The Clintons' $93 Million Romance With Wall Street

[KamaAina]

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/clintons-93-million-romance-wall-street

For 24 years Bill and Hillary Clinton have courted Wall Street money with notable success. During that time the New York banks contributed:
$11.17 million to Bill Clinton's presidential campaign in 1992.
$28.37 million for his re-election in 1996.
$2.13 million to Hillary Clinton's senatorial campaign in 2002.
$6.02 million for her re-election in 2006.
$14.61 million to Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign in 2008.
$21.42 million to her 2016 campaign....

Then there were the speeches. Sixteen days after leaving the White House in 2001, Mr. Clinton delivered a speech to Morgan Stanley, for which he was paid $125,000. That was the first of many speeches to the New York banks. Over the next 14 years, Mr. Clinton's Wall Street speaking engagements earned him a total of $5,910,000:v
$1,550,000 from Goldman Sachs.
$1,690,000 from UBS.
$1,075,000 from Bank of America/Merrill Lynch.
$770,000 from Deutsche Bank.
$700,000 from Citigroup

After she resigned as Secretary of State in 2012, Hillary Clinton took to the lecture circuit as well. Some of her income has come to light during the current presidential campaign, like the $675,000 she was paid for three speeches to Goldman Sachs. That disclosure, however, belittles her financial achievement and the scope of her audiences. She also addressed the Bank of America/Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, Deutsche Bank, UBS, Ameriprise, Apollo Management Holdings, CIBC, Fidelity Investments, and Golden Tree Asset Management, earning another $2,265,000.vi

No other political couple in modern history has enjoyed so much money flowing to them from Wall Street for such a long time—$92.57 million over a quarter century.

[cosmicone]

1. This romance number is increasing at 20% a week

It started out at 5 million a few months ago.

[DirkGently]

2. Note also how much was *personal income*

As bad as the campaign finance system is, literally making your living from interested players like Goldman and Deutsche and UBS is a step beyond in terms of creating a conflict of interest. These banks are Hillary Clinton's friends and benefactors, period.

This is why politicos typically wait until their careers in office are over to begin cashing in on speaking tours. The implications are far different for a potential Presidential candidate than for a past President.

Clinton's defense that she has done nothing different than Obama in this regard is therefore disturbing on two levels:

1. It wasn't okay when Obama did it. Note the crush of Wall Street insiders in and around the administration.

2. Obama wasn't paid personally by any of these interests.

Even if she wanted to, how is Hillary going to take meaningful action to rein in the practices of companies she has spend the past several years pleasing so much with what she has to say that they wanted to pay her millions of dollars?

And the transcripts do matter and need to come out. The fact they haven't yet just means they are a ticking time bomb for use in the general should she be the nominee. They will almost certainly confirm the kind of "mind conservative" thinking she had going as to the mortgage crisis as it was starting to emerge in 2007:

“Now these economic problems are certainly not all Wall Street’s fault – not by a long shot,” Clinton said early in the speech.

Clinton’s NASDAQ address amounted to essentially asking the financiers assembled to take voluntary action or else she would “consider legislation” to stop banks from kicking families out of their homes. But early on in the speech, Clinton placed equal blame for the subprime mortgage crisis on low-income homeowners alongside Wall Street.

“Homebuyers who paid extra fees to avoid documenting their income should have known they were getting in over their heads,” Clinton said.

http://usuncut.com/politics/video-surfaces-of-hillary-clinton-blaming-homeowners-for-financial-crisis/

[nichomachus]

3. I just got a check this morning from Wall Street for $100,000

They just give this money away for free. They don't expect anything in return. All they said was "Have a nice day."

[Ferd Berfel]

4. Point

Some people just don't grasp the concept of - Honesty
It's what the weak do.

[UglyGreed]

5. Could you forward them

my address I could use it for my medical tests.......

[dana_b]

11. :(

I've been thinking about you all afternoon.

[UglyGreed]

19. Thanks dana_b

I've been dealing with this for over twenty years, I have low points, regroup and then rise again and it very nice to know others still have empathy for those who struggle.

[pdsimdars]

6. Real!

[pdsimdars]

7. And I keep asking them to explain why her mind changed in that Elizabeth Warren story

At first, she understood how bad the bankruptcy bill was for regular people and got her husband to veto it.
Then she got a bunch of money from Wall Street to run for the Senate.
Then her first vote was to vote FOR the same bill that she KNEW was bad for people.
Hmmmm. What could that be? Was she just older and wiser or did she "evolve"?
What was the difference . . . I wonder . . . .
They don't seem to be able to explain that with any credibility.

