A List of Hillary's Speeches and Fees

Risky Thicket said:

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

Click to expand...

Almost ALL politicians are owned by someone other than the voters that elect them, and unfortunately the few that are not owned are even worse when it comes to their ideas meaning no one with big bucks is willing to back them. This is news?

Sherman123 said:

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.

Click to expand...

I've read pieces by people in government at those levels and what they say is that there is rarely a quid pro quo at work, but that being constantly in touch pretty much ONLY with people in the top .1 or .01% just changes your perception of the world and how it should work, because pretty much all you hear is how those folks think it should work, or those hired by them to peddle their message.

That makes sense to me, and I don't see how $21 million in fees almost all of it from that crowd doesn't affect someone. She can say all day she's going to crack down on the banks, but when you've been made richer by $millions, and spent the hours hobnobbing with the heads of the world's banks, she can't help but see the world from their shoes. And even if she's not owned by them, the money gives a good impression that she is, and that's ultimately my biggest problem with Hillary. How can she not see what collecting $700k from GS does to her perception as for the little guy and not Lloyd Blankfein and his cronies at the other banks that also paid her well into six figures?

iguanaman said:

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.

Click to expand...

That's a false choice. She's being paid handsomely by people she will ultimately be in charge of regulating for a short speech, so the appearance of bribery or influence peddling is unavoidable. Certainly, unless GS et al. think they're getting a good deal out of it, the BOD should fire whoever agreed to pay her those sums for a few minutes of her time.

Think of it this way - if you read a paper and up front you see the author collected $700,000 from company X for three short speeches, and the topic of the paper affects Company X's bottom line, do you trust the paper or assume that the author has biased the results, consciously or unconsciously, in a way to favor his or her benefactor? If not the latter, you're an idiot IMO. Same with Hillary or anyone else collecting those sums, or more commonly who have wives or husbands collecting those sums from affected parties. The assumption HAS to be she's being bought, and will only be rebutted if/when she takes concrete actions that are NOT on the wish lists of those who paid her.

Or think if of it another way - if you wanted to influence Politician A, and A can be purchased, would you write them a check or give them a suitcase full of cash under the table, or 'hire' them to 'give a talk'? Obviously the latter is preferable, so how are we to tell sitting whether she was bought or is merely providing a service, from where we sit? We can't, which is the problem with collecting $10s of millions from people who have an interest before government. And it's why not releasing her speeches is also a big perception problem.

JasperL said:

That's a false choice. She's being paid handsomely by people she will ultimately be in charge of regulating for a short speech, so the appearance of bribery or influence peddling is unavoidable. Certainly, unless GS et al. think they're getting a good deal out of it, the BOD should fire whoever agreed to pay her those sums for a few minutes of her time.

Think of it this way - if you read a paper and up front you see the author collected $700,000 from company X for three short speeches, and the topic of the paper affects Company X's bottom line, do you trust the paper or assume that the author has biased the results, consciously or unconsciously, in a way to favor his or her benefactor? If not the latter, you're an idiot IMO. Same with Hillary or anyone else collecting those sums, or more commonly who have wives or husbands collecting those sums from affected parties. The assumption HAS to be she's being bought, and will only be rebutted if/when she takes concrete actions that are NOT on the wish lists of those who paid her.

Or think if of it another way - if you wanted to influence Politician A, and A can be purchased, would you write them a check or give them a suitcase full of cash under the table, or 'hire' them to 'give a talk'? Obviously the latter is preferable, so how are we to tell sitting whether she was bought or is merely providing a service, from where we sit? We can't, which is the problem with collecting $10s of millions from people who have an interest before government. And it's why not releasing her speeches is also a big perception problem.

Click to expand...

The problem is that many Wall Street firms have money to burn and they like to hob nob with celebrities. It boosts their egos but there is no evidence that people who accept a speaking engagement are in any way beholding to the firms because they hired them as speakers. Would you turn down 6 figures for a 60 minute speech? Heres' one that Hillary did for Goldman Sachs... The horror...

I hope the speech topics were all different, it would be a shame to listen to the same old stuff again and again, at those prices....

According to your way of “thinking” HRC is “in the pocket” of the……….

