Home | About | Donate

No 'Artful Smear.' Clintons Paid $153 Million by Big Banks, Analysis Shows


No 'Artful Smear.' Clintons Paid $153 Million by Big Banks, Analysis Shows

Lauren McCauley, staff writer

There has been a lot of talk in recent weeks about the speaking fees paid to presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, and an analysis published Saturday sheds some light on exactly how much Wall Street and other major corporate powers ponied up for the former Secretary of State and her husband, President Bill Clinton.


That gun is SMOKIN'!

Wouldn't the presidency be a bit too much of a pay cut?


An artful smear,
by that wise codger,
or so says
the artful dodger.


Maybe Hillary Clinton could edit and revise the texts of her speeches before they're released, just as she revises her positions on so many issues.
Doug Giebel
Big Sandy, Montana


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


Just made another small contribution (what I can afford) to Bernie, and he didn't even speak at my crummy little house! Go Bernie!


The enormity of the Clintons' speechifying for money boggles the mind. These incestuous relationships extend to the media, and its celebrity readers and interrogators also, see: http://www.alternet.org/media/clinton-should-release-transcripts-her-paid-speeches-and-so-should-media-pundits-chuck-todd The Clintons are an embarrassment, a former President and First Lady and Secretary of State on the huckster circuit, hawking speeches the quality of which must merit comparison with some of the great orations of history, Lincoln's Gettysburg Address or Pericles Funeral Oration, for that kind of honorarium, i.e.,cold hard cash. This kind of thing would make Jay Gould blush. Public officials know no shame. In a more innocent era avoiding even the appearance of impropriety meant something, oh those innocent times of yore!


HRC was asked about releasing her 3 speeches at Goldman Sachs, where she was paid a total of $675,000.00 and her answer was: "I will look into it".

Translation: after I have looked and have had a chance to redact what is embarrassing!


"Speaking fees"? - or kickbacks, laundered campaign-contribution bribes? The enormity of the payments for "speaking fees" is highly questionable and obscene, contrasted with ordinary hard work......


Turns out Hill is progressive--she gets progressively worse every day.


Hey, you can't write this article, take it down immediately! HRC will point to it and say we're still artfully smearing her. As I've said elsewhere: she didn't lie! She hasn't changed her position on anything because of their money. Hillary, honey, in my eyes the money makes you ONE OF THEM! I'm only speaking for myself. I know for a fact you haven't "changed your position" on any issue because of their money, but you'll surely represent their interests before my own middle-class interests as surely as I'm sitting here.

First woman president? Puh-leaz! Give me a Jill Stein or even Elizabeth Warren over the likes of you and continued fealty to the current bullshit arrangement!


I am reminded of the late Texas Governor John Connelly who was arrested for taking a $10,000 bribe. When asked why he risked a very successful political,career for such a measly sum, he explained "You have to show that you're a man people can do business with."

I think there is something of this attitude in Hillary's willingness to take so much money even when she had her eyes set on the White House. The cash is nice, of course, but I think she also needed to show the big corporations that they would find her a reliable partner and - I'm not joking - that kind of relationship is key to a successful presidency. Obama was able to get his health care plan enacted over enormous Republican opposition after he convinced big insurance and pharma that he was on their side and Hillary would know how to get the big money boys on her side in a key issue such as climate change - they would know that she would never advocate a policy that would threaten their profits.

If an honest man like Sanders somehow became president, it is obvious that he would be unable to govern. Not only would the corporate-paid senators and congressmen block him at every turn, but big financial firms like Goldman Sachs could tank the stock market at the first sign that anybody was taking his social democratic proposals seriously.


What does that statement even mean? She says she 'will look into it'? Look into what? Look into whether there was anything incriminating or something she'd rather not make known to voters? No reporter has called her on that and neither did Bernie. If the roles had been reversed it is almost a guarantee that she would have persisted on dogging her opponent demanding an explanation of what those weasel words actually meant.


I believe your probably right on this assumption, if so that would leave a perfect time to break up every over sized bank in this country with full support of the people.


I think there is a tendency to impart cohesion where in fact simple self interest is mostly at play with the Wall St. crowd. While some if not many, in Congress will cause f'k ups and snafus etc, attempting to make government unworkable under a Sanders administration and many of the corporate coup universe would support that, it would go on only as long as nobody made the attempts public.

Sanders will have the public behind him and while it may look like the game is over (rigged to stay rigged no matter what) that isn't really the case. Hey people >>> Stop feeling so powerless - it's like progressives have lost the ability to believe that they can make change happen. People power is not a figment of the imagination or restricted to the 60s!

If the fix gets in as Thornberry rightfully warns about then what Sanders would have to do is make it public. As bad as things are, statements of the president are always news items. They stall and delay and Bernie pins them to the wall in the public's eyes.

It is time to remember that we are going to take back our democracy. It is high time we start believing that that can happen. That people can make that happen!


Elected office for DC politicians has become an apprenticeship for the real pot of gold on K Street when they "retire".

Congresscritters have the opportunity to increase their (south of $200k) annual salary into the 7 figures when they get those K Street retirement jobs.

Bill Clinton has enjoyed an 8 figure annual ($17 million in 2013 alone) corporate speaking fee income since leaving DC, plus foundation contributions, all for 8 years of enriching the .01% at great expense to the rest of us
With the ACA under his belt, once Obama pushes TPP, TTIP and TISA into law, the Obamas will jump on that gravy train.


"artful smear" means FACTS in Clintonspeak.


Is something up?


Doesn't anyone have copies to make public? This is a very big deal.


And here is another artful smear: http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/34688-big-campaign-cash-for-clinton-from-monsanto-lobbyist