re on to something, and it reminds me of Mrs. Bill’s cattle futures bribe. The briber puts money on both sides of a trade. They keep the losing side and shift the winning side to Mrs. Bill’s account.
Perhaps I was not clear
GS didn’t lose the $25 million, it was the hedge fund that failed
It was a Hillary failure by only one degree of separation
Hillary connected to GS via Chelsea.
Cruz to GS via wife.
I start to see a pattern.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.