Human Resources Society…….
Let’s Talk Entertainment Group….
American Jewish University….
American Society of Travel Agents….
Beth El Synagogue…
National Association of Realtors…
Jewish United Fund….
World Affairs Council
Innovation Arts and Entertainment
Canada 2000
Commercial Real Estate Women’s Network
Council of Agents and Brokers
Salesforce.com
Watermark Silicone Valley Conference of Women
American Camping Association………….

Oh yes………. These are the speeches of 3 years…………. And you failed to include the citation……. Let me help you out here…..:
The Complete Breakdown Of Every Hillary And Bill Clinton Speech, And Fee, Since 2013 | Zero Hedge

…. And does not include the list of Commencement speeches at US colleges and Universities for those 3 years………… nor the speeches where the fee were wave and/or done gratis……

And then there are the hundreds of speeches given over the years on Women’s Rights and/or Children….
Now I guess she is in the tank for women and kids too………. How ridiculous….

What you want the reader to believe/conclude/think…………
HRC is “owned” by “big business” and will or has done something for these folks which is illegal or not in the best interests of the nation….

Well there’s a problem here……..

She has never found to have done so it the past……no proof she has done so……… or evidence that she has………

Therefore, you must mean she will do her “pay back” sometime in the future………… Now to say/suggest that is plain silly…………. But no you say no………she will do so in the future ‘fersue……..

Well let’s test your “belief……..

OK there is a “big business” who needs a special favor……….. on the borderline of being illegal but is not in the best interests of the country………

So since they own her they go to her to “cash in” on their “ownership” …………. You expect/predict/assure us all she will “pay them back” by paying off her debt………AHHHH…. SO YOU HAVE MADE YOUR POINT………..SHE’S OWNED BUY BIG BUSINESS………..

Well since it is the future and decisions and events are not yet to be written………

Either than doing what you say she will do……………. She decides NOT TO DO IT………. Rather reasonable to assume being it’s the future……..

Which makes your underhand suggestion of some future “guilt” nothing more than a cheap politically motivated personal attack based upon yall’s devious and dishonest view of the world……….and something yall would do faced with a similar situation………

iguanaman said:

The problem is that many Wall Street firms have money to burn and they like to hob nob with celebrities. It boosts their egos but there is no evidence that people who accept a speaking engagement are in any way beholding to the firms because they hired them as speakers. Would you turn down 6 figures for a 60 minute speech? Heres' one that Hillary did for Goldman Sachs... The horror...

Click to expand...

No, but if someone pays me $700k for a few hours work, I am honest enough to admit it will affect my judgment, and especially if I'd like another $700k or $10 million or a good job for my daughter when I am done as POTUS. You're arguing the money has no effect, and I just don't think it's a convincing argument.

And, again, it looks corrupt to a lot of people so I'm amazed, really, at the arrogance to go on a $21 million speaking tour then run for elected office. If this was Cruz, I'm 100% positive I'd assume he's bought and paid for by the people paying him or maybe his wife to speak. Why should I expect something different from Hillary? I don't.

JasperL said:

No, but if someone pays me $700k for a few hours work, I am honest enough to admit it will affect my judgment, and especially if I'd like another $700k or $10 million or a good job for my daughter when I am done as POTUS. You're arguing the money has no effect, and I just don't think it's a convincing argument.

And, again, it looks corrupt to a lot of people so I'm amazed, really, at the arrogance to go on a $21 million speaking tour then run for elected office. If this was Cruz, I'm 100% positive I'd assume he's bought and paid for by the people paying him or maybe his wife to speak. Why should I expect something different from Hillary? I don't.

Click to expand...

Cruz could not get $10,000 no less six figures so that makes him an "honest" politician to you? It means he's a loser maybe but it has nothing to do with his honesty or integrity. The money is about celebrity and notoriety which is why Trump commands $1.5 million for a speaking engagement making him the biggest bribe taker of them all according to you. LOL

iguanaman said:

Cruz could not get $10,000 no less six figures so that makes him an "honest" politician to you? It means he's a loser maybe but it has nothing to do with his honesty or integrity. The money is about celebrity and notoriety which is why Trump commands $1.5 million for a speaking engagement making him the biggest bribe taker of them all according to you. LOL

Click to expand...

