Clintons made $153 million off speeches: report

[hoosierlib]

Source: The Hill

Bill and Hillary Clinton made a combined $153 million off of paid speeches from 2001 until Hillary launched her presidential bid in 2015, according to a CNN report.

During that time, the couple gave 729 speeches for an average payout of $210,795 each. Of those speeches, at least 39 were given to big banks, who paid the couple $7.7 million.

Hillary Clinton alone made at least $1.8 million for her eight speeches to Wall Street banks. She has been repeatedly challenged by Democratic presidential rival Bernie Sanders for her ties to big banks and other special interests.

“What being part of the establishment is, last quarter, having a super-PAC that raised $15 million from Wall Street, that throughout one's life raised a whole lot of money from the drug companies and other special interests," Sanders said during Thursday's presidential debate.



Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/268478-report-clintons-made-153-million-off-of-speeches

---

Wow...and I'm sure they did nothing in return...

[florida08]

1. oh yeah

that's progressive? "No one can serve two masters"

[Geronimoe]

2. They are richly rewarded

for some reason. And I doubt it is for love.

[marble falls]

3. They don't make speeches, they pick up paychecks. What are they being paid for?

"During that time, the couple gave 729 speeches for an average payout of $210,795 each. Of those speeches, at least 39 were given to big banks, who paid the couple $7.7 million.

Hillary Clinton alone made at least $1.8 million for her eight speeches to Wall Street banks. She has been repeatedly challenged by Democratic presidential rival Bernie Sanders for her ties to big banks and other special interests.

“What being part of the establishment is, last quarter, having a super-PAC that raised $15 million from Wall Street, that throughout one's life raised a whole lot of money from the drug companies and other special interests," Sanders said during Thursday's presidential debate. "

Says it all. Who gives out $170M with NO expectations????????????

[CSStrowbridge]

43. Oh for fuck's sake...

"Says it all. Who gives out $170M with NO expectations????????????"

No one gave her $170 million with no expectations.

The two of them made that money over 14 years by giving over 700 speeches.

Only about 5% of that was from big banks.

Donald Trump was charging $1.5 million a speech.

I don't hear a lot of people here freaking out about that.

Ben Bernanke makes more per speech.

George W. Bush makes a little bit less.

Sarah Palin was making $100,000 a speech.

Do you think anyone was spending that much money for those people so they would get something out of it? No, it is for the prestige of having someone that important speak at your event.



Christ, I'm getting worried that the progressive movement is turning into the stupid movement.

[HeartoftheMidwest]

50. Let's break that down a bit, OK?

No one thinks Ms. Clinton's share of the speaking fees was handed to her in one lump sum. It came in amounts of approximately $200-400,000 ( some as high as almost $500,00. )

But do you REALLY want to lump her in with the likes of Trump, Bernanke, Palin, and Bush????!!!

And perhaps some of those speakers mentioned had been hired for their "optics", but it's been endlessly documented here at DU for days that Wall Street executives expected some "collegiality" and reciprocity from Mrs. Clinton, and she signalled that she understood their "needs."

[wordpix]

74. no one speaks for $250K/speech without donors expecting something in return

The new normal: getting paid huge amounts for a 1-2 hr. speech instead of getting a campaign contribution. That way the company pays and not the execs out of pocket. How brilliant.

And those small investors with retirement savings in Goldman Sachs or whoever the donor is also pay. But small inverstors don't get the benefits the execs get

[HeartoftheMidwest]

77. Absolutely.

That's exactly why Ms. Clinton should release the full transcripts, without redactions or omissions.

She's not new to this rodeo, so she should have offered all of these materials a long time ago. If she didn't see this coming, then she's truly not ready for prime time.

[CSStrowbridge]

85. Clueless wonder.

"no one speaks for $250K/speech without donors expecting something in return"

Bill Clinton got paid $700,000 to speak at a Nigerian newspaper.

What did they expect to get in return? What the fuck could an ex-president do in Nigeria?

The got the same thing they expected when Snoop Dogg was paid appeared at one of their functions.

Prestige.

You have no fucking clue what you are talking about, but you sound like a Republican, not a progressive.

