He gets paid between $35-$100K for a 45 min speech.

Hillary didn't have a government position when she was speaking. No one who takes speaking fees does because it is illegal to do so while in a government position.

...it's another thing to take "speaking fees" from global corporations while rewarding these companies with billion-dollar deals in government contracts.

Many people are paid to speak. Olympic athletes, motivational speakers, Michael Moore. The distinction (which you very well know) is that corporate transactions are being facilitated--with the Clinton Foundation being paid (by powerful global corporations like Boeing and JP Morgan) and then a trail of favors to these companies is found, from Hillary's State Department. Like billions of dollars in defense contracts to Boeing.

I challenge any decent Democrat who can justify this behavior. It's outlandish!

This is not what our party is!

Last edited Sat Nov 21, 2015, 04:06 AM - Edit history (1)

I'm across-the-board exhausted with our corrupt, lemming politicians who are oh-so willing to sell out "We The People" while they play billion-dollar games with these powerful corporations.

I am against Republicans who do this. I am against Democrats who do this. I am against anyone who would do this.

It's wrong!

I agree with you! 😃

edited, because I misunderstood the poster.

Are you saying we should have a law that states no one who has ever done at speech paid for by a corporation should be allowed to run for office?

Another fun fact about Reich who loves to post daily about how wonderful Bernie is - Reich is paid $250K per year to teach ONE class at UC Berkley - a public college where profs are paid for with taxpayer funds and public tuition.

Never heard a Bernie supporter or Bernie complain about that. Odd, huh?

Billions in defense contracts have been rewarded to companies like Boeing--and then Boeing turns around and donates $900,000 to the Clinton Foundation.

This kind of payola is repeatedly found within the Clinton Foundation. It's not just a one-time thing.

I am truly aghast at what my fellow Democrats will try and justify.

It's disgusting.

...Hillary spearheaded the effort to get Boeing those defense contracts.

There are dozens of articles that document these egregious actions. These aren't my words.

You may try reading a bit about this. I guarantee you'll be as disgusted as I am.

http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/for-hillary-clinton-and-boeing-a-beneficial-relationship/2014/04/13/21fe84ec-bc09-11e3-96ae-f2c36d2b1245_story.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2615877/Boeing-slammed-shareholder-meeting-using-Clinton-Foundation-donation-buy-Hillarys-commercial-advocacy-Russia.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2615877/Boeing-slammed-shareholder-meeting-using-Clinton-Foundation-donation-buy-Hillarys-commercial-advocacy-Russia.html

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/04/hillary-clinton-boeing-relationship.html

An unelected appointee, taking speaking fees from corporations. Oh, the hypocrisy...

I am so sick of these games. Games that the Clintons and other corrupt politicians pay.

I don't give a rip what you call them..."bribes", "payola", "hamster shavings" or "speaking fees."

There have been many instances where these "speaking fees" have been tied to the Clintons giving back corporate favors. I am sure many more will be discovered!

One example is Boeing. Just ONE example of what these "speaking fees" bought these corporations. Boeing donated $900,000 to the Clinton Foundation. Some time passes, and a consortium of defense contractors--led by Boeing--is awarded $29 billion in defense contracts for military fighter jets that will be delivered to Saudi Arabia. Many articles on this deal, and most outline how this deal was put together by the State Department under Hillary Clinton, and that Hillary herself championed this deal.

Link to article--
http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187

1. Those weapons deals were in place long before she was SOS

2. SOS does not make decisions on weapons deals.

Geezus enough with this fabricated crap. I have seen this canard posted here over a dozen times, and it's still a canard. Enough.

And their latest purchase was $30 bn for the f-35 jet Bernie loves, and is NOT made by Boeing. Enough with the BS.

Just two months before the deal was finalized, Boeing -- the defense contractor that manufactures one of the fighter jets the Saudis were especially keen to acquire, the F-15 -- contributed $900,000 to the Clinton Foundation, according to a company press release.

Boeing makes the F-15. The F-15 was part of the deal.

No one said anything about the F-35. Nice try though.

Next?

http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187

And don't call me "sweetie".

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2015/04/turkey-how-will-f-35-change-middle-east-security-environment.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/21/us-airshow-dubai-fighters-idUSBRE9AK14Z20131121#v6VR5g7wsptwsRGZ.97

...as part of the inappropriate billion-dollar deal that Hillary brokered--after Boeing donated to her foundation.

Ahhhh...I love the smell of corruption in the morning!

