HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Hillary Clinton Made More...

Thu Apr 14, 2016, 06:55 PM

 

Hillary Clinton Made More in 12 Speeches to Big Banks Than Most of Us Earn in a Lifetime

Clinton’s most lucrative year was 2013, right after stepping down as secretary of state. That year, she made $2.3 million for three speeches to Goldman Sachs and individual speeches to Deutsche Bank, Morgan Stanley, Fidelity Investments, Apollo Management Holdings, UBS, Bank of America, and Golden Tree Asset Managers.

To put these numbers into perspective, compare them to lifetime earnings of the median American worker. In 2011, the Census Bureau estimated that, across all majors, a “bachelor’s degree holder can expect to earn about $2.4 million over his or her work life.” A Pew Research analysis published the same year estimated that a “typical high school graduate” can expect to make just $770,000 over the course of his or her lifetime.

https://theintercept.com/2016/01/08/hillary-clinton-earned-more-from-12-speeches-to-big-banks-than-most-americans-earn-in-their-lifetime/

77 replies, 3191 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 77 replies Author Time Post
Reply Hillary Clinton Made More in 12 Speeches to Big Banks Than Most of Us Earn in a Lifetime (Original post)
pantsonfire Apr 2016 OP
Impedimentus Apr 2016 #1
2cannan Apr 2016 #4
Politicalboi Apr 2016 #2
pantsonfire Apr 2016 #7
Impedimentus Apr 2016 #9
pantsonfire Apr 2016 #14
Zira Apr 2016 #60
Renew Deal Apr 2016 #3
pantsonfire Apr 2016 #5
2cannan Apr 2016 #10
pantsonfire Apr 2016 #11
Renew Deal Apr 2016 #18
pantsonfire Apr 2016 #25
Renew Deal Apr 2016 #30
TM99 Apr 2016 #39
Juicy_Bellows Apr 2016 #12
pantsonfire Apr 2016 #13
Juicy_Bellows Apr 2016 #15
pantsonfire Apr 2016 #17
think Apr 2016 #31
jack_krass Apr 2016 #72
Hoyt Apr 2016 #6
pantsonfire Apr 2016 #8
Renew Deal Apr 2016 #19
pantsonfire Apr 2016 #22
SoLeftIAmRight Apr 2016 #35
think Apr 2016 #36
JanetLovesObama Apr 2016 #16
pantsonfire Apr 2016 #20
Arkansas Granny Apr 2016 #24
pantsonfire Apr 2016 #26
Arkansas Granny Apr 2016 #27
pantsonfire Apr 2016 #28
uponit7771 Apr 2016 #66
COLGATE4 Apr 2016 #33
TM99 Apr 2016 #40
COLGATE4 Apr 2016 #49
TM99 Apr 2016 #51
COLGATE4 Apr 2016 #55
TM99 Apr 2016 #61
think Apr 2016 #38
uponit7771 Apr 2016 #63
beedle Apr 2016 #21
pantsonfire Apr 2016 #23
polichick Apr 2016 #43
COLGATE4 Apr 2016 #29
SocialLibFiscalCon Apr 2016 #41
COLGATE4 Apr 2016 #48
Name removed Apr 2016 #50
COLGATE4 Apr 2016 #54
Name removed Apr 2016 #56
COLGATE4 Apr 2016 #57
think Apr 2016 #52
COLGATE4 Apr 2016 #53
think Apr 2016 #65
COLGATE4 Apr 2016 #67
think Apr 2016 #68
tk2kewl Apr 2016 #32
COLGATE4 Apr 2016 #34
tk2kewl Apr 2016 #45
COLGATE4 Apr 2016 #47
BernieforPres2016 Apr 2016 #37
TheDormouse Apr 2016 #42
pantsonfire Apr 2016 #44
SHRED Apr 2016 #46
Jitter65 Apr 2016 #58
Rosa Luxemburg Apr 2016 #62
CentralCoaster Apr 2016 #64
ChisolmTrailDem Apr 2016 #69
uponit7771 Apr 2016 #59
pantsonfire Apr 2016 #70
uponit7771 Apr 2016 #71
pantsonfire Apr 2016 #73
uponit7771 Apr 2016 #74
pantsonfire Apr 2016 #75
uponit7771 Apr 2016 #76
pantsonfire Apr 2016 #77

