Skip to main content

This is from "The Daily Kos"

Former President George W Bush charged $100,000 to speak at a charity fundraiser for U.S. military veterans severely wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan, and former First Lady Laura Bush collected $50,000 to appear a year earlier, officials of the Texas-based Helping a Hero charity confirmed to ABC News.

The former President was also provided with a private jet to travel to Houston at a cost of $20,000, the officials said.

 

These speaking fees should be stopped by both sides. The $170,000 could have helped a lot of wounded veterans.

 

PS; I just read that Hillary got $500,000 for a speech. Who would give it?

 

Again, stop it.

Last edited by jtdavis
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

If they were free no one would listen. An extravagant price tag guarantees

a well known person. I, myself would rather hear it from the speech writer

for a far more comfortable charge. No one is worth those fees just for the

delivery. Although Elvis could read the phonebook with no music and make

more money than most.

 

 

Jt, you should be ashamed, you're as brazen a hypocrite as beternnun.

 

 

Bill Clinton collected $2.5 MILLION in speaking fees from companies that lobbied Hillary's State Department

  • The former president's series of windfalls included 10 speeches from companies that lobbied State in the same calendar quarter they paid him
  • Speeches between 2009 and 2013 included paydays from Oracle, Dell, Starwood Hotels,Goldman Sachs, Microsoft and three trade associations
  • Bill Clinton's fees ranged from $150,000 to $300,000 per speech
  • Personal enrichment is separate from money that flowed to the Clinton Foundation from foreign governments while Hillary was secretary of state

Former president Bill Clinton reaped more than $2.5 million in speaking fees from 13 companies that lobbied the State Department while his wife was secretary of state.

Ten of those companies paid him within the same 3-month reporting period covered by the government documents that disclosed the lobbying activity.

Most of the influence-peddling accusations swirling around Hillary Clinton in the past ten days have focused on claims that she traded the power of her office in exchange for foreign contributions to the Clinton Foundation, her family's global philanthropy.

But her husband's six-figure speaking fees, ranging from $150,000 to $300,000, are the first clear indication that the scandal could involve personally enriching the Clintons in a way that isn't easily explainable as a necessity for public good.

 

International Business Times published a list of the speaking engagements, which involved Fortune 500 companies like Dell and Oracle along with trade associations representing retailers, drug companies and biotechnology firms.

 

It's unclear whether Bill Clinton's series of windfalls are legally considered his-and-hers property in New York, where the former first couple lives.

 

If so, Hillary Clinton could be seen as collecting more than $1 million from companies whose overseas fortunes she had a significant hand in determining.

 

The $2.5 million figure, while large, likely represented only a tiny portion of the former president's speaking income during the four years Hillary was secretary of state.

 

 

 

Between 2011 and 2013, according to federal government disclosure filings, Bill Clinton earned more than $100 million giving speeches.

 

So far, media outlets including The Washington Post have connected $26 million of that money to companies that contributed $10,000 or more to the Clinton Foundation. 


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...t.html#ixzz3fRNc6NGm

 

 

 

 

 

I DID NOT – TAKE – $2.5 MILLION: The former president reaped windfall after windfall from companies with business pending before the State Department while his wife was at the helm

 

TROUBLE IN CHAPPAQUA: Hillary Clinton's budding presidential campaign has been clobbered by accusations that she traded her official influence for foreign contributions to her family foundation  

TROUBLE IN CHAPPAQUA: Hillary Clinton's budding presidential campaign has been clobbered by accusations that she traded her official influence for foreign contributions to her family foundation  

 

 

 

Last edited by Bestworking
Originally Posted by Bestworking:

LOL, jt said stop it, on both sides, BUT notice he didn't list any of the lefties fees, oh no, he had to focus on President Bush and Laura. The title of his thread says it all. Please jt, you know hillary or any lefty would step on a wounded veteran's face if they gave them money.

Good point...........

Originally Posted by budsfarm:

 

Agreed.

 

But where do they draw the line if their speeches were free?

 

+++

 

And after doing a little research, it appears the organizers of the event said that was just the price of doing business.  In other words, what they paid FPOTUS Bush was small potatoes to compared to the revenue he brought in.  Capitalism. 

 

 

Originally Posted by Bestworking:

Jt, you should be ashamed, you're as brazen a hypocrite as beternnun.

