It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

$153 million in Bill and Hillary Clinton speaking fees, documented

page: 3
11
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 02:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

ya but rich and clintons are 2 different types. elitists are psychopaths




posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 02:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: enlightenedservant

But if you go to work say as a hypothetical teacher. You speak the children learn and you get paid for your efforts. Or is the school donating to you?
This is about pay for speeches not donations to the clinton foundation or Hillary's campaign.

You're looking at this as if it's isolated and not related to anything else. That's what the misunderstanding here is.

An accurate example with teachers would be more like this: Suppose the members of a college board of directors makes $100,000 a year. But some individuals also make $100,000 to $250,000 per presentation at banking seminars & trade groups. The attendees of those seminars and trade groups coincidentally get and maintain lucrative student loan contracts and financing deals for all of the college's development plans. And in a given year, the member of the board of directors and his/her spouse end up making 50 times as much money through these presentations than at their actual salaried job as a director.

At what point does it become suspicious? At what point is it recognized as legalized bribery? How can that official be trusted to work in the best interests of the students and faculty (which is the actual job) when they make 50 times more compensation from the groups whose operations they regulate or oversee on campus? The Clinton fees from "speeches" came out to around $10 million a year, which is more than 57 times Hillary's yearly salary as a Senator. And that lasted for 8 years. And that's only counting the money from the speeches. Yet we're suppose to believe her loyalty is to the taxpayers and not corporate interests that paid her 57 times what the taxpayers paid her?



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 02:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: xuenchen

Revenue not donations. What scandal ? Questions don't equal scandal unless someone chooses to spin it that way.
Just because there are questions doesn't automatically mean someone did something wrong. That is clearly a personal focus.
That the foundation pledges continued updates sounds on the up and up. Nothing covert.


Nothing covert except the probable government influence gained by the "donators".




posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 08:33 PM
link   
what would she have to say to people that is worth $200k an hour?


edit on 2 7 2016 by burgerbuddy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 02:10 PM
link   


What Clinton said in her paid speeches

Recalled one attendee: 'She sounded more like a Goldman Sachs managing director.'





NEW YORK — When Hillary Clinton spoke to Goldman Sachs executives and technology titans at a summit in Arizona in October of 2013, sohe spoke glowingly of the work the bank was doing raising capital and helping create jobs, according to people who saw her remarks.

Clinton, who received $225,000 for her appearance, praised the diversity of Goldman’s workforce and the prominent roles played by women at the blue-chip investment bank and the tech firms present at the event. She spent no time criticizing Goldman or Wall Street more broadly for its role in the 2008 financial crisis.

“It was pretty glowing about us,” one person who watched the event said. “It’s so far from what she sounds like as a candidate now. It was like a rah-rah speech. She sounded more like a Goldman Sachs managing director.”

At another speech to Goldman and its big asset management clients in New York in 2013, Clinton spoke about how it wasn’t just the banks that caused the financial crisis and that it was worth looking at the landmark 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform law to see what was working and what wasn’t.

“It was mostly basic stuff, small talk, chit-chat,” one person who attended that speech said. “But in this environment, it could be made to look really bad.”


www.politico.com...



posted on Feb, 9 2016 @ 02:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: burgerbuddy
what would she have to say to people that is worth $200k an hour?



hey, is there anyone here on ATS that would turn down thousands of dollars to talk for an hour or so?....so why should the Clintons?....my response to the post title....yaaaaaaawwwn, which means, so friggin' what.
edit on 9-2-2016 by jimmyx because: (no reason given)




top topics
 
11
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join