Hillary Clinton Rakes in Big Money from Two Goldman Sachs Speeches in One Week

[xchrom]

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/hillary-clinton-rakes-big-money-two-goldman-sachs-speeches-one-week



Former Secretary of State, and presumed 2016 presidential hopeful, Hillary Clinton spoke at two separate Goldman Sachs events in the past week (on October 24, and then again on October 29), for a cool $200,000 per speech, her normal fee according to Politico and the New York Times. $400,000—not a bad payday for the former First Lady.

Alec Torres of the National Review Online reports that, on the 24th, Clinton spoke for the AIMS Alternate Investment Conference, a closed event held exclusively for Goldman clients. AIMS is an annual conference that explores strategic models and new products available to financial advisers. Pretty exclusive stuff.

This Tuesday, Clinton spoke to the Builders and Innovators Summit, about entrepreneurship, and how best to help investors expand their own personal business models. According to Politico, which covered the event, Clinton conducted a question-and-answer session with Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein. The investment giant declined to comment on the subject of Clinton’s talk, or why she in particular was invited to the events.

The two speaking engagements follow Clinton’s visits to private-equity firms KKR this past July, and the Carlyle Group just last month. At KKR’s annual investor meeting in California, Clinton was on hand to answers questions from Harry Kravis, the film’s co-founder, on the subjects of the Middle East, Washington, and politics. At the Carlyle Group, Clinton is said to have made a speech to shareholders that was moderated by the group’s founder David Rubenstein.

[Scuba]

1. Why we don't need another Clinton in the White House.

[xchrom]

2. +1

[BeyondGeography]

3. That's the kind of bold, imaginative thinking that helped sink her last time

But then Obama was in the way. No such impediment looms on this go-round. She and her husband need an impediment.

[hatrack]

4. Nauseating, but not exactly surprising

nt

[cali]

5. how dare you slime our nominee???

[xchrom]

6. !

[warrant46]

27. I thought we had to wait at least to the primaries?

[jsr]

7. It's inevitable!!

[DURHAM D]

8. Oh NO!

She raised $400K for disadvantaged women and girls. That is really really awful.

[roguevalley]

9. helping the people that made them poor look good is wrong.

Those punks should be in jail and her presence is approval. Substitute her for a pug. Even if it were for charity would you be so generous.

[NuclearDem]

12. Her concern must be overwhelming, considering the TPP she's pushing for.

[Auntie Bush]

18. Yes, Isn't she awful? Raising all that money from the rich and giving

it to poor and disadvantaged women and girls.

[KY5]

32. The Clinton Foundation does a lot of good work.

Unfortunately, people with an agenda won't frame the story that way.

[NuclearDem]

10. "or why she in particular was invited to the events"

Making an investment, of course.

[Whisp]

11. she did a Carlyle one a short time ago too.

yeh, real progressive.

this is probably bribe money - easy way to get paid for 'services rendered' by SoS and her hubby's 'interests'.

absolutely Nauseating.

[snooper2]

13. money for doing nothing, must be a nice gig

[datasuspect]

16. at least in what they used to call "third world banana republics"

they had the decency to do their bribery in private.

pigs - the whole bloody lot of them.

[Auntie Bush]

19. Doing NOTHING?

Great gig after she spent 4 years as SoS and 4 years as a senator and many, many years as First Lady. Yeah! Anyone can do that sitting around doing nothing. Time for Dems to see and think straight.

[snooper2]

20. I thought she got paid for being SoS...

Now she gets paid to talk...


Publicly funding elections would solve this

[Auntie Bush]

22. So if you're paid for working...you are doing NOTHING!

Yes, public funding would solve a lot of problems. I'm all for it! But, until the law changes...and Dems want to win the next election...they must go where the money is! She can do what she wants and thinks what is right after the election. I'm sure Obama and Bush disappointed some of their donors.

[warrant46]

31. So the End Justifies the Means ?

"But, until the law changes...and Dems want to win the next election...they must go where the money is! "

[Auntie Bush]

33. Do you not want the Dems to win? Look how much money the Kock brothers

are pouring into the election. You are not being realistic to think we can win without donations from the monied people. I don't like it either but I understand the situation...especially with citizens United.

[NuclearDem]

34. Yeah, if the Republicans win they might push for the biggest corporate power grab since CU.

Thank God Hillary would never support something like that.

[Douglas Carpenter]

14. I bet she will shatter Barack Obama's 2008 record and Mitt Romney's 2012 record in raising money

from Wall Street.

[Auntie Bush]

21. Money is MONEY! Unfortunately, something needed to win an election.

Or don't you want a Dem to win the election?

[Douglas Carpenter]

25. well since Wall Street gives this money out of the goodness of their heart and does not expect

anything in return except a better country - we should be very grateful for every cent we get from them.

[warrant46]

29. +1 N/T

[hatrack]

38. And this kind of generosity has NOTHING to do with whose phone calls get returned . ..

. . . who gets meetings, whose "concerns" get "addressed" and whose laws get rewritten.

It's just evil and wrong for you to even think that those generous, generous investment bankers are expecting anything for their actions except for the opportunity to shower their beneficence upon the poor and deserving.

Which of course makes you wonder why they don't just mail checks instead of having Hilary give a big speech, but I digress.

[datasuspect]

15. GO BIG MONEY GO!

YAY!!!! CORPORATE REPUBLODEMS!!!!

[joeybee12]

17. Is she doing it for their money, or because she needs their support...

Our government is already run by Goldman Sachs, so maybe she's getting their blessing?

[WilliamPitt]

23. Yes.

[DFW]

24. $200,000 per speech? Well, good for her

It's probably the last money she'll see from Goldman Sachs unless the Republicans really do nominate Ted Cruz or Rand Paul. She might as well take it from them while she can.

[polichick]

26. Don't worry - if she becomes prez, she'll put the people over Wall Street.

[4dsc]

36. LMAO!

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

28. If only Hillary sounded more like this...

http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images;_ylt=A0oG7hsf_HNS_HgATitXNyoA?p=elizabeth+warren+quotes&fr=yfp-t-122&fr2=piv-web

...I'd feel a lot better. But sadly, she's no Elizabeth Warren...

[KY5]

30. Good for her.

If I got $200,000 for giving a speech, I'd get in front of any crowd they wanted me to.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

35. Of course, GS and Carlyle expect nothing in return for their benevolence....

[99Forever]

37. Another in the long line of reasons...

.. I'll never vote for for her. EVER.