[wordpix]

110. wow, way to win people to your side telling them "you have no fucking clue"

I think someone else is the clueless one.

[NickB79]

132. U.S. Law Opening Markets To Africa While Visiting Nigeria, President Clinton Urged Leaders

http://articles.philly.com/2000-08-27/news/25596072_1_nigeria-south-africa-sani-abacha

In Nigeria today, the President will tout his sponsorship of the new American trade law, which takes effect Oct. 1, as the cornerstone of his administration's "trade-not-aid" approach to helping the world's most impoverished continent.

"This is quite a remarkable opportunity," said Robert F. Godec, the economic counselor at the U.S. Embassy in Pretoria, South Africa, speaking to a clothing trade meeting in Cape Town on Thursday. "It is fundamentally about helping Africa to create wealth."

The African Growth and Opportunity Act has at least created an intense buzz about new trade possibilities.

"The law is going to have huge impact on our industry," said Scott Walton, manager of exports for House of Monatic, whose Cape Town company produces menswear under designer labels such as Viyella and Yves Saint Laurent. "It's just a question of which factories can position themselves to benefit."

You were saying?

[6chars]

101. that's only $100/second

[khankiso]

100. Yes

I agree with you people in that position all get huge amounts of money for speeches so what I think Bernie is just jealous. I'm tired of hearing about it and just because she makes money off speeches still doesn't mean that would make Bernie a better President. He's making so many promises that he'll never get anything accomplished. He reminds me of the person that goes to an all you can eat and fills his plate sky high then throws most of it away

[Yo_Mama]

107. But we're not considering whether to vote for Palin, etc.

We're choosing between Sanders and Clinton.

Of course this is relevant information.

[trillion]

114. We're talking about GOLDMAN SACHS the company who last week got off with only paying 5 billion

for the 2008 housing collapse federal mortgage corruption scandal.

For these speeches it's WHO they speak to. Can you put gender aside and start looking at WHO they have their dealings with? Who is paying them?

Go look at Hillary Clintons super pac. It's online. It's the biggest bank offenders on Wall Street, including Goldman Sachs, and its the big insurance companies.

Wake up.

[Nyan]

125. Do you have any concept of what "bribery" means?

Or "corruption" means?

[corkhead]

4. Nice use of our bailout money. Beats helping someone with an underwater mortgage.

[Arby]

5. Good on them.

In what fantasy driven world (one filled with Unicorns?) would someone turn down monies offered, or negotiate down their fees for a political ideology? I seriously doubt anyone here at DU would turn down that sort of money because of their "principled idealism"

[ChairmanAgnostic]

23. You've made your position clear. You have a price.

But would you then turn around, take millions, and pretend that you owe no debt, moral, ethical, contractual, whatever, to those that paid you millions?
If so, then you are no better than Hillary. If not, I take my hat off to you.

[CSStrowbridge]

46. Are you fucking kidding me?

Clearly you have no fucking clue how the real world works. In the real world, there are things called speaking fees. People hire someone they think is prestigious to speak in front of their group.

Sarah Palin was paid more than $100,000 a speech at her peak. Do you think the people paying her were expecting her to pay them back with cushy tax breaks and deregulation of their industry? FUCK NO. She had no political power at the time and was never going to get back into politics.

Fucking hell. Democratic Underground has turned into Red State with loud moron spouting off the latest anti-Clinton conspiracy theory and not an ounce of intelligent discussion to be seen.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

54. not even with a condom and a blindfold.

I love your comparison of Hillary and Sarah. They do have similarities.

I might suggest that you try some deep breathing exercises. Might help with those temper tantrums. Maybe you and Trump . . . . naw. I won't go there.

[CSStrowbridge]

56. You know what would help?

"I might suggest that you try some deep breathing exercises. Might help with those temper tantrums."

If the people posting here weren't so fucking stupid.

The Progressive Movement must be a Fact-Based movement.

You are your ilk have shown you simply don't care about the facts.

I expect this shit from Red State, not Democratic Underground.

[cantbeserious]

88. Regrettably - HRC Does Not Live In The Fact-Based World - She Lives With The 1%

That is Oligarchs, Corporations and Banks.