Right and campaign contributions have no effect on policy because politicians just want to do what's right for their constituents. And Hillary is going to be tough on Jamie and Lloyd, just you wait and see! :roll:

JasperL said:

No, but if someone pays me $700k for a few hours work, I am honest enough to admit it will affect my judgment, and especially if I'd like another $700k or $10 million or a good job for my daughter when I am done as POTUS. You're arguing the money has no effect, and I just don't think it's a convincing argument.

And, again, it looks corrupt to a lot of people so I'm amazed, really, at the arrogance to go on a $21 million speaking tour then run for elected office. If this was Cruz, I'm 100% positive I'd assume he's bought and paid for by the people paying him or maybe his wife to speak. Why should I expect something different from Hillary? I don't.

Click to expand...

A man without scruples...........and admits so...............Thank god HRC is not like you.............

But then this is all conjecture because the future is yet to come and to debate what HRC might do or not do in the future is a silly waste of time..............Wouldn't you agree?

imyoda said:

A man without scruples...........and admits so...............Thank god HRC is not like you.....

Click to expand...

I can't tell if that's a serious comment or not, but I have plenty of scruples - quit a job with a guy who facilitated tax fraud and I wanted no part - fire or refuse clients all the time who want to engage in it, etc. I'm just admitting to being human. If someone gives you a nice gift, are you suggesting that it doesn't affect how you deal with that person? I see it as common courtesy to want to return a favor. I'm simply admitting if a company paid me $700,000 for a few hours work on a tax return, I'd naturally do what I can within ethical bounds to help them out. Hillary or you or anyone else is no different. IMO, thinking that kind of money has no effect is laughable, really. If you don't want it to affect you, don't take the money - it's that simple.

Seems obvious that if a guy running for DA takes $700,000 from the head of a crime family for "speaking" engagements, and he runs on a platform of taking the mob down and arresting the bad guys, I'd think only the truly stupid would believe the DA is going to put taking on the mob at the top of his list. POTUS candidates are different I guess!

But then this is all conjecture because the future is yet to come and to debate what HRC might do or not do in the future is a silly waste of time..............Wouldn't you agree?

Click to expand...

Well, then debating politics at all is a waste of time..... We are all guessing about what someone elected to office will do, so why do we discuss anyone at all?

I'm seriously at a loss that people actually appear to believe that these companies paid Hillary $21 million because of her dynamic speaking skills and it had nothing, NOTHING!! to do with the fact that she's the odds on favorite and has been for a while to be the next POTUS. :roll:

JasperL said:

I can't tell if that's a serious comment or not, but I have plenty of scruples - quit a job with a guy who facilitated tax fraud and I wanted no part - fire or refuse clients all the time who want to engage in it, etc. I'm just admitting to being human. If someone gives you a nice gift, are you suggesting that it doesn't affect how you deal with that person? I see it as common courtesy to want to return a favor. I'm simply admitting if a company paid me $700,000 for a few hours work on a tax return, I'd naturally do what I can within ethical bounds to help them out. Hillary or you or anyone else is no different. IMO, thinking that kind of money has no effect is laughable, really. If you don't want it to affect you, don't take the money - it's that simple.

Seems obvious that if a guy running for DA takes $700,000 from the head of a crime family for "speaking" engagements, and he runs on a platform of taking the mob down and arresting the bad guys, I'd think only the truly stupid would believe the DA is going to put taking on the mob at the top of his list. POTUS candidates are different I guess!



Well, then debating politics at all is a waste of time..... We are all guessing about what someone elected to office will do, so why do we discuss anyone at all?

I'm seriously at a loss that people actually appear to believe that these companies paid Hillary $21 million because of her dynamic speaking skills and it had nothing, NOTHING!! to do with the fact that she's the odds on favorite and has been for a while to be the next POTUS. :roll:

Click to expand...

It was an observation based upon what you said............... but now you qualify it by saying we should have known about the ethics thing..............

But in any event..............if you think much of anything posted here is from the real world........you best do a re evaluation.............. 'cause it ain't..........and why folks can get all bent out of shape about some of the silly things here just perplexes me...........

Plus......... and I hate to continue to remind yall................ It's all speculation........conjecture..... guessing......... and all that stuff we cannot know................And yall want us to believe that because HEC got some speaking fees from someone.....years latter HRC will feel indebted to do something untoward..............

