Get PJ Media on your Apple

The PJ Tatler

by
Bryan Preston

Bio

June 9, 2014 - 7:56 am

Hillary Clinton gave an interview to ABC News, and in that interview she makes a shocking claim.

“We came out of the White House not only dead broke, but in debt,” Clinton told Sawyer, referring to the hefty legal fees incurred during their White House years. “We had no money when we got there, and we struggled to, you know, piece together the resources for mortgages, for houses, for Chelsea’s education. You know, it was not easy.”

How did the Clintons come out of their eight-year co-presidency “dead broke”?

They lived in a house that is owned and paid for by the U.S. taxpayers — the White House.

The American taxpayer picked up the tab for everything that the Clintons did across eight (long) years. We fed them. We bought their clothes. We paid to have them driven and flown around town and around the world.

While we were giving them a very nice, free life, we were also paying Bill Clinton $200,000 per year to be president. Add up that salary across eight (long, scandal-ridden) years and that’s $1.6 million.

What did Mr. and Mrs. Clinton do with all that money, that they ended up “dead broke” after eight years of living all-expenses-paid in public housing? Why didn’t Hillary use that money, work her cattle futures magic, and turn it into tens of millions? Where did it go?

They may have spent some or all of it on legal bills, but there again, if that’s the case, it just suggests unfitness for the office. To quote Hillary, what difference does that make? The legal bills they racked up were the result of Bill’s actions, his serial sexual harassment, his philandering which may have led to secret payoffs, etc. He brought all that on them with his poor personal decision-making. Now we’re supposed to feel sorry for them and not question why they pull in $200,000 per speech?

Update: So, it’s possible, just spitballin’ here, that Hillary Clinton is lying about something?

In an interview with Diane Sawyer to air on Monday evening, Clinton explained that she and her husband had to earn millions from speaking engagements because they were so deep in debt. “We had no money when we got there, and we struggled to piece together the resources for mortgages for houses, for Chelsea’s education — it was not easy,” she told Sawyer.

But in a December 2000 article, the New York Times reported that then-senator-elect Clinton sold her memoir, Living History, to Simon & Schuster for $8 million. The newspaper described the effort to nab her book as a “frantic weeklong bidding war” after she held an open auction on the proposal.

Bryan Preston has been a leading conservative blogger and opinionator since founding his first blog in 2001. Bryan is a military veteran, worked for NASA, was a founding blogger and producer at Hot Air, was producer of the Laura Ingraham Show and, most recently before joining PJM, was Communications Director of the Republican Party of Texas.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
"They may have spent some or all of it on legal bills, but there again, if that’s the case, it just suggests unfitness for the office."


To quote a commenter on another forum from back when Hillary was running for the Senate:

"Most people with Hillary's vast experience are doing 20 to life in federal prison."

19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
Ohhhhh. So now we know why they were renting out the Lincoln bedroom.

Boarders.

And here is Hilliar revisionizing her history on Israel.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/hillary-rewrites-her-history-israel_794511.html?nopager=1

The Propaganda Pivot is all the new rage. Scrubbing Hilliar's history.

As first wife, a marriage by most standards that was a disaster. A carpetbagger as a Senator, with no ties to New York and Chicago politics written into her every "enemies list" move.

A train wreck as Secretary of State, who accomplished nothing even she and here acolytes can remember, but she leaves dead bodies in her wake wherever she surfs the political waters.

Call it bad luck, bad karma, being born under a bad sign...or the natural disaster barnacle that attaches to the Woodstock/Alinsky whale.


This woman is bad news....being rewritten as good news. She and her media are lying through their teeth.

Especially about how shabbily she treated Israel.
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
So, if they were so broke, how did they manage to buy a house in exclusive, expensive, Chappaqua, NY?
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (38)
All Comments   (38)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
mortgages on houses.
just like you and me.
18 weeks ago
18 weeks ago Link To Comment
According to then-Clinton insider Dick Morris:

Hillary Clinton likes to present herself as an “every woman,” facing the same challenges that bedevil all families, living in sync with their trials and tribulations, overcoming adversity as we all try to do. The latest iteration of her wish to downplay her wealth so as to be just plain folk was her bald assertions to Diane Sawyer that she and Bill were “dead broke” and “in debt” when she left the White House, struggling to “you know, piece together the resources for mortgages for houses, Chelsea’s education, you know, it was not easy.”

Some dead broke! Some “not easy”! Consider this:

Her joint tax return with Bill for 2001 showed a $16,165,110 income for her first year out of the White House.

Even before they left the White House, their joint income for 2000 was $359,000, scarcely in the “dead broke” category, particularly when you consider that the Clintons had none of the normal expenses that the rest of us do, such as housing, cars, child care, insurance, electricity, landscaping, healthcare — all covered by the taxpayers. All they had to pay for was dry cleaning, food and college tuition for Chelsea. Most people could make that work.

Hillary signed a book contract with an $8 million advance in the closing weeks of Bill’s presidency and Bill inked a $15 million deal at about the same time. She got more than $2 million of this in 2001. Is that dead broke?

The Clintons bought a house in September of 1999 in Chappaqua, N.Y., for $1.7 million. In December of 2000, they also purchased a $2.85 million house in Washington, D.C. before Bill left office. Do people who are dead broke and in debt do this?

Before leaving the White House, the Clintons registered with a Midwest department store so their friends and donors could provide them with expensive household gifts to start a new home — like any blushing newlyweds. They carted away $190,000 of the gifts they received during their White House years. These included expensive china, flatware and home furnishings. Ultimately they had to repay the donors $86,000 for what they had plundered.

