https://finance.yahoo.com/news/latest-clinton-cash-intrigue-involves-144828732.html Despite repeated invitations to speak at Czech model Petra Nemcova's annual charity event Bill Clinton always declined...until he was offered $500,000 to appear. It seems the Clinton love of charitable good works is only exceeded by his love of half million dollar appearance fees. "Doug White, director of Columbia University's fundraising management program, told The Times that the arrangement was strange because Clinton's foundation is so much bigger. The Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation has reportedly raised $2 billion. "This is primarily a small but telling example of the way the Clintons operate," White said. "The model has responsibility; she paid a high price for a feel-good moment with Bill Clinton. But he was riding the back of this small charity for what? A half-million bucks? I find it what would be the word? distasteful." Distasteful indeed. You could also call his fee gluttonous, greedy, swinish and incredibly selfish. Nemcova's charity (Happy Hearts Fund) specializes in rebuilding schools that suffer through natural disasters. After finally bribing Bill Clinton to show up (you have to wonder why in retrospect given Clinton's demand) one also has to wonder how many schools and children that money would have been better spent on. "The Clinton Foundation had rejected the Happy Hearts Fund invitation more than once, until there was a thinly veiled solicitation and then the offer of an honorarium," she said. Sue Veres Royal (former executive director of Happy Hearts) was also quoted saying, "Petra called me and said we have to include an honorarium for him that they dont look at these things unless money is offered, and it has to be $500,000." There is something very, very low about grasping rapacious people that exploit charities for their own greedy ends. Hillary Clinton has boasted how proud she is of the work of the Clinton Foundation (despite filings with the IRS that show the Clintons only give about .15 cents of every dollar to the charity itself). I wonder if she is "proud" of Bill Clinton's big paycheck at the expense of a children's charity? Someone should ask her.
I can't fault Petra. What she's been through would kill most people. Clinton, on the other hand, is nothing but a money-grubbing prostitute.
Hillary and Bill have run quite the telemarketing foundation. Willing to take advantage of anyone willing to pay the $500,000 for their "influence".
Yes. This is like the FIFA corruption scandal writ large with uncounted millions changing hands and being spread around in order to play ball with the big boys and greasing the palms of soft, well manicured hands just out of view of the general public. In an ideal world charities wouldn't become the personal cash raising vehicle for global grifters like the Clintons and Nemcova's ill conceived desire to buy Clinton influence and name recognition with this half million dollar "honorarium" (bribe, in other words) is the perfect illustration of how Clinton influence peddling works...whether with one small charity or with the governments of nations.
The "concussion" Hillary had, to the email server debacle, to using personal email at the State Department while subordinates were fired for doing the same, Bill's alleged jaunts down to pedophile island, the Clinton foundation telemarketing scheme to wheel and deal influence, to Russia owning US uranium, selling out the interests of the American people and the national security interests of the US to pad their bank accounts. Absolutely sickening the DNC has settled on this candidate.
Who would pay half a million dollars to hear Bill speak? Most of us have already heard everything he has to say, I'm not sure why anyone would pay.
George W. Bush racks up $15 million in speaking fees Gotta love Republican hypocrisy -- it's only bad if the other guy does it. As soon as Bush left office, he joined the speaking circuit. While he never made the kind of money Reagan made ($2 million for two speeches), he averaged $110,000 per speech.
It's about as cronyist as you can imagine, regardless of party. I don't think they're serving a public good, I don't think they have knowledge that you can't get on the world wide web. If the FTC had integrity, they'd set limits on the price one can charge for public speaking(at least), if not outright ban the practice for politicians. Why should we make hijacking the economy a political thing? They're abusing the citizenry of the country, this isn't about D or R. This is about integrity.
America KNOWS Hitlary is as crooked as a dog's hind leg. They don't freeeekin care. She needs to be attacked on he horrific and incompetent 'leadership'. Dems have made their peace with an amoral scumbagg as president so Hitlary will be just fine on that metric. But Libya and similar will spell incompetent.
From your article: Bush gave three paid speeches that week--one to "hedge fund executives, a Swiss bank sanctioned for keeping secret bank accounts, and a pro golf event underwritten by the accounting firm involved in the Tyco International financial scandal." Bush is represented by the Washington Speakers Bureau, and a quick glance at the company shows that they also arrange speaking gigs for wife Laura Bush, daughter Barbara Bush, brother and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, and sister Doro Bush Koch. Doro Bush Koch charges $10,001-15,000 per appearance, according to the company website, and a speech from Jeb Bush costs $15,001-$25,000. Fees for Laura Bush, Barbara Bush and the former president are available by request only. From the OP: Petra Nemcova's annual charity event How sad it must be to not understand the meaning of the simple word: CHARITY.
The circumstances of Clinton's honorarium, who he got his money from and how he refused to promote a charitable service until he got his cut is really the issue here. Not honorariums, per se. But you probably knew that.
You got it...hypocrisy is indeed the issue and not whether any other presidents have ever made money giving speeches or not. No one ever claimed otherwise and, like other leftists, you love to frame a debate disingenuously because arguing based on facts doesn't turn out so well for you. The hypocrisy comes in when Bill Clinton, co-head of the putatively charitable Clinton Foundation, refused repeated requests to speak at Petra Nemcova's Happy Hearts charity (as already detailed) until his outrageously greedy demands for his half million dollar fee were met no matter how adversely it effected the much smaller charity or impacted the children who were elbowed away from the money trough by the swinish Clinton. This is hypocrisy writ large from a man who loves to collect large amounts of money based on his supposed love of charitable acts and you know better but choose to defend rank greed anyway.
If, as mentioned, you don't understand the meaning of the word Charity, nobody can help you. Rest assured I have better things to do than try to educate the uneducateable.
and in typical liberal fashion, you act like conservatives support their guys doing it. STOP defending a democrats action by saying that a republican did the same thing....it makes you look like an idiot. Where on earth in the original post did yosh make the claim that it was ok for bush to collect such fees? Of all the BS spewed by liberals on here, their incredibly predictable defense of 'yeah well so and so did the same thing' is probably the most over used and abused one out there. Do you actually have something to say about the topic at hand?
