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

a reply to: lavatrance

Don't forget, Hillary was a public official for nearly all of this time. From 2001 to 2009, she was an elected Senator. And from 2009 to 2013, she was the Secretary of State. That's what makes this much more controversial. While Bill was getting paid for his speeches, she was in positions of power where she could act on those "contributions". And remember, this amount is just from their speeches.

She was still getting her salaries from her public jobs (as Senator and then Secretary of State), as well as the perks allowed by law. For example, in 2013 the average Senator received more than a $3,200,000 in SOPOEA allowances, which cover all kinds of things like postage, traveling, and the such (Congressional Allowances). It's like an expense account and all elected positions have different versions and amounts. It's one way officials get past income tax laws, by having their place of employment pay for their living & daily life expenses.

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: IAMTAT

They took furniture?

Yes they did.
Look it up...They were forced to return much of it.

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: IAMTAT

They took furniture?

Yes they did.
Look it up...They were forced to return much of it.

That's so trashy! And taking it from the White House of all places. I guess they tried to sneak in with their belongings during the move lol

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Wow, and enlight, this is one of the points the dems are fixating on here ( in my state ) if Billary wins, we'll get at two fer!!!! Oh boy, scratches head....

a reply to: Swills

the woman who says she's not apart of the establishment

That actually sounds pretty accurate.

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: IAMTAT

They took furniture?

originally posted by: IAMTAT

Yes they did.
Look it up...They were forced to return much of it.

I heard their plan was to blame the missing stuff on Bush.

a reply to: Swills
And this is the same woman who said that she was dead broke.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

They weren't contributions they were pay for services in this case speeches.

No they were pay for approvals on things like arms sales and whatever they could broker....bribes from wall street, stuff like that.....(where Have you been?)
The Clintons are a two person Cartel all by themselves...

a reply to: IAMTAT

Not exactly a theft. There was a question of whether these items were gifts or not and rather than wait for a decision they returned anything in question. And outright paid for other items. They didn't steal anything. The issue was whether these items were gifts to the Clintons or gifts to the white house which then falls under the curator of national parks.
As a decorator I remember well the pretty yellow floral family room furniture. It made the cover of house beautiful.
I wonder what Jackie Kennedy took with her when she moved out. She had the whole place overhauled right down to the china.

a reply to: bandersnatch

Not watching Fox.

a reply to: Swills

They earn from talking since they are all talk no action

a reply to: Sillyolme

There is a huge difference between "Rich Elitist" and "Rich". My sister and brother in law are rich, but they don't look down on others and think they are there only to serve their purposes.
.......and then you have the Delta Bravos.

NVM

a reply to: deckdel

We can't all be chiefs. Some of us have to be Indians. (There's a question of political correctness there I'm sure)

No one needs to be worth more than 10million dollars.

I hope Bernie taxes the # out of the clintons.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: enlightenedservant

They weren't contributions they were pay for services in this case speeches.

I know what they are, legally. But that's exactly how the system works.

As an example, suppose I'm a Governor and my hypothetical wife & I have an international non-profit organization. If people or organizations want to legally contribute to me, they can only donate a limited amount through direct political contributions. But they can also do sweetheart deals on the side, like buying a hypothetical family member's art for exorbitant prices, paying ridiculously high "fees" for our speeches and appearances, investing in the businesses of my allies, giving friends or family members jobs or lucrative contracts, etc. (The art example is a real form of money laundering. If you're ever bored, look into the ridiculously high prices GCC countries pay for Western art, then follow the money.)

A sitting US Senator only makes around $175,000 salary per year. And the Senate Majority and Senate Minority leaders only make $193,000 a year. In other words, a single one of these speeches paid more than her entire year long job paid. And this doesn't include the money that was donated to the Clinton Foundation during the side time period.

Nearly all of these major politicians do this to some extent, but that doesn't make it right. It's a legal form of bribery and is one reason so many rich people run for public offices that pay such little in salaries (comparatively speaking). The only reason it's getting so much press right now is because Bernie's calling her out on it. If Bernie accepted the same type and scope of deals, nobody would be talking about it now, either.

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.

a reply to: Sillyolme

There are questions and scandals within ....

Tracking Hillary's Speech Fees: Clinton Foundation Or Pocket?

Mr. Clinton spoke to Thailand’s Ministry of Energy, China Real Estate Development Group, Ltd, and Qatar First Investment Bank. Mrs. Clinton spoke to Goldman Sachs, Citibank and JP Morgan Chase, to name just a few. The Foundation admits much was not disclosed publicly because they were treated as revenue, not donations. The foundation has now provided a listing of the speeches. The dollars are not all that clear, but the Foundation pledges continued updates.

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.