I wish this would get more publicity....

[LAS14]

... but it's not obscene or otherwise shocking in a bad way...

http://zfacts.com/2016/02/clinton-speaking-fees/

Over the negative din of politics, it can be hard to hear what’s positive. Hillary Clinton has given $17.6 million of her speaking fees to charity (see below). That’s 26 times as much as she made on her three Goldman Sachs speeches combined, or 50% more than she made on her 51 speeches in 2014 and 2015. Before presenting the details, let me summarize.

Her fees were not the least bit unusual given her stature.
Over 100 lesser known Americans are also in the $200,000+ category.
The Goldman Sachs fees were below her average fee.
She gave $17.6 million of her speaking fees to charity.
Charging G. Sachs less would have just meant more profits for them and less for charity.
There is simply no evidence, or logic, supporting the idea that she would sell out her whole career and deceive her huge base of supporters with a fake proposal to rein in Wall Street (a proposal that Elizabeth Warren supports). That she would do all this in return for three below-average fees from Goldman Sachs is beyond absurd.

Now take a quick look at a Talk at Golmand Sachs (GS), or at civil-rights-leader John Lewis talking with the CEO of GS, or the CEO of the NAACP or LGBT Professionals speaking at GS. Obviously GS hopes for good publicity and the speakers hope to influence GS. If you’re looking for conspiracies, this is a very silly place to look for them.

[Agnosticsherbet]

1. This is an interesting bit of fact.

Thanks.

[Warren Stupidity]

2. The bags of money from Wall Street are investments

made with an anticipation of enormous returns.

[Qutzupalotl]

3. Good to know, thanks!

[peacebird]

4. Have her release the transcripts of her speeches to WallStreet. Then we can talk. Otherwise, we must

assume she is whispering sweet nothings to WallStreet while telling voters she is firmly saying "Cut it out!"

Which is it?

[NanceGreggs]

11. You can assume whatever you want.

But you'd have to abandon all common sense to assume that Hillary was "whispering sweet nothings" in a speech.

If Hill wanted to "whisper" anything untoward to GS, why do it in a speech? Why wouldn't she just have some one-on-one discussions with the PTB at GS, and conduct those discussions behind closed doors?

HRC's speaking contract specifies that there be a court reporter present to prepare a transcript. If her speeches contained anything untoward, why would SHE ask that a record of them be made? There would always be the risk of a leak, even if the risk was slight. That's a risk that wouldn't exist at all if she simply said "no transcripts".

[litlbilly]

5. so she wouldnt have to pay taxes on the rest of the 125mil she got from them. this is rediculous

[Human101948]

6. Was that charity the Clinton Foundation by any chance?

Do you have a list of all the charities she donated to?

[noamnety]

7. To the Clinton Foundation? (nt)

[Arazi]

8. LOL!!!! It goes to the Clinton Foundation "charity"

Pay to play organization set up aa a shame charity



Your link says it explicitly

[snot]

9. "Charity" meaning, the Clinton Foundation?

[Mike__M]

10. Philanthropy sucks:

Rentiers skimming value off the working people until they have more than they know what to do with, then giving it away to their choice of "good causes." Philanthropists do not get votes from this worker.

[LAS14]

12. The Clinton Foundation....

... has done nothing but good. Would that more of our wealthy citizens spent their energies this way.

[liberal_at_heart]

13. mmm. okay.

[Qutzupalotl]

14. Bernie donated 100% of his proceeds to charity.

As Sarah Silverman said, it's not that Clinton is bad, it's just that another candidate came along who is so much better!