The PJ Tatler

New York Times to Hillary!: Um, About That 'One Percent' Thing...

Continuing its journalistic efforts to make Mrs. Clinton’s life as miserable as possible, the Times decides to shine a little light or her newfound obscene wealth — wealth derived from nothing more than her own obscene celebrity:

Hillary Rodham Clinton and her husband made at least $30 million over the last 16 months, mainly from giving paid speeches to corporations, banks and other organizations, according to financial disclosure forms filed with federal elections officials on Friday. The sum, which makes Mrs. Clinton among the wealthiest of the 2016 presidential candidates, could create challenges for the former secretary of state as she tries to cast herself as a champion of everyday Americans in an era of income inequality.

The $25 million in speaking fees since the beginning of last year continue a lucrative trend for the Clintons: They have now earned more than $125 million on the circuit since leaving the White House in 2001. In addition, the report shows, Mrs. Clinton reported income exceeding $5 million from her memoir of her time as secretary of state, “Hard Choices.”

Nothing wrong with paid speeches, you say? Of course not, unless by “paid speeches” you mean effective bribes in the form of outlandish fees, paid in order to curry favor with the family that might (groan) be once again occupying the White House come 2017.

Of Mrs. Clinton’s speeches, 10 were delivered to audiences outside the United States, but they were not nearly as far-flung as those by her husband over the years. Nine were to Canadian groups: the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce in Whistler, British Columbia; trade organizations in Montreal and Vancouver; the think tank Canada 2020, which generates socially progressive policy; and five organized by the events firm tinePublic Inc. The 10th speech was to a health care company audience in Mexico City.

Mrs. Clinton also spoke to a mix of corporations (GE, Cisco, Deutsche Bank), medical and pharmaceutical groups (the California Medical Association and the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association), and women’s organizations like the Commercial Real Estate Women Network. Mr. Clinton’s speeches included a number of talks for financial firms, including Bank of America and UBS, as well as technology companies like Microsoft and Oracle.

Remember when the media castigated Ronald Reagan for giving a couple of paid speeches in Japan after he left office? Good times. Meanwhile, Hillary! won’t take questions from reporters regarding her quest for the Oval Office, but she has plenty of time to cash in elsewhere:

The Clintons have come under increasing scrutiny for their financial activities since she announced her run for president last month. Much of the attention has been focused on the Clinton Foundation and the donations it received from foreign entities during the time that she was secretary of state. But the couple has also faced criticism for giving highly paid speeches to certain groups, particularly the financial industry.

The speaking circuit has enriched many well-known Washington figures and former presidents, but the exorbitant pay for light work can distance them from the realities most Americans experience at their jobs. In one case, the report shows, Mrs. Clinton received $100,000 for a speech to the California Medical Association — by satellite.

Nice work if you can get it — and, if you’re a ethically challenged, conscienceless Democrat, you can get it if you try.

See also Vox’s latest attack on Lady Macbeth: Hillary Clinton personally took money from companies that sought to influence her. The hard Left really, really hates her. Which tells you that the folks they favor — Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders — are even worse than she is.

 

 

 

 

Continue