A List of Hillary's Speeches and Fees

[Sherman123]

Even worse is the green-eyed envy. Hillary does not need to promise anything to get those engagements and has said so many times. If anything it is a warning about those entities who have so much money to burn just to have a celebrity like Hillary come and talk to them. And anyone who thinks they would rather have Hillary than ANY Republican as President is kidding themselves. I like this take on the whole affair....


https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/02/05/what-hillary-clinton-should-say-but-cant-about-her-wall-street-speaking-fees/?tid=a_inl

It's also 100% accurate. There isn't anything more complex or sinister at work here.

 

[RetiredUSN]

A colourful analogy. Who's worth voting for? I don't mean who's the least bad, who's good?

Damn, here in Canada we just elected possibly the most inexperienced, most naive, most vulnerable leader in the free world but I wouldn't trade him for any of that lot you guys have to chose from this time around.

Sigh! No argument here. You would think that 320 millions Americans could come up with at least a few quality people..... errrr ummmmm right?

 

[Grand Mal]

Sigh! No argument here. You would think that 320 millions Americans could come up with at least a few quality people..... errrr ummmmm right?

It's wierd. Hard to say how this happened, there just seemed to be a bad-mojo momentum behind Clinton, Trump, Cruz...
Well, lots of days between now and November. Maybe there's an Eisenhower waiting just offstage...

 

[Risky Thicket]

I don't believe Hillary is owned by corporate interests. The speaking circuit is lucrative it doesn't make you a slave to the companies you speak to. The people who believe that are replacing logic with blind cynicism.

I have always wondered who out there supports Citizens United.

 

[Μολὼν λαβέ]

Is there a candidate you support because he's right, or are you holding your nose and voting for the least bad?

The GOP hasn't chosen my preferred candidate since Bush 41. However, Hillary is the most corrupt candidate since David Duke ran for President.

 

[Sherman123]

I have always wondered who out there supports Citizens United.

I don't care at all about Citizens United. If any election should disabuse people of the notion that you can buy elections with Super PACS this should be the one. Last I checked Rubio and Bush are smoldering craters.

 

[Risky Thicket]

I don't care at all about Citizens United. If any election should disabuse people of the notion that you can buy elections with Super PACS this should be the one. Last I checked Rubio and Bush are smoldering craters.

This may be a rude awakening for you, but there will be only two final candidates from the two ruling parties and one president. The rest have lost and will lose along the way. If the next president is not Trump or Sanders that President will ascend the throne of Corpgov power with IOUs to corporations out the butt.

Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining, Sherm.

 

[Sherman123]

This may be a rude awakening for you, but there will be only two final candidates from the two ruling parties and one president. The rest have lost and will lose along the way. If the next president is not Trump or Sanders that President will ascend the throne of Corpgov power with IOUs to corporations out the butt.

Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining, Sherm.

Why would you think that.

 

[Removable Mind]

Even worse is the green-eyed envy. Hillary does not need to promise anything to get those engagements and has said so many times. If anything it is a warning about those entities who have so much money to burn just to have a celebrity like Hillary come and talk to them. And anyone who thinks they would rather have Hillary than ANY Republican as President is kidding themselves. I like this take on the whole affair....


https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/02/05/what-hillary-clinton-should-say-but-cant-about-her-wall-street-speaking-fees/?tid=a_inl

Release of Clinton’s Wall Street Speeches Could End Her Candidacy for President

Release of the transcripts would therefore, it appears, have three immediate — and possibly fatal — consequences for Clinton’s presidential campaign:

It would reveal that Clinton lied about the content of the speeches at a time when she suspected she would never have to release them, nor that their content would ever be known to voters.

It would reveal that the massive campaign and super-PAC contributions Clinton has received from Wall Street did indeed, as Sanders has alleged, influence her ability to get tough on Wall Street malfeasance either in Congress or behind closed doors.

It would reveal that Clinton’s policy positions on — for instance — breaking up “too-big-to-fail” banks are almost certainly insincere, as they have been trotted out merely for the purposes of a presidential campaign.

Release of Clinton's Wall Street Speeches Could End Her Candidacy for President

This is just one of many reasons that Hillary should never be president.

 

[What if...?]

