May 16, 2015

"Hillary Rodham Clinton and her husband made at least $30 million over the last 16 months..."

"... mainly from giving paid speeches to corporations, banks and other organizations, according to financial disclosure forms filed with federal elections officials on Friday."

Also: "Clinton Foundation donors include dozens of media organizations, individuals."

80 comments:

Sebastian said...

To quote a "moderate" voter, so what?

These people have bills to pay. Buying loyalty is expensive.

Rob said...

Gotta love the Washington Post Company. Shaken down by the Clintons, they ponied up something between $250 and $1000. "Now get lost."

SteveR said...

We need to check with Harry Reid to make sure they paid taxes.

The Bergall said...

And worth every damn cent.....

Well perhaps Thomas Tusser had a different opinion.....

Rob McLean said...

Hillary! could hacksaw a basket of baby kittens to death at halftime of the Super Bowl, and she'll still get 47% of the vote.

All she needs is 4% more. Useful fools, indeed.

clint said...

Wouldn't it be fun to see the RNC announce that the Republican primary debates would not be hosted by any media corporation that donated to the Clinton Foundation?

Coupe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lem said...

Me five hours ago...

@GaltsGirl @ijreview they've put us in the invidious position of accusing them of making money. Unless there is wrongdoing we should move on

LYNNDH said...

When you lie down with dogs, expect fleas.

traditionalguy said...

I for one am proud of a Country whose retired President and a retired Secretary of State who is probably going to become President is worth bribing at $375,000 per month, even after being discounted to a present value of nothing yet.

khesanh0802 said...

Although this is still a lot of "inside baseball" as far as the average voter is concerned, it is still providing ammunition to anyone who wants to use it in the future. Doesn't it feel a little like having Leona Helmsley tell us how to live our lives?

What a scummy bunch.

A major problem with the exposure of these organizations is going to be proving how "unbiased" they are in reporting on the Clinton's scams. I have a sense that there will be a competition to expose as much as possible in order to establish their neutrality. That is not going to help Hillary one bit. I remain astounded that there isn't one ambitious, semi-qualified soul ready to step in to the Democratic primaries.

Temujin said...

The question isn't now and never has been that Hillary is making huge amounts of money giving speeches. Good for her. The questions are: (1) why would anyone pay anything to have to listen to that vacuous drivel, and (2) how do you put a market value on crap?

Apparently, some have figured this out. Her crap is certainly worth more than my crap. I need to work on my crap.

dbp said...

30 million in 16 months comes out to $1,875,000 per month for the two of them. Or $937,500/month each.

AJ Lynch said...

I don't know if I could live on that. How much is that a week?

Lem said...

I seem to recall some money making schemes with books that ended political careers...

But the Clintons are unique, you see. And those book schemes were a long time ago.

Me about 45 minutes ago...

The only explanation I can muster is the Clintons have been granted a color reverse Affirmative Action dispensation. They are white Obamas.

Lem said...

I had such high hopes for that tweet.

Hari said...

Does anyone have a transcript of one of these speeches?

lemondog said...

Hill net worth is shown as $21,5M, while Bill net worth shows $80M

(1) why would anyone pay anything to have to listen to that vacuous drivel

I am curious what the resulting benefit to corporations, etc., is for their speaking. Lobbying for their influence?

walter said...

"Hillary! could hacksaw a basket of baby kittens to death at halftime of the Super Bowl"

Well..Paul Ryan wants to shove granny over a cliff...

TosaGuy said...

Just how much juicy, delicious red meat can the Clintons hang in front of Lizzie Warren.

Lem said...

Does anyone have a transcript of one of these speeches?

I propose Althouse find one and desmenuzelo for us.


Lem said...

Just how much juicy, delicious red meat can the Clintons hang in front of Lizzie Warren.

There is got to be something going on behind the scenes, when the name de Blasio is being bandied about as a possible contestant to Hillary.

Alex said...

Conservatives are just jealous that the Clintons command such a high speaking fee.

This whole post and comments reek of jealousy!

Eric said...