This is the kinda stuff I used to argue about up on the street corner when I was in High School...................DUH..........." Let's say what if............... '

Some folks and news "providers just never grow up...........

JasperL said:

Right and campaign contributions have no effect on policy because politicians just want to do what's right for their constituents. And Hillary is going to be tough on Jamie and Lloyd, just you wait and see! :roll:

Click to expand...

According the the Supreme Court money is speech so giving a speech for money is OK too. :lol: Seriously though, which candidate do you see as being "untouched" by some rich persons money? With Trump it is his own money of course. There is so much excess cash floating around that the rich are dying to spend that no one is immune. It is the desperate ones like Rubio that you need to watch.

iguanaman said:

According the the Supreme Court money is speech so giving a speech for money is OK too. :lol: Seriously though, which candidate do you see as being "untouched" by some rich persons money? With Trump it is his own money of course. There is so much excess cash floating around that the rich are dying to spend that no one is immune. It is the desperate ones like Rubio that you need to watch.

Click to expand...

Not exactly.....Trump has been using private donations from friends and folks some where to the tune of $7 million........no big deal but why does he have to lie about it.............

And just last week in the news was reported Trump is in the process of forming his own pack where the "rich and famous" can buy the Donald off............

Bet ya didn't know that.......

imyoda said:

It was an observation based upon what you said............... but now you qualify it by saying we should have known about the ethics thing..............

But in any event..............if you think much of anything posted here is from the real world........you best do a re evaluation.............. 'cause it ain't..........and why folks can get all bent out of shape about some of the silly things here just perplexes me...........

Plus......... and I hate to continue to remind yall................ It's all speculation........conjecture..... guessing......... and all that stuff we cannot know................And yall want us to believe that because HEC got some speaking fees from someone.....years latter HRC will feel indebted to do something untoward..............

This is the kinda stuff I used to argue about up on the street corner when I was in High School...................DUH..........." Let's say what if............... '

Some folks and news "providers just never grow up...........

Click to expand...

Why do you think people give money to campaigns? The for profit companies that answer to stockholders and BOD do it to influence lawmakers, and the studies that look at results indicate the ROE is sky high - many times any ordinary investment. It's fascinating you think paying someone like HRC directly, $millions, won't have a similar or greater effect.

Risky Thicket said:

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.

Click to expand...

That's fair comment, but I don't begrudge any individual from selling their "talents" to the highest bidder. What's more interesting to me would be the content of the speeches and whether or not they contradict her public statements on many issues relevant to her and her party's policy statements.

iguanaman said:

The problem is that many Wall Street firms have money to burn and they like to hob nob with celebrities. It boosts their egos but there is no evidence that people who accept a speaking engagement are in any way beholding to the firms because they hired them as speakers. Would you turn down 6 figures for a 60 minute speech? Heres' one that Hillary did for Goldman Sachs... The horror...

Click to expand...

If the thousands of minutes she refuses to release are similar to these 13 minutes, why won't she release them? It'd pretty much be free publicity.

This is a cherry picked clip and probably the only one where she doesn't kiss the ass of big money.

Risky Thicket said:

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

Click to expand...

Looking at this list, it's hard to imagine that this is anything but corruption, and that the Clinton foundation anything but a political slush fund for the Clintons.

And some are saying that Hillary's the best choice for POTUS? :shock:

CanadaJohn said:

That's fair comment, but I don't begrudge any individual from selling their "talents" to the highest bidder. What's more interesting to me would be the content of the speeches and whether or not they contradict her public statements on many issues relevant to her and her party's policy statements.

Click to expand...

It's it talent she's cashing in on or influence?

Winchester said:

It's it talent she's cashing in on or influence?

Click to expand...

I could be wrong, but from the list Risky provided in the OP, it seems that none of these speeches were given at a time when she had obvious "influence". One could argue that she had diminished influence at the time of these speeches since she was a former Secretary of State and under a lot of criticism and Congressional investigation for her role in Benghazi.

Is a person who's a former government employee/appointment supposed to forego income simply because of that relationship and/or the potential of a political run? I don't believe so.

