Hillary Not Truthful About Wall Street Speaking Fees

[EndElectoral]

Hillary Not Truthful About Wall Street Speaking Fees
by Les Leopold

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.

Why did Hillary Take the Money?

Carl Bernstein, of Watergate fame and Hillary biographer, commented on CNN that the White House is "horrified that Clinton is blowing up her own campaign." He said they can't believe she took the money and didn't see the ethical problems that would dog her.

It is not credible for her to argue that she took the money because she wasn't sure she was going to run for president or that she was "dead broke." She and Bill hauled in $139 million from 2007 to 2014.

It seems enormously difficult for Hillary to explain, even to herself, why she took the money. One possibility is that she wanted to send a message that she would not use populist rage against Wall Street during her campaign. That instead she would work with Wall Street to solve financial problems for the good of the country. We will find out more when (if) her transcripts are ever found and released.

But the boarder reason may lie in the fundamental relationship between the Clintons and their wealthy friends and benefactors. Hillary, Bill and Chelsea (whose husband is a hedge fund partner) believe that Wall Street is a vital part of economy, composed mostly of very bright, honorable and talented people, like their classmates at Yale and Stanford. Sure, every now and again there are a few bad apples, but the barrel is fundamentally sound.

How could she be so politically tone deaf on this issue?

It's because she still lives in world surrounded by so many of the best and brightest in and around Wall Street. Attacking them would be like attacking her community of friends and financial supporters. How could taking money from such decent, talented and productive people be wrong? Isn't it fair to earn a $225,000 speaking fee, given that's what Wall Street elites earn per hour?

So What's Wrong with Taking Money from Wall Street?

The pundits point out that she has created a "perceived" conflict of interest, whether real or imagined. In essence they are saying that there's nothing inherently wrong with taking the money. It's not really tainted.

Hillary states that she never changed her vote due to campaign contributions. But evidence is mounting via previous accounts by Elizabeth Warren, that Hillary may have switched her position on bankruptcy laws to please her Wall Street contributors after becoming the Senator New York.

But these attacks miss the most basic question: Is money tainted? Is it blood-money?

Sanders believes it is by arguing that "the business model of Wall Street is fraud."

There is considerable data to support him.

(more) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/les-leopold/hillary-not-truthful-abou_b_9185412.html?

[kath]

2. Hillary not truthful?!? ZOMG, when has THAT ever happened before?