Contribute
CONNECT:

research

Clinton’s Team Struggles To Defend Her Millions From Wall St Speaking Fees

- February 4, 2016

Clinton's "Paid Speeches Are Now Emerging As The Central Line Of Attack In An Increasingly Bitter Primary Clash…"

Clinton's "Paid Speeches Are Now Emerging As The Central Line Of Attack In An Increasingly Bitter Primary Clash…" "But her paid speeches are now emerging as the central line of attack in an increasingly bitter primary clash with Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont. In Sunday's debate in South Carolina and at a series of campaign appearances in Iowa this week, Mr. Sanders has argued that Mrs. Clinton is too personally beholden to Wall Street to effectively rein in the industry's excesses." (Nicholas Confessore And Jason Horowitz, "In Race Defined by Income Gap, Hillary Clinton's Wall Street Ties Incite Rivals," The New York Times, 1/21/16)

Clinton Allies See Her Paid Speeches As "One Of Mrs. Clinton's Biggest Vulnerabilities…" "But the new attacks strike at what even some allies believe may be one Mrs. Clinton's biggest vulnerabilities: not her positions on financial regulation, but her personal relationships with Wall Street executives, along with the millions of dollars Mrs. Clinton, her husband, and their family foundation have accepted in speaking fees or charitable contributions from banks, hedge funds and asset managers. Unlike Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Obama has never earned speaking fees from Wall Street." (Nicholas Confessore And Jason Horowitz, "In Race Defined by Income Gap, Hillary Clinton's Wall Street Ties Incite Rivals," The New York Times, 1/21/16)

The Clinton's Have Earned "In Excess Of $125 Million In Speech Income Since Leaving The White House. "Together, Mrs. Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, have earned in excess of $125 million in speech income since leaving the White House, one-fifth of it in the last two years." (Nicholas Confessore And Jason Horowitz, "In Race Defined by Income Gap, Hillary Clinton's Wall Street Ties Incite Rivals," The New York Times, 1/21/16)

  • Goldman Sachs Alone Paid Mrs. Clinton $675,000 For Three Speeches. "Goldman Sachs alone paid Mrs. Clinton $675,000 for three speeches in three different states, a fact Mr. Sanders has highlighted repeatedly." (Nicholas Confessore And Jason Horowitz, "In Race Defined by Income Gap, Hillary Clinton's Wall Street Ties Incite Rivals," The New York Times, 1/21/16)

Bernie Sanders: "You Got To Be Really Really, Really Good To Get $250,000 For A Speech…" "In Iowa on Wednesday, Mr. Sanders went even further, seeming to mock her sizable speaking fees as borderline bribes from a powerful industry. 'You got to be really, really, really good to get $250,000 for a speech,' he said." (Nicholas Confessore And Jason Horowitz, "In Race Defined by Income Gap, Hillary Clinton's Wall Street Ties Incite Rivals," The New York Times, 1/21/16)

Even Clinton's Top Backers Have Struggled To Defend Her Lavish Wall Street Speaking Fees

;

Click To Watch

Clinton Surrogate Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) Was Unable To Defend Clinton's Lavish Speaking Fees From Wall Street Firms That Have Been The Source Of Attacks From Bernie Sanders, Only Saying The Issue "Doesn't Matter" And Is "In The Past." CRAIG MELVIN: "Bernie Sanders appears to be connecting with a number of voters who are angry about the economic disparities in this country. This is the Senator talking about Goldman Sachs this week on the campaign trail. Here it is." BERNIE SANDERS: "A huge and powerful financial institution functions illegally, destroys the economy. Nobody gets charged with anything. This same financial institution provides huge amounts of money in campaign contributions and in speaking fees to unnamed candidates. That is what a corrupt system is about." MELVIN: "I think the unnamed candidate probably Hillary Clinton, safe to say there, Senator. The New York Times reporting yesterday Goldman Sachs has paid Hillary Clinton $675,000 for three speeches in recent years. She was paid millions more by other Wall Street firms along with her husband, they've been paid more than $125 million for paid speeches since 2001. That is, of course, not the kind of money that most Americans can relate to. Were the speeches a mistake, Senator?" SEN. SHAHEEN: "Listen, voters are angry, and I don't blame them, because they've been watching a Washington that has been divisive, that hasn't worked together. And I believe we need a candidate who's not going to further divide this country but who's going to unite it." MELVIN: "But that's not my question, Senator." SEN. SHAHEEN: "That's one of the reasons I'm supporting Hillary. Well, your first question, are voters angry, and I would say yes." MELVIN: "No, I never asked that question. I think that's well established. The question was, are the speeches, were the speeches a mistake? Did it make sense to accept close to…" SEN. SHAHEEN: "Look, it doesn't matter whether you support that or not. The fact is, that's in the past, just as Bernie's socialism, he claims, is in the past. So, the question is, what do voters want to see now from the candidates, and who can deliver? And that's what I believe the difference is between the candidates in this race. On both, on the Democratic side and on the Republican side." MELVIN: "Senator Jeanne Shaheen. We'll have to leave it there. Senator, thank you so much. Coming to us from a balmy New Hampshire." SEN. SHAHEEN: "Thank you. A sunny New Hampshire." MELVIN: "A sunny New Hampshire." SEN. SHAHEEN: "Right." (MSNBC's "Live," 1/22/16)

Clinton On $675,000 From Goldman Sachs: "It's What They Offered"

At A New Hampshire Town Hall Forum, Clinton Answered A Question Regarding Her "Decision To Accept $675,000 In Speaking Fees From Goldman Sachs" By Saying "That's What They Offered." "'That's what they offered,' Clinton said in response to Cooper's question about her decision to accept $675,000 in speaking fees from Goldman Sachs in the period between serving as secretary of state and her decision to formally enter the 2016 presidential race." (Chris Cillizza, "Hillary Clinton Is Going To Really Regret Saying These 4 Words About Goldman Sachs," The Washington Post's The Fix , 2/4/16)

  • The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza: " The Line Is, Well, Bad. More On That Soon. But, The Line When Combined With Her Body Language When She Said It Makes It Politically Awful For Her." " The line is, well, bad. More on that soon. But, the line when combined with her body language when she said it makes it politically awful for her. Clinton is both seemingly caught by surprise and annoyed by the question all at once. Neither of those is a good reaction to what Cooper is asking. Both together make for a uniquely bad response." (Chris Cillizza, "Hillary Clinton Is Going To Really Regret Saying These 4 Words About Goldman Sachs," The Washington Post's The Fix , 2/4/16)

Previous post

Clinton’s Corporate Inversion Double Speak

Next post

Clinton’s Claimed “Victory” In Iowa Is Less Than It Seems
Republican National Committee

Connect With Us

Republican National Committee
Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel
News & Videos
  • 310 First Street SE, Washington, DC 20003
  • 202-863-8500

By providing your phone number, you are consenting to receive calls and SMS/MMS msgs, including autodialed and automated calls and texts, to that number from the Republican National Committee. Msg&data rates may apply. Terms & conditions/privacy policy apply 80810-info.com.

Paid for by the Republican National Committee. Not Authorized By Any Candidate Or Candidate's Committee. www.gop.com

By providing your phone number, you are consenting to receive calls and SMS/MMS msgs, including autodialed and automated calls and texts, to that number from the Republican National Committee. Msg&data rates may apply. Terms & conditions/privacy policy apply 80810-info.com.

Paid for by the Republican National Committee.
Not Authorized By Any Candidate Or Candidate's Committee. www.gop.com