Hillary Clinton: You've Got Mail

[DOR]

JAD_333,

Actually, Benghazi reminds me more of Whitewater than the birther nonsense. It has the same, “first investigation came up with nothing; launch a second one, and then a third until we find something . . . anything!” feel to it.

And, no, Democrats don’t play games with national security to win partisan political points. We’re not GOPers.

= = = = =

citanon,

I have been personally involved in organizing conferences with extremely high profile speakers. US$500,000 for a former US president is not out of line.

[Julie]

JAD_333,

Actually, Benghazi reminds me more of Whitewater than the birther nonsense. It has the same, “first investigation came up with nothing; launch a second one, and then a third until we find something . . . anything!” feel to it.

And, no, Democrats don’t play games with national security to win partisan political points. We’re not GOPers.

= = = = =

citanon,

I have been personally involved in organizing conferences with extremely high profile speakers. US$500,000 for a former US president is not out of line.

I would say the Secretary of State making a kickback deal with Uranium, with of all people, RUSSIA, IS a dangerous game with national security. But, you just hold that thought, and we will bump this thread later when it sticks.

[Officer of Engineers]

And, no, Democrats don’t play games with national security to win partisan political points. We’re not GOPers.

Kosovo War.

An irresponsible war started by an irressponsible SECSTATE, sanctioned by a desparate POTUS trying to distract from his Monica affairs, commanded by an irresponsible General appointed by that very same POTUS, who issued an irresponsbile command that nearly started WWIII.

Reference: General Wesley Clark's order to British General Jackson to take Pristina Airport away from the Russians - with force if need be.

[Officer of Engineers]

What's more, the fuck ran for President under the Democrats!

[Julie]

DOR:

Bill Clinton is a high profile figure, BUT the amount he was paid for the Moscow speech was 5 times more than his usual and/or normal speeking fee.

[DOR]

Here’s what I gather are the accusations:

State Department approval was required for foreign investment in a uranium company. People involved made donations to the Clinton Foundation. Therefore, ipso facto, Hillary personally profited from a decision she made in her capacity as Secretary of State.

What’s the Washington Post say about this one? “What’s the evidence for that allegation? There isn’t any, at least not yet. Even if Clinton had wanted to make sure the sale was approved, it wouldn’t have been possible for her to do it on her own.” [http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...candal-story/]

.

Next up, Hillary Clinton’s brother, Tony Rodham, serves on the board (actually, an “advisory board,” as per the WaPo below)of a mining company that scored a coveted and lucrative “gold exploitation permit” in Haiti. The US government was pouring money into Haiti in the aftermath of its devastating earthquake. Therefore, ipso facto, Hillary’s personal decision to provide aide to Haiti was solely based on her brother receiving a mining license.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...506_story.html

= = = = =

OOE2_test,

From what I read (I wasn’t there, unlike some people), The Kosovo Liberation Army ramped up its attacks in 1995-97. Albania collapsed in early 1997, which opened up access to large amounts of military weapons.

The Lewinsky scandal broke in January 1998, but wasn’t big news for several months.

= = = = =

Julie,

Nah, no more that 50% higher. I've talked to people who negotiated for his services for other events.

[Julie]

The fact the Clinton Foundation is now spontaneously filing amended returns for the last 5 years because they made some "errors" in reporting foreign donations together with government grants. That, to me, is like getting caught with your pants down and scurrying around trying to pull them back up. Lots of smoke but no fire? All circumstancial. Maybe.

It's just a bit too coinky dinky to me, and a helluva lot of a conflict of interest to say the least.

[citanon]

JAD_333,

Actually, Benghazi reminds me more of Whitewater than the birther nonsense. It has the same, “first investigation came up with nothing; launch a second one, and then a third until we find something . . . anything!” feel to it.

And, no, Democrats don’t play games with national security to win partisan political points. We’re not GOPers.

= = = = =

citanon,

I have been personally involved in organizing conferences with extremely high profile speakers. US$500,000 for a former US president is not out of line.

Were these Presidents named Clinton?

A former US President and the spouse of a sitting Sec State taking money from foreign entities is way way way out of line and possibly illegal. That may not apply to other high profile speakers, but there are special ethical considerations when you are not a private individual.

[citanon]

Julie,

Nah, no more that 50% higher. I've talked to people who negotiated for his services for other events.

DOR, this is post Hillary Sec State. His speaking fees went up at least 2X when she went into office.

Also, comparing Bill Clinton on one occasion to himself on other occasions is like saying armed robbery is not that bad since it's only a little step up from grand larceny. ;)

[citanon]

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact...im-about-bill/

True
Schweizer
"Of the 13 (Bill) Clinton speeches that fetched $500,000 or more, only two occurred during the years his wife was not secretary of state."

— Peter Schweizer on Sunday, April 26th, 2015 in his book "Clinton Cash"
Fact-checking 'Clinton Cash' author on claim about Bill Clinton's speaking fees

By Lauren Carroll on Sunday, April 26th, 2015 at 6:42 p.m.
Will "Clinton Cash" Consume Hillary’s Campaign?
Bloomberg
John Heilemann weighs in on the publishing strategy for Pete Schweizer’s “Clinton Cash” and the Hillary Clinton operation’s reaction to the controversy.
'Clinton Cash' author Peter Schweizer.

