Aside from passing judgment on people and ideas she doesn’t like on Twitter, what exactly does Chelsea Clinton do?
Anti-vaxx grift going strong – why is Substack facilitating science denialists’ ability to profit from destructive lies (and comfortable profiting themselves)?
“Anti-vaxxers making ‘at least $2.5m’ a year from publishing on Substack” via @guardian https://t.co/FBc6IkzVXa
— Chelsea Clinton (@ChelseaClinton) January 27, 2022
Anti-vaxx grift going strong – why is Substack facilitating science denialists’ ability to profit from destructive lies (and comfortable profiting themselves)? “Anti-vaxxers making ‘at least $2.5m’ a year from publishing on Substack” via @guardian
Really, Chelsea? She’s one to talk about grift. As the spawn of some of the biggest grifters in American government, it is doubtful she would have any relevance if not for her last name.
Complaining about grift? Now that's funny.https://t.co/d9WxDdqfdv
— Brett Wright (@BrettTheBrit) January 27, 2022
It would be funny, if it wasn’t so typical of the political class.
Clinton followed the playbook of most presidential scions, going to college at a well-heeled institution (Stanford) to receive the perfunctory undergraduate degree (history). While Clinton pursued her master’s degree at Oxford in “international relations,” she was also hired by NBC News “for projects for ‘NBC Nightly News’ and Brian Williams’ newsmagazine, ‘Rock Center.’ She will report stories for the feel-good ‘Making a Difference’ series.”
Because all those J-school grifters had nothing on Chelsea Clinton.
With no experience whatsoever aside from sleeping at the White House, Clinton took work as a “consultant” at McKinsey & Company, an organization that claims to give “strategic management to corporations, governments, and other organizations.”
What type of consultation would someone who spent six years chasing two sheepskin have to offer?
What’s in a name?
Clinton then went on to a job at Avenue Capital Group, a front-group for Democrat Party funding. The company founders, Marc Lasry and Sonia Gardener, were major contributors to momma Hillary Clinton’s Senate re-election campaign; because, why pretend?
Along with filling positions that she had no qualifications for, Clinton became a board member for IAC/InterActiveCorp, a media and internet investment company.
According to The Hill, she “profited handsomely” from this grift.
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.
Once Clinton no longer needed to pretend to actually work, she joined the family business as vice chair of the Clinton Foundation. That international relations degree was put to the test as the Clintons grifted money for the cause of Haitian relief from Hurricane Katrina; money that somehow never brought the relief promised. The foundation took patronage from foreign leaders and other international sources for years, while Hillary Clinton was the United States Senator for New York, then United States Secretary of State for the Obama administration. When it was assumed she was a shoe-in to become President of the United States, the Foundation’s “fundraising” went through the roof.
Donald J. Trump destroyed that dream, and after that, the Clinton Foundation fundraising somehow started to dry up.
Watchdog group OpenSecrets reported that after Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election, speaking fees to the Clintons dropped like a rock, falling from $3.6 million in 2014 to $370,000 in 2018, and IRS disclosures reveal that the once high-flying Clinton Foundation took in $30.7 million in 2018 and just $16.3 million in 2020.
“Ethics experts,” the Daily Caller reported, are “alarmed” by the speedy decline of donations and say it shows “clear red flags of political corruption.”
So, tell us again about grift, Chelsea?
We’re all ears.