He got pork for Vermont to help him get re-elected. What did Hillary personally get from Boeing?

...unless you count that $900,000.

Your dude gained PERSONALLY from steering a trilion dollars in taxpayer money to Lockheed.

What did she personally get? Not a fucking thing. Enough with the fake smears.

...that go into great detail about this corruption.

The offenses were so obvious, that the media wrote dozens of articles about this.

If you can't see it, I can't help you.

I've posted the articles for you to read.

Enjoy your denial.

And you can't seem to answer it either. Because it's bullshit. Nothing new about media hit pieces with no basis in actual fact on the Clintons.

Meanwhile a trillion in taxpayer funds promoted by your guy to help him get reelected gets zero reaction from you.

I'm not the one in denial.

...and where is that money now? What exactly was it used for?

The Clintons said, "No Comment" when asked about the Boeing deal. They also refuse to release exact dollar figures about donations.

Do you have any idea what that money was used for?

Does anyone?

So even if we accept your premise, which is bullshit, Haitians got post earthquake relief and Bernie got another $1 mil in government pay.

Looks like he's the corrupt one by your measure. Right?

I'm reporting facts and figures--from the State Department. These are not my "premises".

Here's more interesting facts and figures that have been reported by the International Business Times:

In all, governments and corporations involved in the arms deals approved by Clinton’s State Department have delivered between $54 million and $141 million to the Clinton Foundation as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments to the Clinton family, according to foundation and State Department records. The Clinton Foundation publishes only a rough range of individual contributors’ donations, making a more precise accounting impossible.

http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187

contract deals. A defense contract deal does not get a candidate for the Senate re-elected.

Bernie does a good job no matter what he does.

Bernie is extremely knowledgeable and votes conscientiously and attends the Senate regularly. The $1 million is the same amount paid to every senator in Congress.

Clinton has given speeches for high prices to the donors to his foundation who have been, some of them, also been the recipients of favors or approvals from Hillary when she served as Secretary of State.

The Clintons are going to face accusations that they are corrupt.

This is complicated by the fact that the Clintons have accepted money for speeches and donations to their foundation from people who want contracts and favors from the American government. No matter what the intentions of the Clintons are or were, the appearance of corruption is very strong in the Clintons' actions. I do not think they will be able to prove that they have not been corrupt. It may seem unfair but that is how it is.

Every lawyer learns in ethics classes about the appearance of a conflict of interest. Surely Hillary Clinton understands that concept. If she becomes president and is at all favorable in her decisions toward any donor to the Clinton Foundation or to organizations from which she or Bill Clinton accepted large speaking fees, there will be the appearance of a conflict of interest, of corruption. This will complicate her presidency if she becomes president.

She is asking for impeachment hearings. It is so foolish for her to be running. I do not understand how she as an attorney could choose to put herself through what will come her way if she is elected. The Republicans will make her life miserable. The Benghazi hearing gave her a boost in her ratings as reflected in the polls, but sooner or later, the voters will tire of the scandals and innuendos. She really should not be running.

But getting defense contracts for your state is part of a senator's job. And he could not do it if his state were not deserving.

The one million dollars is an estimate of the pay a senator receives over the course of six years -- $170,000 per year approximately.

It is misleading to suggest that Bernie got a million dollars for anything other than for serving in the Senate for 6 years.

Hillary also got one million dollars for serving in the Senate for 6 years. So did John Kerry. And Obama would have, had he finished his term.

Please do not insult the intelligence of your fellow DUers.

Even Mitch McConnell gets paid $170,000 per year -- that is one million or close to it over six years.

Bernie did not get re-elected just because he brought a defense contract to his state. That is ridiculous. What a flight of fantasy.

Let's use common sense here.

The Hillary Clinton/Clinton Foundation/Boeing connections have been widely reported. There are at least 50 articles on this arms deal connected to Clinton speaking fees.

And you are dead wrong.

"Canard?" ...Whatever. Your obtuse, fifty-cent word isn't worth a nickel.

"In all, governments and corporations involved in the arms deals approved by Clinton’s State Department have delivered between $54 million and $141 million to the Clinton Foundation as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments to the Clinton family, according to foundation and State Department records. The Clinton Foundation publishes only a rough range of individual contributors’ donations, making a more precise accounting impossible."

Source: http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187

Here is a huge list of the corporations that donated to Haiti earthquake relief

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/15/haiti-relief-corporate-do_n_424710.html

What do you have against charities or businesses that donate to them for things like the massive earthquake relief needed in Haiti?