Did foreign interests curry favor with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton by paying huge speaking fees to her husband?

That’s the question raised in the forthcoming book Clinton Cash by author and political consultant Peter Schweizer. On the Sunday shows, Schweizer said that while his research uncovered no proof of a quid pro quo between foreign interests and the 2016 Democratic frontrunner, the evidence does suggest a troubling trend.

In an April 26 interview on Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace highlighted a claim from Schweizer’s book.

"You have an interesting point that I want to put up on the screen that seems to demonstrate exactly the point you're making," Wallace said. "Between 2001 and 2012, Bill Clinton made 13 speeches, 13, for which he was paid $500,000 or more. Eleven of those 13 speeches were at least eight years after he left the presidency while his wife was secretary of state."

Schweizer responded, noting that Bill Clinton’s speaking fees "dramatically" went up when Hillary Clinton, now a presidential candidate, took office in 2009.

"When you have one or two examples, it's a coincidence," he said. "When you have this many, to me it's a trend."

We aren’t going to dig into the truthfulness of Schweizer’s overall thesis here. But we are interested in Bill Clinton’s speaking fees while Hillary Clinton was at the State Department. His book says,"Of the 13 Clinton speeches that fetched $500,000 or more, only two occurred during the years his wife was not secretary of state," according to the New York Times, which has an advance copy.

By the millions

In 2014, before Clinton Cash was in the public eye, the Washington Post analyzed Clinton’s speaking fees and found he made at least $104 million in speaking fees between 2001 through 2012 -- more than half of that income came from speeches in foreign countries (though he gave more speeches within the United States).

To find out more about Clinton’s speaking fees, we turned to Hillary Clinton’s federal financial disclosure forms, made available by the Center for Responsive Politics, a research group that tracks money in politics. Because Hillary Clinton held federal positions from the time they left the White House in 2001 through 2012, her financial information as well as Bill Clinton’s is available for all those years.

Schweizer didn’t respond to our requests for comment, but income information on the financial disclosure forms supports his claim.

Here’s a list of all the speeches for which Clinton received a fee of $500,000 or higher, including the year, location, host and actual fee:

2003 -- Japan, $500,000 Sakura Asset Management (Japanese finance corporation) (A note: This speech was canceled, but the fee went to Clinton’s presidential library foundation);

2008 -- California, $500,000, Power Within (life coach Anthony Robbins’ brand);

2010 -- Russia, $500,000, Renaissance Capital (Russian finance corporation);

2010 -- United Arab Emirates, $500,000, Novo Nordisk (Danish pharmaceutical company);

2011 -- Nigeria, $700,000, THISDAY (newspaper);

2011 -- Austria, $500,000, Center for Global Dialogue and Cooperation (Austrian nongovernmental organization);

2011 -- Netherlands, $600,000, Achmea (Dutch finance corporation);

2011 -- China, $550,000, Huatuo CEO Forum (business conference);

2011 -- United Arab Emirates, $500,000, Abu Dhabi Global Environmental Data Initiative (international environmental information organization);

2011 -- Hong Kong, $750,000, Ericsson (Swedish multinational communications technology company);

2012 -- Nigeria, $700,000, THISDAY (newspaper);

2012 -- Austria, $500,000, Center for Global Dialogue and Cooperation (Austrian nongovernmental organization);

2012 -- Italy, $500,000, Technogym (fitness equipment manufacturer).
......
Schweizer said, "Of the 13 (Bill) Clinton speeches that fetched $500,000 or more, only two occurred during the years his wife was not secretary of state."

We're not checking Schweizer's suggestion that the increased speaking fees were part of a plan to curry favor in his wife's State Department. But on the specific numbers, Schweitzer is correct.

[Officer of Engineers]

OOE2_test,

From what I read (I wasn’t there, unlike some people), The Kosovo Liberation Army ramped up its attacks in 1995-97. Albania collapsed in early 1997, which opened up access to large amounts of military weapons.

So you never questioned why we went to war in Kosovo? Just took Clinton at his word? Why because he was a Democrat?

The Lewinsky scandal broke in January 1998, but wasn’t big news for several months.

We've fucken nearly started WWIII because of the shit your Democrats did!!!

Get off your fucken high horse!!!

[zraver]

Get off your fucken high horse!!!

He can't, he's emotionally invested so the rational part of his brain has atrophied.

[TopHatter]

The personal attacks and flaming need to stop immediately.

[Officer of Engineers]

I do apologize for my language, David. However, the question stands! Will you acknowledged your Democrats nearly started WWIII for ego!!!. From Albright to Clinton to Clark, all were Democrats! Your fucking party nealy started WWIII for ego!!!!!!!

Unless, of course, your ego is bigger than Clinton's!!!!

[TopHatter]

I do apologize for my language, David. However, the question stands! Will you acknowledged your Democrats nearly started WWIII for ego!!!. From Albright to Clinton to Clark, all were Democrats! Your fucking party nealy started WWIII for ego!!!!!!!

Unless, of course, your ego is bigger than Clinton's!!!!

Sir, the flaming stops right now.