[guest post by Dana]
At a town hall this week, Hillary Clinton, who lives and breathes the rarefied air of the One Percent, thanks in great part to having profited handsomely from Wall Street, laughably claimed that the “Wall Street guys are trying so hard to stop me”. This in conjunction with her continuous railings against corporate greed, revealed yet more of the candidate’s brazen and undeniable hypocrisy. When confronted at the town hall by Anderson Cooper about being paid $675,000 by Goldman Sach for one year of speech appearances, voters yet again saw a candidate who simply is unable to credibly deny or disentangle herself from her very close and profitable relationship with Wall Street, no matter how much she embarrassingly tries:
“Was that a mistake?” Cooper asked. “I mean, was that a bad error in judgment?”
“Look,” she told Cooper, “I made speeches to lots of groups. I told them what I thought. I answered questions.”
“But did you have to be paid $675,000?” Cooper asked.
To which Clinton said: “Well, I don’t know. That’s what they offered, so . . .”
No wonder the doddering feminist is losing the support of young women everywhere: Wait. What?? I’m confused. Why are you attacking me?? Wall Street?? Who lives there?? Where is my applesauce??!!
Considering that Clinton maintained a price list for those wanting to book her for a speaking engagement, it seems highly unlikely that when it came to Wall Street, she would simply take “what they offered”. After all, this is Wall Street we’re talking about and she is Hillary Clinton, exclusive speaker. Anyway, the speech fees for Clinton were set by her representatives, not by Goldman Sach:
During the period of the Goldman Sach and many other top dollar speeches, she was represented by the Harry Walker Agency, which calls itself “the world’s leading speaker’s bureau.”
When groups pick from their list of speakers, which also include Bill Clinton, the price is discreetly provided. For Hillary Clinton, the price appeared to regularly be shy of $300,000 each.
For kicks, let’s just say it was what Goldman Sach *offered*, wouldn’t a presidential candidate whose platform includes railing against Wall Street greed, corporate recklessness, and disregard for the little people, actually jump at the opportunity to demonstrate that their actions back up their words by turning down such a speaking engagement? That way, the canidate would be seen as an *honest broker rather than a shady grifter with a penchant for big money and big lies.
It’s also interesting to note that as recently as two days ago, Hillary Clinton appeared on the Harry Walker Agency’s website as an “exclusive speaker”:
But today, strangely, she is nowhere to be found:
Anyway, while the MSM tries to soft-pedal Clinton’s Wall Street money-making relationship as unwise, and not unlike her use of a private server, I prefer to call it what is: putrefying hypocrisy.
(*honest: Of course given that it is Hillary Clinton we’re talking about, there really aren’t enough grains of salt with which this should be taken, but I trust you understand my point.)