Patterico's Pontifications


Let’s Be Clear About Hillary Clinton And Those Goldman Sach Speaking Fees

Filed under: General — Dana @ 11:53 am

[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.)


19 Responses to “Let’s Be Clear About Hillary Clinton And Those Goldman Sach Speaking Fees”

  1. She is such a big fat liar.

    Dana (86e864)

  2. why would filthy goldy sackies give her all that money if they weren’t getting something in return

    they’re supposed to be sooooo smart

    happyfeet (831175)

  3. It now turns out the iowa democrat party stole the iowa caucus for mrs. clinton and party is refusing audit of votes saying they are being destroyed.

    trumpet (ebae21)

  4. It should be clear by now (heck, it’s been clear for years) that Clinton and scandal are synonyms.

    I’ve long predicted that the Dem nominee will be Biden, and I’m still holding to that.

    Arizona CJ (da673d)

  5. “Following the money” in this case would require a division of investigators.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  6. I think she probably said very little to them. Meaningless platitudes and autobiography. No one cares what she had to say, they just wanted a fig leaf for the very large they were writing to her.

    Gabriel Hanna (3d8e32)

  7. The idea that any former federal office holder has a quarter million dollars’ worth of wisdom to impart is beyond ridiculous. Can’t we just admit this is at best just celebrity appearance fee?

    crazy (cde091)

  8. Dancin’ Tool”

    I know so much about lyin’
    That’s why I got this song
    One of my cankles is fatter than the other
    ‘N’ both my feet’s too long
    ‘Course now right along with ’em
    I got no natural rhythm
    But I go dancin’ now an’ then
    To get my mojo back again
    I’m a dancin’ tool, I’m a
    Dancin’ tool
    I hear that beat; I jump outa my seat
    But I can’t compete, cause I’m a
    Dancin’ tool, I’m a
    Dancin’ tool
    The Bernie folks all messed up
    They think they’ll vote him in
    I walk on in ‘n’ see ’em there
    Gonna give ’em all a grin
    When they see me comin’
    They all step aside
    They has a fit while I commit
    My lyin’ suicide,
    I’m a Dancin’ tool,
    I’m a Lyin’ tool
    Debate goes on
    And I’m so wrong
    Debate goes on
    And I’m so wrong
    Campaign goes on’n’I’m so wrong
    Campaign goes on ‘n’ I’m so wrong

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  9. Looks as if they all see the same barber, Col.

    mg (31009b)

  10. Even MoDo gets it.

    Dana (86e864)

  11. I’ve met women with price lists before*, but they were for other things.

    * in purely respectable situations

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  12. Overheard backstage at the Goldman-Sachs speech:

    “And one more thing. Don’t you contact me again, ever. From now on, you deal with Huma!”

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  13. C’mon folks, it’s not like she was selling them a hundred cases of her books! That would be corrupt. This was just a speech. How could that bee seen as a payoff or a bribe?

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  14. No need for transcripts: it’s all on YouTube: How dare Hillary speak to Wall Street to push female entrepreneurs! #ImWithHer #ImWithObama

    DK (b64cd8)

  15. wtf would a lifetime government wench like hillary know about entrepreneurs with boobs

    happyfeet (831175)

  16. Affirmative action is for losers.

    nk (9faaca)

  17. The most I’ve ever paid a woman for an hour-long presentation is $300. I think Trixie was just her stage name, though.

    Cruz Supporter (102c9a)

  18. Yes. Trixie. She’s the one with the price list.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  19. 2. happyfeet (831175) — 2/6/2016 @ 11:56 am

    why would filthy goldy sackies give her all that money if they weren’t getting something in return

    The theory of the Wall Street Journal editorial board is that they like regulations because they create regulatory barriers that would prevent any upstart financial company in the midwest, say, from competing with them because the overhead is higher, but, while they might like that, or be OK with expensive regulation for that reason, it probably would only be an aside.

    You could have another theory that they like low interest rates – which is good for other people, but also for them, because they borrow a lot of money to finance speculation.

    Or that they just want inside information, which, by the way, they can use either way whatever it is; and even information about what is NOT happening is valuable; but they have to pay the most money to make sure they are getting the truth from her.

    But actually Bill (and therefore Hillary) Clinton and Goldman and Sachs go back a long way, and theer is no simple individual quid pro quo.

    In 1992, Bill Clinton used Goldman and Sachs to give an opinion on – that is, vouch for, his “economic plan” which of course he had no intention of payinbg any attention to after the election.

    And then, after he was inaugurated, when Bill Clinton needed to find a lawyer he could trust, to put into his hands control of all investigations into himself, federal and local [local prosecutors generally defer to the federal government when they are investigating the same thinbg{ he went to Goldman and Sachs for his lawyer (Robert B. Fiske, Jr.)

    If you read the book “Den of Thieves” you will see taht when U.S. Attorney Rudolph Giulian was conducting his investigatons of insider trading during the 1980s, he had two prime targets : , e Michael Milken/Drexel Burnham and Goldman and Sachs, and in particular there, Robert E. Rubin., whom Clinton as Assistant to the President for Economic Policy and head of the National Economic Council (avoiding Senate confirmation problems) Later, after the coast was clear, he named him Secretary of the Treasury, replacing the placeholder, Lloyd Bentsen.

    To get to Rubin, Giuliani first ahd to convict Robert Freeman. In the end, after Giuliani, left, Fiske had Freeman plead guilty to probably invented story about Beatrice Foods in 1985, which because it was fiction, led nowwhere. Fiske complained about the leak, but I think the leak actually came from him.

    Fuske was initially appointed by Janet Reno as an unofficial prosecutor. Then she involed the special prosecutor law and expected the three federal judges to ratify the appointment of Fiske, but they picked Kenneth Starr, instead. Fiske, in the meantime had also been put in charge of investigating the Vincent Foster case, and had completed his investigation by that time. Starr was prevailed upon not to re-investigate.

    To even contemplate this, though, you must understand that Janet Reno was always Bill Clinton’s first choice for Attorney General, but he said he wanted “a woman” and probably engineered the troubles with the background checks of his first two nominees, in order to smooth the way for her confirmation, because there was lots of trouble with her record. The Senate Judiciary Committee would have been in no mood to really check into her, and they’d also maybe have the thought that Clinton might name somebody really inadequate, if he had to name a 4th choice who was also a woman.

    Sammy Finkelman (dbec95)

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0940 secs.