You're all so anxious to find a reason to smear her that you apparently do not give a crap if it makes any sense.

You'd have a point, if "Haiti earthquake relief" had the power to sign billion-dollar weapons deals for the corporations that made donations.

But that's not the case.

Your point is irrelevant.

So is your grumbling about me.

a powerful person who is running for high office.

Hillary should have thought about how it would look before she took donations for the charity. No doubt the charity does good work, but this has the appearance of corruption whether it proves to be corruption or not. And that could cost Democrats the election if she is the candidate. I assure you, the worst news will not come out until close to the November 2016 election.

"American defense contractors also donated to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state and in some cases made personal payments to Bill Clinton for speaking engagements. Such firms and their subsidiaries were listed as contractors in $163 billion worth of Pentagon-negotiated deals that were authorized by the Clinton State Department between 2009 and 2012."

And not only was Clinton Secretary of State, but one of her aids said that the Boeing deal was a pet project of hers. "At a press conference in Washington to announce the department’s approval, an assistant secretary of state, Andrew Shapiro, declared that the deal had been “a top priority” for Clinton personally. Shapiro, a longtime aide to Clinton since her Senate days..."

Clearly, you need to do your due diligence, when it comes to this subject. Google is your friend. This fiasco is well documented and sources in dozens of articles.

http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187

Are you saying there was some massive conspiracy to provide earthquake relief in Haiti and she was complicit in it? WTF?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/15/haiti-relief-corporate-do_n_424710.html

...who gave away billions in defense contracts--while she was Secretary of State. And that these defense contractors repaid her with donations to the Clinton Foundation.

That is what happened.

The trail of money is not in question. It's fact.

If you really want to muddy the waters with earthquake talk--I'll throw you a bone and say that this level of corruption is about a 8.2 on the Richter Scale of depravity.

With no basis in reality beyond your imagination.

Those articles from The Washington Post, CBS News, The Wall Street Journal, The Huffington Post, New York Magazine, IBTimes...was I hallucinating?

Oh wait, I wasn't hallucinating. Here are the articles!


http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/for-hillary-clinton-and-boeing-a-beneficial-relationship/2014/04/13/21fe84ec-bc09-11e3-96ae-f2c36d2b1245_story.html

http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clintons-complex-corporate-ties-1424403002

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/10/17/defense-industry-embraces_n_68927.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2615877/Boeing-slammed-shareholder-meeting-using-Clinton-Foundation-donation-buy-Hillarys-commercial-advocacy-Russia.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2615877/Boeing-slammed-shareholder-meeting-using-Clinton-Foundation-donation-buy-Hillarys-commercial-advocacy-Russia.html

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/04/hillary-clinton-boeing-relationship.html

Meanwhile your guy is helping Lockheed get a trillion fucking dollars for a jet that doesn't work so he can deliver pork to Vermont so he can be re-elected.

has relationships with Lockheed, but it's ok when Hillary does it?

It's wrong when *anyone* does it.

So much colorful, big, bad language for Bernie--and so many excuses (and even some earthquake references) for Hillary.

Crazy.

So your smear meme fails.

Jimmy Carter.

http://www.apbspeakers.com/speaker/jimmy-carter

He also makes a nice chunk of change ..... writing books. He's written more books than Bill and Hillary, combined.

Why is it that he doesn't take any heat for this? Could it be because they don't offer him as much money to speak as some others get? He only served one term--he's got fewer "DC stories." Meh.




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

give a paid speech? Or am I misreading your comment entirely?

How about write a book? Senator Warren recently got a half million dollar advance on her latest book. Should she give that to charity or something?

I think we're going down a sketchy road in the land of the free when we tell private citizens what they are "allowed" to do. Once they're running for public office, it's appropriate to constrain their activities, but not before.

They don't have direct political clout. They don't have the power to award a contract or present a bill in Congress or give government favors of any sort.

And to suggest that President Carter has no political clout? Really?

He's the conscience of the nation on many issues.

... greatly with her endorsement of Hillary and I've let her know it a couple of times. It's a real betrayal of the values she portrayed during the campaign.

we've all known that this is how this party faction thinks since the late 80s, we've just fooled ourselves into ignoring it or waiting for the NEXT election cycle

is well displayed in this thread.

It's truly ugly, how quickly feeling the status quo threatened makes some drop all pretense of civility and intellectual honesty.