Response to pantsonfire (Original post)

Thu Apr 14, 2016, 06:57 PM

1. I wish she would publish a book of those speeches. They would sell like hot cakes under "Self Help"

FEEL THE BERN - 2016

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Impedimentus (Reply #1)

Thu Apr 14, 2016, 06:59 PM

4. LOL, I'm surprised she hasn't, the way she likes to bring in the money! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pantsonfire (Original post)

Thu Apr 14, 2016, 06:57 PM

2. Doesn't matter, they still support her here

 

Amazing isn't it. She'll tell them to "cut it out" sternly when she says it next time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicalboi (Reply #2)

Thu Apr 14, 2016, 07:00 PM

7. If she told me to "cut it out" I'd probably do the opposite....n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicalboi (Reply #2)

Thu Apr 14, 2016, 07:01 PM

9. If elected it's the progressives she'll be telling to "cut it out".

FEEL THE BERN - 2016

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Impedimentus (Reply #9)

Thu Apr 14, 2016, 07:06 PM

14. K&R

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Impedimentus (Reply #9)

Thu Apr 14, 2016, 11:16 PM

60. Oh yes. Remember how Obama started talking to us a few months after he was elected?

 

He really bit the people that put him there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pantsonfire (Original post)

Thu Apr 14, 2016, 06:58 PM

3. Would you take $2.3 million for speeches if it was offered to you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Renew Deal (Reply #3)

Thu Apr 14, 2016, 06:59 PM

5. Yes, I would then donate 99% to charity...

 

The Associated Press notes that during Hillary Clinton’s time as secretary of state, Bill Clinton earned $17 million in talks to banks, insurance companies, hedge funds, real estate businesses, and other financial firms. Altogether, the couple are estimated to have made over $139 million from paid speeches.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Renew Deal (Reply #3)

Thu Apr 14, 2016, 07:02 PM

10. That's not what they "offered", it's what her minimum "fee" was.

Hillary Not Truthful About Wall Street Speaking Fees
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/les-leopold/hillary-not-truthful-abou_b_9185412.html

snip
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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2cannan (Reply #10)

Thu Apr 14, 2016, 07:02 PM

11. Yeah, it got a laugh, but she was being disingenious...n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2cannan (Reply #10)

Thu Apr 14, 2016, 07:14 PM

18. So?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Renew Deal (Reply #18)

Thu Apr 14, 2016, 07:25 PM

25. So??......

 

"Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, and worse, by foreign entities." Pres. Obama

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pantsonfire (Reply #25)

Thu Apr 14, 2016, 07:33 PM

30. That's nice.

She wasn't a candidate. And now that she is, she is within the law unlike some other people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Renew Deal (Reply #30)

Thu Apr 14, 2016, 07:50 PM

39. Are you saying you work for the FEC?

 

You have inside information on an illegal action the Sanders campaign has done?

No, you don't, and what that letter asks for is 'clarification'. We noticed an error. Can you clarify and correct? And you know they will.

So none story but nice try at deflection from the quid pro quo pandering of your sorry corporate shill.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Renew Deal (Reply #3)

Thu Apr 14, 2016, 07:03 PM

12. I'll take your wordsmithing over Hillarys - but the content of the speech is not why they pay her.

In order for a corporation to offer me that kind of money, I'd have to be connected like Sinatra.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Juicy_Bellows (Reply #12)

Thu Apr 14, 2016, 07:05 PM

13. Exactly....btw...where is that last gif from? n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pantsonfire (Reply #13)

Thu Apr 14, 2016, 07:09 PM

15. It's a Giger drawing someone animated.

I love HR Giger and sometimes typing on DU feels like I am becoming a monster so I went with it - here is a link if you're interested : ttp://funkyimg.com/i/2aHLS.gif

just add the 'h'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Juicy_Bellows (Reply #15)

Thu Apr 14, 2016, 07:13 PM

17. I'll check him out, thanks, and yeah I agree. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Renew Deal (Reply #3)

Thu Apr 14, 2016, 07:33 PM

31. Yes. But I wouldn't expect voters to trust me in regulating those banks afterwards. They

 

might be concerned that I sold out. But hey TRUST me!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Renew Deal (Reply #3)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 11:42 AM

72. Fck Yes, but I wouldnt then run for presedent. She has no shame.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pantsonfire (Original post)

