Why no righteous indignation over Bill Clinton earning $82 million in speaking fees since 2001??

Personally I see more worth in a businessman investing in American companies and either making them work or dissolving them, than paying a consummate B.S. Artist to give a speech he's already given on t.v. many times!

From 2010:
573 days ago
Clinton earns $65 million in speaking fees as private citizen

Posted by
CNN Political Research Director Robert Yoon
June 29, 2010

Washington (CNN) - Former president Bill Clinton stepped up the pace of his paid speaking engagements in 2009, bringing his total haul from these speeches to $65 million since leaving office in 2001.

According to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's annual financial disclosure report released Monday, the former president earned $7.5 million from 36 paid speeches last year, up from the $5.7 million he earned for 25 speeches in 2008. Almost half of his speech earnings last year, $3.2 million, came from 13 speeches delivered in nine other countries, ranging in distance from Canada and Mexico to Turkey, Slovenia, and the United Arab Emirates. The remainder was earned in 23 speeches delivered in seven states and the District of Columbia.

Almost two-thirds of President Clinton's earnings from 365 paid speaking engagements since leaving the White House have come from overseas. Since 2001, he has earned $40.1 million from 197 speeches in 45 foreign countries.

His most popular destination was Canada, where he has participated in 50 paid events for a total of $8.4 million. This includes a June 2008 speech for the motivational speaking conference "The Power Within" in which he earned $525,000, the most he has ever earned for a single event. Clinton has given a total of 21 speeches at various "Power Within" events since 2001 for a total of $4.6 million.

The former president's second most popular overseas speaking destination over the past nine years was the United Kingdom, where he earned $3.2 million for 16 events. Also ranking high were Germany ($2.5 million for 11 events), Australia ($2.3 million for 13 events), and Mexico ($2.0 million for 10 events).

The $7.5 million Clinton earned in speeches in 2009 tops by almost $2 million the amount he earned the previous year, when he devoted six months on the stump campaigning on behalf of his wife's unsuccessful bid for the Democratic presidential nomination. That year, Hillary Clinton loaned her presidential campaign a total of $13.2 million out of her and her husband's personal funds. The Clintons ended up eating the cost of that loan because the campaign was unable to repay the amount by the deadline required by federal campaign finance laws. However, since Hillary Clinton suspended her presidential campaign on June 7, 2008, her husband has earned $12.3 million in speaking fees for 56 events, going a long way towards canceling out the impact of the loan.

President Clinton's most lucrative years on the speaking circuit were 2006, when he earned $10.2 million for 57 speeches, and 2007, when he earned $10.1 million for 54 speeches. In 2004, Clinton spent much of the year writing his memoirs and recovering from heart bypass surgery and earned only $875,000 in speaking fees.......
Clinton earns $65 million in speaking fees as private citizen – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

If I understand your posting, Bucco, you agree that all political candidates have massive prepping via their staff and paid consultants with mock debates that include all possible questions. The candidates are coached into giving the best political spin to the questions - even if that includes turning the question around on the inquirer - as what Newt did with the first question about his "open marriage request".

The candidates spend multitudes of hours with these political consultants to get the answers down pat as well as the "proper" attitude - as in Newt's puffed up anger. All that is just acting.

Your question, you said, was "isn't that the practice of all candidates and doesn't everyone know that?" Yes, it is the pracitce of all candidates and NO, everyone does not know that. At the watering hole, some of the guys thought Newt was so smart to respond with indignant anger about his failed marriage rather than talk about the important issues of the day. No, everyone does not know the candidates are following a scripted act. They just have to remember what their consultants told them and how to act in the proper way for the scripted answer.

Originally Posted by janmcn

Romney should stop wasting his time and money trying to convince us Newt is crooked. Doesn't he know we elected the biggest Medicare crook of all time our governor?

I am not defending anyone on this, but you just cannot continue to make accusations of anyone, Republican or Democrat (although we know which way that goes with you)...you just cant do this...

Fact is that Scott was NEVER ever accused of anything and frankly was NEVER, NOT ONCE even questioned by authorities.

Actually, mid level excecutives were actually charged because they knew what was going on and did nothing to stop it. NEVER did anyone (except political opponents) ever say anything else but the truth..no charges, not even questioned. He resigned in order for the company to clean house.

This is not a political defense of Scott...just a statement of facts. And yes, as chief officer, he has to share the blame

Give your opinions, but please stick to facts....you post the party crap that circulates the net is all you do. He DOES deserve to be criticized as he was the man in charge and that is how it works, but stop with the direct accusations unless you can back it up.

Originally Posted by buggyone

If I understand your posting, Bucco, you agree that all political candidates have massive prepping via their staff and paid consultants with mock debates that include all possible questions. The candidates are coached into giving the best political spin to the questions - even if that includes turning the question around on the inquirer - as what Newt did with the first question about his "open marriage request".

The candidates spend multitudes of hours with these political consultants to get the answers down pat as well as the "proper" attitude - as in Newt's puffed up anger. All that is just acting.