 

 

Bill Clinton collected $2.5 MILLION in speaking fees from companies that lobbied Hillary's State Department

  • The former president's series of windfalls included 10 speeches from companies that lobbied State in the same calendar quarter they paid him
  • Speeches between 2009 and 2013 included paydays from Oracle, Dell, Starwood Hotels,Goldman Sachs, Microsoft and three trade associations
  • Bill Clinton's fees ranged from $150,000 to $300,000 per speech
  • Personal enrichment is separate from money that flowed to the Clinton Foundation from foreign governments while Hillary was secretary of state

Former president Bill Clinton reaped more than $2.5 million in speaking fees from 13 companies that lobbied the State Department while his wife was secretary of state.

Ten of those companies paid him within the same 3-month reporting period covered by the government documents that disclosed the lobbying activity.

Most of the influence-peddling accusations swirling around Hillary Clinton in the past ten days have focused on claims that she traded the power of her office in exchange for foreign contributions to the Clinton Foundation, her family's global philanthropy.

But her husband's six-figure speaking fees, ranging from $150,000 to $300,000, are the first clear indication that the scandal could involve personally enriching the Clintons in a way that isn't easily explainable as a necessity for public good.

 

International Business Times published a list of the speaking engagements, which involved Fortune 500 companies like Dell and Oracle along with trade associations representing retailers, drug companies and biotechnology firms.

 

It's unclear whether Bill Clinton's series of windfalls are legally considered his-and-hers property in New York, where the former first couple lives.

 

If so, Hillary Clinton could be seen as collecting more than $1 million from companies whose overseas fortunes she had a significant hand in determining.

 

The $2.5 million figure, while large, likely represented only a tiny portion of the former president's speaking income during the four years Hillary was secretary of state.

 

 

 

Between 2011 and 2013, according to federal government disclosure filings, Bill Clinton earned more than $100 million giving speeches.

 

So far, media outlets including The Washington Post have connected $26 million of that money to companies that contributed $10,000 or more to the Clinton Foundation. 


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...t.html#ixzz3fRNc6NGm

 

 

 

 

 

I DID NOT – TAKE – $2.5 MILLION: The former president reaped windfall after windfall from companies with business pending before the State Department while his wife was at the helm

 

TROUBLE IN CHAPPAQUA: Hillary Clinton's budding presidential campaign has been clobbered by accusations that she traded her official influence for foreign contributions to her family foundation  

TROUBLE IN CHAPPAQUA: Hillary Clinton's budding presidential campaign has been clobbered by accusations that she traded her official influence for foreign contributions to her family foundation

 

+++

 

The Clintons are corrupt to the core.

 

The Clintons win several ways.  Their foundation pays for their first class travel and lodging.  They pocket the speaking fees.  Bubba says he contributes 10 percent.  A number of the interests that paid got preferential treatment when Hillary was SoS.  Their foundation only spends about 12 percent of its income on charities or charitable work.

LOL, jt said stop it, on both sides, BUT notice he didn't list any of the lefties fees, oh no, he had to focus on President Bush and Laura. The title of his thread says it all. Please jt, you know hillary or any lefty would step on a wounded veteran's face if they gave them money.

--------------------

Best, if you would open your tightly closed eyes and read what I posted, you wouldn't sound quite as dumb.

Originally Posted by Bestworking:

LOL, jt said stop it, on both sides, BUT notice he didn't list any of the lefties fees, oh no, he had to focus on President Bush and Laura. The title of his thread says it all. Please jt, you know hillary or any lefty would step on a wounded veteran's face if they gave them money.

_____

Of course we all know, following your "so's yer old man" lead, that any criticism of someone on the conservative side must necessarily and simultaneously include criticism of someone on the liberal side.  It is called "Best's Bogus Balance Theory".

Originally Posted by Contendahh:
Originally Posted by Bestworking:

LOL, jt said stop it, on both sides, BUT notice he didn't list any of the lefties fees, oh no, he had to focus on President Bush and Laura. The title of his thread says it all. Please jt, you know hillary or any lefty would step on a wounded veteran's face if they gave them money.

_____

Of course we all know, following your "so's yer old man" lead, that any criticism of someone on the conservative side must necessarily and simultaneously include criticism of someone on the liberal side.  It is called "Best's Bogus Balance Theory".

___

Another predictable Bestblither!

Originally Posted by Bestworking:

More predictable than beternnun's old tired argument of 'so' yer old man' when anyone posts? Give it up professor DA. If you ever had a day in the first place, it's passed.

____

Let's see, that is about the umpteenth time you have posted unexplicated, insulting,  unexplicated and distorted opinion instead of addressing substance.  You labor under the narcissistic misconception, Best, that just because you say something it should be accepted as truth.

 

That mangy dog don't  hunt and never will.

