The $675,000 Question

Last night, Hillary Clinton told Anderson Cooper that she doesn’t regret taking $675,000 from Goldman Sachs for making three speeches. It wasn’t a good answer. Bear in mind that many Americans won’t earn that much money in a lifetime of hard work.

Hillary justifies her outrageous speaking fees because other former Secretaries of State did the same thing.

In the MSNBC debate tonight, Rachel Maddow offered Hillary a do-over on the same question. The answer was better this time. But everybody knows that these exorbitant speaking fees are not buying inspiring rhetoric or even policy advice. It’s just a way to funnel enormous sums to political allies.


January 2014 to March 2015, Clinton lists a total of 51 speech fees that have been added to her personal account from a variety of companies. Not including her husband’s fees which also appear on the same disclosure, Clinton’s speech fees end up totaling more than $11 million.

In tonight’s debate, Chuck Todd asked Hillary if she would release the transcripts of her Goldman Sachs speeches. “I will look into it,” was her response.

More info:
Hillary Clinton: I Took $675,000 In Speaking Fees From Wall Street Because I Didn’t Know I Would Run For President
Clinton will ‘look into’ releasing Goldman Sachs speech transcripts

  1. #1 by Larry Bergan on February 5, 2016 - 12:59 am

    Hillary is just happy, happy, happy, everywhere she goes!

  2. #2 by Richard Warnick on February 5, 2016 - 8:54 am

    Hillary brought her own Goldman Sachs lobbyist to Dem debate (facepalm..)

    Goldman Sachs lobbyist Steve Elmendorf was right there in the audience, sitting next to Howard Dean.

    Michael Isikoff notes that Elmendorf is a key player on the Hillary campaign, helping to run her “network of well-connected Washington lobbyists, Wall Street bundlers and billionaire donors.”

    So much for Hillary’s claim she no longer takes money from Wall Street firms.

  3. #3 by Richard Warnick on February 5, 2016 - 12:56 pm

    From a Hillary apologist:

    Anderson Cooper Guilt Trips Hillary Over High Speaking Fees

    When you consider that folks like Rudy Giuliani for quite some time, earned over $200K per speech and even Sarah Palin, word salad shooter, earned, for a time, over $100K per speech, the income earned by the Clintons isn’t shocking at all. Hell, even war criminals George W. Bush and Condoleezza Rice still garner between $100-$150K per speech. I think Mrs. Clinton has earned the right to collect what she is offered to make a speech. It comes with the territory.

  4. #4 by Larry Bergan on February 5, 2016 - 1:24 pm

    I guess one of the problems is that Americans think it’s funny when somebody makes obscene amounts of money for doing nothing. It’s definitely a cultural problem.

  5. #6 by Richard Warnick on February 6, 2016 - 10:04 pm

    YouTube: Hillary blames home owners for the crash of 2008

    I thought blaming the victims was a Tea-GOP tactic.

  6. #7 by Richard Warnick on February 7, 2016 - 11:39 am

  7. #8 by Larry Bergan on February 7, 2016 - 2:33 pm

    I’m quite sure Bernie Sanders would be more then happy to release the transcripts of any speech he’s given for the last 40 years. He’s saying the same things right now, out in public.

    Hillary’s requirements for releasing hers are a bit more broad then simply having her opponent do that:

    Let everybody who’s ever given a speech to any private group under any circumstances release them.

    She could have just said let all the 2016 candidates release their transcripts and she would have been more then safe. Is she talking about everybody on earth? In that case Chris Christie is in trouble, because the David Koch said he was “their kind of guy” at a secret meeting. :)

  8. #9 by Richard Warnick on February 7, 2016 - 4:38 pm

    It’s almost over for Hillary: This election is a mass insurrection against a rigged system

    What makes the media blackout of Sanders an even greater travesty is that it was imposed over a period of many months in which he led all 21 other candidates in both parties in nearly every general election poll. When a self-described socialist leads every poll, something historic is happening.

  9. #12 by Richard Warnick on February 7, 2016 - 5:05 pm

    Let’s dream big this time.

    Bernie Dylan

    • #13 by Larry Bergan on February 7, 2016 - 9:55 pm

      The Bernie badge on my coat has gotten a lot of positive acknowledgment, everywhere I go. We’re NEVER going to have a chance to vote for somebody with this much time-proven integrity again.

      I’m liking the Bill Curry article from Salon above. Definitely not one of those “some say this/some say that” pieces. Sounds like the truth.

    • #15 by Larry Bergan on February 7, 2016 - 11:40 pm

      That is precious!

      I just posted it in the comments section at BradBlog, along with that great Salon article.

  10. #16 by Richard Warnick on February 10, 2016 - 2:17 pm

    New Hampshire primary exit poll results.


    • #17 by Larry Bergan on February 10, 2016 - 8:44 pm

      I don’t know where you got that Richard, but I doubt that only MoveOn and DFA members showed up to vote in New Hampshire.

      The official results seemed to reflect the will of the people to me this time, for some reason.

      • #18 by Richard Warnick on February 10, 2016 - 11:23 pm

        The exit polls indicate that 92% of those who voted thought Bernie’s most important quality is he’s honest and trustworthy. Not so much for Hillary.

        • #19 by Larry Bergan on February 10, 2016 - 11:56 pm

          The -33% thing threw me off, but there’s no doubt that a Bernie Sanders figure, with 40 years of proven integrity is not going to show up for…

          …well, forty years.

          That’s not funny. :(

          This has to happen.

          • #20 by Larry Bergan on February 10, 2016 - 11:58 pm

            If the bankers don’t like it, that’s tough for us. This has to happen.

  11. #21 by Larry Bergan on February 11, 2016 - 2:00 pm

    I love this!

(will not be published)

%d bloggers like this: