Clinton’s take millions in speaking fees from widows and orphans

By 9 Comments 2,003 views



OK, maybe that’s a slight exaggeration but not by much.

Politico reports that the Clinton’s have taken $11 million in speaking fees from non-profit organizations.

$11 million.

The story is chock a block with startling revelations. Contrast the actions of the classy Condi Rice to Hillary:

When Condoleezza Rice headlined a 2009 fundraising luncheon for the Boys and Girls Club of Long Beach, she collected a $60,000 speaking fee, then donated almost all of it back to the club, according to multiple sources familiar with the club’s finances.

Hillary Clinton was not so generous to the small charity, which provides after-school programs to underprivileged children across the Southern California city. Clinton collected $200,000 to speak at the same event five years later, but she donated nothing back to the club, which raised less than half as much from Clinton’s appearance as from Rice’s, according to the sources and tax filings.

Instead, Clinton steered her speaking fee to her family’s own sprawling $2 billion charity.

They have used non-profits as their own piggy banks

As Hillary Clinton positions herself as a champion for everyday Americans during her presidential campaign, scrutiny has been directed at the $139 million in speaking fees she and her husband have collected since leaving the White House — including millions of dollars from nonprofit groups. Bill Clinton collected millions in personal income from speeches to hospitals and synagogues, as well as $100,000 from the British nonprofit National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and even $150,000 from the Long Beach Boys and Girls Club, the same group that sought out Hillary Clinton in 2014. She earned $12 million on the speaking circuit from the beginning of last year through March, when she stopped giving paid speeches as she prepared to launch her presidential campaign.

The Clinton’s do not give a rat’s butt about anything other than their money:

But Hillary Clinton’s $200,000 speaking fee was the largest paid to any speaker, according to sources familiar with club finances. Partly as a result, her appearance was among the least profitable for the group of any event in the 25-year-old series, netting only $106,000 for the club, they said.

By contrast, the Condoleezza Rice luncheon five years earlier raised nearly $258,000 after expenses and Rice’s give-back of her speaking fee were tallied, according to sources and the organization’s tax filing.

An extra $150,000 — the difference between the yields at Rice’s speech vs. Clinton’s — can go a long way at an organization that, like the Boys and Girls Club, has an annual budget of less than $3 million.

The differences don’t end there:

That irritated some supporters, who also noted disapprovingly that Clinton gave her speech (which was billed as closed to the press), then took off without visiting any of the club’s facilities to meet the children who benefit from its services.

By contrast, Rice spent the morning before her speech (which was open to the media) touring a club facility and talking with its children about the importance of staying in school and chasing their dreams, according to an account in the Long Beach Press-Telegram.

On top of it all, the Clinton’s are cheap:

Like fellow passengers, who included thrifty senior citizens and college girls in sorority T-shirts, Podesta was paying just $30 to travel to Washington aboard a Vamoose bus. That’s about a third of the cost of the cheapest Amtrak ticket and less than the taxes on a coach seat on a shuttle flight — and that’s the reason the Clinton campaign has decreed that staffers must schlep on the bus.

“It’s become solidarity to take it,” said Podesta, who agreed to let a Washington Post reporter and photographer accompany him on his subway-and-bus commute from New York to Washington last week.

There is plenty of eye-rolling among the staff, nonetheless. Campaign staffers are also using their personal cellphones for work — no land lines or campaign-issued models — to save a few bucks.


Hillary is said to be imperious and nasty, and her arms can’t reach the change in her pockets.

The Clinton’s are really awful people, but we finally have an answer to the eternal question-

“Drag a hunna dollah bill through a traila park you nevah know what you gonna find”


hillary ugly dress


You’re going to find Hillary and Bill

DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education. DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed. Except for liberals being foolish.

9 Responses to “Clinton’s take millions in speaking fees from widows and orphans”

  1. 1

    James Raider


    New Yorkers don’t want to know the answer to the following:

    How did a barely employed Clinton kid afford to buy herself a $10,500,000 condo on Madison Square Park? Her first home — $10,500,000. How many in all of America can afford that? This level of entitlement embarrasses even Paris Hilton.

    The answer to that question answers much about who and what the Clintons really are. And its NOT the felon father-in-law who paid for it.

  2. 3

    James Raider


    So let’s see, . . . Blumenthal gets access to the Nation’s most confidential information, shared with him by Clinton. He has NO security clearance.

    . . . Patreus gets charged for sharing supposedly confidential info with his girlfriend, but Clinton gets a pass on the Blumenthal front, dealing with events which set fire to all of North Africa?

    This makes the teflon Bill look like a piker.

  3. 4


    How can the person that has accomplished nothing but get rich off of lying and influence peddling even be considered for President?

    Oh… that’s right. We’re talking about liberals.

  4. 7


    GWB isn’t running for anything.
    Your link doesn’t work.
    What does anything you said have to do with grifter in chief HRC?
    Typical lib, don’t respond to the subject, try to divert attention.

  5. 8


    @John: Two things, John; first,I don’t think anyone actually condemns anyone making whatever they can off of the emission of their words. I don’t see the attraction, in most cases, that would garner $200,000 to $500,000 for a damned speech by ANYONE, but if they can pull it off, good for them.

    Second, Bush is a conservative and a capitalist and has NEVER denounced anyone making a living or a GOOD living. Hillary, on the other hand, routinely denounces the wealthy, demanding they turn over much of their wealth to people like her so THEY can decided the best uses for it. Hillary is a lying hypocrite.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *