I wonder what Bill Clinton’s speaking fee is currently?




There are probably few people on the planet Earth who did not know that Hillary Clinton planned to run for President of the United States after Barack Obama tenure came to an end. She, as did innumerable democrats, believed her election would be more of a coronation than anything else and the election would be a mere formality.  Between 2001 and the time Hillary made official her intention to run for President, she and her husband parlayed their present and past positions in government into a $153 million fortune. At the link is a list of the speeches the Clinton’s delivered to big banks. You will note that as the Presidency beckoned nearer, the speaking fees rose accordingly. Bill Clinton scored $500,000 for a 45 minute speech in 2013.

You can see a compilation of Hillary Clinton’s looting colleges here.

Hillary becoming Secretary of State was a boom for Bill:

After his wife became Secretary of State, former President Bill Clinton began to collect speaking fees that often doubled or tripled what he had been charging earlier in his post White House years, bringing in millions of dollars from groups that included several with interests pending before the State Department, an ABC News review of financial disclosure records shows.

Where he once had drawn $150,000 for a typical address in the years following his presidency, Clinton saw a succession of staggering paydays for speeches in 2010 and 2011, including $500,000 paid by a Russian investment bank and $750,000 to address a telecom conference in China.

“It’s unusual to see a former president’s speaking fee go up over time,” said Richard Painter, who served as chief ethics lawyer in the White House Counsel’s office under President George W. Bush. “I must say I’m surprised that he raised his fees. There’s no prohibition on his raising it. But it does create some appearance problems if he raises his fee after she becomes Secretary of State.”

A cynic might be tempted to think there was some association between Clinton speaking fees and Foundation donations and expected returns for that investment. But is there one? What effect has the Presidential loss had upon Clinton finances? Well, amidst the pay for play scandal donations have gone into a tailspin:

Donations to the Clinton Foundation nose-dived last year amid Hillary Clinton’s presidential run, pay-to-play allegations, internal strife and a black mark from a charity watchdog.

Contributions fell by 37 percent to $108 million, down from $172 million in 2014, according to the group’s latest tax filings.

The cash plummeted as Hillary Clinton left the nonprofit in April 2015 after announcing her ill-fated candidacy. The foundation became a major issue in the race, with Donald Trump vowing to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate it.

Donors are drying up:

Clinton Foundation officials were able to attract only five new donors between July 1 and September 30 — the controversial charity’s third quarter — The Daily Caller News Foundation’s Investigative Group has learned.

Foundation officials delayed release of the quarterly report of its latest donors on its website until the after the Nov. 8 presidential election, which former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton lost to Republican rival Donald Trump.

The low number of new donors may indicate potential contributors were frightened away by repeated news reports that the Clinton charity is under FBI investigation regarding multiple allegations of “pay-to-play” influence-peddling schemes involving both Hillary Clinton and former President Bill Clinton, as well as their key political aides.


ZeroHedge: Norway Slashes Clinton Foundation Donations By 87% As Political Clout Dries Up

If cash for access were a figment of the conservative imagination, clinton speaking fees and donations would not lose value and continue unaffected by her election loss. But the opposite has been proven true. It was always pay for play and the clinton’s put themselves up for sale. Now all that remains to be seen is if anyone wants a refund.


0 0 votes
Article Rating
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Yeah you need a lot of moolah many many G Notes and thousands of pasaquas to listen to slick willy and his mindless braying

$29 million in cash was moved from the wipe house to ark three days before the clinton trash left the wipe house

Knowing that Hillary is under investigation…
And that she’d sell her own daughter to stay out of prison…
And that she had some really ugly, unethical doners…
What is her projected lifespan?

Trump admin to pressure foreign states to probe Clinton Foundation (targeting Haiti and Columbia)

Foreign governments began turning off money spigots to the scandal-scarred Clinton Foundation; it received millions from dozens of foreign governments including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the Netherlands, Canada, Sweden and Ireland. French federal comptrollers began following a trail of tens of millions in government money that ended up in Clinton Foundation coffers, according to a document reviewed by The NY Post. The Australian government announced that it would end its decade-long affiliation with the Clinton Foundation — amounting to as much as $25 million, according to the foundation’s Web site. Norway is also scaling back; donations reached $25 million in 2015.

A source close to Pres-elect Trump’s transition team indicated plans to pressure its yet unnamed US ambassadors to suggest foreign governments probe its ­Clinton Foundation financial dealings. “Haiti and Colombia will be key diplomatic posts because of all the money ­involved,” said the source. Recently leaked ­e-mails indicate “Friends of Bill” Clinton may have been given priority from the State Department as it prepared to spend some $10 billion in aid after a 2010 devastating earthquake in Haiti. The State Dept denied any special treatment.