Chelsea had graduated from college by the end of Bill’s term and her tuition for graduate work at Oxford for the year 2001 could not have been too burdensome for a family that would earn $16 million that year.

So why does Hillary Clinton do this? Why make up stories of poverty when they were verifiable multimillionaires?

The former first lady has always felt the need to adjust the truth of her extraordinary circumstances — up or down — to suit her political needs of the moment. She wants to be just like us. So, for example, she’s spoken of the burdens of providing child care for Chelsea, even as the Clintons had the luxuries of an extensive staff of taxpayer-funded state police and babysitters during Chelsea’s early years and a full White House and Secret Service staff afterwards.

She’s also said she wanted a private kitchen in the White House so that when her “husband [is] coming home after a golf game” she can “throw something together “for him to eat.” She avoided mentioning that she would have to elbow aside the dozens of cooks, butlers, waiters and servants assigned to prepare the meals for the first couple — and that she never cooks.

Why does she find this protective coloration necessary? Why must she hide in the herd, pretending to be just one of us? And does her need to misrepresent her circumstances on the public stage bespeak a fundamental disregard for the truth and a confidence that she can manipulate our feelings as surely as any soap opera actress?

With Hillary Clinton, it is not just the big things that she tries to spin: Benghazi, the prisoner exchange and so forth. It’s also the little things that she misrepresents … and that gives her game away.
18 weeks ago
18 weeks ago Link To Comment
You forgot: Hillary also claimed she was named for Sir Edmund Hillary of Mt. Everest Fame. Apparently her time-travelling mother was able to go into the future before Hillary's birth and pick the name of the explorer as her daughter's namesake. At the time of HRC's birth, Edmund Hillary was an obscure beekeeper living in New Zealand who was also a part-time mountain climber.

Good liars become that way as much by constant practice as by any other talent or quality. A lack of character also goes a long way.

Cankles! My God, the cankles on that woman! Oh, the humanity!
18 weeks ago
18 weeks ago Link To Comment
"And does her need to misrepresent her circumstances on the public stage bespeak a fundamental disregard for the truth "

This is SOP for leftists. It's not possible to reject the idea of absolute moral truth and still have a high regard for truth.

Libertarians and "conservative" atheists & agnostics are lying to themselves on this point.

18 weeks ago
18 weeks ago Link To Comment
These are funny.

"#HillaryIsSoPoor: How poor is she?"

http://twitchy.com/2014/06/09/hillaryissopoor-how-poor-is-she/
18 weeks ago
18 weeks ago Link To Comment
Money well spent. That's why O'webama hired Clinton's lawyer.
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
Seriously, it was NOT easy. Who can get by on a few million a year?

"Clinton released her 2000 to 2006 tax returns last month and disclosed that she and her husband have earned $109 million over the last eight years"

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/05/13/36890/clintons-wealth-rose-fastest-among.html#storylink=cpy
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
But Bryan, there were millions spent responding to multiple political attacks, public record act requests, and vexatious lawfare ethical complaints filed by her opponents -- oh, wait, that wasn't her...never mind.
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
I wonder if Ms. Monica Lewinski suggested the name of Hillary's new book (Hard Choices).
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
Clinton's cheating and lying did generate the need for a lot of legal help and a lot of bills. I recall there were fundraisers to help pay those bills but I dunno how much they generated.
I dunno how broke they may have been, but they did by the Westchester place pretty quickly. By then Hillary had a job and Bill had a pension, but $350k/year in that neighborhood is lower-class.
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
You are right. Anybody who can't "make do" with resources like that is a few bricks short of a load. And hence, most assuredly unfit for office.
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
You'd think so, MayberryLady, but what's the track record for the last fifty years with Congress? Especially if a Dem president has Dem majorities?
Or states like California, Taxachussetts and Illinois?
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
"Now we’re supposed to feel sorry for them and not question why they pull in $200,000 per speech?"

When Bill started bopping about the world speechifying post presidency, he, reportedly, only got about $100,000 per hour long speech. Same question as below...Who in the world pays that kind of money for blather ?

Bill also set himself up as administrator for dispersal of post disaster funds following the Asian tsunami and the Haitian hurricane. Millions flowed into those respective funds and, reportedly, much of that money has not reached the poor people who were victims of those disasters. Surprise, surprise.

Hillary's $200,000 per blather must be a bone of contention between those two charming people.

I'd pay money if they'd both just shut up.
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
While I'm NOT defending Bill Clinton...1) Everyone should be FREE to become a Public Speaker, not just those whose messages WE like to hear...that's called Capitalism!! (If you don't want to hear his speech...don't go or even buy a ticket). 2) Bill AND Bush, Sr. worked together on some (maybe not all...not sure) of the disaster relief initiatives. If $ is missing the org needs to be audited, just like any other non-profit where fraud is suspected. 3) I fully expect they were "broke on paper" to gain a tax advantage.
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
Sure he's free to speak, it is the $100,000/pop that is beyond absurd.

And the Hildebeest doubling down.

You sound a little glib about the misuse of disaster funds, which seems to be the rule of thumb whether Bill Clinton, King George or anyone else is administering the deal. i think when you're dealing with the post disaster (or even pre disaster) government of Haiti, an audit to uncover fraud is not likely.

I see these situations involving the Clintons, their alleged caring etc., their alleged identification with the so called little guy as just more pretense. These are people who've guarded their individual wealth with their lives, and the only principle they are dedicated to is augmenting that wealth.
19 weeks ago
19 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 Next View All