The New York Times is the central point in the vast right-wing conspiracy!

Levi Starks said...

Bill Clinton doesn't need to worry about free speech, because none of his ever are.

Lem said...

Conservatives are just jealous that the Clintons command such a high speaking fee.

Sorry... The Clintons are unique in former president speaking fee honoraria.

Usually, fees went down as the time in office receded, until now.

The Clintons are making history, and the reasons are less seized upon than Tom Brady's deflated balls.

walter said...

That whole impeachment thing appears to have increased Bill's value. But I'm concerned about the guy. He sounded like he had his balls in a vice with his recent comment on needing to pay the bills.

Hammond X. Gritzkofe said...

Their money. One would hope they find it was wasted.

Hammond X. Gritzkofe said...

"Hillary! could hacksaw a basket of baby kittens to death at halftime of the Super Bowl, and she'll still get 47% of the vote."

OK, but how if she mowed down a family of Muscovy ducks with a riding mower?

Michael K said...

She and Bill got ABC and Disney to shut down a very good and objective miniseries called, The Path to 9/11 of which only pitied copies can be found. It was even edited shortly before being shown to remove uncomfortable facts for Bill.

It has never been shown again nor has a DVD edition ever been produced.

I wonder what ABC expects in return ?

Michael K said...

"pirated copies..."

AprilApple said...

Vox

robother said...

Puts Hillary's statements on overruling Citizen's United in perspective. Between the Clinton Foundation and Bill's "speaking fees" (which doubled or tripled when she became Secy of State, the Clintons have the perfect system for getting billions of corporate dollars for election and reelection, as well as media outlets like ABC and NBC to get out their message and vote, why would they want anybody else to compete with them?

Bill's speaking fees from foreign governments and corporations needing government favors will soar into the millions when Hillary is President.

But of course, in the eyes of moderates, there's nothing to see here. Oh hum. Move on.

William Chadwick said...

Damn one percenters!

"Always attack the rich. Everyone will join you--the rich first of all."--Ellsworth Toohey.

Anonymous said...

Hill gave a meaningless, forgettable, and worthless speech to 900 at UNLV last fall. She refused to discount her hefty fee of $225,000, despite the fact she was speaking at a state university. Students were upset as UNLV was coincidentally announcing a 17% tuition hike.

What a mean, avaricious, and power hungry creature HRC is.

Harry Reid refused comment on the pecuniary arrangements for this highly profitable engagement.

AprilApple said...

Busting through the left-wing hysterics of Citizens United and understanding the truth.

Citizens United were actual citizens-- united to speak out against Hillary, and the government tried to stop them..

The left turned C U inside out and 180 degrees out of phase.
Alito mouthed the words "not true" because Obama is tool for the Clinton machine. Spreading the lies starts at the top.

William Chadwick said...

Appopos of which:

http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/14/caption-this-hard-hitting-journalist-george-stephanopoulos-puts-bill-clinton-in-the-hot-seat/#disqus_thread

William Chadwick said...

Appropos of which:

http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/14/caption-this-hard-hitting-journalist-george-stephanopoulos-puts-bill-clinton-in-the-hot-seat/#disqus_thread

William Chadwick said...

Appropos of which:

http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/14/caption-this-hard-hitting-journalist-george-stephanopoulos-puts-bill-clinton-in-the-hot-seat/#disqus_thread

William Chadwick said...

Sorry for the triple post. Computer malfunction. Said it couldn't post then posted the comment thrice.

William Chadwick said...

Sorry for the triple post. Computer malfunction. Said it couldn't post then posted the comment thrice.

Fernandinande said...

I would've given those speeches for $12 million, so ha ha on those corporations, banks and other organizations.

buwaya puti said...

The NYT seems to be part of an anti-Clinton media campaign. They are a regular venue for the steady drip of these stories. This is just the latest in a very long list by now.
There is indeed some organized conspiracy here. I wonder who, and what their real objectives are.

Aussie Pundit said...

Maybe this is a way for corporations to give a campaign donation without calling it a donation.

Bob Boyd said...