Originally Posted by Contendahh:
Originally Posted by Bestworking:

More predictable than beternnun's old tired argument of 'so' yer old man' when anyone posts? Give it up professor DA. If you ever had a day in the first place, it's passed.

____

Let's see, that is about the umpteenth time you have posted unexplicated, insulting,  unexplicated and distorted opinion instead of addressing substance.  You labor under the narcissistic misconception, Best, that just because you say something it should be accepted as truth.

 

That mangy dog don't  hunt and never will.

=====================

Want to try again? What have I posted that is a distorted opinion? What substance have you ever posted that you think should be addressed? Your constant whine that it's only a "so's yer old man" certainly isn't anything of substance. What's not true about my statement? So, I gues you're admitting that nothing you post should be taken as the truth. Well, we knew that already. You're stuttering again.

Last edited by Bestworking
Originally Posted by Jack Flash:
Originally Posted by Bestworking:

LOL, jt said stop it, on both sides, BUT notice he didn't list any of the lefties fees, oh no, he had to focus on President Bush and Laura. The title of his thread says it all. Please jt, you know hillary or any lefty would step on a wounded veteran's face if they gave them money.

Good point...........

================

You all are missing the point , it aint a Liberal vs Conservative thing. 
If someone is giving a speech , and you pay money to hear them, or donate to their political campaign , that's ok. You knew what you were spending your money for.
Iin the Bush case, people all over the country have given generously to help our wounded war veterans. That is what the money was given for. It is sad enough that these vets got wonded in Bush's little war, but THEN for Bush to take money , that had been donated for the vets, NOT to go to that little creep is the point.
Far as I'm concerned , whatever he can arrange from some non-charity to make a speech, that's allright with me, but taking money from a charity , that is supposed to hellp the people he damaged, is just awful.  
Insures I will never donate anything to them, and I suspect a lot of other people are able to put that together, and it will, and should hurt donations to that charity.

 

That's nothing compared to the Clinton's raking in 100's of million's and

pocketing all but maybe 10%

 

The Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation claims 88 percent of the

money it raises goes to actual charity work, but experts who have looked

at the books put the number at about 10 percent. The rest, they say, goes

mostly to salaries, benefits, travel and fund-raising.

Well, no only are bill and hill crooks, but chelsea's daddy in law is a crook too. Kind of reminds you of the 'travelers' doesn't it? Crooks marrying crooks and keeping the crookedness going. Maybe she'll help daddy in law pay back some of that money.

 

Edward “Ed” Mezvinsky is the father of Marc  Mezvinsky, who married Chelsea Clinton in 2010. This according to a December 1, 2009 article by ABC News

Ed Mezvinsky was a Congressman, representing Iowa’s 1st congressional  district, from 1973 to 1977.  The article said that he was  convicted of fraud in 2002 and sent to prison for five years.  He  was released in April 2008 and at the time of the wedding was on federal  probation and still owed close to $9.4 million in restitution.


Last edited by Bestworking
Originally Posted by Jack Flash:

That's nothing compared to the Clinton's raking in 100's of million's and

pocketing all but maybe 10%

 

The Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation claims 88 percent of the

money it raises goes to actual charity work, but experts who have looked

at the books put the number at about 10 percent. The rest, they say, goes

mostly to salaries, benefits, travel and fund-raising.

---------------------------------------------------------

Latest info shows about 12 percent to charity,  Much of the Clintons travel is paid out of the foundation.  They pocket most of the speaking fees.  Bill says he donates 10 percent.

Found this and thought it was funny. Funny because the writer thought it would surprise anyone that it wasn't covered. If it had been a Republican and/or any mentioned, there would have been four or five threads by beternnun alone.

 

=================================

Who is Ed Mezvinsky??? This will  surprise you.

Edward “Ed” Mezvinsky, born January  17, 1937, is a former Democrat congressman.

As a Democrat, he represented Iowa ‘s  1st congressional district in the United States House of Representatives  for two terms, from 1973 to 1977.

In March 2001, Mezvinsky was indicted  and later pleaded guilty to 31 of 69 charges of bank fraud, mail fraud,  and wire fraud.  Nearly $10 million was involved in the ponzi  scheme.

After serving five years in federal  prison, he was released in April 2008. He is expected to remain on  federal probation until 2011, and still owes $9.4 million in restitution  to his victims. So who is he???

He’s Chelsea Clinton’s  father-in-law………’SURPRISE’. Have you heard any mention of this in any of the media? I thought not.

If this guy was Jenna or Barbara  Bush’s — or better yet — one of Sarah Palin’s daughters father-in-law,  the news would have replaced the oil spill.

