2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumNo ‘Artful Smear’: Clintons Were Paid $153 Million in Speaking Fees, Analysis Shows
No Artful Smear: Clintons Were Paid $153 Million in Speaking Fees, Analysis ShowsBy 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 Clintons presidential bid in May 2015. Whats 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 shed release the transcripts, she said shed 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
ViseGrip
(3,133 posts)polichick
(37,152 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)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.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)speeches she gave? Let's come up with some broader conspiracy theories!
questionseverything
(9,656 posts)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
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)That's Clinton 101.
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)This is not a false accusation and voters should know that.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)so the "owned by Wall Street" meme is silly. It's not even an "artful" smear. It's blatantly misleading.
EdwardBernays
(3,343 posts)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."
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)EdwardBernays
(3,343 posts)99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)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)Everybody else is basically excess baggage.
senz
(11,945 posts)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.
JudyM
(29,251 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)"blah blah", "blah blah blah blah"
It's the 153,000,000.00 dollars that is the issue.
Dems to Win
(2,161 posts)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