Millionaire Book-Writer And Professional Board-Sitter Chelsea Clinton Attacks Substack Authors As "Grifters"
Good idea, Chelsea. Let's talk about grift.
Chelsea Clinton wants to talk about grifting. That’s just great.
The fruit, apparently, doesn’t fall that far from the global elitist narrative tree.
Perhaps looking to ride the coattails of those ganging up on “controversial anti-vaxx misinformation” (read: any uttered thought not handed down by Dr. Anthony Fauci from the heavens above) or perhaps looking to drum up support by her Twitter sycophants, Chelsea Clinton took to her Twitter account last week to lash out at Substack for providing a platform for free speech and for people to voluntarily subscribe to newsletters they’re interested in and willing to pay for.
Wow, sounds nefarious, Chelsea! Glad you stepped in.
The first daughter took exception with the “anti-vaxx grift” that is supposedly taking place on here on Substack, citing a Guardian article written last week as her source.
“A group of vaccine-sceptic writers are generating revenues of at least $2.5m (£1.85m) a year from publishing newsletters for tens of thousands of followers on the online publishing platform Substack, according to new research,” the Guardian wrote last week.
“Why is Substack facilitating science denialists’ ability to profit from destructive lies (and comfortable profiting themselves)?” Clinton asked.
The research for the article was performed by an organization called the Center for Countering Digital Hate (of course that’s what its called). Because if anything says “digital hate” nowadays, it’s considering both sides of a story before critically thinking and arriving at your own conclusions.
“How dare you!”
Specifically, the Guardian article called out Dr. Joseph Mercola and Alex Berenson, who each have tens of thousands of paid followers on Substack. The intense sleuthwork to break the “story” that these two are making a couple million dollars a year came from the super exhaustive task of multiplying “tens of thousands of subscribers” with the $6/month they charge, times 12 months in a year.
That information is readily available on Substack.
Huge exclusive, guys. To the victor go the spoils, The Guardian.
Several paragraphs into the Guardian article, Substack rightly fired back, reminding me of exactly why I chose this platform as an outlet for my content. Substack told The Guardian:
“As we face growing pressure to censor content published on Substack that to some seems dubious or objectionable, our answer remains the same: we make decisions based on principles not PR, we will defend free expression, and we will stick to our hands-off approach to content moderation.”
I find it hilarious that Chelsea Clinton would call writers “grifters” for selling their opinions on things.
Putting aside the fact that her parents have raked in tens of millions of dollars writing books, Chelsea herself has a long history of selling her opinions on things for money.
Back in 2015, Clinton Foundation Donor Penguin Random House announced a book deal with then 35 year old Chelsea. The details on the advance she was paid were kept under wraps.
“Penguin Random House has not disclosed how much Chelsea’s book advance is worth, but the Clintons have received some of the largest publishing advances in recent history,” the Washington Free Beacon wrote at the time.
It continued: “Chelsea’s book, It’s Your World: Get Informed, Get Inspired & Get Going, is intended to educate young readers on themes such as climate change, gender equality, and non-communicable diseases.”
Wait a second. Climate change? Gender equality? Non-communicable diseases?
You mean to tell me Chelsea Clinton was literally selling her opinion on diseases half a decade ago and now she’s taken some indignant exception to others doing the same?
Clinton also penned the "She Persisted” book series starting in 2017, which was a successful series highlighting the plight of 13 remarkable women in history.
Then, in 2021, Clinton signed another 11 book deal for this feminist children’s series.
Clinton also earned a stunning $600,000 annual salary (hereinafter referred to as: a quarter-Berenson) at NBC News as a “special correspondent” starting in November 2011, while she was 31 years old.
There, she worked “on service-related feature assignments for NBC’s ‘Rock Center with Brian Williams’ until the show’s cancellation,” Politico reported. It lasted two seasons and was cancelled due to low ratings.
Williams was then suspended from NBC in February 2015 after claiming a military helicopter he was in during the Iraq War had been "forced down after being hit by an RPG", which turned out to be a fabrication. He was earning $10 million per year at the time. When he returned to the air, he was demoted.
Clinton has also earned more than $9 million just for sitting on the board of media company IAC/InterActiveCorp since 2011. IAC is led by billionaire Clinton ally Barry Diller, who also chairs the Expedia board, where Chelsea also sits.
Clinton reportedly earned $300,000 for attending just six meetings as a Board Member of IAC in 2018, the Daily Mail reported in 2019.
“Some members of the Expedia board were only obligated to attend two meetings last year,” The Mail reported.
“Chelsea will soon own just over $400,000 of Expedia stock and shares in IAC that add up to an astonishing $6.3 million,” the report continued.
Clinton has also served on the board of Clover Health since February 2017. As of 2020, she held more than 685,000 options valued at about $4.6 million. Clover’s stock is down -85.5% since the company went public.