 
         
 
Originally Posted by Bestworking:

Found this and thought it was funny. Funny because the writer thought it would surprise anyone that it wasn't covered. If it had been a Republican and/or any mentioned, there would have been four or five threads by beternnun alone.

 

=================================

Who is Ed Mezvinsky??? This will  surprise you.

Edward “Ed” Mezvinsky, born January  17, 1937, is a former Democrat congressman.

As a Democrat, he represented Iowa ‘s  1st congressional district in the United States House of Representatives  for two terms, from 1973 to 1977.

In March 2001, Mezvinsky was indicted  and later pleaded guilty to 31 of 69 charges of bank fraud, mail fraud,  and wire fraud.  Nearly $10 million was involved in the ponzi  scheme.

After serving five years in federal  prison, he was released in April 2008. He is expected to remain on  federal probation until 2011, and still owes $9.4 million in restitution  to his victims. So who is he???

He’s Chelsea Clinton’s  father-in-law………’SURPRISE’. Have you heard any mention of this in any of the media? I thought not.

If this guy was Jenna or Barbara  Bush’s — or better yet — one of Sarah Palin’s daughters father-in-law,  the news would have replaced the oil spill.

 
____
 
 
Does Time Magazine qualify as "the media"?    
 
 
 
 
 
Does ABC news?
 
 

 

Last edited by Contendahh
Originally Posted by Bestworking:

Jt, you should be ashamed, you're as brazen a hypocrite as beternnun.

 

 

Bill Clinton collected $2.5 MILLION in speaking fees from companies that lobbied Hillary's State Department

  • The former president's series of windfalls included 10 speeches from companies that lobbied State in the same calendar quarter they paid him
  • Speeches between 2009 and 2013 included paydays from Oracle, Dell, Starwood Hotels,Goldman Sachs, Microsoft and three trade associations
  • Bill Clinton's fees ranged from $150,000 to $300,000 per speech
  • Personal enrichment is separate from money that flowed to the Clinton Foundation from foreign governments while Hillary was secretary of state

Former president Bill Clinton reaped more than $2.5 million in speaking fees from 13 companies that lobbied the State Department while his wife was secretary of state.

Ten of those companies paid him within the same 3-month reporting period covered by the government documents that disclosed the lobbying activity.

Most of the influence-peddling accusations swirling around Hillary Clinton in the past ten days have focused on claims that she traded the power of her office in exchange for foreign contributions to the Clinton Foundation, her family's global philanthropy.

But her husband's six-figure speaking fees, ranging from $150,000 to $300,000, are the first clear indication that the scandal could involve personally enriching the Clintons in a way that isn't easily explainable as a necessity for public good.

 

International Business Times published a list of the speaking engagements, which involved Fortune 500 companies like Dell and Oracle along with trade associations representing retailers, drug companies and biotechnology firms.

 

It's unclear whether Bill Clinton's series of windfalls are legally considered his-and-hers property in New York, where the former first couple lives.

 

If so, Hillary Clinton could be seen as collecting more than $1 million from companies whose overseas fortunes she had a significant hand in determining.

 

The $2.5 million figure, while large, likely represented only a tiny portion of the former president's speaking income during the four years Hillary was secretary of state.

 

 

 

Between 2011 and 2013, according to federal government disclosure filings, Bill Clinton earned more than $100 million giving speeches.

 

So far, media outlets including The Washington Post have connected $26 million of that money to companies that contributed $10,000 or more to the Clinton Foundation. 


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...t.html#ixzz3fRNc6NGm

 

 

 

 

 

I DID NOT – TAKE – $2.5 MILLION: The former president reaped windfall after windfall from companies with business pending before the State Department while his wife was at the helm

 

TROUBLE IN CHAPPAQUA: Hillary Clinton's budding presidential campaign has been clobbered by accusations that she traded her official influence for foreign contributions to her family foundation  

TROUBLE IN CHAPPAQUA: Hillary Clinton's budding presidential campaign has been clobbered by accusations that she traded her official influence for foreign contributions to her family foundation  

 

 

 

Sounds just like clinton

Originally Posted by teyates:

So it's OK to "worry" about what the previous president does, but it is not relevant to question the actions of one who is currently running for the office?  What color is the sky in the Liberal Lefty World?

 

___

And just WHO is contending that " ...it is not relevant to question the actions of one who is currently running for the office?

 

That straw man production facility of yours is running strong today, isn't it?

Originally Posted by seeweed:

Please explain just what the hell any of what either Clinton has to do with Bush milking a charity out of people's well intentioned donations . Who the f cares what either Clinton does ?  

