The Clintons Made Wall Street Richer, and It Returned the Favor

[LiberalArkie]

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/clintons-made-wall-street-richer-and-it-returned-favor



Late at the end of last week, the Clinton campaign sent its long-awaited personal financial disclosures to select media outlets. From the perspective of the campaign, it was a clever move; by sending their disclosures to the media first before sending them to the Federal Election Commission, they essentially controlled the timing of the stories about their income for the past year and a half.

The disclosures detail the incomes of both Clintons going back to 2014. From what was offered to the press, we know that in less than a year and a half, the Clintons raked in over $30 million, the vast majority from speaking fees they charged to foreign and domestic corporations and other organizations willing to pay speech honorariums.

The bulk of the reporting on this matter has focused on the amount of money the Clintons earned. “The report underscores how much wealth the Clintons continued to amass as the Secretary of State prepared to launch her second bid for the presidency,” concluded USA Today. But the bigger story is why the Clintons are so rich. Their wealth is derived from an army of corporations that benefited from the very laws the Clintons passed, and now they are returning the favors. Although corporations from every sector of the economy developed this symbiotic relation

Snip

<I had forgotten a lot of the financial bills that were passed>


Please read the article at the link

[NYC_SKP]

1. "corporations that benefited from the very laws the Clintons passed"

Exactly.

K/R

[Octafish]

2. Ask Phil Gramm about Glass-Steagall.

After leaving the Senate, he became vice chairman of UBS. Since the repeal of Glass-Steagal, they've specialized in all kinds of Wealth Management with the felliw who signed it into law.

http://financialservicesinc.ubs.com/revitalizingamerica/SenatorPhilGramm.html

[guillaumeb]

3. A classic example of Quid pro quo?

In common law, quid pro quo indicates that an item or a service has been traded in return for something of value, usually when the propriety or equity of the transaction is in question. A contract must involve consideration: that is, the exchange of something of value for something else of value.

Now one might ask, what item or service might the Clintons have traded or provided for this massive reward?

Should we start with NAFTA? What a gift to the 1% that was!

How about the financial services deregulation bill, known as Gramm Leach Bliley Act that William Clinton signed? You all remember that act. That was the one that basically eliminated the Glass Steagall Act that kept commercial and investment banks separated.

About Gramm Leach Bliley:
The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (GLBA), also known as the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 and commonly pronounced ″glibba″, (Pub.L. 106–102, 113 Stat. 1338, enacted November 12, 1999) is an act of the 106th United States Congress (1999–2001). It repealed part of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933, removing barriers in the market among banking companies, securities companies and insurance companies that prohibited any one institution from acting as any combination of an investment bank, a commercial bank, and an insurance company. With the bipartisan passage of the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, commercial banks, investment banks, securities firms, and insurance companies were allowed to consolidate. Furthermore, it failed to give to the SEC or any other financial regulatory agency the authority to regulate large investment bank holding companies.[1] ”The legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%E2%80%93Leach%E2%80%93Bliley_Act

But there are other things that the Clintons may have traded/given/signed/enacted also.

[KMOD]

4. It's like the six degrees of Kevin Bacon.

HRC and BC have been around for a long time, and have folks who respect and admire them world wide.

Yes, they are paid to give speeches, because people want to hear what they have to say. They are intelligent, knowledgeable, experienced and respected.

[LiberalArkie]

5. Maybe, but $500,000 for a speech?

[KMOD]

8. I haven't seen where they have received that amount for one speech.

I though most were in the 150,000 range.

Do you have a link?

People will pay the amount they think the speech deserves.

Bernie Sanders has also done paid speeches. Martin O'Malley as well. They may not receive as much as the Clintons do, but they also do paid speeches.

The Clinton receive high amounts because they are knowledgeable, intelligent, respected and admired.

[polly7]

12. Check this out:

RBC Convention Centre Winnipeg
375 York Ave.
Winnipeg, MB R3C 3J3

Global Perspectives – A Conversation with Former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Tickets: $299.25 (includes processing fee and GST)

Table of 10: $2,992.50 (includes processing fee and GST)

http://www.winnipeg-chamber.com/events/A-Conversation-with-Hillary-Clinton-57145/details

Clinton told about 2,000 people at a Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce luncheon that the international community has to target material that is drawing radicals to the cause.

Speaking to 2,000 people Wednesday, Clinton argued that the international community needs to target terrorist propaganda that is drawing in Muslims all over the world. Clinton added that the entire world has a stake in ending terrorism. This comes a few months after U.S. President Barack Obama urged Canada to continue combatting the terrorist threats.

Here's a question: who are they to give marching orders to Canada in this fight that was sparked in the first place by U.S. foreign policy? Unfortunately, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his successor — likely Liberal leader Justin Trudeau — will just cave into these demands and risk taxpayers' money and lives in this antiquated threat.