Your question, you said, was "isn't that the practice of all candidates and doesn't everyone know that?" Yes, it is the pracitce of all candidates and NO, everyone does not know that. At the watering hole, some of the guys thought Newt was so smart to respond with indignant anger about his failed marriage rather than talk about the important issues of the day. No, everyone does not know the candidates are following a scripted act. They just have to remember what their consultants told them and how to act in the proper way for the scripted answer.

Not scripted per se, but close. I spent many many hours prepping candidates (believe it or not Democrats) back in Pennsylvania, but that was before the kind of communications and electronic help that is available today, but NO candidate, especially at this level goes into these things stone cold. Anyone who thinks that is very naive.

Dang, Bucco, we honestly agree on this. Downright scary, isn't it?

Originally Posted by ilovetv

Why no righteous indignation over Bill Clinton earning $82 million in speaking fees since 2001??

Personally I see more worth in a businessman investing in American companies and either making them work or dissolving them, than paying a consummate B.S. Artist to give a speech he's already given on t.v. many times!

From 2010:
573 days ago
Clinton earns $65 million in speaking fees as private citizen

Posted by
CNN Political Research Director Robert Yoon
June 29, 2010

Washington (CNN) - Former president Bill Clinton stepped up the pace of his paid speaking engagements in 2009, bringing his total haul from these speeches to $65 million since leaving office in 2001.

According to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's annual financial disclosure report released Monday, the former president earned $7.5 million from 36 paid speeches last year, up from the $5.7 million he earned for 25 speeches in 2008. Almost half of his speech earnings last year, $3.2 million, came from 13 speeches delivered in nine other countries, ranging in distance from Canada and Mexico to Turkey, Slovenia, and the United Arab Emirates. The remainder was earned in 23 speeches delivered in seven states and the District of Columbia.

Almost two-thirds of President Clinton's earnings from 365 paid speaking engagements since leaving the White House have come from overseas. Since 2001, he has earned $40.1 million from 197 speeches in 45 foreign countries.

His most popular destination was Canada, where he has participated in 50 paid events for a total of $8.4 million. This includes a June 2008 speech for the motivational speaking conference "The Power Within" in which he earned $525,000, the most he has ever earned for a single event. Clinton has given a total of 21 speeches at various "Power Within" events since 2001 for a total of $4.6 million.

The former president's second most popular overseas speaking destination over the past nine years was the United Kingdom, where he earned $3.2 million for 16 events. Also ranking high were Germany ($2.5 million for 11 events), Australia ($2.3 million for 13 events), and Mexico ($2.0 million for 10 events).

The $7.5 million Clinton earned in speeches in 2009 tops by almost $2 million the amount he earned the previous year, when he devoted six months on the stump campaigning on behalf of his wife's unsuccessful bid for the Democratic presidential nomination. That year, Hillary Clinton loaned her presidential campaign a total of $13.2 million out of her and her husband's personal funds. The Clintons ended up eating the cost of that loan because the campaign was unable to repay the amount by the deadline required by federal campaign finance laws. However, since Hillary Clinton suspended her presidential campaign on June 7, 2008, her husband has earned $12.3 million in speaking fees for 56 events, going a long way towards canceling out the impact of the loan.

President Clinton's most lucrative years on the speaking circuit were 2006, when he earned $10.2 million for 57 speeches, and 2007, when he earned $10.1 million for 54 speeches. In 2004, Clinton spent much of the year writing his memoirs and recovering from heart bypass surgery and earned only $875,000 in speaking fees.......
Clinton earns $65 million in speaking fees as private citizen – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

So I wondered how another famous speaker was doing....Bill made 65 million in 10 years, if the math works that would be 6.5 million a year. Now Sara Palin made 12 million since leaving office in July of 2009. Both of them making heavy money.

I wonder why Gov Scott found the need to plead the fifth 75 times when his company faced the biggest fine for medicare fraud in this country's history.

As far as Bill Clinton and Sarah Palin's speaking fees; as you noted they are both private citizens. They are both free to earn any amount they can. George W Bush would probably like to get a piece of that action.

Originally Posted by cologal

So I wondered how another famous speaker was doing....Bill made 65 million in 10 years, if the math works that would be 6.5 million a year. Now Sara Palin made 12 million since leaving office in July of 2009. Both of them making heavy money.

She's a consummate B.S. Artist, too, and she's already said anything she's got to say on t.v. too.

Now back to my question about why no righteous indignation about Clinton and his income sources:

April 7, 2008
"The tax returns released by Bill and Hillary Clinton late Friday reveal $15 million earned in a partnership with billionaire “supermarket czar” investor Ron Burkle and the sheik of Dubai, whose Arab state sparked controversy with a purchase giving it control of 22 American ports.

Burkle is widely known as a top “FOB,” or “Friend of Bill,” whose corporate jet Bill Clinton has used so often the New York Observer claims Clinton has taken to calling it “Air Force Two.”