Canadian mining magnate Frank Giustra pledged $100 million to the foundation in 2005 and later benefited from the foundation’s philanthropic work in Columbia where Giustra acquired large parcels of land and set up an oil business, ­according to watchdog groups.

MOBILIZE THE WAY BACK MACHINE—all aspects of Bill Clinton’s presidency and his foreign aid proclivities must be explored. Massive amounts of Clinton foreign aid to Colombia my have paved the way for Clinton Foundation buck-raking. News outlets reported: Clinton Foundation charity setup a money-making private equity fund in the corrupt Central American country of Colombia.
Why Colombia?

WIKI REFERENCE—In 2000, the Clinton administration committed $1.3 billion in foreign aid to the corrupt country of Colombia…… and up to five hundred military personnel to train local forces. An additional three hundred civilian personnel were allowed to assist in the eradication of coca.

The Clinton deal was an addition to $330 million of previously approved US aid to Colombia. $818 million was earmarked for 2000, with $256 million for 2001.

The Clinton-era appropriations for his Colombia Plan made Colombia the third largest recipient of foreign aid from the United States at the time.


As of 2008, the U.S. has provided nearly $1.3 billion to Colombia through Clinton Plan Colombia nonmilitary aid programs:

Alternative Development (2000-2008 cost: $500 million)

Internally Displaced Persons (2000-2008 cost: $247 million)

Demobilization and Reintegration (2000-2008 cost: $44 million)

Democracy and Human Rights (2000-2008 cost: $158 million)

Promote the Rule of Law (2000-2008 cost: $238 million)

LONG READ–REST AT https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Colombia


04/16/2008—-Former President Bill Clinton has earned hundreds of thousands of dollars speaking on behalf of a Colombia-based group pushing the trade pact, and representatives of that organization tell The Huffington Post that the former president shared their sentiment.

In June 2005, Clinton was paid $800,000 by the Colombia-based Gold Service International to give four speeches throughout Latin America. The organization is, ostensibly, a development group tasked with bringing investment to the country and educating world leaders about the Colombia’s business opportunities.

The group’s chief operating officer, Andres Franco, said in an interview that the group supports the congressional ratification of the free trade agreement and that, when Clinton was on his speaking tour, he expressed similar opinions. “He was supportive of the trade agreement at the time that he came, but that was several years ago.

In the present context, I don’t know what his position would be. It is not only about union trade rights. It is about what benefit or damage it can do to the US economy,” said Franco. “Events with the Clinton campaign [concerning Mark Penn] are not good at all for the trade agreement… Right now it became a campaign issues and that is sad, because it needs to go through.”

The comments were supported by a June 23, 2005 article from the news portal Terra (uncovered by Ben Smith at Politico) in which Clinton offered unambiguous support for the free trade agreement with Colombia.

They appear to be the first public indication that Clinton has, at least in the past, supported the trade deal. But evidence that the former president has been sympathetic to Colombia’s position is widely known. In 2007, Clinton met personally with and accepted an award from Colombia’s controversial president, Alvaro Uribe, during a time when the country was attempting to improve its image within the United States.

Subsequently, Clinton urged Congress to view the country in a more favorable light.

Moreover, Clinton has helped Frank Giustra, one of the biggest donors to the Clinton Global Initiative, score meetings with high-ranking Colombian officials. Giustra has several business interests in the country, and both he and Clinton have collaborated on an effort to (cough) “fight poverty in developing world by partnering up with mining companies in Colombia and elsewhere.” SOURCE: http://nypost.com/2008/12/19/bubba-sheik-ing-the-money-tree/

Perhaps these donors that spent millions and millions of dollars for access to governmental decision making are pushing Hillary to get off her fat ass and contest the election.

Soros and his cabal are funding the attempt to challenge the election results. They were so close to maintaining power that they will go to extremes to try and at a minimum, place in people minds the illegitimacy of a Trump Presidency…..

The recount in Wisconsin, and coming ones in Michigan and Pennsylvania will not change the outcomes in any of the states. No recount ever changes thousands of votes. I do not think that is the purpose.

The recounts, if done by hand, which can be demanded, may take longer than the last day for completing official counts in a state and directing Electoral College voters. If all 3 states miss the deadline, Trump is at 260, Hillary at 232. No one hits 270.