Please pull your head out of your rear end and get into the conversation ButterNutz.  If you are too old to keep up with it we will get you a transcript.  I stand behind what I wrote.  No straw man facility here.  The only thing stuffed with straw is your head.

Originally Posted by teyates:
Originally Posted by seeweed:

Please explain just what the hell any of what either Clinton has to do with Bush milking a charity out of people's well intentioned donations . Who the f cares what either Clinton does ?  

Please pull your head out of your rear end and get into the conversation ButterNutz.  If you are too old to keep up with it we will get you a transcript.  I stand behind what I wrote.  No straw man facility here.  The only thing stuffed with straw is your head.

____

Obviously, teyates, you have hooked up with the disordered school of thought that demands, as a polemical obligation, that anyone criticizing some particular person's action must necessarily expand the discussion to include criticism of some presumably similar action by a different person holding to a different political ideology.

 

That dog won't hunt, teyates. If you have a "so's yer old man" argument, then YOU put it up; don't demand it of others.

Haha....Nice deflection ChickenTender, but the conversation led to the fact that the Clintons do something just as bad as that highlighted by jt in his OP. The fact remains, I will stand by it, that BUSH is no longer president. What people are willing to pay him to speak is of little concern of mine.  Personally, I don't pay one dime to hear any of the blowhards speak.  I get enough of all of them from the TV. The conversation which has evolved concerned a similar practice by one which is now in the limelight and running for office.  You call it the "so's yer old man" argument, however I call it the "concentrating on something of importance" argument.  See, GWB is not, like HIldabeast, running for office. She is contending for the highest ranking office in the public land. If by per chance we are supposed to think less of GWB for his actions, we much put the same importance on those echoed by those on the opposite side of the political arena. To do so in your mind is called the "so's yer old man argument"....to not do so in my book is called "being a hypocrite".  If the shoe fits, wear it, or pull it out of your mouth, whichever you choose.

Originally Posted by Bestworking:

LOL, beternnun's "so's yer old man" argument. Well, forget all that beternnun and explain why anyone should care what Bush does, and shouldn't care about the clintons?

__

All of us should care about all the actions of all our national leaders, but none of us is obligated to invest each and every critique of a particular leader with some counter-balancing critique of another leader holding  a different party affiliation or  ideological position. I know of no one who cares only about what Bush does and cares not anything about what the Clintons do or don't do.

Originally Posted by Contendahh:
Originally Posted by Bestworking:

LOL, beternnun's "so's yer old man" argument. Well, forget all that beternnun and explain why anyone should care what Bush does, and shouldn't care about the clintons?

__

All of us should care about all the actions of all our national leaders, but none of us is obligated to invest each and every critique of a particular leader with some counter-balancing critique of another leader holding  a different party affiliation or  ideological position. I know of no one who cares only about what Bush does and cares not anything about what the Clintons do or don't do.

Then perhaps you should look in the mirror.  I have never seen you, nor heard you, condemn actions similar to those committed by a Republican when performed by a counterpart in the Democratic party. The actions of the Clinton is no more different than GWB.  Actions performed by Barry Sortero, similar to those by GWB, have never been met with criticism by you on this board. Like I said, if you looked up "hypocrisy" in the dictionary, it probably has your picture beside it.

Last edited by teyates
Originally Posted by teyates:

Haha....Nice deflection ChickenTender, but the conversation led to the fact that the Clintons do something just as bad as that highlighted by jt in his OP. The fact remains, I will stand by it, that BUSH is no longer president. What people are willing to pay him to speak is of little concern of mine.  Personally, I don't pay one dime to hear any of the blowhards speak.  I get enough of all of them from the TV. The conversation which has evolved concerned a similar practice by one which is now in the limelight and running for office.  You call it the "so's yer old man" argument, however I call it the "concentrating on something of importance" argument.  See, GWB is not, like HIldabeast, running for office. She is contending for the highest ranking office in the public land. If by per chance we are supposed to think less of GWB for his actions, we much put the same importance on those echoed by those on the opposite side of the political arena. To do so in your mind is called the "so's yer old man argument"....to not do so in my book is called "being a hypocrite".  If the shoe fits, wear it, or pull it out of your mouth, whichever you choose.

___

Place all the importance you wish on the utterances or actions of any candidate you choose. There is no dearth of commentary, positive and adverse, on the actions of any prominent candidate for the presidency, but none of us is obligated to invest each and every critique of a particular leader with some counter-balancing critique of another leader, past or present, holding  a different party affiliation or  ideological position. I know of no one who cares only about what Bush does and cares not anything about what the Clintons do or don't do.

 

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×