Thu Apr 14, 2016, 07:00 PM

6. She has unique experience to get that pay, like athletes, entertainers.

 

People pay to hear her insight and to attract a crowd, including Democrats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #6)

Thu Apr 14, 2016, 07:01 PM

8. Can we pay to hear her insights? n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pantsonfire (Reply #8)

Thu Apr 14, 2016, 07:15 PM

19. Yes, though you can get them for free at 9PM tonight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Renew Deal (Reply #19)

Thu Apr 14, 2016, 07:19 PM

22. She's going to release her transcripts tonight?! wow. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #6)

Thu Apr 14, 2016, 07:35 PM

35. "People pay to hear her insight"

 

lol

some people are very funny

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #6)

Thu Apr 14, 2016, 07:37 PM

36. And then expect the American people to trust her to protect the American peoples interest's

 

instead of her friends who just paid millions to get to know her better and hear her speak to them.

Goldman Sachs Admitted ripping off their clients. It's not like she got paid for singing to the general public because they loved her music.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pantsonfire (Original post)

Thu Apr 14, 2016, 07:11 PM

16. And she has earned and deserves

 

every damn penny. Sanders is just pissed because nobody would pay him a dime to listen to his one trick pony BLATHER.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JanetLovesObama (Reply #16)

Thu Apr 14, 2016, 07:17 PM

20. Do we deserve to be left in the dark about what she said? n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pantsonfire (Reply #20)

Thu Apr 14, 2016, 07:25 PM

24. She made those speeches as a private citizen. Why would we deserve to know what she said?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arkansas Granny (Reply #24)

Thu Apr 14, 2016, 07:27 PM

26. Because she made them to corporations that hugely impact all our lifes...n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pantsonfire (Reply #26)

Thu Apr 14, 2016, 07:29 PM

27. Do you demand to see transcripts of speeches made by others who speak to those corporations?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Arkansas Granny (Reply #27)

Thu Apr 14, 2016, 07:31 PM

28. Yes, I do......n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pantsonfire (Reply #26)

Thu Apr 14, 2016, 11:19 PM

66. The gun corps effects my life 10x more than Wall Street. Sanders is speaking to a certain groups...

... boogyman and the voter group shows it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pantsonfire (Reply #20)

Thu Apr 14, 2016, 07:34 PM

33. If a group pays you to give them a speech, then the content

of that speech really belongs to them, not to anybody else. Why would you think you have any right to the content of her speeches to a private, paying audience?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to COLGATE4 (Reply #33)

Thu Apr 14, 2016, 07:52 PM

40. Because the moment you go from being a private citizen

 

back to being a public figure running for the highest office in the land in an election year that is laser focused on quid pro quo and Wall Street's undue financial influence over our Republic, then yes, we are now privy to those.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TM99 (Reply #40)

Thu Apr 14, 2016, 10:46 PM

49. I keep hearing "quid pro quo" as if it meant something. Please point out

with specifics (links, please) all the instances you know of where Secretary Clinton engaged in quid pro quo with Wall Street. I'll be anxiously waiting to see information no one but you seems to have discovered.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to COLGATE4 (Reply #49)

Thu Apr 14, 2016, 10:53 PM

51. Stopping feigning ignorance.

 

Quid pro quo is seen through the obscene networks that the Clinton Machine has and has had since the 1980's in Arkansas. That is the reality of it. Unless you are inside you simply see the results. You see a man like Obama run as a 'progressive' then stack his cabinet with Wall Street insiders. You then see a lack of prosecutions for acts that should have been investigated and found illegal due to the damage they did. You see no one present at the table on the discussion around health care except for insurance insiders. With Clinton you see speeches in Saudi Arabia by Bill Clinton followed closely by arms deals being approved by the State Department.

And if your argument is that this does not exist and there is no chance of there being quid pro quo, then why shouldn't she release the transcripts. There is nothing to hide then right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TM99 (Reply #51)

Thu Apr 14, 2016, 11:11 PM

55. I asked for specifics, but all I got was "well, gee, it's

obvious to me" illustrated with meaningless, unproven phrases like "obscene networks the Clinton machine has and has had since the 198o's in Arkansas" followed by a non sequitur of disapproval that Obama put people in his cabinet you don't approve of and that you didn't like how he did Obamacare, either". Not a whole lot of proof there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to COLGATE4 (Reply #55)

Thu Apr 14, 2016, 11:16 PM

61. Well gee, all I got was

 

an ignorant snark asking for proof of something that is generally invisible to those outside of the network and only visible by watching the connections and the results of connections.

