"If what you care about is the economy, healthcare or national security ... look at what the different candidates have actually said."

Sorry, Chelsea. I choose to look at what your mother has actually done.

Chelsea's criminal mother and phallic-nosed father, has left a trail that leftists refuse to understand. How all those suicide cases can be ignored is proof that her followers are mind-numbed zombies.

Chelsea apparently has been made a member of the Clinton Murder Club and knows about that large pile of dead bodies her two nefarious parents have left behind in their wake created enroute to the disgraced White Hut.

And have you considered the in-laws she married into? That could make for some fine family gatherings. They could spend a holiday weekend reciting all stuff they got up to or stooped to.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Mezvinsky

Father-in-law, Edward Mezvinsky

In March 2001, Mezvinsky was indicted and later pleaded guilty to 31 of 69 felony charges of bank fraud, mail fraud, and wire fraud. Nearly $10 million was involved in the crimes. Shortly after his indictment, he was diagnosed with bipolar disorder, but the judge at his trial disallowed a mental illness defense. He entered prison in February 2003, and served his time at Federal Prison Camp, Eglin. Mezvinsky, Federal Bureau of Prisons # 55040-066, was released in April 2008, after 5 years. He remained on federal probation until 2011, and as of 2010 still owed $9.4 million in restitution to his victims.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marjorie_Margolies

Mother-in-law, Marjorie Margolies fka Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky, one-term congresswoman.

Many of her votes cost her re-election bid in 1994. One vote was for President Bill Clinton's controversial 1993 budget, for which she was the deciding vote. She had opposed the bill, until the President called her. House Democrats cheered as the House Republicans jeered, "Goodbye Marjorie!" In a 2009 interview with The Daily Beast, she recalled U.S. Congressman Robert Walker (R-Pennsylvania) in particular joining in the Republican jeers. She also recalled the ire of her constituents resulting from her vote, saying "when I went to town-hall meetings, I had to be escorted by the police....I was just surprised at the level of divisiveness and immaturity."

After a health care reform bill passed the House in November 2009, the conservative Americans for Tax Reform featured her 1994 defeat as an example of what could occur in the 2010 midterm elections because of one particular vote to those Democrats in swing districts who voted in favor of that health care reform bill. Margolies, however, wrote in the Washington Post that she was glad that she had cast her vote as she had, and urged vulnerable Democrats in Congress to vote for the healthcare bill in March 2010.

http://www.paeb.uscourts.gov/sites/paeb/files/opinions/Margolies-Mezvinsky.Opinion.pdf">

Chapter 7 Bankruptcy DENIAL of Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

In re : Chapter 7: MARJORIE MARGOLIES MEZVINSKY,

Bankruptcy No. 00-11767DWS

CONCLUSION

Sonders and/or First Union [27] have established that: (1) the Debtor represented she and her husband to have furnishings, art and other tangible personal property worth $810,535 as of May 1996; (2) the Debtor represented the value of this category of personal property to be only $35,434 in her bankruptcy schedules; (3) the Debtor borrowed $1,477,500 within two to three years of the Petition Date; (4) these loan proceeds are not accounted for in her bankruptcy schedules; (5) the Debtor made representations in August 1999 and February 2000, pursuant to federal disclosure laws, regarding the ownership by her, her husband and dependent children of securities and note receivables valued at over $1.3 million; (6) the Debtor’s bankruptcy schedules failed to identify any interest in these assets; (7) the Debtor owned and sold stock for $4,155.59 on January 7, 2000; and (8) the Debtor’s bankruptcy statements and schedules failed to identify the sale or disposition of these assets.

The above facts are not disputed, and they established a prima facie case under § 727(a)(5), placing the burden upon the Debtor to provide a satisfactory explanation for the loss of or deficiency in these assets. The Debtor’s responses have failed to set forth specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial, namely her ability to provide a satisfactory explanation. Morever, her reliance on a proffer that the witnesses she intends to call at trial will provide satisfactory explanations, is insufficient to defeat the entry of summary judgment under Rule 56. For these reasons, I find that the Movants have met their burden of proof that there are no genuine issues of material fact regarding the Debtor’s failure to explain satisfactorily the loss or deficiency of assets under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(5) and that they are entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.

