Take Back America

Hillary Clinton made $2.9 million in speaking fees from large financial institutions between 2013 and 2015. That total includes $675,000 from the much reviled Goldman Sachs.

Hillary Clinton oversaw US arms deals to Clinton Foundation donors

In all, governments and corporations involved in the arms deals approved by Clinton’s State Department have delivered between $54 million and $141 million to the Clinton Foundation as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments to the Clinton family, according to foundation and State Department records.

The following tables created by the International Business Times show the flow of money and arms deals involving 20 nations, the Clinton Foundation, and the State Department:
Defense Contractors Donated To The Clinton Foundation
The Clinton Foundation accepted donations from six companies benefiting from U.S. State Department arms export approvals.

Defense Contractor Donation Min. ($)
Boeing 5,000,000
General Electric 1,000,000
Goldman Sachs (Hawker Beechcraft) 500,000
Honeywell 50,000
Lockheed Martin 250,000
United Technologies 50,000
Clinton Foundation Donors Get Big Weapons Deals
17 out of 20 countries that have donated to the Clinton Foundation saw increases in arms exports authorized by Hillary Clinton's State Department.


Country Donation Min. ($) FY2006-FY2008 ($) FY2010-FY2012 ($) Difference (%)
Algeria 250,000 649,943,709 2,431,535,005 274
Australia 10,000,000 8,030,754,085 23,953,849,391 198
Bahrain 50,000 219,718,802 630,586,020 187
Brunei 250,000 101,239,902 19,256,846 -81
Canada 250,000 20,975,621,915 24,844,128,294 18
Germany 100,000 9,147,637,319 9,839,619,231 8
Ireland 5,000,000 144,929,678 107,064,341 -26
Italy 100,000 6,195,891,571 12,274,692,168 98
Jamaica 50,000 18,572,209 11,360,582 -39
Kuwait 5,000,000 1,895,298,212 2,109,893,611 11
Morocco 2,000,000 250,045,824 253,096,156 1
Netherlands 5,000,000 3,069,131,994 4,655,490,802 52
Norway 10,000,000 2,718,237,833 3,351,140,380 23
Oman 1,000,000 170,597,237 547,003,781 221
Qatar 1,000,000 271,325,915 4,291,824,236 1,482
Saudi Arabia 10,000,000 4,105,561,815 8,094,719,012 97
Taiwan 500,000 2,612,251,394 3,811,233,565 46
Thailand 250,000 656,266,680 1,113,283,489
AE1,000,0002,261,801,90324,998,754,7601,005United Kingdom1,000,00026,225,307,39538,015,933,06545

I'm beginning to believe she has lost your vote.

I love the smell of big bad success in the morning. Smells like (pause) victory.

Down with capitalism! (sad meek voice) please applaud.

I love the smell of big bad success in the morning. Smells like (pause) victory.

she creates nothing, she's a corrupt remora

At a CNN town hall in Derry, N.H., moderator Anderson Cooper asked the former secretary of state, "Did you have to be paid $675,000?", a reference to her fees for three speeches to Goldman Sachs. Clinton responded, "I don't know. That's what they offered."

Clinton went on to say that she accepted the Goldman money after she left the State Department in 2013, when, as she put it, "I wasn't committed to running" for president. An Associated Press analysis of public disclosure forms and records released by her campaign found that Clinton made $9 million from appearances sponsored by banks, insurance companies, hedge funds, private equity firms and real estate businesses.

She never sent material that was marked classified. If someone sent her unmarked classified material and she forwarded it, then it's highly unlikely that she would be considered culpable, and criminally negligent, not a effin' chance. Sorry, you need to find a new wet dream.

Retired special agent here. I had a Top Secret clearance and conducted criminal investigations involving Top Secret information and investigated many criminal allegations where less important Confidential Information was unlawfully disclosed.

Contrary to popular belief (movies and tv), intelligence/information is not marked "Classified". Instead if it was indeed classified (an action), it would be identified by it's proper classification, i.e. Confidential, Secret, Top Secret, etc. You would typically not see any working documents marked with a classification unless that information were to leave the agency and go somewhere, i.e. congress, another federal agency, where they may be unaware of how to treat the information.

If the state department worked like the agency that I worked for, intelligence information is not marked or classified in any way, but everyone, I mean everyone, knows what it is and how important it is to protect and safeguard that information.

Retired special agent here. I had a Top Secret clearance and conducted criminal investigations involving Top Secret information and investigated many criminal allegations where less important Confidential Information was unlawfully disclosed.

Contrary to popular belief (movies and tv), intelligence/information is not marked "Classified". Instead if it was indeed classified (an action), it would be identified by it's proper classification, i.e. Confidential, Secret, Top Secret, etc. You would typically not see any working documents marked with a classification unless that information were to leave the agency and go somewhere, i.e. congress, another federal agency, where they may be unaware of how to treat the information.

If the state department worked like the agency that I worked for, intelligence information is not marked or classified in any way, but everyone, I mean everyone, knows what it is and how important it is to protect and safeguard that information.

Working papers absolutely have to be marked by whomever created them.

At a CNN town hall in Derry, N.H., moderator Anderson Cooper asked the former secretary of state, "Did you have to be paid $675,000?", a reference to her fees for three speeches to Goldman Sachs. Clinton responded, "I don't know. That's what they offered."

Clinton went on to say that she accepted the Goldman money after she left the State Department in 2013, when, as she put it, "I wasn't committed to running" for president. An Associated Press analysis of public disclosure forms and records released by her campaign found that Clinton made $9 million from appearances sponsored by banks, insurance companies, hedge funds, private equity firms and real estate businesses.

Good for her!

Good for her!

logically, you don't believe what you just said.

Logic in this thread? I don't think so. Security, security, nothing to see hear, let's just move along.

I'm trying to picture what sort of wisdom she could impart to a room full of bankers. Is she some kind of investment genius? But if bunch of bankers want to give me gobs of money for a speech, I would certainly do it.

logically, you don't believe what you just said.

You've been hanging out with the millenitards WAY too long.

You've been hanging out with the millenitards WAY too long.

Don't sell your soul for your own political predelictions. The woman is a benchmark for greed and corruption. what's a millenitard?

I'm trying to picture what sort of wisdom she could impart to a room full of bankers. Is she some kind of investment genius? But if bunch of bankers want to give me gobs of money for a speech, I would certainly do it.

the same people who laid our country low?

Don't sell your soul for your own political predelictions. The woman is a benchmark for greed and corruption. what's a millenitard?

My voting decisions have always and will continue to always be based first and foremost on my political predilections. Those predilections are always based on what I think is the best possible outcome for the country based on my thoroughly and unabashedly biased point of view. To make a voting decision using any other criteria is immoral.

Wait til you see MY speaking fees.

Wait til you see MY speaking fees.

After Hillary gets elected, Obama will be doing all his speaking from the Supreme Court bench.

jkmason explaination is right on. I held a top secret clearance for years and you knew when something was classifie and should not be discussed outside the unit. Some posting here do not know what they are talking about.

My voting decisions have always and will continue to always be based first and foremost on my political predilections. Those predilections are always based on what I think is the best possible outcome for the country based on my thoroughly and unabashedly biased point of view. To make a voting decision using any other criteria is immoral.

so there is no line Clinton could ever cross if you consider her best for our country? I don't believe your last statement.

so there is no line Clinton could ever cross if you consider her best for our country? I don't believe your last statement.

Oh please! Spare me the sermon! [edit] And to answer your pie in the sky hypothetical thought experiment question, the answer is of course I would vote for her if I thought she was the best choice no matter what line she crossed. This is ridiculous. It would mean that whomever she was running against is even worse. What mature moral adult wouldn't go that route?

Bob, you seem to be painting Clinton as some sort of hideous monster. Let's face it: they are clever, smart politicians. I had to admire someone who sat for 9 hours against an onslaught of Republican attack at the 9th Bengazi committee hearing, without flinching. Every election is always a choice of the lesser of two evils. What candidate are you favoring at this point?

is it too late to get him.. .

My $.02 is that I would vote for Bernie in the general election hands down, but I seriously doubt he will get enough delegates to win the nomination. There are a lot of populous states like California and New York where it will probably be Hillary all the way. I doubt Bernie will do very well in the South. I also sincerely think Hillary is more qualified to be president and has a much better chance of winning in November. Finally, I'm very liberal on social issues, but actually a little to the right of center when it comes to fiscal matters, big business, wall st. etc. Bill Clinton was probably the perfect match for my political leanings. I don't see Hillary as being much different. I don't care for Bernie's shrill anti-business and anti-capitalist tirades. I have voted once for a Republican presidential candidate, but in today's environment, there isn't a chance of that happening.