Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHillary wasn't "offered" those speaking fees, she demanded them!
Anderson Cooper: "But did you have to be paid $675,000 [for three speeches to Goldman Sachs]?"
Hillary Clinton: "Well, I don't know. That's what they offered."
Hillary is veering from the truth when she suggests her $225,000 per speech fee, paid three times by Goldman Sachs, was "what they offered."
It was not what they offered -- it was what Team Hillary demanded.
A review of her 2014 tax return posted on her website shows that $225,000 was her minimum fee.
She received $225,000 for 34 of the 41 speeches listed on her tax return. Of the remaining 7 speeches, two were for 250,000 and the others for $265,000, $275,000, $285,000, $305,000 and $400,000. In total she received $9,680,000 for these speaking engagements in 2013.
Wall Street firms funded 14 of her 41 talks. In addition to Goldman Sachs, the list includes Morgan Stanley, Deutsche Bank, Fidelity Investments UBS and Bank of America. Her benefactors also include hedge funds and private equity firms like Apollo Management and Kohlberg, Kravis, Roberts.
Much more at link:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/les-leopold/hillary-not-truthful-abou_b_9185412.html
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
17 replies, 1040 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (20)
ReplyReply to this post
17 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Hillary wasn't "offered" those speaking fees, she demanded them! (Original Post)
Logical
Feb 2016
OP
Logical
(22,457 posts)1. She is just sounding silly now. Nt
ladjf
(17,320 posts)2. The old saying "Are you going to believe me or your lying eyes? "
CountAllVotes
(20,875 posts)3. Liar liar ...
Pantsuit on fire!
Merryland
(1,134 posts)4. I guess she didn't want to admit
that she had a set speaking fee - so easy to disprove her statement, why did she lie?
SamKnause
(13,107 posts)5. Veering from the truth.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)6. Now they were demands, wow.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)7. So what?
Logical
(22,457 posts)8. She is a liar! Is that ok with you? Nt
SamKnause
(13,107 posts)12. They are fine with it.
They don't care what she says or does.
They want Hillary and they are determined.
The truth will not sway them.
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)17. Of course they are fine with it, they have made that exceedingly clear
It is rather amazing to me we have people claiming to be Democrats that are perfectly OK with it.
CatWoman
(79,302 posts)13. I share your comment/attitude
I'm like, "so"?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)14. Why the stupid lie? It shows very poor judgement. (nt)
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)15. A lying candidate is just peachy with some.
They find it virtuous.
Faux pas
(14,681 posts)9. She seems
to have an aversion to the truth. What are her unfavorable ratings now I wonder?
Bohemianwriter
(978 posts)10. What stuns me...
Is how she can "surge" in the polls in NH at this point?
I mean, the venom emenating from her should be as clear as a neon sign by now woudn't it?
Arazi
(6,829 posts)11. More lies. Such a surprise
NOT!
Logical
(22,457 posts)16. The hits just keep on coming. Nt