Then this goes to Congress, where the House voting 1 vote per state elects Trump, and Senate selects Pence. This would be first time this happened since 1824; in that case, John Quincy Adams won in the House, though he had fewer electoral college votes than Andrew Jackson.

If this goes to the US House and Senate, and the result is the same as from the Electoral College without the recounts, why do it? The answer is to make Trump seem even more illegitimate, that he did not win the popular vote (he lost by over 2.1 million), he did not win the Electoral College (did not reach 270), and was elected by being inserted into the presidency by members of his own party in Congress.

However, there is a flaw in Soros’s strategy….

The President is elected by a majority, not of possible electors (270), but by a majority of electors ACTUALLY APPOINTED (it says that, right in Article II and again in Amendment XII).

So, while I agree the purpose is to hurt Trump, blocking the certification of these electors can’t send the election to the House.

The total number of electors is reduced by the collective electors of WI, MI and Pa. That total is 46. So, a majority of 538-46= 492/2=246, Trump still wins….

comment image

The leftists revise the electoral vote down to 260 vs 232 creating an impression in the people that it was a closer election than not…..

Of course the Clinton speaking fees were regarded by donors as “pay to play”. Goldman Sachs and UBS likely wanted information from both Hillary and Bill. They also wanted to establish good will with the Clintons. But it is unlikely that there was an explicit quid pro quo arrangement in place when money changed hands.

In addition, president-elect Trump is using his time since the election lobbying foreign governments on behalf of his company, not the American public. Trump is implying that foreign governments that do not help line his pockets may pay a price while he is president. To me this type of shakedown seems equally or more corrupt than “Clinton Cash”. Trump is not draining the swamp with his actions post-election. Ted Cruz wouldn’t be doing this.

Two days prior to the election the clintons transferred 1.8 billion dollars from the clinton foundation to the bank of Qatar. (thank you wikileaks). Interestingly enough Qatar does not have an extradition treaty with the US.

@enchanted, #8:

The story is total, complete, unmitigated bullsh-t, having not even the tiny percentage of factual information that most writers of such viral false news stories start out with—unless we want to count the fact that Qatar is a real place. The story first appeared on WhatDoesItMean.com, attributed to one Sorcha Faal, an imaginary Russian academic who doesn’t actually exist.


Clinton Foundation officials have yet to disclose the charity’s third quarter 2016 donors — which ended September 30 — thus insuring voters won’t know who contributed in the final months leading up to the Nov. 8 presidential election. Also late is the 2015 990 tax return for the former president’s charity. The Clinton Foundation pledges on its website that “for maximum transparency … we update our donor web-page each quarter that we receive the contributions.” But officials there have yet to post the latest quarterly donor report and they’ve offered no explanation. The third quarter period is from July 1…

It would seem many are unhitching their wagons from the Clinton crime syndicate……

AUSTRALIA has finally ceased pouring millions of dollars into accounts linked to Hillary Clinton’s charities. Which might make you wonder: Why were we donating to them in the first place? The federal government confirmed to news.com.au it has not renewed any of its partnerships with the scandal-plagued Clinton Foundation, effectively ending 10 years of taxpayer-funded contributions worth more than $88 million.

@Greg: “The story is total, complete, unmitigated bullsh-t, having not even the tiny percentage of factual information that most writers of such viral false news stories start out with—” So, you are saying there is no truth to the claim that Hillary drew large paychecks from speaking at colleges or that Bill did not get $500,000 for a “speech”? Or, that contributions have fallen off? You need to take your hyperbole medication, Greg. I think you are out of control.


Early Nov.: ‘Must Act Immediately: Clinton Charity Lawyer Told Execs They Were Breaking the Law
The Daily Caller ^ | 11-05-16 | Mark Tapscott

Only days before signing an ethics agreement with President-elect Barack Obama in 2008, Clinton Foundation officials got a blistering internal review saying the charity “must act immediately to bring the foundation into compliance with the law and standards that govern not-for-profits …”

The review pointed to a high-ranking but unnamed foundation executive who was “being paid by [former President Clinton], the government and the foundation” who “allowed the foundation to host what may have been (or may have been viewed as) a political event, apparently without official pre-approval from the foundation’s legal department and without regard, before the fact, to the impact of that decision on the foundation’s tax exempt status.”

The review report was provided Nov. 10, 2008, to Bruce Lindsey, the long-time Clinton political insider who was then the foundation’s chief executive officer. It was attached to a Nov. 1, 2011, email made public Saturday by Wikileaks from Cheryl Mills to John Podesta, fellow long-time Clinton insiders.

(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com …