Canada has already been part of a decade-long war in Afghanistan that led to the loss of 158 soldiers, while also costing the federal government approximately $18 billion, which could have been allocated to other pressing matters. Furthermore, we also had to help overthrow the government of Libyan Colonel Muammar Gadhafi, who posed no threat to Canada's national security.

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/news/politics/op-ed-canada-should-not-be-following-marching-orders-of-hillary-clinton/article/424127#ixzz3ahU4k9WN

And on to Saskatoon in front of 2,000 more people for more of the same at $96 to more than $300 per person...

And ...... Calgary, Ottawa ... I had no idea they'd paid her that much.

[Cheese Sandwich]

7. When a megabank pays a politician $500,000 to speak, we should question their motives.

Some people think it's because the politician is intelligent, knowledgeable, experienced and respected.

Other people think it's because the bank executives want access and power.

It's one of those.

[KMOD]

9. What mega bank paid them 500,000?

I'll admit I didn't open the link and read it. Is that information in the article?

[think]

10. Bank of America of London. It's in the article./nt

[KMOD]

14. Oh, I see. Bill Clinton did.

I'll try to google for the content.

[Cheese Sandwich]

13. Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, etc.

[KMOD]

15. Here's his speech in London in 2014

[youtube]

[/youtube]

He always gives a great speech.

[Cheese Sandwich]

16. former Bill Clinton intern here

[KMOD]

17. you are?

[Cheese Sandwich]

18. ya

[KMOD]

19. ok

[Raine1967]

20. Are you saying you are a former intern? eom.

[Cheese Sandwich]

24. ya

but the only reason I mentioned it was in response to a thing about how he always gives good speeches.

Just meant to say yes I'm aware of his speaking.

[think]

21. This speech is from March 2006. How does that relate to the $500,000 2014 speech to Bank of America?

Just curious I guess...

[KMOD]

22. I'll keep googling then.

I'm quite certain it will be similar though. The Clinton's always speak on Democratic values.

[KMOD]

23. Found it.

Here ya go.

[youtube]

[/youtube]

[think]

25. This speech was in June of 2014. The Bank of America speech was in March of 2014.

His highest paid speech was a $500,000 engagement in Amsterdam booked by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP. Bank of America also paid Mr. Clinton $500,000 for a speech in London in March of 2014.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-and-bill-clinton-earned-over-25-million-since-january-2014/

[KMOD]

26. June, is the youtube published date.

How many speeches did he give in London in the Spring of 2014?

And again, it shows the Clinton's speak about issues that important to our base.

That's why they are respected and admired.

[think]

27. Yes. The video says May 29th. Still not the $500,000 Bank of America speech.

And still doesn't get to the point that Clinton gave many speeches to most of the big bankers after passing favorable legislation for them. You know the banks that keep pleading guilty and paying big fines but no one goes to jail.

[KMOD]

30. Let's turn this around.

Find me the incriminating video that you believe exists.

The Clinton's always, always, talk about issues that are important to Democrats. Always.

They are respected and admired, world wide. The incriminating evidence you desire, does not exist. Period.

If you think there is corruption, you prove it. People have spent decades, and millions of dollars trying to do so with no luck.

You show me the alleged bankster video. Give me a link. If you can't, well thanks for trying Ken Starr.

[think]

32. Who said it was incriminating? You on the other hand keep posting speeches

claiming to be this speech that have nothing to do with the subject at hand.


The problem is the MONEY from the damn banks. But let's be obtuse and ignore the millions paid by the banks and play games about finding a speech....

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

33. Hmmm...which could it be?

[think]

6. Unfortunately it's just too obvious to ignore.

[KMOD]

11. Here's a link to most of her speeches.

http://hillaryspeeches.com/

Watch them. When HRC speaks, she talks about issue that are critical and important to our party.

If people want to pay her to talk about issues that matter to Democrats, and hopefully persuade more of them to see the light, let them.

[TheNutcracker]

28. Here is an extensive article from The Nation - Just ask her banker friends

http://www.thenation.com/article/206625/if-youre-wondering-if-hillary-turning-populist-just-ask-her-banker-friends

If You’re Wondering If Hillary Is Turning Populist, Just Ask Her Banker Friends

Hillary Clinton is trying to recast herself as the future president of the people—but she’ll need more than a PR campaign to erase her long-standing ties to Wall Street.
Nomi Prins May 7, 2015

[840high]

29. Wall Street and the Clintons

will continue to be best friends.

[KMOD]

31. The Clinton's will continue to be admired

world wide.

[840high]

34. Each to his own - I don't think so - the

more we learn about her - the more disappointing she is. I voted for her in '08.

[KMOD]

35. really?

interesting.