I also liked what Bernie said about how afraid Wall Street must be because of Hillary telling them to "cut it out", when they gave her $15 MILLION for her campaign.

She has NO CREDIBILITY~! (And Donald Trump will be sure to remind her)

[DanTex]

8. Sorry, the Hillary-bashing has failed. Hillary is the nominee.

[KamaAina]

10. Wow, that Daylight Savings Time is a beast!

We sprang forward all the way to July!

[DanTex]

12. It's just math. Not even complicated math. It's a done deal.

The Democratic electorate chose wisely. Honestly, the risk of nominating Bernie was never that big to begin with. But it's over now.

[pdsimdars]

16. The math must be more complicated than your level because it is not over.

And the Democratic electorate did not choose wisely. You have a majority of 31% of the electorate voting for Hillary. But that leaves almost 70% of the electorate not included. And Bernie wins MUCH bigger percentages of this larger pool than Hillary does.
So, if the Democratic electorate were choosing wisely, they would have widened their perspective and chosen the more electable candidate in the whole electorate.
Better go back to school and brush up on those math skills.

[DanTex]

20. Check the delegate counts. Game over.

[dana_b]

14. either that or we had a killer party last

March and just woke up!!

[frylock]

23. Sorry, indeed.

[Jefferson23]

42. Meaning her ties to WS are irrelevant...interesting. n/t

[DanTex]

43. Same boring Hillary smears. Meh. Yeah, they're irrelevant.

[Jefferson23]

44. You're bored by her ties to WS.You provide a good example of the divide within the Democratic Party.

[DanTex]

45. Yup, I'm bored. And yes, there is a divide. That's why Bernie needs to drop out soon and start

bringing his side of the divide on board with the majority of us progressives, so that together we can defeat Trump and continue the progress that Obama has made.

[Jefferson23]

46. That's not the divide I am speaking about..the responses I read here from Clinton supporters

and the denial of relevance of money in politics...the more certain I am we'll see a party
split in the future. Reforming it may not be possible with this level of disregard to hold our
own accountable.

[DanTex]

47. I can only speak for myself, and I think money in politics is a big problem.

All the more reason we need Hillary to win. If she loses, the court goes right for a generation and CU stays on the books indefinitely.

[Jefferson23]

49. That makes no sense, and why I said what I did earlier. I do appreciate your responses, it helps

me see what is likely to come in the next 8 years.

[DanTex]

50. What part makes no sense?

It seems pretty clear to me that we don't want a Republican nominating probably 3 justices. Doesn't it?

[Jefferson23]

51. If you can support someone who takes that kind of money when you have an alternative, that makes

no sense. If you follow what she has said, she claims Frank-Dodd has the necessary
measures to prevent another financial crisis..that is far from accurate. So her entire
argument has been, look at Obama, he took more money than anyone and we have
Frank -Dodd. Perhaps you are confident she will do the right thing, I am not.

The person best placed to go after WS is not the person who takes their money.

[MaggieD]

9. Yes, it takes money to win elections

That is the system we have. Sorry you're just finding out about this. Must be difficult for you to deal with that reality.

[pdsimdars]

13. And you can sell yourself or get it from "the people". It depends on who you want to represent.

Either the corporations or the people.
It is the REPUBICAN party that is the party for corporate interests and the Democrats who have been for the rest of us.

Stop making excuses for selling out.

[MaggieD]

15. No, you can't

You simply cannot compete against the billionaires funding rethugs with $27 from the people. Your guy can't even beat a Dem who is spending much, much less than what will be spent in the GE.

Sorry, you folks just refuse to face reality. And the rest of us are not just going to lay down and die and let rethugs take over government so as not to hurt the delicate feelings of the extreme left. Nobody is going to give you a gold star for losing and say, hey, but at least you didn't take money from rich people.

[Lizzie Poppet]

22. Wow...the cognitive dissonance...it burns.

You're seemingly okay with the current oligarchic control of elections...and simultaneously claim to have a problem with "rethugs tak(ing) over government."

Comedy gold.

[MaggieD]

28. Where are your facts?

Don't deflect. Back up your accusations. Enough with the bullshit. Either back them up or stop lying about her.

