Quote:Hillary Clinton gave 51 paid speeches for a total of nearly $12 million since January 2014, while Bill Clinton edged her out slightly, with 53 speeches for $13.5 million, according to the form.

Hillary Clinton’s most lucrative speaking gigs were addresses delivered in San Diego to the Biotechnology Industry Organization and Qualcomm for $335,000 apiece.

Bill Clinton’s priciest speeches were delivered abroad to Bank of America in London, law firm Kessler, Topaz, Meltzer & Check in Amsterdam, and to EAT: the Stockholm Food Forum. Each brought him $500,000.

So, why in the world are large corporations paying the Clintons millions to give speeches? The answer is easy to figure out and nearly impossible to prove (which is exactly why they’ve set it up this way): these corporations are buying influence with a potential President of the United States.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/bi...ml?hp=c1_3

smart

Unions Flood Clinton Foundation With Millions; Some Donations Marked As “Political” Activity…



Surprise, surprise…

Quote:Big labor funneled millions of dollars in dues money to the Clinton Foundation, according to a new report.

The National Institute for Labor Relations Research (NILRR), a union watchdog group, traced at least $2 million in donations from multiple union organizations and affiliates.

“U.S. Department of Labor’s union financial disclosure reports reveal that Big Labor gave at least $2,034,500 in union general treasury funds to Clinton Foundations. Union treasuries are funded mostly by compulsory union dues or fees collected from workers who would be fired for refusing to pay,” the NILRR report says. “As Mrs. Clinton became closer to her current run for president, donations amounts appear to have increased.”

The Clintons have turned their foundation into a lucrative “slush fund,” according to one charity watchdog group, and have received hundreds of millions of dollars from notable businesses, media personalities, and political luminaries. The family has maintained that none of those donations influenced her decisions as secretary of state and that the money is strictly philanthropic.

However, unions did not necessarily agree about the apolitical nature of the donations, according to NILRR.

“Some of these ‘donations’ are categorized by the unions as ‘political’ on their financial disclosure report” to the Labor Department, the report says.

http://freebeacon.com/politics/unions-po...oundation/

Multimillionaire Hillary Clinton: Economy ‘Stacked In Favor Of Those At The Top’

Sometimes the hypocrisy of liberals is just literally mind blowing. What a piece of trash this woman is.

Are you trying to say money can buy political influence? What point are you trying to make here ERC? Is money free speech. Is it protected by Citizens United.

Me thinks you talk out both sides of your mouth. You only care about the influence money can have when its attached to a D.

(05-19-2015 09:57 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Are you trying to say money can buy political influence? What point are you trying to make here ERC? Is money free speech. Is it protected by Citizens United.

Me thinks you talk out both sides of your mouth. You only care about the influence money can have when its attached to a D.

It's very similar to how Republicans are tar and feathered in the media and by other liberals when the occasional Republican gets caught in an extramarital affair but Dems who do the same are ignored. It's because Republicans always talk about morality, Christian principles, etc.

Which party promotes money into politcis and which party would like to see it curtailed and would vote on curtailing it tomorrow.

You guys talk out of both sides of your mouth.

This is going to get good.

(05-19-2015 10:17 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Which party promotes money into politcis and which party would like to see it curtailed and would vote on curtailing it tomorrow.

You guys talk out of both sides of your mouth.

Neither party is really interested in this, certain members of both parties are, and the dems give more lip service to this concept, but you're kidding yourself if you think the dems have some moral objection to getting rich.

That being said, this isn't exactly the best example of hypocrisy one can find. Al Gore with the private jet was far better.

(05-19-2015 10:17 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Which party promotes money into politcis

Both of them.

Quote:and which party would like to see it curtailed and would vote on curtailing it tomorrow.

Neither of them. Democrats would vote to curtail corporations, but not unions. Republicans would vote to curtail unions but not corporations. Because, obviously, unions give mostly to democrats and corporations give mostly republicans.

I'd vote to eliminate both. Would you?

Quote:You guys talk out of both sides of your mouth.

Again, I'd vote to eliminate both, and everybody else (PACs, bundlers, you name it) except individuals. And I'd vote to require all contributions to be posed on the Internet within 10 minutes of receipt. Would you?

If not, then you're the one talking out of both sides of your mouth.

If you curtail the speech of corporations you must also curtail that of unions. The two are more alike than they are different.

(05-19-2015 10:17 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Which party promotes money into politcis and which party would like to see it curtailed and would vote on curtailing it tomorrow.

You guys talk out of both sides of your mouth.

That post exemplifies exactly what I was saying and makes me sad. I typically have respect for much of what you say on here but you do realize that the point is that Dems "say" what you just said but time and again, they are caught "with their pants down" doing the exact same thing.

Dems talk about getting money out of politics, but really what they mean is they only want to limit the money that Republicans get. Dems typically get their money from different avenues. There's little to no effort on the part of Dems to curtail their own funding streams.

In essence, the Dems are talking out of both sides of their mouth as well.

Actually we could solve a lot with just full disclosure. They should be like NASCAR with patches. That would solve a ton.

Questions for Mr. Naivety...otherwise knows as ERC...or EagleRockCafe

1. Is this illegal?
2. Do Republicans do this also?
3. Do you want all such activity stopped?

(05-19-2015 10:28 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Actually we could solve a lot with just full disclosure. They should be like NASCAR with patches. That would solve a ton.

Mach, would you vote to eliminate union political contributions?

Unless your answer is yes, you are the one talking out of both sides of your mouth here.

(05-19-2015 10:17 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Which party promotes money into politcis and which party would like to see it curtailed and would vote on curtailing it tomorrow.

You guys talk out of both sides of your mouth.

Gee, I am so shocked you don't get it. Of course with your nose so far up Hillary's rear end, that isn't a shock you can't see it. Which party preaches about the evil of the one percenters? Hillary going on a rant against the rich is beyond hypocritical. You just keep on supporting her hypocrisy. I love it. Her hiding from questions will end one day. Of course the Democrats could care less about having a candidate that will face questions. She has bought her nomination. Real democracy in action.

Hillary Had A Second Secret Email Address That She Denied Having To Congressional Inquiry



Contempt of Congress?

Quote:A second secret email address used by Hillary Rodham Clinton while she was secretary of state was revealed Monday.

The email address, published by The New York Times, was used in exchanges between Clinton and longtime adviser Sydney Blumenthal, and is from the same private email server that was uncovered earlier this year.

“Fyi. The idea of using private security experts to arm the opposition should be considered,” Clinton wrote Blumenthal from the ­email address [email protected].
The two were discussing strategies to help the opposition rebels oust Moammar Khadafy in Libya as that country descended into chaos in 2011.
Clinton’s office insisted just two months ago that the only private email address used by the former secretary of state during her tenure was [email protected].
In a 2015 letter to Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), Clinton’s lawyer acknowledged that the HRod17 email address existed, but stated explicitly that it was “not an address that existed during Secretary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state.”

http://nypost.com/2015/05/19/hillary-cli...l-address/

She won't survive. She won't make the election.

Y'all need to shut up and focus on the Koch brothers (the epitome of evil and greed).

(05-19-2015 10:30 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Questions for Mr. Naivety...otherwise knows as ERC...or EagleRockCafe

1. Is this illegal?
2. Do Republicans do this also?
3. Do you want all such activity stopped?

Eagle?