[wordpix]

111. hey, Strowbridge, you need to chill with your 265 posts

you are a bit shrill with your language, to say the least

[Arby]

92. You presume much.

Speaking is a business just like any other and a major source for income for most politicians once they're out of their public/elected position. I have no qualms about HRC's motives - show me the money ... And as I've said good on her.

She would be an idiot to turn down the opportunity to make that sort of cash. I submit you would take it as well if it was offered - unless of course your are in fact a complete imbecile. To presume that an accomplished person must be indebted to those that pay for their services is somehow obligatory is fallacious.

The small mindedness of so many here at DU is really quite astounding.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

98. Bah.

Last edited Sat Feb 6, 2016, 05:27 PM - Edit history (1)

What service? What useful service did Hillary perform other than to prostitute out her future stances and political decisions?

Wait for the transcripts. And if her campaign refuses to produce them, then my point will be proven.

Only a naive fool would believe that her words were worth $7.7 MILLION from the banking industry alone. $153 MILLION in investments or speaking fees? Come on.

[Arby]

134. I agree with HRC

that when all other candidates and public speakers make public their speeches, she will too ... Why is the outrage ONLY associated with HRC?

Also, $153 is for both HRC and WJC over the course of a decade. How much of this is associated with their Global Initiative?

Only one who is totally ignorant of corporate speeches/functions would presume that those fees are exorbitant.
Corporations are happy to pay high fees to certain political and celebrity figures and it is really no costs to them - the fees and the functions are tax deductible ... SOP. It's not about her words, it's about her works and her celebrity ... Come on.

[fun n serious]

135. I agree. nt

[cantbeserious]

24. Easy To Be Bought - We See - One Would Do Most Anything For Money - One Suspects

eom

[roguevalley]

33. not one dime to harm people. if you can then you have no conscience

No more bush/ cheneys

[cantbeserious]

37. Roger That - No More Queens Of War - That Enable Death - Destroying The Lives Of Millions

While enriching the Oligarchs, Corporations and Banks - the 1%.

[CSStrowbridge]

53. Do anything for money?

Do anything for money?

She's being paid to make speeches. There's nothing controversial about that.

Unless you've never heard of speaking fees, which I'm starting to think is the problem.

http://www.neontommy.com/news/2013/11/price-political-speakers

I've dealt with more knowledgeable creationists.

[cantbeserious]

57. Being Paid To Speak - Is A Ruse - Being Paid To Provide Favors Later - Is The Better Truth

eom

[CSStrowbridge]

62. So what did Jimmy Carter promise?

"Being Paid To Speak - Is A Ruse - Being Paid To Provide Favors Later - Is The Better Truth"

So what did Jimmy Carter promise?

http://www.neontommy.com/news/2013/11/price-political-speakers

Fucking conspiracy bullshit. I expect this from Glenn Beck, not a fellow progressive.

[cantbeserious]

65. HRC Is Not A Progressive - HRC Is A Paid Spokesperson - For The 1%

eom

[cantbeserious]

87. Vulgarity - Is That The Best One Has - Too Sad

eom

[MrMickeysMom]

102. The jury thought so, too..

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
Mail Message
On Sat Feb 6, 2016, 04:30 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Fuck off.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1339709

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

No comments added by alerter

JURY RESULTS

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Feb 6, 2016, 04:37 PM, and the Jury voted 5-2 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: This post can fuck off
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I don't blame the alerter for not leaving any comments. Enough has been said here by someone who needs to count to 10 very slowly.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Innappropriate cursing directed at another DUer
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[cantbeserious]

103. Thank You For Sharing

eom

[wordpix]

112. thanks, jury, good decision

[cali]

129. There is if you're considering running for president

[jalan48]

42. Think, Jimmy Carter.

[CSStrowbridge]

51. Great idea.

"Think, Jimmy Carter."

Great idea. Let's think about Jimmy Carter.

Jimmy Carter is paid $50,000 to $100,000 per speech. He is arguably the greatest ex-president in modern US history.

http://www.neontommy.com/news/2013/11/price-political-speakers

Hillary Clinton has been named the most admired women in America for 20 years in a row. She's underpaid.