That's why quid pro quo is called a favor for a favor. We are not privy to the favors exchanged between Obama and insurance executives, but we do see the results. We saw no public option reps at the table. We saw no attempts made by Obama to include it. We saw no attempts to use the bully pulpit (and fuck knows when he wanted to for the TPP he got downright threatening to the Democrats in congress!) and we see the results. Who is benefiting most from the ACA? Insurance companies and not the American people.

I don't need your snark. I don't need shit from you. Address the question of the transcripts being released and what they contain or go away. I am sick of the diversionary tactics of the Clinton rat-fuckers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JanetLovesObama (Reply #16)

Thu Apr 14, 2016, 07:41 PM

38. And Goldman Sachs appreciates her refusal to support a new Glass Steagall. They can't even pass the

 

Dodd Frank living will requirements:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/regulators-to-goldman-sachs-living-will-falls-short-of-dodd-frank-proviso-1460548806


These banks helped cause one of the greatest economic disasters in American history. Millions lost their jobs and homes.

And Goldman Sachs admitted they ripped their customers off:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/04/goldman-sachs-admits-it-defrauded-investors.html

Hillary knows what kind of corrupt banks and companies she gave speeches to. And if president she'll b required to appoint people to regulate and police them .




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JanetLovesObama (Reply #16)

Thu Apr 14, 2016, 11:18 PM

63. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pantsonfire (Original post)

Thu Apr 14, 2016, 07:19 PM

21. Hey, Let's not insuinate that Hillary is a corporate Whore

 

the proper term is 'friends with benefits".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beedle (Reply #21)

Thu Apr 14, 2016, 07:20 PM

23. That's sexist, my god.....you are soooo offensive. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beedle (Reply #21)

Thu Apr 14, 2016, 07:57 PM

43. That describes crony capitalism perfectly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pantsonfire (Original post)

Thu Apr 14, 2016, 07:32 PM

29. And professional athletes earn more in a season

than most of us earn in a lifetime. So?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to COLGATE4 (Reply #29)

Thu Apr 14, 2016, 07:55 PM

41. And that is relevant to this discussion how exactly?

 

Professional athletes are not running to be the person in charge of regulating the very bankers who curried favor with her by paying her millions to come speak to them and shake a few hands. Everyone with two brain cells to rub together knew she would be running again after Obama was done. Don't give us the "private citizen" crap.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SocialLibFiscalCon (Reply #41)

Thu Apr 14, 2016, 10:44 PM

48. Are you sbuggesting that she is not a private citizen? And, BTW, I assume

you also accuse President Obama of being in the tank with the banking industry and Wall St. After all, he received millions from both for both his presidential campaigns. He must have also 'curried favor with them', and obviously must have shown it in his actions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to COLGATE4 (Reply #48)


Response to Name removed (Reply #50)

Thu Apr 14, 2016, 11:03 PM

54. OK, Got it. Both Obama and Hillary were/are on the

take from Wall St. You might want to post this @ WND. They'd love it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to COLGATE4 (Reply #54)


Response to Name removed (Reply #56)

Thu Apr 14, 2016, 11:15 PM

57. I hope your fantasies

comfort you when the bleak dawn of April 20 arrives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to COLGATE4 (Reply #48)

Thu Apr 14, 2016, 10:56 PM

52. Eric Holder. eom/

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to think (Reply #52)

Thu Apr 14, 2016, 11:01 PM

53. Cryptic but not highly informative.

Is the implication that he named Holder AG as a quid pro quo to Wall St? I'd love to see any proof.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to COLGATE4 (Reply #53)

Thu Apr 14, 2016, 11:19 PM

65. Eric Holder was soft on Wall Street bank crimes. He's going back to defend the very criminal banks

 

There is no "proof" but it's obvious he sucked at prosecuting bank crimes. Ironic since he went back to his old job to now defend the banks again.

Eric Holder didn't send a single banker to jail for the mortgage crisis. Is that justice?