The news comes with the disclosure Burkle’s Yucaipa Companies have created Yucaipa Global Holdings, a multi-billion investment fund whose three investment manager general partners are Burkle, Bill Clinton and the ruler of Dubai, Sheik Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum.

Al-Maktoum was the ruler at the center of public outcry over national security concerns when Dubai Ports World proposed in 2006 to acquire the London-based company that operated 22 ports in the U.S.

WND also reported al-Maktoum has moved to acquire 19.9 percent of the Nasdaq in New York, the second largest stock exchange in the U.S.

Dubai, as WND reported, is also one of the six Persian Gulf nations that has amassed some $1.7 trillion in Sovereign Wealth Funds.

The U.S. Treasury has been quietly negotiating behind the scenes with Dubai and the other Persian Gulf states to set terms for the petrodollars in the massive Sovereign Wealth Funds to return to the U.S. as early as this year. The Arab states are eyeing major investments in U.S. banks and security firms now struggling to meet capital requirements while their asset portfolios remain loaded with troubled and sometimes near-worthless collateralized loan obligations, including collateralized mortgage obligations.

Since the Clintons share a common bank account, fees for investment advice earned by Bill also are received by Hillary, even when the funds trace back to investments made in conjunction with a foreign nation, such as Dubai. The Arab state’s ruling sheik is positioned as an equal partner to Bill Clinton in the managing general partner triumvirate overseeing Yucaipa Global Holdings.

Potentially even more embarrassing for Hillary Clinton’s already struggling presidential campaign are some of the investments held by Yucaipa Global Holdings.

One such investment is Aloha Airlines, headquartered in Honolulu, Hawaii, where the bankruptcy bailout engineered by Yucaipa ended up requiring pilots to take severe economic losses – not the record Hillary Clinton wants campaigning as a champion of labor.

In offering to put $100 million capital into bankrupt Aloha Airlines in 2005, Yucaipa Companies demanded the airline rid itself of the pilots’ pension program.

As the negotiations proceeded, the federally funded Pension Benefits Guaranty Corporation objected, saying Yucaipa’s plan to off-load Aloha’s pension plan would create an unfortunate precedent in which taxpayers were used to off-load a corporate liability to make a company in bankruptcy proceedings, such as Aloha, more attractive to investors, such as Yucaipa.

As the restructuring proceeded, Yucaipa ended up getting the Aloha pilots to make $12 million in concessions, yet the airline has not been able to fight off competition from competing airlines offering deep-discounted fares.......

Clintons cash in on Dubai

Originally Posted by janmcn

I wonder why Gov Scott found the need to plead the fifth 57 times when his company faced the biggest fine for medicare fraud in this country's history.

As far as Bill Clinton and Sarah Palin's speaking fees; as you noted they are both private citizens. They are both free to earn any amount they can.

Again, you just say things with no explanation, and I am beyond explaining...just read and learn somethings.

Your life appears to be a one way street to libel anyone who is not a democrat.....that must be miserable. I could care less about what party or what position you take on issues, but I think personal slander is beyond anything you make claims about these people.

Your posts are actually insulting to anyone who believes in this country. You will never, and have never, heard me utter any claims against any politician that I disagree with...it is dispicable in my opinion...if you cannot make a point without slinging garbage...just shut up.

I feel sorry for people like you...you miss the vibrant, exciting politics where you listen to both sides, decide your position on an issue and allow yourself to enjoy the discourse based on facts. And sometimes you change your position based on what you hear, BUT YOU ALWAYS LEARN. In your case, none of this is possible...you are a person who has a soul that is owned by one bias, one party and one view on everything and you allow others to tell you what you should think.

It is amazing when you allow yourself to LISTEN...and especially HEAR...you learn so much. You will never try it and I am just sad for you and your one track mind....must be boring. I find it stimulating and exciting to read both sides of an issue.....I only object to the personal mud slinging. As much as I disagreed with President Obama when he was running, I never once allowed myself to be disrespectful of him and I hope I can always maintain that.

In this case, is Rick Scott my kind of guy...no way. Does he deserve criticism for what happened in his firm....yes. BUT calling him a person who committed medicare fraud is a bit over the top and that kind of mud slinging just rolls off your tongue and only in one direction. That is simply what is wrong with our political system today. Read a bit on why he used the fifth amendment and I by no means agree with his use of it in this case, but at least I know WHY he did it.....THAT does not make him what you called him.\\

Just to clarify...

"Scott indeed did give a deposition in 2000 in which he invoked the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution 75 times. The amendment reads in part that no one "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself."

Scott's deposition, however, was not part of the criminal fraud case being pursued by the federal government. In fact, Scott was never officially questioned during the federal criminal investigation. Instead, the case in question was a civil case involving Columbia/HCA and Nevada Communications Corp. Nevada Communications alleged that Columbia/HCA breached the terms of a communications contract."

http://www.politifact.com/florida/st...fth-amendment/

Quite a leap you made to condemn a person as you did. Perhaps your sources have a bias ??????