[jalan48]

55. But, has Carter made $100 million in speeches? Has that been his main focus?

We both know the answer to that. Hillary is no Jimmy Carter.

[CSStrowbridge]

61. No, because he isn't in demand.

"But, has Carter made $100 million in speeches?"

No, because he isn't in demand.

For fuck sake.

Her speaking fees are high, because she's in demand. That's how this works.

The argument is Creationists Level Stupid.

[jalan48]

66. In Wall Street demand "for fuck's sake"? I feel ya.

[MisterP]

47. we don't get offered this sort of money because we don't have power and influence

they DON'T hand out this sort of money to anyone

[cantbeserious]

60. Roger That - The Money Goes To Those That Can Make The Oligarchs, Corporations And Banks Wealthier

eom

[wordpix]

75. I give speeches for free b/c I believe in the cause

I'm fighting the poisoning of America, pesticides and the like

It doesn't pay the bills but it makes me feel good, now that I'm semi-retired. Hillary could afford to do the same, and a lot easier than I can money-wise since I'm nowhere near a 1%-er.

[CoffeeCat]

6. The hubris of the Clintons leaves me breathless and disgusted.

They have grown into truly unbelievably corrupt, conceited and myopic people. They are becoming a national tragedy.

How in the world did they think that they would get away with this?

People argue oh-so strongly that Clinton has been vetted. No, she hasn't. Both Hillary and Bill are so tied up in money, corruption and the corporate world--they will be vetted and re-vetted long after they are dead and in the ground. We will NEVER stop learning about their corporate ties, their lies, their improper deals, the money they banked from powerful corporations and interests.

There's just no end to it.

These people are corrupt beyond repair. They're part of the establishment that is destroying our democracy. They've gained immense wealth from their corporate connections, specifically from Wall Street, the pharmaceutical industry, the defense contractors, the health-insurance industry, the private-prison industry--and God only knows what else!

I am sick to death of these people.

We are only on the second state. I started out as a Sanders supporter who disliked Clinton's policies. This election vetting of the Clintons and their corporate-corrupt connection and games--has made me detest them. They are vile.

This vetting of the Clintons will continue. Additional Americans will have to suffer through more outrageous facts, figures and stories that will be revealed. It's traumatizing for our nation, that Clinton is running. It's outrageous that Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton failed to anticipate that the little party they've had going for years--would not be revealed and examined--and overwhelmingly rejected.

[FlatBaroque]

8. Cosigned. Every word.

A true national disgrace.

[Akicita]

17. They've always gotten away with it, and many think they always will.

[99th_Monkey]

48. And many are cheering them on, to continue doing it.. nt

[Akicita]

89. Sadly, you're right.

[Yo_Mama]

108. You expressed my feelings well. The Clintons were always in bed with Wall Street

I never could understand why and how this was supposed to motivate voters this time around.


To me, it was always like this. After Bill Clinton left office, he could do what he wanted as long as he stayed away from minors. But Hillary had to choose. If she wanted an independent political career, she should have chosen that. If she wanted the money, she had the right to choose that.

I never comprehended for a minute how the top people in the party believed she could walk away with both. Especially not in this election!

[jalan48]

7. We should have seen this coming after the Clinton's took the White House china when they left office

It's all about them.

[Akicita]

19. How dare you bring that up.

Didn't you get the memo that went out to all the media that that is never to be talked about?

[appalachiablue]

9. Hillary Brought Her Own Goldman Sachs Lobbyist to the New Hampshire Democratic Debate

Sitting next to Dean, fundraiser and lobbyist Steve Elmendorf. He lobbies for Goldman Sachs. 4 Feb. 2016, Tweet, Zaid Jilani reporter.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/2/5/1480331/-Hillary-brought-her-own-Goldman-Sacks-lobbyist-to-Dem-debate

[cantbeserious]

25. HRC - Forked Tongue - Strident - Overbearing - Visionless - The Perfect Spokesperson For The 1%

eom

[wordpix]

76. Dean is calling unions Dem Super-Pacs after sitting with this Goldman lobbyist?

A perfect Hillary spokesman :

[appalachiablue]

99. Even more reason to never watch MSNBC again. About a month

ago he said to Martin O'Malley smthg. like why not go ahead have a debate with Bernie, when he knew well the restrictions as a former DNC Chair. Equating labor unions, what's left of them, with big money shows what Dr. Dean's all about now. It didn't have to be like this, deep dysfunction and corruption.

[kydo]

10. Good for her!

If that's what the people having her speak are willing to pay her for her services, then cool beanies for her. I have no problem that she was able to make money in public speaking. More power to her!

[99th_Monkey]

49. Except they used to call it "Bribery" n/t

[Island Deac]

11. And every one of them

was as a Democrat! None were as an Independent! Good for her and the rest of we Democrats.

[roguevalley]

36. enjoy your chains

[Babel_17]

12. Are you implying something? LOL, do it to her face!

[Bernin]

39. Ha Ha

Would love to have seen what happened after her little tantrum. Had to break for commercial. Looked like she was heading off stage to take a valium or something...

Completely childish. NOT Presidential. She acted like a petulant preschooler. She does not belong anywhere near the White House.

[roguevalley]

128. all of this will sink her because she had horrendous negatives

nearly 50% before this happened.

[leftofcool]

13. Good for them.

Maybe some day someone will hire Bernie to give a speech.

[EL34x4]

35. Senator Sanders will never earn that kind of money giving speeches.

For obvious reasons.

[NorthCarolina]

14. Living the NEW American Dream! It's great work if you can find it.

eom

[bigwillq]

15. Owned by her buyers (nt)

[Nyan]

16. It's been a reward for the Clintons for getting rid of the Glass-Steagall.

It's about time we saw that. If you don't, then you're a sucker.

[George II]

18. So?

[CountAllVotes]

20. $153 million

How grotesque!

& recommend.

[Android3.14]

21. A person making $10 an hour would literally have to work 7,650 years to make that amount

How can any of her supporters be comfortable with this?

[BeatleBoot]

22. So, I'm supposed to be against capitalism now?

[cantbeserious]

26. Bribery Is Not Capitalism - Or So We Are Taught - Maybe One Believes - They Should Be The Same

eom

[BeatleBoot]

67. Where's the Quid Pro Quo?

[cantbeserious]

68. Chuckles - One's Naivety Is Legion

eom

[BeatleBoot]

136. All you have to do is answer the question.

Snarky is not an answer.

[Nyan]

126. "Okay. Where's the quid pro quo now?"

is the question they'll be asking the Clintons the minute they get into the WH.

[wordpix]

81. how about capitalism that works for the many, instead of the top 1%?

[Duckhunter935]

27. sickening

Jimmy Carter is the gold standard for a former president

[VMA131Marine]

28. I've seen both Hillary and Bill speak at GreenBuild

the US Green Building Council's annual convention. They were paid, but by the above logic is the contention that they are now beholden to the environmentalist lobby? We can only hope!

[Igel]

44. Yes.

And just as "Wall Street" employees aren't Americans or people, so also we must dehumanize the Greenies by giving them names that point out that they're not really people, too, nor Americans.

It's "we the people" and not "well the Wall Street" or "we the Greenies." So they don't count. Perhaps we can raze Wall Street and spray for Greenies in the future to liberate their space for "we the people."

That's how such talk ends. We're familiar with decrying it when we're in solidarity with the dehumanized or hate the dehumanizers on other grounds, but find it alien and completely foreign to us when we do it.

(I was noticing this sort of hypocrisy as a core value on a "Russia in Syria" thread. Russia government's all for separatism when it's in its interests, and decries the established government as "terrorists" for daring to even say harsh words about those just seeking freedom and, as it were, independence. But as soon as they like the government that's established in a country, it can do no wrong and anybody who dares to say a harsh word about it is a terrorist and worthy of death.)

