 |
Considering how she preaches a socialist message after
earning $10.6M in 2015 and $48M in 2014, it is no wonder she
can grin and bear it through her lies of the e-mail hearings. |
The Clintons Made $10.6 Million in Adjusted Gross Income for 2015 (and even more in years preceding)
The couple who claimed to be “flat broke” when they left the White House have done quite well for themselves. As detailed in a 12 August 2016 Washington Examiner article, the Clintons made $10.6 million to $28 million and more per year for multiple years:
“Bill and Hillary Clinton saw a sizeable dip in their adjusted gross income in 2015 after she stopped giving paid speeches and started running for president, according to a batch of tax documents released Friday.
The financial documents released Friday by the Democratic presidential candidate show the Clintons paid an effective federal tax rate of 34.2 percent in 2015. The same tax returns also showed their adjusted gross income last year was $10.6 million.
Though impressive, this figure is actually miniscule compared to their numbers from 2014, when Hillary Clinton alone earned $10.5 million in speaking fees, combining with Bill Clinton for an overall impressive adjusted gross income of nearly $28 million.
There’s a reason for the drop of more than $17.4 million between 2014 and 2015: Hillary Clinton stopped giving paid speeches after she announced her candidacy in April of last year.
… “
Considering that the Clintons made between $48 million and $28 million per year when Hillary was working a government job and then $10.6 million while she prepares to transition to the most powerful position on earth, maybe there might be something to the corruption charges that have been floating around Hillary. What I am saying is this: no speech (not even 215 of them in a year) seems to be worth $48 million. However, for companies and nations seeking to get certain benefits from the US (maybe a corner on the world uranium supply or a trillion-dollar defense contract), a few tens-of-millions might be a steal.
The State Department Approved 215 Bill Clinton Speeches During Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s Tenure
A 30 July 2014 Washington Examiner article revealed that Bill Clinton earned $48 million on 215 speeches which had to be approved by Hillary Clinton’s State Department.
“A joint investigation by the Washington Examiner and the nonprofit watchdog group Judicial Watch found that former President Clinton gave 215 speeches and earned $48 million while his wife presided over U.S. foreign policy, raising questions about whether the Clintons fulfilled ethics agreements related to the Clinton Foundation during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state.
According to documents obtained by Judicial Watch and released Wednesday in an ongoing Freedom of Information Act case, State Department officials charged with reviewing Bill Clinton’s proposed speeches did not object to a single one.
Some of the speeches were delivered in global hotspots and were paid for by entities with business or policy interests in the U.S.
The documents also show that in June 2011, the State Department approved a consulting agreement between Bill Clinton and a controversial Clinton Foundation adviser, Doug Band.
…
The memos approving Mr. Clinton’s speeches were routinely copied to Cheryl Mills, Hillary Clinton’s senior counsel and chief of staff.
Mills is a longtime Clinton troubleshooter who defended the president during his impeachment. In the Benghazi affair, Mills reportedly berated a high-ranking official at the U.S. embassy in Libya for talking to a Republican congressman.
…
While Hillary Clinton served as secretary of state, Bill Clinton gave two speeches in Saudi Arabia, earning a total of $600,000.
In January 2011, for example, Bill Clinton spoke at a global business forum in Riyadh founded by the Saudi Investment Authority and sponsored by the Dabbagh Group, a commercial colossus with close ties to the Saudi royal family.
His fee for the speech: $300,000.
During Hillary Clinton’s time at the State Department, Bill Clinton also gave four speeches in the United Arab Emirates, earning $1.1 million. For two speeches in Egypt, he earned $425,000.
UAE-linked entities also have donated at least $2.7 to $11.5 million to the Clinton Foundation, and Egyptian entities have donated at least $250,000 to $750,000.
…
In the period after Hillary Clinton signed the ethics agreement, Bill Clinton gave four speeches in China or to Chinese-sponsored entities in the U.S., earning $1.7 million.
By comparison, between 2001 through 2007 — just after he left office, when a former president is normally most in demand — he gave seven speeches in China, earning $1.4 million.
Groups with interests in China also donated between $750,000 and $1.75 million, at a minimum, to the Clinton Foundation.
Taiwan took an interest in Bill Clinton as well. In November 2010, he spoke on global warming and social inequality at a Taipei event sponsored by Singapore-based UNI Strategic. His fee? $400,000.
The Taiwan Economic and Cultural Office donated close to $1 million to the Clinton Foundation, and the Taiwan Mobile Foundation and a semiconductor manufacturer also contributed.
Turkish sponsors paid Bill Clinton $1 million for three speeches, including one to an Arab stock exchange.
…
In Russia, Bill Clinton gave two speeches for $625,000. One was to the Russian investment bank, Renaissance Capital, at a 2010 event titled ‘Russian and the Commonwealth of Independent States: Going Global.’
The State Department background memo described the bank as ‘focused on the emerging markets of Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Sub-Saharan Africa.’
The Russian Standard Bank also donated to the foundation.
In India, Bill Clinton collected $300,000 for two speeches. He also gave speeches to Indian companies and the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce in Toronto, New Jersey and Disney World.
