SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for Runaway1956
By all accounts, it was the most popular gala the Lady Taverners had ever held. Over 1,000 people packed the Park Lane Hilton in London on Oct. 30, 2009, with the crowd overflowing into the hallways, to listen to President Bill Clinton speak on the power of giving.
While Clinton’s speech helped raise a substantial sum for the prominent cricket charity, his staggering $290,000 speaking fee was not covered by the group, according to organizers. The fee also was not covered by “World Management Limited,” the marketing company Hillary Clinton listed as the payment source in her federal financial filings.
It was bankrolled by a wealthy British businessman named Robert Whitton—a name you won’t find included in the Clintons’ public disclosure forms.
A review by the Washington Free Beacon found that Hillary Clinton often listed small foreign speaking firms as the sources of her husband’s lecture payments in her Senate and State Department disclosures, even though the actual paychecks came from undisclosed third parties.
In certain cases, these funders had interests that intersected with the U.S. State Department. Whitton, a real estate mogul, had business pending before UNESCO, an international agency that received a quarter of its funding from the State Department.
Source: The Washington Free Beacon
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 22 2016, @01:42PM
So since neither Bill nor Hillary Clinton accepted these when either of them were public officials (they had left office already), this dumb rant also doesn't apply to them either, correct?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 22 2016, @03:18PM
What if people gave them "I.O.Us" and paid them after they left office
(Score: 3, Insightful) by khallow on Friday July 22 2016, @03:23PM
So since neither Bill nor Hillary Clinton accepted these when either of them were public officials
Hillary Clinton was US Secretary of State at the time which is a public office. And Robert Whitton apparently is a London businessman who manages [affinityglobalrealestate.com] almost a billion pounds of "property assets". Even if he didn't personally have business before the US State Department (the story indicates otherwise - he did have business before UNESCO which is significantly funded by the US State Department and over which Clinton would have had influence), he would have had major clients who did.
Also when Bill Clinton can pull in $290,000 for speaking fees, it's worth asking just how much is being raked in. This story claims $12 million [nonprofitquarterly.org] since the end of Bill Clinton's presidency in 2000. Elsewhere, I see $22 million [usnews.com] claimed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 22 2016, @04:25PM
Reagan was making millions in speaking fees more than 25 years ago. How much is that in today's dollars?
This whole "But, but, it's the Clintons!" tripe is getting old. Just because they do what their predecessors have done doesn't make them special. The fact that they are a couple means they can hit it twice, but that isn't illegal. In fact many conservatives crow about "traditional marriage == family values!" ... unless the married couple is the Clintons.
I am not a fan of either of them, but come on. Anyone of these politicians - such as Gingrich, who was having an affair while he was try to impeach Clinton for having an affair - should not be casting stones.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by kurenai.tsubasa on Friday July 22 2016, @08:17PM
Yes, you're correct! We can accurately spot a lizard person by their speaking fees…!
If you're trying to make a partisan point, give it a break already. We need to stop trying to prevent the wrong lizard from getting in and stop voting for lizards all together.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 22 2016, @08:43PM
If you're trying to make a partisan point, give it a break already.
Not making a partisan point. Just pointing out that "look at what the Clintons are doing!!" is hypocritical if compared to others. Neither is good, but branding the Clintons as some sort of super evil is just a tad over done.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday July 22 2016, @11:42PM
This whole "But, but, it's the Clintons!" tripe is getting old. Just because they do what their predecessors have done doesn't make them special.
I think what's getting old is this continued nominating of crooks. Here, somehow it's ok that a Clinton is collecting money under a huge conflict of interest because Reagan did it 25 years ago. I doubt you respect a thing Reagan did, but that little detail doesn't matter when you have to rationalize a huge amount of corruption.