I do find it somewhat comical that some are touting Justin Trudeau, Canada's new Prime Minister, in this thread about speeches and fees and not mentioning that Mr. Trudeau, as a Member of our Federal Parliament and possibly as the Leader of the Liberal Party, was accepting speaking fees, sometimes when appearing at charity fundraising events. That, to me, seems far more problematic and related to influence pedaling than what Hillary Clinton did.

imyoda said:

Not exactly.....Trump has been using private donations from friends and folks some where to the tune of $7 million........no big deal but why does he have to lie about it.............

And just last week in the news was reported Trump is in the process of forming his own pack where the "rich and famous" can buy the Donald off............

Bet ya didn't know that.......

Click to expand...

What I meant is that Trump is influenced by his own money, he's a greedy SOB who is only looking out for himself.

iguanaman said:

According the the Supreme Court money is speech so giving a speech for money is OK too. :lol: Seriously though, which candidate do you see as being "untouched" by some rich persons money?

Click to expand...

I'm not arguing she should be legally prohibited from giving speeches for money. And no one running for POTUS is "untouched" by money, but so what? "Everybody does it" isn't exactly a convincing argument.

BTW, you keep ignoring my questions, I guess because you know you can't answer them in a way that defends your point and keep a straight face.

Here's another one. I'm sure you have no problem with people taking jobs at, say, EPA, taking a tour in private industry paid 6 or 7 figures per year, then going back to EPA. You have to believe that when they get back to EPA those years working in industry have NO EFFECT AT ALL, right??!! Bring on the revolving door! It's fine, and anyone who's concerned about corruption needs to rethink it. I'm sure at EPA they'll be tough, tough regulators on their former employer!

With Trump it is his own money of course. There is so much excess cash floating around that the rich are dying to spend that no one is immune. It is the desperate ones like Rubio that you need to watch.

Click to expand...

LOL, Hillary accepting tens of millions for speeches isn't a problem because the over $100 million Bill received from many of the same entities has already made them rich.

JasperL said:

I'm not arguing she should be legally prohibited from giving speeches for money. And no one running for POTUS is "untouched" by money, but so what? "Everybody does it" isn't exactly a convincing argument.

BTW, you keep ignoring my questions, I guess because you know you can't answer them in a way that defends your point and keep a straight face.

Here's another one. I'm sure you have no problem with people taking jobs at, say, EPA, taking a tour in private industry paid 6 or 7 figures per year, then going back to EPA. You have to believe that when they get back to EPA those years working in industry have NO EFFECT AT ALL, right??!! Bring on the revolving door! It's fine, and anyone who's concerned about corruption needs to rethink it. I'm sure at EPA they'll be tough, tough regulators on their former employer!



LOL, Hillary accepting tens of millions for speeches isn't a problem because the over $100 million Bill received from many of the same entities has already made them rich.

Click to expand...

If "everybody does it" then why are you singling out Hillary? It is a stupid meme.

CanadaJohn said:

I could be wrong, but from the list Risky provided in the OP, it seems that none of these speeches were given at a time when she had obvious "influence". One could argue that she had diminished influence at the time of these speeches since she was a former Secretary of State and under a lot of criticism and Congressional investigation for her role in Benghazi.

Click to expand...

I don't buy it - pretty much everyone knew she was running for POTUS, and the favorite to win. And as POTUS, all it takes is one decision to make that in total $22 million invested to pay off by 100 or 1,000 or more. It's a cheap insurance policy - get on the good side of the potential next POTUS, in charge of regulators.

Is a person who's a former government employee/appointment supposed to forego income simply because of that relationship and/or the potential of a political run? I don't believe so.

Click to expand...

It's their choice and our choice as voters to evaluate whether that affects who we support. It affects who I support - others obviously see no problem taking millions from industries which as POTUS she'll be in charge of regulating and pushing economic development for those companies overseas, etc.

iguanaman said:

If "everybody does it" then why are you singling out Hillary? It is a stupid meme.

Click to expand...

Hillary is the subject of this thread. :shrug:

Do you know anyone else who's collected $10s of millions in speaking fees and running for any office? If so, I'll have the same comments about them, and I guess you'll conclude that big money has no impact on politics at all, since it doesn't affect Hillary, and claiming money influences politics is just a "stupid meme."

BTW, interesting you can't comment on any of the roughly equivalent situations I've posed...