Last night in the debate Hillary chided Bernie for not releasing his tax forms. She was right to do that. Reportedly Sanders makes less in a year than Hillary makes in one speech. We shall soon see when we see Sander's taxes. In the meantime here is a list - compiled by the Weekly Standard - of Hillary's speeches, who she addressed and how much she was paid.

Anyone who doesn't believed that Hillary is owned by corporate interests is lying or stupid. A lot.

View attachment 67200273

And its interesting that in response at one point she shrugged it off with "That's what they were offering".

Its a little odd that they all "offered" the same amount, doncha think?

 

[Risky Thicket]

And its interesting that in response at one point she shrugged it off with "That's what they were offering".

Its a little odd that they all "offered" the same amount, doncha think?

I noticed that and thought the same thing. What a coincidence! Hillary is as lucky at getting big speaking fees as she is at trading cattle futures. :shock:

 

[Removable Mind]

A colourful analogy. Who's worth voting for? I don't mean who's the least bad, who's good?

Damn, here in Canada we just elected possibly the most inexperienced, most naive, most vulnerable leader in the free world but I wouldn't trade him for any of that lot you guys have to chose from this time around.

Well, you may be onto something...

 

[Fearandloathing]

Well, you may be onto something...

That's Justin.

I saw a shot at Trump in there, but in any case nothing sticks to this guy and he knows it. I knew and had interviewed his dad as prime minister and Justine has the same intellectual playfulness as his dad.

 

[iguanaman]

And its interesting that in response at one point she shrugged it off with "That's what they were offering".

Its a little odd that they all "offered" the same amount, doncha think?

Why is that odd? Her speaking engagements were handled by a manager who does it for many people and every personality has a "price" that depends on demand and notoriety. If they wanted her they were told the price they needed to pay. Trump asks and gets as much as $1.5 million, GW Bush gets 150K.

How much Donald Trump makes in speaking fees - Business Insider

 

[iguanaman]

I noticed that and thought the same thing. What a coincidence! Hillary is as lucky at getting big speaking fees as she is at trading cattle futures. :shock:

It's called the free market and why are you so jealous?

 

[Removable Mind]

That's Justin.

I saw a shot at Trump in there, but in any case nothing sticks to this guy and he knows it. I knew and had interviewed his dad as prime minister and Justine has the same intellectual playfulness as his dad.

I'd wayyyyyyyyyyyy rather have your guy, Trudeau, than any potential president that is now in the running. And I can't think of anybody that's been mentioned by GOP'ers that I might consider as a viable president if the convention winds up being brokered.

I shiver at the thought of Clinton or Trump being our next president.

 

[Risky Thicket]

It's called the free market and why are you so jealous?

LOL! Politicians for sale. It is indeed that.

 

[Fearandloathing]

I'd wayyyyyyyyyyyy rather have your guy, Trudeau, than any potential president that is now in the running. And I can't think of anybody that's been mentioned by GOP'ers that I might consider as a viable president if the convention winds up being brokered.

I shiver at the thought of Clinton or Trump being our next president.

So would I, obviously.

Say what you like about this kid, but in three years he single handedly rebuilt the party. It wasn't just his platform that got him elected, but his candidates. When you look at the curriculum vitae of most of them you see some serious talent that he has recruited at a time when "politician" is a dirty word. I am surprised he was able top draw so many away from high profile jobs.
He may be a terrible speaker, but our defense minister is the only one who has been both a cop and a soldier. On top of that he's Sikh Indian complete with turban. His "Northern" minister is a native Inuit whose first job was to look into the years long phenomenon of missing women, mostly native. It was an issue Harper ignored completely and has been back burner since 1999.

I think this parliament is one that is going to get a lot done, as was his father's first parliament.

 

[Removable Mind]

So would I, obviously.

Say what you like about this kid, but in three years he single handedly rebuilt the party. It wasn't just his platform that got him elected, but his candidates. When you look at the curriculum vitae of most of them you see some serious talent that he has recruited at a time when "politician" is a dirty word. I am surprised he was able top draw so many away from high profile jobs.
He may be a terrible speaker, but our defense minister is the only one who has been both a cop and a soldier. On top of that he's Sikh Indian complete with turban. His "Northern" minister is a native Inuit whose first job was to look into the years long phenomenon of missing women, mostly native. It was an issue Harper ignored completely and has been back burner since 1999.