… “
If your husband gets $48 million here and $28 million there while you are supposedly working as the head of an influential US department, it can certainly look like you are selling influence.
The Daily Caller Also Tracks the Clinton’s Speeches-for-Millions Scam
In a 30 July 2016 Daily Caller article, it was further reported:
“He gave four speeches to Chinese companies, earning $1.7 million.
Groups with ties to Chinese interests donated heavily to the Clinton Foundation, to the tune of between $750,000 and $1.75 million, according to the Examiner.
The audiences attending the speeches were mostly wealthy individuals.
In Chicago in April 2012, Mr. Clinton spoke at an event hosted by UBS Wealth Management of between 300 and 400 ‘high net-worth clients, prospective clients, and UBS Financial Advisers.’
He also spoke at the Ritz Carlton in the Cayman Islands, a well-known tax-haven for the wealthy.
The documents also showed an arrangement between former President Clinton and Teneo Strategies, a firm operated by Clinton Foundation adviser Doug Band.
According to the Washington Examiner, the contract, initially set for three years, was ended after only eight months after Band’s ties to MF Global, which went bankrupt in 2011, were revealed.
‘How the Obama State Department waived hundreds of ethical conflicts that allowed the Clintons and their businesses to accept money from foreign entities and corporations seeking influence boggles the mind,’ Judicial Watch’s Fitton said.”
Why do the Bill and Hillary Clinton get to pull these millions from the Chinese or the wealthy? It is obvious that Bill and Hill were selling nothing but access to the power of Hillary (first as Secretary of State and now as a candidate for president). Despite the Democrat party (where the ranks always close and nothing comes of blatant law breaking), this must be prosecuted and not rewarded.
Somehow, Russia Scores All US Uranium Around the Time Bill Clinton Gathers a $500K Speaking Fee
Take note of this rare event: you have the chance to witness the New York Times corroborate (in a 23 April 2015 article) the 20 July 2014 Washington Examiner article mentioned above. That is, the New York Times actually reported on the unethical and illegal machinations of Bill and Hillary Clinton (although those statements are couched in the terms usually used by a doting parent on a delinquent child):
“The headline on the website Pravda trumpeted President Vladimir V. Putin’s latest coup, its nationalistic fervor recalling an era when its precursor served as the official mouthpiece of the Kremlin: ‘Russian Nuclear Energy Conquers the World.’
The article, in January 2013, detailed how the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West. The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.
But the untold story behind that story is one that involves not just the Russian president, but also a former American president and a woman who would like to be the next one.
At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.
Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.
And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.
The New York Times’s examination of the Uranium One deal is based on dozens of interviews, as well as a review of public records and securities filings in Canada, Russia and the United States. Some of the connections between Uranium One and the Clinton Foundation were unearthed by Peter Schweizer, a former fellow at the right-leaning Hoover Institution and author of the forthcoming book ‘Clinton Cash.’ Mr. Schweizer provided a preview of material in the book to The Times, which scrutinized his information and built upon it with its own reporting.
Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown. But the episode underscores the special ethical challenges presented by the Clinton Foundation, headed by a former president who relied heavily on foreign cash to accumulate $250 million in assets even as his wife helped steer American foreign policy as secretary of state, presiding over decisions with the potential to benefit the foundation’s donors.
In a statement, Brian Fallon, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign, said no one ‘has ever produced a shred of evidence supporting the theory that Hillary Clinton ever took action as secretary of state to support the interests of donors to the Clinton Foundation.’ He emphasized that multiple United States agencies, as well as the Canadian government, had signed off on the deal and that, in general, such matters were handled at a level below the secretary. ‘To suggest the State Department, under then-Secretary Clinton, exerted undue influence in the U.S. government’s review of the sale of Uranium One is utterly baseless,’ he added.
American political campaigns are barred from accepting foreign donations. But foreigners may give to foundations in the United States. In the days since Mrs. Clinton announced her candidacy for president, the Clinton Foundation has announced changes meant to quell longstanding concerns about potential conflicts of interest in such donations; it has limited donations from foreign governments, with many, like Russia’s, barred from giving to all but its health care initiatives. That policy stops short of a more stringent agreement between Mrs. Clinton and the Obama administration that was in effect while she was secretary of state.
Either way, the Uranium One deal highlights the limits of such prohibitions. The foundation will continue to accept contributions from foreign sources whose interests, like Uranium One’s, may overlap with those of foreign governments, some of which may be at odds with the United States.
When the Uranium One deal was approved, the geopolitical backdrop was far different from today’s. The Obama administration was seeking to ‘reset’ strained relations with Russia. The deal was strategically important to Mr. Putin, who shortly after the Americans gave their blessing sat down for a staged interview with Rosatom’s chief executive, Sergei Kiriyenko. ‘Few could have imagined in the past that we would own 20 percent of U.S. reserves,’ Mr. Kiriyenko told Mr. Putin.
… “
Although the Obama administration may have been too blinded by its new-progressive, rose-colored glasses, I really don’t think that Russia changed that much. Hopefully in the near future, America will wake from its never-indict-a-Democrat stupor and take care of the spanking due to Bill and Hill.
Mark 1:1 