Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
$2.7 million isn't "dead broke", but HRC did not receive $8m in Dec of 2000.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-deal-clears-ethics-panel/Hillary Deal Clears Ethics Panel
February 15, 2001, 10:48 AM
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has received approval from the Senate Ethics Committee for her $8 million book deal, she said Wednesday.
Clinton, D-N.Y., quietly submitted her memoir deal for the committee's approval Jan. 11, almost a month after she made the lucrative agreement with New York-based publisher Simon & Schuster. (Simon and Schuster's parent company is Viacom, which also owns CBSNews.com.)
Clinton was notified that the committee approved the deal Tuesday.
<snip>
Her lawyer, Bob Barnett, said Wednesday that Clinton already received one-third of the advance on royalties, or about $2.7 million. The rest of the advance is paid out is to be paid out over several years.
Clinton, D-N.Y., quietly submitted her memoir deal for the committee's approval Jan. 11, almost a month after she made the lucrative agreement with New York-based publisher Simon & Schuster. (Simon and Schuster's parent company is Viacom, which also owns CBSNews.com.)
Clinton was notified that the committee approved the deal Tuesday.
<snip>
Her lawyer, Bob Barnett, said Wednesday that Clinton already received one-third of the advance on royalties, or about $2.7 million. The rest of the advance is paid out is to be paid out over several years.
---------
From the original Faux News article:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/09/clinton-says-pair-dead-broke-after-white-house/
Hillary Clinton's Senate financial disclosure forms, filed for 2000, show assets between $781,000 and almost $1.8 million at the time. The forms allow senators to report assets in broad ranges.
The same form, however, shows the Clintons owed between $2.3 million and $10.6 million in legal fees to four firms. The Clintons paid off their legal bills by 2004, though, according to Senate disclosure forms.
The same form, however, shows the Clintons owed between $2.3 million and $10.6 million in legal fees to four firms. The Clintons paid off their legal bills by 2004, though, according to Senate disclosure forms.
---------
Before the Presidency:
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/02/05/us/1992-campaign-personal-finances-wealthy-investment-family-big-help-clinton.html
In the last week of the 1990 campaign, the Clintons took out two personal loans totaling $100,000, to use in the 1990 campaign. The $100,000 notes are due on demand and have not yet been paid back. In its most recent state filings, Mr. Clinton's committee reports that it still owes the money.
A review of Mr. Clinton's personal and political finances shows that he has accumulated little personal wealth. He has spent most of his career in public service, and as Governor he earns only $35,000 a year, plus a little more than $5,000 in honorariums or speaking fees last year. As a result, he has accumlated far fewer assets than his wife, Hillary, a lawyer and senior partner in the Rose law firm in Little Rock.
<snip>
Mrs. Clinton's career has produced most of the family's wealth. She is not required to disclose her income, and Mrs. Clinton would not answer questions on the subject. But press reports in Arkansas, based on the Clintons' tax returns, said her law firm salary for 1989 was $92,000. The couple's net worth is between $350,000 and $1 million, according to Mr. Clinton's report to the Federal Election Commission, which requires only that assets and liabilities be listed in ranges.
Their holdings include bank accounts, bonds, mutual funds and investment partnerships. The largest asset is Mrs. Clinton's share of her firm's profit sharing and retirement plan, valued between $100,001 and $250,000.
What she said was factually true insofar as being in debt at the time of her Senate run and not receiving the partial money from the advance until after Bill left office. Technically, at the time they left office, they had a negative net worth even after accounting for Hillary's retirement savings, which doesn't leave many readily available assets to live on. (I always wonder why people choose those numbers. The 401k could have been a 10th or over 2/3s of their net worth at the time they ran for office, a fact they might not want to advertise -- who knows from the FEC filings?) They weren't as rich as, say, Barack Obama was when he ran for office.
Also the full quote indicates that she referred to "had no money when we got there, and we struggled to piece together the resources... for Chelsea's education." It probably was pretty embarrassing to be turned down by a bank because you were so far in the red you have to get a loan from a friend -- in 1999 when you're still POTUS. Chelsea graduated from Stanford in the spring of 2001 -- less than six months after her father left office. Therefore, I think it's pretty obvious that she was referring to the financial difficulties they experienced in the latter part of the Presidency, before the book deals and the speeches, the majority of which were thanks to the "vast right-wing conspiracy". She didn't deny, and in fact bragged, about her income increasing when they left office.
-------
Yes, it was obviously tone-deaf, though she didn't say they were living in poverty and it came up in response to a question about their income, not her just deciding to whine out of the blue. It was still more correctly "#WhiteGirlProblems broke" state where they had very little readily accessible cash and huge debts when they left office, not impoverished.
But there's the facts for those who are tripping over the $8 mil number.
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