JONATHAN ERNST/Reuters & David Dayen
Thursday 25 September 2014 16.11 EDT


US attorney general’s tenure has proven unhelpful to the five million victims of mortgage abuses in the US

The telling sentence in NPR’s report that US attorney general Eric Holder plans to step down once a successor is confirmed came near the end of the story.

“Friends and former colleagues say Holder has made no decisions about his next professional perch,” NPR writes, “but they say it would be no surprise if he returned to the law firm Covington & Burling, where he spent years representing corporate clients.”

~Snip~

In March, Covington highlighted in marketing materials their award from the trade publication American Lawyer as “Litigation Department of the Year,” touting the law firm’s work in getting clients accused of financial fraud off with slap-on-the-wrist fines.

Covington, American Lawyer says, helps clients “get the best deal they can.”

Holder has a mixed legacy: excellent on civil and voting rights, bad on press freedom and transparency.

But if you want to understand what he did for the perpetrators of a cascade of financial fraud that blew up the nation’s economy in 2008, you only have to read that line from his former employer: he helped them “get the best deal they can.”

As for homeowners, they received a raw deal, in the form of little or no compensation for some of the greatest consumer abuses in American history.

Read more:
http://www.theguardian.com/money/us-money-blog/2014/sep/25/eric-holder-resign-mortgage-abuses-americans


Why Eric Holder’s new job is an insult to the American public

DAVID DAYEN -
TUESDAY, JUL 7, 2015 01:17 PM CDT


The former Attorney General who made "too big to jail" a national joke now re-joins his old corporate law firm

If Las Vegas took bets on whether recently departed Attorney General Eric Holder would return to corporate law firm Covington & Burling, the casinos would have run out of money faster than Greek banks. Newborn infants could have guessed at a homecoming for the former partner at Covington from 2001 to 2009. Last year, Holder bought a condo 300 feet from the firm’s headquarters. The National Law Journal headlined the news, “Holder’s Return to Covington Was Six Years in the Making,” as if acting as the nation’s top law enforcement officer was a temp gig. They even kept an 11th-floor corner office empty for his return.

If we had a more aggressive media, this would be an enormous scandal, more than the decamping of former Obama Administration officials to places like Uber and Amazon. That’s because practically no law firm has done more to protect Wall Street executives from the consequences of their criminal activities than Covington & Burling. Their roster of clients includes every mega-bank in America: JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, Bank of America. Yet Holder has joined several of his ex-employees there, creating a shadow Justice Department and an unquestionable conflict of interest. In fact, given the pathetic fashion in which DoJ limited punishment for those who caused the greatest economic meltdown in 80 years, Holder’s new job looks a lot like his old job....

Read more:
http://www.salon.com/2015/07/07/why_eric_holders_new_job_is_an_insult_to_the_american_public/


Politicians are smart. They know exactly how to play their cards just right. Eric Holder is a very smart politician.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to think (Reply #65)

Thu Apr 14, 2016, 11:38 PM

67. As an attorney I can tell you that what may appear to be

something very easy to charge and bring to trial may instead have lotsl of reasons why you really don't want to do that. A few: 1) lack of proof (or insufficient proof) that any indictable offenses took place; 2)difficulty in finding credible witnesses; 3)ambiguity in the statutes you're going to try and use to indict/convict; 4)the enormous cost in time, personpower and money that any such prosecution would involve; 5)whether pursuing a given case may create more damage to the country(economy) than good. These are just the first five taken right off the top of my head writing this. In short, bringing a successful prosecution is much more difficult and much more involved than anyone who doesn't do it for a living has any idea. The fact is that opinion writers express their opinion that "this is a slam dunk" don't know any more about it than any other man in the street. When I see an article written by somebody who knows about Litigation and corporate malfeasance resulting in successful Federal prosecutions I'll read it. These sources are not those articles..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to COLGATE4 (Reply #67)

Thu Apr 14, 2016, 11:53 PM

68. The facts are Eric Holder prosecuted less white collar crime than his predecessors.

 

One can make all the technical legal excuses for him one wants.

I understand it's difficult. But still. The results speak for themselves:

US Prosecution of White Collar Crime Hits 20-Year Low: Report

Federal prosecution of white-collar crime has hit a 20-year low, according to a new report on Department of Justice data. The analysis of thousands of records by Syracuse University shows a more than 36 percent decline in such prosecutions since the middle of the Clinton administration, when the decline first began.