I think this parliament is one that is going to get a lot done, as was his father's first parliament.

You may find it a bit odd, but from all that I read about PM Trudeau, he reminds me a bit of JFK.

Speaking of "politician" being a dirty word...

A few months ago I was listening to a satellite "non-partisan" (if that's possible) radio station and heard an ex-Russian Federal Assembly member discussing the common characteristics and tactics of "governing" used by members of the U.S. Congress with the RFA. In a nutshell, he was citing all of the ways that the RFA members avoided being accountable, and all of the examples were linked to keeping the nation in constant turmoil over issues that had little to no negative impact the nation as a whole. And failing to champion for important social needs for political minorities who were in fact being systematically exploited and even abused by the public and government.

And he used a number of familiar examples. He said that the RFA used issues like "homosexuality, abortion, religion, propaganda about the horrors of choosing one political philosophy over another, social inequalities argued on the floor of the RFA where blame was pointed at everything and everybody "but the government" - but to get to the core of the blame, he said if such claims were put under the microscope would they always lead back to bad governing, and of course problems with the economy game, which he said could also be easily traced back to bad policies, but members will constantly launch attacks in every direction, but where it should have be.

The results: A divided, pissed off society that is purposely diverted from serious issues that have significant impact on their nation.

So anyway, the guy went on and on and everything he was saying was just more evidence to me that we live in a world ran by self-will-run-riot governments, which have little to no allegiance to the citizens that they govern.

 

[Fearandloathing]

You may find it a bit odd, but from all that I read about PM Trudeau, he reminds me a bit of JFK.

Speaking of "politician" being a dirty word...

A few months ago I was listening to a satellite "non-partisan" (if that's possible) radio station and heard an ex-Russian Federal Assembly member discussing the common characteristics and tactics of "governing" used by members of the U.S. Congress with the RFA. In a nutshell, he was citing all of the ways that the RFA members avoided being accountable, and all of the examples were linked to keeping the nation in constant turmoil over issues that had little to no negative impact the nation as a whole. And failing to champion for important social needs for political minorities who were in fact being systematically exploited and even abused by the public and government.

And he used a number of familiar examples. He said that the RFA used issues like "homosexuality, abortion, religion, propaganda about the horrors of choosing one political philosophy over another, social inequalities argued on the floor of the RFA where blame was pointed at everything and everybody "but the government" - but to get to the core of the blame, he said if such claims were put under the microscope would they always lead back to bad governing, and of course problems with the economy game, which he said could also be easily traced back to bad policies, but members will constantly launch attacks in every direction, but where it should have be.

The results: A divided, pissed off society that is purposely diverted from serious issues that have significant impact on their nation.

So anyway, the guy went on and on and everything he was saying was just more evidence to me that we live in a world ran by self-will-run-riot governments, which have little to no allegiance to the citizens that they govern.

Trudeau for me is the perfect combination of his father and his mother. I have met and interviewed both, and Justin is his dad intellectually. Pierre's mind went so deep so fast he was 13 steps ahead of you in any debate. He also has his father's wit, quick, incisive....but all of that is tempered with Margaret's charm. Few know this, but she was the typical flower child, of wealth and power on the west coast. Her attitudes were shaped by the attitudes of the sixties, oriented in society. Justin brings all of that to the table...I just watched the full version of the exchange on quantum computing where you hear the first part of the reporter's question, a sarcastic "I was going to ask you about quantum computing, but..." which fits since Trudeau was in Waterloo announcing $50 million in quantum computing research...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRmv4uD2RQ4

Notice how he barely is able to hold back the smirk at the end during the extended applause. His dad wouldn't have tried. One day I will tell about how Trudeau used me, a green too young radio reporter as intellectual fodder.

As per the later, in keeping the populace distracted from events, there is a very good book that illustrates every bit of that in perfect detail with the author's direct contribution in explanation as to why...

It is called "The Prince" by Niccolò Machiavelli first written in 1513.

 

[What if...?]

Why is that odd? Her speaking engagements were handled by a manager who does it for many people and every personality has a "price" that depends on demand and notoriety. If they wanted her they were told the price they needed to pay. Trump asks and gets as much as $1.5 million, GW Bush gets 150K.

