consultants are sandburs

Wednesday, February 24, 2016

My word, she goes on the campaign trail and gives town hall's for nothing. Her money mojo. Is she losing it?

"$153 million in Bill and Hillary Clinton speaking fees, documented,"
By Robert Yoon, CNN - Updated 1:15 PM ET, Sat February 6, 2016

This link.

(CNN)Hillary Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, combined to earn more than $153 million in paid speeches from 2001 until Hillary Clinton launched her presidential campaign last spring, a CNN analysis shows.

In total, the two gave 729 speeches from February 2001 until May, receiving an average payday of $210,795 for each address. The two also reported at least $7.7 million for at least 39 speeches to big banks, including Goldman Sachs and UBS, with Hillary Clinton, the Democratic 2016 front-runner, collecting at least $1.8 million for at least eight speeches to big banks.

The analysis was made at a time when Hillary Clinton has been under scrutiny for her ties to Wall Street, which has been a major focus of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders on the campaign trail.

"What being part of the establishment is, is in the last quarter, having a super PAC that raised $15 million from Wall Street, that throughout one's life raised a whole lot of money from the drug companies and other special interests," Sanders said at Thursday's Democratic debate hosted by MSNBC.

Sanders: Clinton is 'funded by Wall Street'

The former secretary of state testily responded to Sanders' charges.

"Time and time again, by innuendo, by insinuation, there is this attack that he is putting forth which really comes down to, you know, anybody who ever took donations or speaking fees from any interest group has to be bought. And I just absolutely reject that, senator, and I really don't think these kinds of attacks by insinuation are worthy of you. And enough is enough," Clinton said.

Can the scold theater; release the transcripts. That righteous indignation ploy is as old as original sin. And cause too, to be cast out.

That one number per speech, "an average payday of $210,795 for each," is more than LeBron earns per basketball game; and he has to work up a sweat for his pay. AND - It's better money than playing the guitar on MTV.

And that 729 speeches number, how many games did Kobe or Gretzsky, or Babe Ruth play? Each of the Clintons should pray to Jesus that neither develops throat cancer.

The NY Times linked item about the speech transcripts stated:

Mrs. Clinton spoke at Goldman events twice: on Oct. 24, 2013, to its hedge fund and private equity clients, and again on Oct 29, at Goldman’s tech summit. Both were question-and-answer sessions, according to people who attended, and at the second, Lloyd Blankfein, the chief executive and chairman of Goldman Sachs, was among her questioners. In June of that year she was also paid for an additional event that included Goldman and other groups. She was paid $225,000 for each.

Mrs. Clinton mainly offered what one attendee called “a tour of the world,” covering her observations on China, Iran, Egypt and Russia. This person said Mrs. Clinton also discussed the dysfunction in Washington, how to repair America’s standing in the world after the government shutdown and also talked a bit about the Affordable Care Act, which had had a difficult rollout.

There is always a defense, there was questioning of opinion, and opinions given in response as answers; where a judgmental voice was sought, and quesitoning was not about specific foreign investment opportunity, and factual knowlege of the same. That is possible, and with transcripts withheld as a strategy, one has to wonder what was actually said, by whom. Consider:

Under securities law a person inside a firm trading on inside information, or selling the information or having relatives trade is violating the law. But this is a more interesting thing. A State Department insider selling inside Department info into the investor community, whereby the info recipients can better tailor their portfolios of overseas stocks; based on the insider info that is not available to all in the market. It seems to be an insider trading violation to me; in that it jimmies the market in ways unfair to those not privy to the sold insider's story and facts. So, aside from promises made in anticipation of a Clinton family return to the White House; the main speculative worry without having transcript access; we see a possible insider trading violation of securities law. The FBI does have custody of that email server now, and likely has the skill set among its agents and employees to recover deleted but not overwritten hard drive email remnants. We can anticipate an October surprise as possible, and Bernie has none of that baggage nor threat levels with regard to October surprises.

Aside from that, a laugher in the NYT thing:

Joel Benenson, Mrs. Clinton’s pollster, gave little indication at a Wall Street Journal breakfast with reporters that the transcripts would be forthcoming.

“I don’t think voters are interested in the transcripts of her speeches,” he said.

If he doesn't think people would be interested, he doesn't think.

If sincere in that statement, a dubious proposition of course, how trustworthy would you weigh his polling skills? If insincere, does he poll a little here, a little there, and then tell the Clintons what they want to hear instead of what the public moods might be? Either way the guy is a brick. Trump would fire him.

__________FURTHER UPDATE__________
One can imagine Goldman or some hedge fund contemplating buying into a Caspian Sea banking venture; and questions about who regulates banks there and how would be valuable insider information, less opinion than information, and the range of thought experiment is boundless without transcript texts in hand or online to limit such speculative latitude. Produce them, Ms. Clinton, or have us all presume the worse. And apart from the transcripts, server deleted emails the FBI might (or might not) recover casts a pall of damaged goods or potential damage where an October surprise might be a disastrous outcome affecting the entire Dem ticket's opportunity. Bernie's closet appears to be free of actual current, or potential rattling skeletons. That is a positive thing not readily discounted, given the nagging uncertainties of Clintondom.

_________FURTHER UPDATE_________
The galling arrogance of Clinton people, is it boundless? Same NYT item:

On Friday, Brian Fallon, Mrs. Clinton’s press secretary, told MSNBC that if anyone thought they were getting something in return for Mrs. Clinton’s speaking to their group, “they’ll probably be asking for their money back when she’s president.” He added that “no one will regulate Wall Street more strictly than her.”

In a statement later, Mr. Fallon said that “Bernie Sanders, like Karl Rove before him, is trying to impugn Hillary Clinton’s integrity without any basis in fact.” He labeled this “character assassination by insinuation” and said Mr. Sanders should either show his evidence that the money has influenced her or drop the subject.

What's your take on, "... without any basis in fact ..."? Is a ton of money conjecture, not fact?

No comments: