So what exactly does Hillary Clinton ask for when she gives a paid speech, like the ones she gave at Goldman Sachs? A contract for a speech she gave at the University of Nevada Las Vegas provides some answers. The contract was obtained by the Las Vegas Review-Journal in August, through the state public records law.
For that speech in October 2014, Clinton requested two payments of $112,500:
Clinton laughed off a request to release the transcripts of her Goldman Sachs speeches two weeks ago. During the Democratic presidential debate on Thursday she was once again asked about the transcripts and replied that she would “look into” it.
The UNLV contract is not necessarily the same one Clinton uses for all of her speaking arrangements. But, of course, Clinton could release those contracts, too, if she chose to.
Related:
- Hillary Clinton Won’t Say if She’ll Release Transcripts of Goldman Sachs Speeches
- Top Hillary Clinton PAC Donation Amounts to 222,000 Bernie Sanders Donations
- Hillary Clinton Laughs When Asked if She Will Release Transcripts of Her Goldman Sachs Speeches
- Hillary Clinton Made More in 12 Speeches to Big Banks Than Most of Us Earn in a Lifetime
- Hillary Clinton’s Single-Payer Pivot Greased by Millions in Industry Speech Fees
Asking so much for a speech to a small college is unconscionable. Probably many of the students going there are struggling to pay tuition, yet the administration invites a political hack and pays her what amounts to a very large fee, that would be better and more properly used for the needs of students.
But of course, Hillary “cares about students”, just as she “cares about women and children” especially the ones she condemned to death and displacement in the illegal war on Iraq that she voted for. A truly awful person, not one ethically or morally qualified to lead the country.
I’m struggling to pay for my final year of college myself, and it absolutely infuriates me that a school would place more worth on something like this than providing services to the students. The tuitions at my school have been leaping up every year, while the variety of services go down. And the worst thing is, it’s all to fund more “administrators” and bonuses for them. If I could do it all over I would have become self taught.
/end rant.
We got a 2-party state – just one more party than China! – so who is surprised at this circus???
We are 300 million people and can only choose between the reds and the blues … what about all other colors?
We need a multi-party state. We need a system allowing political diversity with more parties. The current duopoly will ever only serve big corporate interests controlling those two parties.
Here is a bribe of $250.000
Let me try that again:
Here is $250.000 donation to your foundation.
I can do better:
Here is $250.000 speaking fee. You will get to make a big entrance at my event, read some lines from a tele-prompter to our select audience, and schmooze with us afterwards. We’ll do this regularly to make sure we are still on the same page.
I would like to see a woman as president just as bad as anyone…but not Hillary, please! She is as much of a pure capitalist as is ‘The Donald’, and she is the wife if an ex-president. She and her husband are both wealthy, and I don’t want to see another rich person up there. They do not represent me at all! And I really do not want to see our highest office being kept solely for wealthy political and monetary dynasty’s! I liken it, in many ways, to a regime once they get into office.
No real democracy to be found anywhere.
Go to Switzerland! They got REAL democracy there. Every month they got referrendums on REAL issues and the politicians are BY LAW required to implement the outcomes of the referrendums.
Given that Bernie Sanders used to praise Castro, and speak about boycotting Israel, having his old speech transcripts would be far more enlightening.
It would be enlightening, because it would show that he’s always been correct and ahead of everyone else on most issues. There’s nothing wrong with Castro and boycotting israel is the right thing to do, so if those are his positions, they would only increase his support.
Well, nothing wrong with Castro that isn’t MORE wrong with dozens of other leaders the US actively supports, except the affrontery of not actively supporting US imperial capitalism.
Another point that Zaid should have made is that, per the Speech and Topic Rights, the content is and remains the property of the speaker. If her other contracts are similar, she is deprived of the excuse that the speech was exclusively for the benefit of the audience and therefore cannot be released.
I am sure that twenty years from now we will be able to go to the Hillary Clinton Presidential Library, built and maintained through the generous support of Goldman Sachs, and read the speeches in her collected works. By that time, we will have long since surmised what the contents of those speeches were, however.
By the way, Hillary’s handling of this topic is similar to her handling of the e-mail issue. It would have been easy to acquiesce to public inquiries and simply offer up the speeches or e-mails, and offer a sincere public apology for her lack of judgement. But Hillary is interested in control, and will stonewall or even lie to maintain it. It is reminiscent of some of Nixon’s less gracious moments.