[turbinetree]

29. Here we go.......................

https://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/top.php?display=Z

And just think if you look at who has became a lobbyists---------------go outside the box and just think of the "trade deals" from the past and presently being placed on at your feet and these speaking fees are the same thing in there conclusion------------greed ------------------and the quid pro quo, and the attacking of the basic infrastructure about the supposed "high cost " to manufacture anything in this country

That is what this issue is about-------------------speaking fees, "trade deals" and laws being passed in the country to reinforce these outsourcing "trade deals", and then trying to lay the blame on the poor and the middle class in general for being the problem --------------------wrong

I do not think at this present time that Mr. Sanders would be invited to Goldman Sach's or JP Morgan Chase to talk about there shenanigans and what can be done--------------I truly do not believe they want his advice now or in the future



Honk---------------------for a political revolution Bernie 2016

It is about getting a Progressive President, U.S. Supreme Court, Congress, and State and Local legislatures

Democracy begins with you--------------------tag your it-------------------Sanders to Thom Hartmann

Democracy is not a spectator sport------------------get involved------------Thom Hartmann

[alfredo]

30. Another way to see this: A fool and his money is soon parted.

Event organizers need big names to lure in paying customers. Hillary speaking at your event will bring in more money than Tom DeLay or Dan Quayle.

The Clinton's left office with millions in legal fees. The quickest way to earn money was the speaking tour. Reagan earned $2 million for two speeches in Japan soon after leaving office. GHW Bush also got a $2 million dollar speaking fee from the Emir of Kuwait. I'm sure the Obama's will do quite well with the speaking fees.

[Chakaconcarne]

45. Apparently people here are okay with

A republican winning in 2016 because that's what's going to happen if we tear the shit out of Clinton now and she ends up the nominee. Just saying... we all know this about her, why not just keep it to ourselves and not get the media rolling and spinning on this for everyone else to see.

[wordpix]

78. disagree---all candidates need vetting and if we're tearing her up

it's NOTHING compared to what the repukes will do.

Their only problem is their candidates are equally tied to billionaire$ or in Donald's and Jeb's case, they are the billionaire$.

If Hillary win$ this nomination, it will be a battle of billionaire$. Who was paid what $ for what "service" and how their votes changed or did not change. The whole election will be one recrimination after the next. I would rather have Bernie in there as an honest man who is not tainted by campaign bribery.

[alfredo]

95. For me, it is all about keeping a Republican out of the Whitehouse.

I don't care if it is Hillary or Sanders. I like that Sanders is normalizing Socialism. I think people are starting to understand that we are to some extent, a Social Democracy. We just need to be brave enough to say it out loud.

I think both Bernie and Hillary understand the destabilizing effect of social inequality. How they address it is the difference. Hillary is a cautious politician, probably because of the decades long smear campaign against her. Neither Hillary or Bernie will be able to work with the Republicans. Their hate is too deep, their ideology is too rigid.

Both Bern and Hill are flexible enough to cut deals, but they need patriotic Republicans willing to bargain in good faith.

[Yavin4]

121. Most of the people who are posting anti-Hillary nonsense

didn't live through 12 years of Reagan/Bush and then 8 years of Bush.

[questionseverything]

104. this is all public knowledge

no one is saying anything the repub don't already know

this is pretty tame to what repubs say

[ericson00]

31. capitalism is here to stay

and so is money. Socialism will never happen and the profit motive will live on forever thru the ages.

[AzDar]

32. Prepare for an epic, dirty battle... because those Banksters aren't going to quietly walk away from

all that EQUITY.

[Hoyt]

34. Yep, she was bought by American Camping Association, Green Building Council, UCLA, Canada 2020,

[roguevalley]

38. Goldman Sachs citi Corp

[Igel]

52. All or none, I guess.

A wholly owned subsidiary of green camping bankers who attended UCLA.

Must be careful, because not only are you guilty of the crimes of those you associate with, but you're also guilty of the crimes of those you're paid by.

Oh, no. The local EPA inspector is guilty of war crimes in Iraq because he was paid by the US government and therefore owned by the government.

Of course, so's Sanders, because during all this time he was also paid by the government, and therefore wholly owned.

Ad absurdum with this argument.