While it is well accepted that § 727 is to be construed liberally in favor of a debtor, the benefit of the discharge nevertheless comes with the condition of complete candor with the court and creditors. The Debtor is an intelligent, highly educated and sophisticated professional person. Her background is in communications. As a journalist and author, she explained the affairs of the day to the public. As a Congresswoman, she analyzed and made determinations regarding the expenditure of public funds and this nation’s budget. Yet her consistent response to questions asked by her creditors about the disposition of her assets is lack of knowledge or “my husband handled it,” a mantra that is completely at odds with her public persona, background, and accomplishments. In her memoranda filed in both adversary cases, she disputes the “sophisticated” label advanced by Movants contending that “she like many women of her generation, relied upon her husband, Edward Mezvinsky, to handle the financial affairs of their family.” Mem. Opp. First Union Mot. at 3; Mem Opp. Sonders Mot. at 3. To the extent that this explanation could ever be found sufficient to discharge a debtor’s duty to satisfactorily explain the loss or depreciation of her assets, it certainly would not be found to do so here. [28] Debtor is not at all like the women of her generation that she seeks to identify with. She was a Congresswoman, and thereafter headed the United Nation Fourth World Congress on Women in Beijing and later became the President of the Women’s Campaign Fund. Her deference to her husband on financial matters, especially with knowledge that he was not managing them well, Debtor’s Dep. at 173, is at best puzzling, and her attempts to justify her continued ignorance of her finances as gender related are inconsistent with her clear competency to discover the surrounding facts.

It is not for this Court to pass judgment on how the Debtor chose to manage her financial affairs prior to this bankruptcy case. However, when she filed for bankruptcy relief and invoked the protection of this Court, she forfeited the right to remain ignorant of the disposition of her assets. Without regard to her credibility, I must assume as true in the context of a summary judgment motion her testimony that her husband, not she, handled her financial matters without consultation with or disclosure to her of any details. However, her failure as a debtor seeking discharge to make any attempt to discover and disclose the facts surrounding the transactions put at issue by the Movants is fatal to her cause. I can only conclude that her continued ignorance and/or lack of understanding of the facts that surround the loss and deterioration of millions of dollars of assets and funds owned by her with her husband is a matter of choice. While this approach may serve her well in connection with matters in litigation elsewhere, her failure to provide a satisfactory explanation regarding the transactions at issue will preclude her from earning a discharge in this bankruptcy case.

Finding that the Debtor here has not fulfilled her duty of disclosure as a debtor under the bankruptcy law, the objections of Sonders and First Union to the Debtor’s discharge are granted.

An Order consistent with this Opinion shall be entered.

DIANE WEISS SIGMUND
United States Bankruptcy Judge
Dated: August 1, 2001

- - - - - - - - - -

[27] Sonders and First Union have proven that the Debtor has failed to satisfactorily explain the loss of tangible and intangible personal property of approximately $2.0 million. First Union has also proven that the Debtor has failed to satisfactorily explain the loss of loan proceeds and miscellaneous stock of another $1.5 million.

[28] Compare Wilmington Trust Co. v. Jarrell (In re Jarrell), 129 B.R. 29 (Bankr. D. Del. 1991) (Debtor wife who was mere employee of business with no bookkeeping expertise would not be denied Chapter 7 discharge for failure to satisfactorily explain loss of assets, where debtor husband had acted as sole proprietor of business and had failed to satisfactorily explain loss of thousands of dollars of assets); Ward v. Ward (In re Ward), 92 B.R. 644, 647 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 1988) (Denial of discharge to debtor wife on grounds that she could not explain loss of equipment used by the debtors’ business was not warranted given that her sole relationship to the business was employment as a sales clerk and her testimony as to her lack of knowledge that she owned any of the equipment might lack credibility if she were a “woman of the 80’s”); First City Bank-Central Park v. Powell (In re Powell), 88 B.R. 114 (Bankr. W.D. Tex 1988) (Chapter 7 debtor, a housewife who took no part in conduct of husband resulting in unexplained diminution in assets of jewelry business and lack of adequate records, would be granted discharge where husband was 90% owner of company and company’s officer, operator, and prime employee).

Chelsea's Mezvinsky husband is nothing more than a wind-up toy for her pleasure. Once the toy stops pleasing her, look out! Suicide.