How much Donald Trump makes in speaking fees - Business Insider

"That's what they were offering" is not the same as "That's what I charge."

 

[iguanaman]

"That's what they were offering" is not the same as "That's what I charge."

Like I said before celebrities have agents that handle this stuff, she probably meant the amount is what her agent got her. She certainly didn't do the haggling and it is silly to think she did. If you want someone who hasn't really made a dime his whole life Sanders is your man but I'm not sure why that makes him better qualified.

 

[What if...?]

Like I said before celebrities have agents that handle this stuff, she probably meant the amount is what her agent got her. She certainly didn't do the haggling and it is silly to think she did. If you want someone who hasn't really made a dime his whole life Sanders is your man but I'm not sure why that makes him better qualified.

Oh yeah. Hillary just says stuff off the top of her head at a debate.

That line was rehearsed. She knew the question was coming. She's a terrible actor/liar. Fake, but not convincing. Glass, not cubic zirconia.

 

[shagg]

So, I found this. Considered a new thread, but seeing as how its the same subject, and the article is a few months old, I'll just drop it here.

Video surfaces of Hillary Clinton’s paid speech to Goldman Sachs, and it’s completely harmless

Now, its a 13 minute clip of a Goldman-Sachs speech she made, and around 5 minutes of it isn't even her talking. They had hit some goal of 10,000 women entrepreneurialized or some such. I'm not contesting the laud-ability of the goal, nor the significance of its achievement. I'm all for equality. But if the thousands of minutes worth of speeches not included are similar to these 13 minutes, than why the **** can't we see the rest? I'm guessing Team Shillary figured putting something out there might help with damage control when she gets pinned down on this issue, since there is no logical defense for hiding this and she has the legal right to release these transcripts, and she will have to dodge the question however many times it gets thrown at her, to the point that its obvious she's hiding them at all costs.

So they went through the video catalog (which they have, and which they could release), and cherry picked her best moment, her talking up equality for women in business. And then, from there, it's only logical to assume the other 99% of her speeches were equally harmless, benevolent even. That's what the article says anyway.

Nonetheless, supporters of Clinton’s opponent have convinced themselves that her speeches to Wall Street were part of some secret plot against mainstream Americans. Those individuals would do well to watch the actual footage of her speech, which is all about promoting women in entrepreneurial roles. Even when Hillary Clinton was addressing Wall Street, she was pushing for gender equity, not some kind of pro-corporate agenda. Watch her 2014 Goldman Sachs speech below:

I would love to see the rest of that particular speech, in addition to the others she made. She really took a big hit at the debate in New York over this issue, and continued with dodges and excuses. But the mods didn't let it go and she came off as horribly dishonest when she dodged the question for the 3rd time in as many minutes.

 

[JasperL]

Last night in the debate Hillary chided Bernie for not releasing his tax forms. She was right to do that. Reportedly Sanders makes less in a year than Hillary makes in one speech. We shall soon see when we see Sander's taxes. In the meantime here is a list - compiled by the Weekly Standard - of Hillary's speeches, who she addressed and how much she was paid.

Anyone who doesn't believed that Hillary is owned by corporate interests is lying or stupid. A lot.

That summary is exactly why I can't stand Hillary. Hubby Bill has made a fortune since he was POTUS, so it's not like they need the money from those speeches to live like royalty in this country. And she knew she was running for POTUS. But she's so damn arrogant that she resigns, then goes on a corporate interest speaking tour for $21 million and expects the rest of the country to pretend it didn't happen.

You know, maybe she believes what she believes and $500,000 in cash from Deutsche Bank and nearly $700,000 from GS doesn't affect her decision making, but to the rest of the country it looks a lot like a bribe, or influence peddling. I just can't imagine knowing you're going to run for POTUS and then collecting that much money in speaking fees, and not seeing the problem of perception it causes. It's just a level of arrogance that's astounding to me, and it's a kind of self inflicted damage to her credibility that was so easily avoided. It appears that she's in a world where those kinds of payments are just accepted as normal, and she doesn't recognize that ONE SPEECH, lasting no more than an hour, is more than 4 times the median household annual income.