“per the Speech and Topic Rights, the content is and remains the property of the speaker. If her other contracts are similar, she is deprived of the excuse that the speech was exclusively for the benefit of the audience and therefore cannot be released.”
Wouldn’t it be precisely the opposite? The fact that the content is the “property of the speaker” allows her to withhold any release and explains why she’s been doing that very thing for so long, claiming its within her contractual rights (or whatever other legal claim she’s making)? “The lecture and any supporting materials provided by the Speaker remain the intellectual property of the speaker” (HRC UNLV contract). This means she has an exclusive right over the use of her speech — including, I presume, the release of its content, yes? — at least for a certain period of time.
Granted, I think HRC is as establishment as they come and the most phony, disingenuous, unappealing person alive (I can’t even look at images of the woman, she’s so revolting), but this doesn’t seem to be a legitimate claim against her refusals to release speech content. (Never mind that a “democratic” people being denied access to the content of a speech is just absurd — what are you saying that shouldn’t be heard?) Or am I missing something here? (which, I’ll admit, is very possible)
What did a public university, UNLV, gain from forking over a quarter million to a former SecState?
Thanks for pointing out that fact. Aren’t public universities at least partially funded by taxes(rhetorical, I looked it up) ?
This is the way the democratic party plans to get money out of politics. This is why Bernie is an independent.
OK, slightly off the subject, but is this one of the reasons why college costs so much? $250K for a power-hungry big shot to blah blah for an hour and a half?
Absolutely agree, I have thought the same thing many times. Students should not be straddled by more debt to pay for Hillary speeches and other unnecessary toppings on a cake. I have a niece who is an administrator at a state university, she was sent to India to learn about human trafficking. They spent a few hours at a seminar and spent the rest of the time sightseeing.
Hey Stealth Patriots that begin with the letter A- Please sneak Hillary’s transcripts on over to Julian Assange for us. The future of this country will be much obliged.
Wow,and they were flat broke when they left the whitehouse! Shows that if you lie enough you eventually believe your own lies. Nice leader.
The groups that can afford to hire HRC as speaker are few, and, unless she does some Pro Bono, they are all of abundant means.
This is fairly standard as a speaker’s contract -goes – certainly not as much of a hassle as some author contracts I’ve had to sign. I guess my question echoes Kathy’s. What is your point?
The point is corruption in government. No one in his right mind would pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to hear Clinton’s hackneyed phrases. What’s being paid for is influence.
Moreover if her other contracts are similar to this one (and why should they not be?) there is no reason whatsoever why she could not release other speeches.
The conclusion is obvious: she does not want the electorate to hear what she has to say to the 1%. Remember Mitt Romney?
Clinton as Secretary of Empire said that she gets her orders from the CFR
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ba9wxl1Dmas
So please take a look at Laurence Shoup’s new book (“Wall Street’s Think Tank”) and share with Intercepters what the CFR is and why it’s far more dangerous to the 99% than any designated terrorist organization.
maybe she’ll be influenced by Philip Gordon
“Syria: The Need for Diplomacy and De-escalation”
http://www.cfr.org/syria/syria-need-diplomacy-de-escalation/p37326
Does it mention adjoining rooms for her and Huma?
I don’t know, Lou, can you read, or are you too busy masturbating to lesbian porn?
Why isn’t the alleged provision for transcription shown in the article?
I can’t say why it wasn’t in this article, but it is listed under the heading “TRANSCRIPTION:” in the full contract behind the Las Vegas Review-Journal link.
So what’s your point?
The point is she can’t say “I can’t release the transcripts per the contract” or “I don’t have a copy of the transcripts”. If she doesn’t release them now, it’s because she didn’t want to. What does she have to hide?
You’ve read the article and the contracts? And then, if so, after having done so, you’ve asked “what’s your point.” So I assume that you think there’s no reason why anyone should even inquire about what a presidential candidate does, and for whom, and in what way their actions might inform all who are and will be effected by that candidate’s, or any other presidential candidate’s, activities?
As I recall Kitt, you made exactly that argument when Anthony Weiner was being defended by Glen Greenwald for exposing himself (repeatedly) online. I guess in your book only the private behavior of Presidential candidates is subject to open scrutiny.
Your “argument” or “comparison” makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. I can’t imagine what drives a person to make such an ass of themselves when doing so could so easily be avoided just by, well, not making an ass of themselves.