The best things in life are free
But you can keep them for the birds and bees
Now give me money
That's what I want
That's what I want, yeah
That's what I want

You're lovin' gives me a thrill
But you're lovin' don't pay my bills
Now give me money
That's what I want
That's what I want, yeah
That's what I want

Money don't get everything it's true
What it don't get, I can't use
Now give me money
That's what I want
That's what I want, yeah
That's what I want

John Stodder said...

Look, I know everyone is outraged, but it's simply a matter of supply and demand. The Clintons figured out how to corner the market in tired speeches full of 1990s cliches. It's a "Moneyball" thing. Don't be a hater!

Aussie Pundit said...

I don't understand why any corporation or other large organisation would bring in a political operative to give a talk, even for free.
Usually, such organisations are at pains to avoid any kind of partisan political action. Interactions with employees and clients is typified in today's society by inclusivity and risk-aversion. Inviting a divisive figure like a Clinton is the opposite of that.

The only way it makes sense is if the real transaction is not about paying for a speech.

Roughcoat said...

I watched "The Path to 911" when it was broadcast for the first and only time. I seem to remember that it was shown in two installments. It was excellent. In fact the portrayal of the 9/11 attacks was better than any I've seen in any other movie. Very realistic, in cinema verite style, and accordingly and by turns infuriating and heartbreaking. The heroism of the doomed NY firefighters was magnificently depicted. But over and above all that, the Clintons most certainly did not come off well. And this is after certain segments deemed especially hard on the Clintons were evidently excised (according to what I'm reading here). I can only hope that someday it will be re-released.

DanTheMan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
DanTheMan said...

>>Maybe this is a way for corporations to give a campaign donation without calling it a donation.

Like backdating fictitious cattle future trades?
Or tripling the wife's salary when the hubby become a US senator?

Our hostess assures us that neutrality towards corruption is the proper course....

Lem said...

neutrality towards corruption is the proper course....

I guess her point is that the Clintons are breaking new ground... don't stop it when is interesting, not boring, new insights into the American political psyche.

YoungHegelian said...

@bp,

The NYT seems to be part of an anti-Clinton media campaign.

I don't think we need to move beyond liberal self-interest to see the reason behind the anti-Clinton campaign by some on the Left.

I mean, she's bad product, and they're worried she'll implode in the middle of the campaign & the Democrats will be left with nothing. The Repubs will have Congress & the WH, maybe for 8 years, and get to name conservative justices to the SCOTUS.

That's what's hanging on the frail reed called HRC.

google is evil said...

It reminds me of the line from Godfather Part II where Michael Corleone says to the Senator ... "remember we're all part of the same hypocrisy Senator".

geokstr said...

Does anyone have a transcript of one of these speeches?

I'd rather see a transcript of all of them. I'll bet they're pretty much all the same, word-for-word, except for some topical additions and deletions to make them seem current.

gadfly said...

Newsmax in for over a million dollars and now off my reading and watching lists. "Smoke and Mirrors" journalism of the finest kind.

AJ Lynch said...

With all the real and worthy charities, it disgusts me to see these bigwigs and big corps eagerly give big bucks to these scam artists.

Paul said...

Even Al Capone had bills to pay. Even Billy Sol Estes had bills to pay.

Charles Ponzi, Bernie Madoff, Bernard Ebbers had bills to pay.

And Jim and Tammy Fey Bakker did to.

So what difference, at this point, does it make?

The Clintons are just doing as what comes natural. They can't help themselves.

Larry J said...

Obama rides in Air Force One, consuming thousands of gallons of jet fuel, to give speeches on the need to cut CO2 emissions. Hillary is giving speeches decrying "the 1%" while raking in millions in book advances and speaking fees. In both cases, it demonstrates either hypocricy or a monumental lack of self awareness. Lucky for them, almost no one in the press will call them on it.

"i'll believe it's a crisis when the people who say it's a crisis start acting like it's a crisis." - Glenn Reynolds

SGT Ted said...

The money is simply hedge and influence purchasing of Government policy. Then, the Clinton Crime Family campaigns on limiting billionaire money influence in politics.