[polly7]

40. The two big bank who paid the most were big pushers of the KeystoneXL.

Do you think she spoke to them on how to improve our banking system? I can't find transcripts ....... is she a banking system expert?

[Hoyt]

70. She actually spoke to clients, some of them Dems, about economy and world.

And, you see what happened to the pipeline. So, all the conspiracy theories are BS.

[polly7]

71. She 'wouldn't take a stand' then (in public) on the KXL, but took their big money.

Who do you think you're fooling?

[Hoyt]

72. The pipeline is dead despite your conspiracy theory.

[polly7]

73. It wasn't dead 'then'.

WASHINGTON -- Two Canadian banks tightly connected to promoting the controversial Keystone XL pipeline in the United States either fully or partially paid for eight speeches made by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in the period not long before she announced her campaign for president. Those speeches put more than $1.6 million in the Democratic candidate's pocket.

Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce and TD Bank were both primary sponsors of paid Clinton speeches in 2014 and early 2015, although only the former appears on the financial disclosure form she filed May 15. According to that document, CIBC paid Clinton $150,000 for a speech she gave in Whistler, British Columbia, on Jan. 22, 2015.

Clinton reported that another five speeches she gave across Canada were paid for by tinePublic Inc., a promotional company known for hosting speeches by world leaders and celebrities. Another speech was reported as paid for by the think tank Canada 2020, while yet another speech was reportedly funded by the Vancouver Board of Trade. But a review of invitations, press releases and media reports for those seven other speeches reveals that they, too, were either sponsored by or directly involved the two banks.

Both banks have financial ties to TransCanada, the company behind the Keystone XL pipeline, and have advocated for a massive increase in pipeline capacity, including construction of Keystone. Further, Gordon Giffin, a CIBC board member and onetime U.S. ambassador to Canada, is a former lobbyist for TransCanada and was a contributions bundler for Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign.

CIBC and TD Bank both have large energy portfolios and have pushed for the U.S. government to approve final construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, which would link the Canadian oil sands in Alberta through the middle of the United States to Texas and the Gulf of Mexico.

Since the Keystone pipeline is being built across national boundaries by a foreign company, TransCanada, it requires approval from the U.S. State Department. While serving as secretary of state, Clinton said that she was “inclined” to approve the pipeline. Since then, she has been mum on the issue, even as environmentalists -- with their major grassroots and money sway in the Democratic Party -- have made stopping the pipeline a priority.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/31/hillary-clinton-speeches-keystone_n_7463108.html

[Hoyt]

79. You miss the point, neither she nor Obama were influenced by speaker fees or promises of more.

[polly7]

83. No, YOU miss the point. But thanks for playing. nt.

[wordpix]

80. don't worry, if she becomes pres, these banks will be back

They gave their "insurance premium" and they'll be at the WH as soon as she gets into office.

[polly7]

84. Exactly. nt.

[former9thward]

91. She won't release the content of her speeches.

So you have no idea what she talked to them about.

[Hoyt]

94. There are a few videos posted right here yesterday. Look at em, then comeback and report.

Do you think she's gonna go into a large banquet room, full of GS clients -- including many Democrats -- and set out a plan to steal from the poor. Lord, you folks crack me up. They hire her to attract attendees and give them insight into the future. Who better, unless you think they ought to bring in a fortune teller.

[former9thward]

96. LOL

Goldman doesn't need Clinton to tell them the future in a canned speech. They spend millions, if not more, on professional economic and intelligence analysts to tell them that. The purpose of the speeches is to donate to politicians and evade the campaign donation limits and reporting requirements. Also it allows the company to directly donate which would be illegal if they did it the conventional way since it is illegal for corporations to donate to federal campaigns.

[Hoyt]

97. I guess when they pay Jimmy Carter, head of Robin Hood Foundation, sports or entertainment icons,

college professors, Malcolm Gladwell. Bod Woodruff, MSNBC anchor bribed too.

Guess you didn't watch the videos, because you didn't come back saying she said horrible things. You've switched accusations from speech text to well the fees were bribery.

[former9thward]

105. Do they pay Carter, etc. $675,000?

Assuming he ever spoke there. I certainly don't take your word for it. The Clinton speeches were made to Goldman execs -- not to clients as you claimed. No need to entice people to come there as you claimed.