Her profile on the company’s website says she is a member of the “Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee”.
Clover’s board, including Clinton, was sued over its $3.7 billion go-public deal and also disclosed an SEC investigation in 2021.
The sweet gigs that just happen to keep falling into Chelsea’s lap have funded a lavish lifestyle for her.
As Alex Berenson pointed out late last week, Clinton is likely calling out grifters from a $10 million New York City apartment that the Daily Mail called in 2013 “New York's longest apartment”.
Described as a “luxury fortress”, Clinton was somehow able to buy this apartment at just 33 years old in 2013. She must have gotten luckier than her mom did trading cattle futures for the first time, when she 100x’d the first $1,000 she invested.
Don’t worry: all futures traders will tell you their first foray into trading went exactly the same way.
Clinton’s NYC apartment is now estimated to be worth $13.7 million.
Chelsea seems confused as to why Substack has gotten so popular. I guess nobody told the Clintons that they are probably part of the reason Substack exists to begin with.
Their grip and influence on the news and the global narrative on a whole host of issues has forced a large portion of the country to feel as though they’re not getting the full story. Arguably, Hillary lost the 2016 election because she wasn’t able to garner the trust of the American public, many of whom painted her as inauthentic and formulaic.
The same public who reads (and writes on) Substack not only questions the intentions of people like the Clintons, but also feel empowered to think critically and make their own life decisions without the help of central planners.
Many of them agree with me, when I say that paling around with the most powerful people in the world, while collecting millions worth of compensation from sitting on board seats and cashing checks for book advances shouldn’t give you carte blanche to start handing out life lessons on who is and isn’t grifting.
For example, is that Ghislaine Maxwell at your…wedding? That’s weird.
And is this you (bottom) and your dad (above, at a Clinton Foundation event) paling around with Elizabeth Holmes of Theranos - a widely disgraced fraud whose multi-billion dollar valuation collapsed after a series of critical Wall Street Journal articles revealed its “revolutionary” technology to not actually exist?
And while we’re on the topic, did you use Theranos’ Holmes to host a Clinton fundraiser? That’s weird.
Meanwhile, cancel culture is becoming an interesting paradox for the left: a contrast becomes more evident the harsher the attacks on free speech become. The more Chelsea calls for censorship, the more Substack becomes an obvious beacon of freedom of speech.
But at the end of the day, you have to take Chelsea’s criticisms for what they are: definitely laughable and likely hypocritical.
Even some on the left can’t really figure out whether or not Chelsea has earned the gravitas to be an authority on…well…anything.
Mainly because when asked about what Chelsea actually does for a living, other than collect paychecks and stock options, it’s tough to distinguish.
When I ask my plumber what he does for a living, he gives me a direct answer: “I repair pipes, sinks, snake drains and unclog toilets.”
When you ask Chelsea Clinton the same question, my guess would be the answer involves a word salad of the terms “advocate”, “activist”, “consultant” and “Director”.
Maybe this is why she was torched in 2017 by left-leaning Vanity Fair who wrote an article called “Please, God, Stop Chelsea Clinton From Whatever She Is Doing”. Author T.A. Frank writes:
What comes across with Chelsea, for lack of a gentler word, is self-regard of an unusual intensity. And the effect is stronger on paper. Unkind as it is to say, reading anything by Chelsea Clinton—tweets, interviews, books—is best compared to taking in spoonfuls of plain oatmeal that, periodically, conceal a toenail clipping.
In fact, the whole situation has me wondering: is Chelsea genuinely upset about the totally voluntary “grift” taking place by you, the reader and me, the writer - or is she just upset that there’s a grift out there that she’s not a part of?
Regardless, prepare yourself: this isn’t the first attack we’ve seen on Substack, nor is it likely going to be the last.
As I wrote last year, when I saw the NY Times criticize the platform last summer, I knew I was on the right path to finding my home as a writer. Perhaps you recall when the NY Times published a July 2021 op-ed called "Is the Rise of the Substack Economy Bad for Democracy?"
Staff editor Spencer Bokat-Lindell wrote critically, "The concept of niche, subscription-based news and commentary isn’t exactly novel," penning his thoughts in a commentary section of a subscription-based publication himself.
Yet, look at us now, Spencer. We’re apparently “novel” enough to truly be ruffling some feathers.
As Substack continues to grow in popularity, the pushback is likely going to become even louder. But at the end of the day, Substack is filling a major gap that the market is showing immense demand for: free speech.
I had to ask Spotify yesterday whether or not they had the backbone to endure the fight and support their key content creator, Joe Rogan.
But Substack, I already know where you stand. With the “grifters”.
Now read:
Quite simply, Substack Rocks.
Thank you. Great job!