And leftwing morons lap it up.

I now get how totalitarians gain power in democracies. Plenty of people are political idiots and fancy themselves the "smart" people, for holding fashionable opinions.

stan said...

Corrupt politicians have a nearly unlimited inventory to sell. Good for building the slush fund.

I want to know why honest people aren't shaming the US companies who provided slush. It obviously isn't a real charity.

Lem said...

On USA Today, Clinton Cash author says Stephanopoulos has been less than forthcoming regarding revelations of his ties to the Clinton Foundation.

"... far from being a passive donor who strokes Clinton Foundation checks from afar, a closer look reveals that Stephanopoulos is an ardent and engaged Clinton Foundation advocate.

themightypuck said...

Follow the money.

Todd Roberson said...

I'm sticking with my oft stated position that HRC will not even make it through the primaries. She'll drop out citing health or some such bullshit.

Lem said...

Incredible as it may sound... Corruption might get Hillary elected.

Beach Brutus said...

The one out of office collects the quid, while the one in office deliveres the quo. A perfect marriage partnership.

Barry Dauphin said...

What difference, at this point, does it make?

Todd Roberson said...

Just watched a skit on SNL lambasting Hillary. She's done. The Dems are not going to wait around for the inevitable implosion. Somewhere there is a cigar smoke filled room where all of this is being discussed ...

Clyde said...

And yet this woman is prepared to go all Navin R. Johnson on us and tell us that she was born a poor black child...

Bay Area Guy said...

Hillary is simply awful. A money grubbing Saul Alinsky disciple who rode her husband's coat tails to incredible heights of fame, power and money.

Please go away, Ms. Clinton. Frankly, the more I hear her squeal about Citizens United the better I feel about unlimited corporate donations. It's a check against future Leftist Totalitarians like Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro and Ms. Clinton.

Fabi said...

All I can say is good for them! I haven't slept well since she said she was broke. Glad they were able to earn a couple bucks. Golden slumbers are only minutes away.

Anonymous said...

Why is no one investigating the Clinton's and their pay to play scheme while she was Secretary of State?

I keep seeing that there is no evidence. Need an investigator to dig up evidence and find out if any crime was committed.

tim maguire said...

Does anyone, anywhere, believe the Clintons have any new insights that are worth these fortunes? Is there anyone on the speakering circuit who isn't basically a snake-oil salesman? Is there any one who doubts that public speaking is a racket plied by frauds?

Rusty said...

But! Koch brothers!


I just thought I'd save the usual suspects the effort.


Xmas said...

Rusty,

Hill and Bill's direct payment from corporations for hundreds of thousands of dollar is nothing compared to the thousands of dollars that get distributed to political campaigns from organizations that get funding from foundations that get tens of thousands of dollar from political think tanks that got a hundred thousand dollars from a Koch Brother. I mean, between the two of them, the Kochs have problem spent about a third of the money the Clintons received in speaking fees alone. So its is obvious the Kochs are more corrupt.

DanTheMan said...

>>Koch Brothers

I forget... which one was President, and which one was Secretary of State?

walter said...

They "ain't no wayz tyrreed" of the money. Hil' still needs to attain her deserved place in history..and Bill has all that hush money to keep flowing.

Big Mike said...

Hillary Clinton is for sale. Does anyone seriously doubt that?

Brando said...

They must be terrific speakers for people to pay them so much. That's the only legitimate reason anyone would pay them to speak, correct?

Coupe said...

Hillary Rodham Clinton and her husband

Remember when we used to say:

Mrs. Bill Clinton.

Now we have:

Mr. Hillary Clinton

I'm like Feodor Chaliapin Jr in Moonstruck, saying "I'm so confused"...

Leigh said...

Great link from @AprilApple re CU.

Here's another accurate, myth-busting analysis of CU by Dan Abrams.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/the-medias-shameful-inexcusable-distortion-of-the-supreme-courts-citizens-united-decision/

Citizens United allows more speech, not less.

But in any event, it has no effect on foundations like the Clinton's. They'll always find a work-around.