In the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, prosecutions ticked up slightly, but then dropped. Landing amid calls from Democratic presidential candidates for more Wall Street prosecutions, the report notes that the projected number of prosecutions this year is 12 percent less than last year and 29 percent less than five years ago.

“The decline in federal white-collar crime prosecutions does not necessarily indicate there has been a decline in white-collar crime,” Syracuse researchers note. “Rather, it may reflect shifting enforcement policies by each of the administrations and the various agencies.”...

http://www.ibtimes.com/us-prosecution-white-collar-crime-hits-20-year-low-report-2037160



Hell. It was Holder that admitted part of his reasoning was thy were too big to jail:



“I am concerned that the size of some of these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them when we are hit with indications that if you do prosecute, if you do bring a criminal charge, it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy,” Holder said, according to The Hill. “And I think that is a function of the fact that some of these institutions have become too large.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/06/eric-holder-banks-too-big_n_2821741.html


For me it's pretty obvious Eric Holder chose to go soft on prosecuting bank crimes. You don't get welcome backed to a job defending bank crimes if you are the one that helped hurt the banks. It's not that hard to figure out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pantsonfire (Original post)

Thu Apr 14, 2016, 07:34 PM

32. ain't nothin' but a thing

 

Don't mean she rhymes with corporate

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tk2kewl (Reply #32)

Thu Apr 14, 2016, 07:35 PM

34. Oh, that's so cute. Did you learn that at

school today?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to COLGATE4 (Reply #34)

Thu Apr 14, 2016, 08:01 PM

45. Learned to rhyme at home about 47 yrs ago

 

I learned how to properly adjust scale dependent dynamic labeling of an openlayers map on a web page today though. Did you learn anything new today?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tk2kewl (Reply #45)

Thu Apr 14, 2016, 10:42 PM

47. I learned that it's wonderful to bring kids' skills to an

adult discussion forum. Something I never knew before you told me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pantsonfire (Original post)

Thu Apr 14, 2016, 07:37 PM

37. I feel sorry for the people who had to sit through them without a mute button nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pantsonfire (Original post)

Thu Apr 14, 2016, 07:56 PM

42. The relevant issue is whether those fees affect her policymaking decisions, since

a very large percentage of voters don't care that a candidate is uber-rich.

What matters to people is whether they think the candidate can relate to their needs and whether the candidate is looking out for them.

Mitt Romney's 2012 candidacy tanked because the 47% gaffe drove home to voters the message that richie rich Romney couldn't relate to them & didn't care about them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheDormouse (Reply #42)

Thu Apr 14, 2016, 07:57 PM

44. K&R

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pantsonfire (Original post)

Thu Apr 14, 2016, 09:06 PM

46. Yeah but like Hillary says...

 

...there's no proof of influence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pantsonfire (Original post)

Thu Apr 14, 2016, 11:15 PM

58. Most basketball stars make in 12 games more than most of make in a lifetime. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jitter65 (Reply #58)

Thu Apr 14, 2016, 11:17 PM

62. not many basketball stars run for president

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jitter65 (Reply #58)

Thu Apr 14, 2016, 11:19 PM

64. And they provide a service, entertainment. What service does Hillary provide in a speech?

 

Answer: The service is provided after the speech, or the payment for the speech is offered for service she rendered earlier.

It's a legal way to pass money for services without a paper trail, it's influence peddling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jitter65 (Reply #58)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 12:58 AM

69. A basketball player's talent provides value to those paying them. What value does Hill's

 

speeches to the rich and banks provide to those paying her to speak?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pantsonfire (Original post)

Thu Apr 14, 2016, 11:15 PM

59. and she was underpaid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #59)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 11:33 AM

70. underpaid? What should they have "offered"? n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pantsonfire (Reply #70)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 11:36 AM

71. a lot more

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #71)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 11:51 AM

73. Like a million or so? n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pantsonfire (Reply #73)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 11:53 AM

74. 20 million per speech minimum 10 per minute...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #74)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 11:54 AM

75. damn...what about Bill? the same or less? more? n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pantsonfire (Reply #75)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 11:55 AM

76. Little less, he's less influential than she is...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #76)

Fri Apr 15, 2016, 12:12 PM

77. That makes sense...20 mil for Hill and about 15 for Bill...per ten minutes? n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread