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
 

99th_Monkey

(19,326 posts)
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 04:11 PM Feb 2016

No ‘Artful Smear’: Clintons Were Paid $153 Million in Speaking Fees, Analysis Shows

No ‘Artful Smear’: Clintons Were Paid $153 Million in Speaking Fees, Analysis Shows
By Lauren McCauley * Feb 7, 2016 * Common Dreams/TruthDig

There has been a lot of talk in recent weeks about the speaking fees paid to presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, and an analysis published Saturday sheds some light on exactly how much Wall Street and other major corporate powers ponied up for the former Secretary of State and her husband, President Bill Clinton.

$153 million, CNN concludes, is the amount the power couple raked in between February 2001 and the launch of Hillary Clinton’s presidential bid in May 2015. What’s more, the Clintons received an average pay of $210,795 for each of the 729 addresses given during that time period. ~snip~

According to the analysis, Clinton collected at least $1.8 million for at least eight speeches given to big banks, while the pair earned a total of roughly $7.7 million for at least 39 speeches to Wall Street. Clinton has glossed over the content of these speeches. When probed by the moderators during the MSNBC debate as to whether she’d release the transcripts, she said she’d “look into it.”

Meanwhile, over 11,000 people have signed a petition calling for the public release of the transcripts and videos of the speeches made to Goldman Sachs. Citing reports that Clinton “used those speeches to make clear that she would let bankers off the hook for their crimes and abuses,” the petition asserts the comments made behind closed doors “is at odds with what she publicly tells the rest of us.”

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/no_artful_smear_clintons_paid_153_million_20160207
23 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
No ‘Artful Smear’: Clintons Were Paid $153 Million in Speaking Fees, Analysis Shows (Original Post) 99th_Monkey Feb 2016 OP
Hillary sounds ridiculous when she says this. ViseGrip Feb 2016 #1
Yep - she sounds like a calculating liar. polichick Feb 2016 #6
Yep, by groups including Am Camping Association, Green Building Council, Canada 2020, UCLA, etc. Hoyt Feb 2016 #2
Hillary is owned by "Big Camping"! DanTex Feb 2016 #5
LMAO! Hoyt Feb 2016 #7
Depends on how much they paid her. senz Feb 2016 #14
Those are not the groups in question, and you know it. 99th_Monkey Feb 2016 #8
But maybe they should be! Why limit the conspiracies to just a tiny fraction of the DanTex Feb 2016 #10
lol@ today's meme questionseverything Feb 2016 #16
+100 nt 99th_Monkey Feb 2016 #20
When you're in cover-up mode, you deflect. senz Feb 2016 #15
This is fact Rosa Luxemburg Feb 2016 #3
Of course it's a smear. 5% of the money came from banks, DanTex Feb 2016 #4
NPR EdwardBernays Feb 2016 #9
That would make a good OP.. Fumesucker Feb 2016 #13
I did just now EdwardBernays Feb 2016 #18
True dat. A well-paid professional class is essential to maintaining the Oligarchy 99th_Monkey Feb 2016 #22
More l like the top 5%, who are providentially, the group who can give her campaign max $$$. hedda_foil Feb 2016 #23
Boy they sure must be good talkers, those Clintons. senz Feb 2016 #11
But, but... If she complains about it being brought up, it must not be true. JudyM Feb 2016 #12
artful knr frylock Feb 2016 #17
The content is irrelevant. Here I'll provide the approximate content: Warren Stupidity Feb 2016 #19
The Clintons cashed in, and now she want to be President Dems to Win Feb 2016 #21
 

senz

(11,945 posts)
14. Depends on how much they paid her.
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 04:27 PM
Feb 2016

If it was anything like the millions she's gotten from the Big Banks, then yeah she's owned.

But it's somehow doubtful that campers could do anything like the damage that Wall Street has done and can still do to America.

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
10. But maybe they should be! Why limit the conspiracies to just a tiny fraction of the
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 04:21 PM
Feb 2016

speeches she gave? Let's come up with some broader conspiracy theories!

questionseverything

(9,656 posts)
16. lol@ today's meme
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 04:28 PM
Feb 2016

if we want transparency in our elections we are ct

if we do not believe people receive 153 million bucks for "nothing" we are ct

got it

DanTex

(20,709 posts)
4. Of course it's a smear. 5% of the money came from banks,
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 04:17 PM
Feb 2016

so the "owned by Wall Street" meme is silly. It's not even an "artful" smear. It's blatantly misleading.

EdwardBernays

(3,343 posts)
9. NPR
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 04:21 PM
Feb 2016

Just beautiful diagnosed the problem:

"The answer is right there in plain sight if we open our eyes and look - they talk about it themselves - who is there core constituency these days? It's satisfied, successful professionals: members of the upper stratum of the professional class. And they themselves will actually say this when they're talking about their demographic appeal - that's one of the main props of the party. They're quite open about it.. And this is the one group that basically gets everything they want from the Democratic Party. Very satisfied with the Democratic Party and thinks Hillary Clinton is a great candidate, that looks at the Obama years with profound satisfaction... And if you look at them from that perspective, the Democrats as a class party... The class in question is not the working class; it's not Roosevelt's people. It's not the Middle Class; Harry Truman's people or Lyndon Johnson's people.

It's the professional class.

They would rather lose than change the way they do things.

Democrats love to moan about the Koch Brothers, and the hierarchy of money and the 1%... How dreadful it is. But after doing all this research on the Democratic Party it dawned on me it's the 10% - it's the upper stratum of the professional class that is the mass constituency for inequality...probably the majority of those people are Democrats.. They have no problem with it, the leadership of the Democratic Party.

They think inequality is sad they thinks it's kind of tragic that we've lost that middle class world of the 50s and 60s and 70s, but there's nothing you can do about that."

 

99th_Monkey

(19,326 posts)
22. True dat. A well-paid professional class is essential to maintaining the Oligarchy
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 04:55 PM
Feb 2016

and that 10% number is probably in the ball park, who then use their status and
influence to hector us 'little people' to do the 1% bidding.

hedda_foil

(16,375 posts)
23. More l like the top 5%, who are providentially, the group who can give her campaign max $$$.
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 06:34 PM
Feb 2016

Everybody else is basically excess baggage.

 

senz

(11,945 posts)
11. Boy they sure must be good talkers, those Clintons.
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 04:22 PM
Feb 2016

Surprised Hill didn't have her exquisitely perfect speeches recorded for posterity.

Why I'll bet she could have given Abe Lincoln a run for his money. The Gettysburg Address got nothin' on Hill.

 

Warren Stupidity

(48,181 posts)
19. The content is irrelevant. Here I'll provide the approximate content:
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 04:38 PM
Feb 2016

"blah blah", "blah blah blah blah"

It's the 153,000,000.00 dollars that is the issue.

 

Dems to Win

(2,161 posts)
21. The Clintons cashed in, and now she want to be President
Sun Feb 7, 2016, 04:49 PM
Feb 2016

Going on the speaking circuit is a common way that former high government officials cash in, becoming rich as a result of their public service.

And many of us out here in the real world see it as kind of sleazy. It is legal, but I don't respect former public servants who cash in.

Most public officials understand that cashing in is what you do after you've completed your public service. Going back to the voters asking for support after you've cashed in is a pretty difficult proposition.

I have to wonder at all the political consultants for Clinton, Obama, and the DNC who got on board the Hillary train for 2016. The entire Dem Establishment endorsed her as the one and only DNC-approved candidate, all of them knowing about Hillary's time on the speaking circuit.

The entire Dem Establishment was so very out of touch that they never even imagined a $250,000 speech to CitiBank or Goldman Sachs might be a hindrance to electing a Democratic candidate. They deserve to go down to defeat for their obliviousness.

Bernie Sanders 2016

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»No ‘Artful Smear’: Clinto...