[pdsimdars]

24. You don't face reality

And the rest of us aren't going to lay down and be bullied by the small perspective of 'horse race' thinkers who can't see beyond the Democratic party.
As I've said many times the Democrats represent 31% of the population. Hillary may get more votes here, but Bernie gets a much larger percentage in the WHOLE electorate than Hillary -- much larger margins in the independents, who are 42%, and Repubicans who are 25%.
It's that whole "big fish in small pond" thing.
Plus the whole 'likeability" and "trust" things. Worst vs. best.

[MaggieD]

30. Well tell me what she did in return then

Should be easy given that his supporters repeat this bullshit 95x a day, right? Why do yo never have any facts to back up the BS accusations?

Bernie just showed you that you can't win based on piddly little $27 donations. Learn from that.

[Lizzie Poppet]

17. Your vacuous snark aside...

...anyone who's actually okay with legalized bribery, regardless of whether it's part of "the system we have," is an idiot and an enemy of working people. I trust that doesn't apply to you, the above post notwithstanding.

[MaggieD]

21. And more baseless smears

What the fuck do you think she did for them? What was the "bribe" for? What did they get from her?

This is why I have so little respect for Bernie supporters. SMH. Can't wait until they finally enforce the GE TOS around here. You are all so ridiculous at this point.

[Lizzie Poppet]

26. Don't sweat it, Sparky: the disrespect is mutual.

No worries about your delicate fee-fees, though: once Hillary locks up the nom, I'll be gone.

Until Nov 8th.

[pdsimdars]

29. Honestly, they all seem to be so smug and condescending to us peasants--- ick!

[Lizzie Poppet]

32. I guess we need to be "brought to heel."

Over my dead body...

[MaggieD]

34. Can't wait

Will you be back to smear Dems some more after the 8th?

[Lizzie Poppet]

36. Just the Clinton supporters who have been such smug, condescending tools.

You haven't really hit the "worth my time" level for that...but I do admire the earnest effort.

[pdsimdars]

27. Please go watch that video of Elizabeth Warren relating the story of Hillary and the bankruptcy bill

That's as clear as it gets.
If you can rationalize that, you're professional.

[MaggieD]

31. Oh my dog - really?

Are you really going to try to respin that nonsense for the 50th time?

[pdsimdars]

37. Explain what the nonsense is? I have NEVER heard a Hillary-bot explain away that one.

It's as clear as it gets.
Scene one. . . the bankruptcy bill is explained to Hillary and she "gets it" and how bad it is.
Scene two .. . she goes back to DC and gets her husband to veto that horrible bill
Scene three . . . . she gets $140,000 from banksters to run for Senate.
Scene four. . . . her first vote is to vote FOR that bill which she knew was HORRIBLE.

What changed. . . .she took the bribe and did the deed.

Of course you guys can't explain it and avoid it. If this is the 50th time, that means 50 separate times you have refused to give your explanation. Because there is no reasonable explanation. Other than she got bought.
Live with it.

[pdsimdars]

33. Don't worry, by the time the primary is over, smug condescending Hillary supporters

will drive all the smart, thinking people out of the shell of the Democratic party. It'll be just like the blind leader-worshipping Republican party.

[MaggieD]

35. Do you have any sense of how ridiculous that sounds?

The childish hyperbole?

[pdsimdars]

40. you make my point -- smug, condescending

[tokenlib]

18. Kick.... Because it matters to some of us...n/t

[Jefferson23]

25. It takes some serious levels of rationalizing to laugh this off.

OBSCENE is the first word that comes to mind and it is anti democracy in nature.

[AzDar]

38. K & R

[ymetca]

39. Gee I wonder how

President Clinton "Part Deux" will handle the next Wall Street crash.

I'm guessing she'll say it happened because we tax corporations too high, then tell us we have to wait until age 75 to retire.

Trump is going to hammer her on her Wall Street ties if she makes it to the general. He won't be as nice as Bernie.

President "El Trumpo Del Grande" will tell us the next crash occurred because of Mexican immigrants..

.. then tell us we have to wait until age 78 to retire, oh, and corporate taxes are too high.

[pdsimdars]

41. or whatever else the corporations and Republicans tell her to say.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

48. Buying a government ain't cheap. But, they're willing to invest in a product that may yield

a handsome, though dirty, return.