[Bernin]

41. Sure beats ducking sniper fire.

Oh wait. That was another Hillarism...

[Jackie Wilson Said]

58. A symptom of the problem, for sure. So how do we fix it?

Bernie has some good ideas, for sure.

Let's hope we preserve the Democracy long enough to fix it...

Baby steps may be in order.

[Tab]

59. I'd elect someone who could make $153 million in speeches

Certainly I couldn't.

[Odin2005]

63. The correct term is BRIBE.

Calling it "payment for a speech" is a convenient LIE so the bribery can be done legally.

[Skwmom]

64. They made almost $91 million in 6 years - From 2009 to 2014.

She became SOS in 2009.

[Enrique]

69. I can see them on TV for free

are they that much better live?

[wordpix]

82. you can't bribe them if you're watching them on youtube, silly!

It's bribery. I'll give you the high speaking fee, and I'll have access to you directly once you're president, senator or whatever.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

90. Imagine if they were being given money in suitcases in motel rooms....

To their class it depends on the motel.

If it's a Motel 6? That's bad.
If it's the Drake in Chicago? Perfectly fine.

Better yet it's an electronic transfer into "the foundation".

Do I need to be the first to use the phrase, "money laundering"?

[ahimsa]

93. A speech a week for 15 years

If I'm reading the numbers right, 729 speeches in less than 15 years, that's an average of a speech a week. That sounds like hard work and very disruptive - it would take a lot of money to convince someone to do that every week for 15 years. Think of all the time they had to spend preparing, and travelling, and coming up with new material. Think of all the money they had to spend on travel for themselves and a small army of secret service agents (assuming it wasn't provided by the venue or the government). I think this speech-making business is a lot more interesting than what they might have said to the few banks they included. With all that, I'm not convinced it's a bad thing for a .1%er to be doing. There are a lot of worse things that can be done. That money may be better off in the Clinton's hands than wherever it came from.

[6000eliot]

109. Another day, another smear. Thanks, Sanders supporters!

This is getting so boring.

[Bernin]

115. Playing the victim card for Hillary

What a hoot.

[6000eliot]

116. As opposed to playing the bully for Sanders?

[Bernin]

117. I watched the last debate.

Did you?

The only unhinged bully I saw was named Hillary.

[6000eliot]

118. I don't recall accusing either Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton of anything,

so I don't understand what your response means.

[Bernin]

119. You blamed Sander's supporters.

I see the HRC supporters smear Bernie in here all day long. I also see HRC do it herself. Up to and including sending her progeny out to do it for her.

Way to stay classy.

[6000eliot]

120. Not the same thing.

By the way, while I support Hillary, I have NEVER said a bad word about Bernie Sanders, who I admire very much. I only have a problem with his supporters who think they are going to change anyone's mind with these attacks.

[Bernin]

122. Great to hear.

Hope you come over to the Bernie camp eventually. I can't say that I admire Hillary. She'll say whatever she thinks you want to hear. I have just seen her lie too many times. Nor do I think she is a leader on anything. She did not come out in favor of SSM until it was "safe" to do so.

She is no trail blazer.
To me she is a human wind sock and I would still need a 2nd opinion before I believed she was telling me which way the wind was blowing.

[6000eliot]

123. As if to prove my point.

[Bernin]

124. Well,

If you see the truth as smears; then it explains how you can support someone that did not support you until it was politically safe to do so.

[Little Tich]

113. That's a lot of money. I wonder what those speeches were about? n/t

[Throd]

133. The speeches are irrelevant. It's the backroom conversations after the speech that matters.

[NanceGreggs]

127. Can't thank you enough ...

... for breaking this news.

Until now, no one has ever posted a single OP on this topic.

Now that this news is finally out there for everyone to see, I'm sure Hillary will have no choice but to drop out of the race in shame.

THIS is the game-changer, my friends. Count on it.

[Cryptoad]

130. Nice to know that we have a candidate

who is smart enough that people will pay that much to hear what she has to say!

[left-of-center2012]

131. She'll make America great again