In light of her demands of a private jet, presidential suite, and rooms for her entourage, Nevada reporter Jon Ralston rips Hillary Clinton’s “royal treatment” at an upcoming speaking engagement at UNLV.
“And now, a word about royalty. We don’t have kings and queens in America, or at least we shouldn’t. But when I see the red carpet UNLV is rolling out for Hillary Clinton in two months I start to wonder. Unless you’re a mindless partisan, the details of that contract with the UNLV Foundation should disturb you. They were uncovered, as I said by the RJ’s Lara Myers, and published over the weekend. The contract reads as if Hillary is being given the, yes, royal treatment. Now it is bad enough that the UNLV Foundation folks agreed to that outrageous $225,000 fee as students struggle to make ends meet, but the contract they signed shows they were willing to agree to terms no self-respecting institution would
While Hillary Clinton served as Secretary of State under Barack Obama, Bill Clinton earned at least $48 million from countries and entities that “had interests in influencing the Obama administration.”
“But an inspection by the Examiner and Judicial Watch of donations to the Clinton Foundation, Hillary Clinton’s personal financial disclosure forms, and the State Department conflict-of-interest reviews shows that at least $48 million flowed to the Clintons’ personal coffers from many entities that clearly had interests in influencing the Obama administration — and perhaps currying favor with a future president as well.
Saudi Arabia, for example, was a key Clinton benefactor. The oil-producing giant has had a relationship with the Clintons dating back to Bill Clinton’s time as governor of Arkansas.
In 1992, while running for president, then-Gov. Clinton secured a $3.5 million Saudi donation for a Middle East studies program at the University of Arkansas.
A few weeks after Clinton was inaugurated president, the Saudis kicked in another $20 million. Both deals were brokered by a close Clinton friend, David Edwards.”
“Bill Clinton also was active in China, as was Hillary Clinton, who championed the notion of a “pivot” toward Asia during her time as secretary of state.
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.”
As Hillary Clinton and her husband continue to collect exorbitant speaking fees, she was tripped up – yet again – when discussing her family’s wealth. When asked if she knew her net worth, Clinton responded that she only knew “within a range.”
Students continue to speak out against the massive fees Hillary charges to appear on campus:
Despite cuts forcing students to pay more for a degree, several public universities paid more than $200,000 for Hillary to speak on campus. Instead of paying Clinton’s exorbitant fees, those universities could have provided $50,000 scholarships to over 30 students with that same money.
“At Least Eight Universities, Including Four Public Institutions, Have Paid Hundreds Of Thousands Of Dollars For Hillary Rodham Clinton To Speak On Their Campuses Over The Past Year, Sparking A Backlash From Some Student Groups And Teachers At A Time Of Austerity In Higher Education.
In one previously undisclosed transaction, the University of Connecticut — which just raised tuition by 6.5 percent — paid $251,250 from a donor fund for Clinton to speak on campus in April. Other examples include $300,000 to speak at the University of California at Los Angeles in March and $225,000 for a speech scheduled for October at the University of Nevada at Las Vegas.”
MSNBC’s Morning Joe crew raises questions about the exorbitant fee Hillary charged the public university in New York, the state she used to represent:
In addition to a $275,000 fee, Hillary demanded nine pages of conditions-including restricting access to the press-to speak at the Unifersity at Buffalo, The Washington Post reports.
“The potential 2016 presidential candidate’s agent requested that the university provide ‘a presidential glass panel teleprompter and a qualified operator,’ that Clinton’s office have ‘final approval’ of her introducer and the moderator of any question-and-answer session, as well as ‘the sets, backdrops, banners, scenery, logos, settings, etc,’ and that the topic and length of the former secretary of state’s speech would be at her ‘sole discretion.’”
“The Buffalo contract stipulates that a pre-speech reception featuring Clinton be closed to the news media, although the speech itself was open to the press. The contract also required that the university pay a fee of $1,000 to have a stenographer transcribe Clinton’s speech, but that the transcript be ‘solely for [Clinton's] records,’ and that the university was not permitted to tape the speech.”
The Washington Post reports more than half of Bill Clinton’s speaking fees have been earned on foreign soil.
“Bill Clinton has been paid $104.9 million for 542 speeches around the world between January 2001, when he left the White House, and January 2013, when Hillary stepped down as secretary of state, according to a Washington Post review of the family’s federal financial disclosures.”
“Although slightly more than half of his appearances were in the United States, the majority of his speaking income, $56.3 million, came from foreign speeches, many of them in China, Japan, Canada and the United Kingdom, the Post review found.”
How poor is Hillary? The Wall Street Journal tries to find out, showing just how few Americans are better off than the former First Family.
“Did the Clintons reach the top 1% of the top 1%, based on their 2012 income? A different measure offers a strong clue. The Tax Policy Center says that IRS data for 2011, the most recent numbers available, show 11,500 total tax returns with adjusted gross income over $10 million that year, out of 145 million total returns. So a $10 million adjusted gross income puts one in the top 0.007% of all tax returns, and the Clintons’ income was well above that — likely putting it into the top 1% of the 1%.”
Chuck Todd discusses how the Clintons found themselves among the nation’s richest families following Bill’s time in the White House: