Hillary Clinton’s Pay-to-Play Speaking Fees Disqualify Her as a Presidential Candidate

Black’s Law Dictionary defines “recusal” as “removal of oneself as judge or policy-maker in a particular matter, esp. because of a conflict of interest.”

In the federal judiciary—a coequal branch with the executive—judges as well as Supreme Court justices are expected to recuse themselves, and do recuse themselves, from hearing cases with conflicts of interest that are less pronounced as Mrs. Clinton’s.

For example, Wikipedia observes that “in the Supreme Court of the United States, the Justices typically recuse themselves from participating in cases in which they have financial interests.”

In the same rough sense, shouldn’t a presidential candidate recuse herself from the presidency after accepting more than a million dollars of speaking fees from the country’s most powerful investment banks, given the obvious conflicts of interest as potentially the country’s next chief policymaker? If not as a matter of current law, then out of a commitment to political ethics and respect for the office of the presidency?

According to a recent report by CNN, Hillary Clinton was paid more than $21 million for making speeches to private concerns from April 2013 to March 2015, and thus a mere one month prior to her formal announcement as a candidate for president in April 2015.

Of the $21 million, she was paid $1.8 million by Goldman Sachs, UBS, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America/Merrill Lynch, and Deutsche Bank.

Her husband, Bill Clinton, according to CNN, was paid at least $5.9 million for at least 39 speeches to big banks, including Goldman Sachs and UBS.

This adds up to Clinton-household income of at least $7.7 million from “big banks” prior to Hillary Clinton’s 2015 announcement as a candidate for president.

Furthermore, according to an online list of all Hillary Clinton speeches from 2013 to 2015, she was also paid $225,000 and upwards per speech by Fidelity Investments, Verizon Communications, Sanford C. Bernstein, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts, CME Group, Boston Consulting Group, SAP Global Marketing, Accenture, General Electric, Xerox Corporation, Cisco, Qualcomm, Drug Chemical and Associated Technologies, California Medical Association, Healthcare Information and Management Association, Biotechnology Industry Organization, Pharmaceutical Care Management Association, National Association of Chain Drug Stores, and many others.

It is difficult to imagine no breach of ethics when a high-profile, presumptive candidate for president is paid more than $21 million in less than two years for almost no work from corporate, healthcare, investment banks and other concerns, only to announce one month after the speaking tour has ended that she is indeed running for president.

It is very likely, given the tight chronology, that she was planning to run for president while taking the money for the speeches, contrary to her denial on that count to Anderson Cooper during a recent town hall event.

Clinton has claimed no conflicts of interest in accepting speaking fees, for example, from Wall Street investment banks. However, on February 8, CNN reported that “Hillary Clinton won’t rule out appointing a Wall Street veteran to the top economic post in the White House.” CNN also noted that “when Clinton was pressed [on NBC’s Meet the Press] on whether she would appoint someone from Wall Street to be her Treasury Secretary, she refused to say no.”

Doesn’t this at least look like a pay-to-play arrangement orchestrated by a leading candidate for the presidency? With more of the same likely to follow if she’s elected?

Hillary Clinton took the money from all of the above. No law against it, currently. But she shouldn’t now be a candidate for president as a result.

Read more at Disinfo.com

Disinfo.com is AboveTopSecret.com's "sister" site dealing with a broad range of issues related to disinformation, misinformation, and missing information in the media; as well as many of the "alternative topics" discussed on ATS. We provide this Disinfo.com article as-is because we believe it will spark additional interesting and valuable discussion here on ATS.

a reply to: DisinfoCom

Can you even imagine the egotistical pressures it must take to not only WANT to be the first female prez, but to also have it within reach? I think the women of SNL who portray her as a self serving egotistical maniac are hoping she wins.

What difference does it make? She has a vagina and that's all that matters to too many people.

originally posted by: DisinfoCom

In the same rough sense, shouldn’t a presidential candidate recuse herself from the presidency after accepting more than a million dollars of speaking fees from the country’s most powerful investment banks, given the obvious conflicts of interest as potentially the country’s next chief policymaker? If not as a matter of current law, then out of a commitment to political ethics and respect for the office of the presidency?

No, it wouldn't. Fact is, it's NOT against the law. And when you speak of "ethics" you may as well substitute that word with "my opinion." It's like a kid complaining to a parent that their decision is "not fair!" when what the kid really means is "I don't agree."

I'm no fan of Hillary. She's the last one of the current crop of turkeys I would ever vote for, but the idea that she is "not qualified" based on giving speeches is just naive in the extreme.

If not as a matter of current law, then out of a commitment to political ethics and respect for the office of the presidency?

Lol. There is no such thing as ethics or respect in politics anymore, much less honesty. Not sure there ever has been in a general sense to be honest. It's a game of manipulation and lying, the best manipulator and liar usually takes the cake when running for president.

a reply to: JohnthePhilistine

Wow uncalled for

The dollar signs in her eyes are about the only thing this witch can see. She is salivating at the thought of using the presidency as a platform for exploitation and money laundering for the Clinton Foundation. A larger sack of bird crap has never existed.

given the obvious conflicts of interest as potentially the country’s next chief policymaker? If not as a matter of current law, then out of a commitment to political ethics and respect for the office of the presidency?

Hillary has never on any level cared about the above. Hillary is above the law so ethics are of no concern to her or her supporters.

And I agree with Neomaximus10 John the Philistine's comment was uncalled for and rude.

originally posted by: liveandlearn

given the obvious conflicts of interest as potentially the country’s next chief policymaker? If not as a matter of current law, then out of a commitment to political ethics and respect for the office of the presidency?

Hillary has never on any level cared about the above. Hillary is above the law so ethics are of no concern to her or her supporters.

And I agree with Neomaximus10 John the Philistine's comment was uncalled for and rude.

So, no other American politician has ever commanded a fee for after dinner type speeches - really? Is it because they make more money than you or because it's Hillary Clinton who must be judged separately from all others?

a reply to: schuyler

I too was struck by the claim of unethical behaviour in the OP. I don't understand why speeches given by a politician to any group should be considered unethical as they are simply speeches, not policy issues.

I suppose the OP is saying that by receiving money from these entities she will somehow be beholden to them in the case of becoming president, in which case any politician that has ever held any management or policy making position in any sector of private business would have to recuse themselves as well. That would leave non business people to become politicians I suppose.

These disinfo threads certainly lack OP responses, it is like they chuck a bone out and watch the dogs fight...ah well.

originally posted by: uncommitted
or because it's Hillary Clinton who must be judged separately from all others?

Maybe.

Hillary Clinton is not a financial expert. However, she was paid more than twice what one of the world's leading financial experts was paid. Former US treasury secretary, Tim Geither was paid $200,000 to speak at Deutsche Bank... which was reportedly an in-depth financial analysis that took him and his team a great deal of time to prepare. Hillary Clinton was paid $485,000 for what was reported to be not much more than a pep-rally at Deutsche Bank.

There was also the $675,000 for another Hillary pep-rally at Goldman Sachs. While Larry Summers, another former US Treasury Secretary, was only paid $135,000 for a detail examination of the global economy.

a reply to: DisinfoCom

I don't agree that it should "disqualify" her, or that she should recuse herself as a result. I DO, however, believe it is a great reason to NOT vote for her (if anyone besides that United Airlines employee in San Francisco was planning to vote for her.)

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord

originally posted by: uncommitted
or because it's Hillary Clinton who must be judged separately from all others?

Maybe.

Hillary Clinton is not a financial expert. However, she was paid more than twice what one of the world's leading financial experts was paid. Former US treasury secretary, Tim Geither was paid $200,000 to speak at Deutsche Bank... which was reportedly an in-depth financial analysis that took him and his team a great deal of time to prepare. Hillary Clinton was paid $485,000 for what was reported to be not much more than a pep-rally at Deutsche Bank.

There was also the $675,000 for another Hillary pep-rally at Goldman Sachs. While Larry Summers, another former US Treasury Secretary, was only paid $135,000 for a detail examination of the global economy.

.................But none of the names mentioned above have been the wife of a president or a presidential candidate and therefore probably has more after dinner type talk to listen to - not sure if you are arguing figures or as some on here have claimed her right to do the gigs?

originally posted by: uncommitted
not sure if you are arguing figures or as some on here have claimed her right to do the gigs?

The argument is that her talks were fluff, and she was paid several times more than world-renowned experts who put in significant time into preparing the speech. When you pay really big money for a fluff meet-and-great, you expect favors down the road.