Why Do Famous People Get Paid $250k to Give a Speech? • Hacker News Board

Re: Why Do Famous People Get Paid $250k to Give a Speech?

#111

Post by sidlls » Sat, Sep 17, 2016, 4:37 PM UTC

parasubvert wrote: post #88

tomohawk wrote: post #74

While Hillary was Secretary of State, Bill's speaking fees from foreign interests dramatically skyrocketed. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bill-clinton-cashed-hillary-s... One example of these appears to be related to the uranium deal with Russia, where he bagged $500K. Hillary changed direction and signed off on the deal. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-... This is not the only form of pa…

Great to see partisan political commentary on HN. There is no proof of quid pro quo in that Russia uranium deal: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/... Also, Clinton sold a lot more than 3000 copies that first week; more like 85000 (still not as good as her prior best sellers): http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/18/what-do-hil...

Quoting Politifact isn't a rebuttal. Also, "quid pro quo" as used by politicians who peddle their influence is basically unprovable. It's a great standard for them to make mainstream, but unfortunately fails to accurately describe all the ways influence peddling and bribery schemes work.

Re: Why Do Famous People Get Paid $250k to Give a Speech?

#112

Post by tomohawk » Sat, Sep 17, 2016, 4:42 PM UTC

parasubvert wrote: post #88

tomohawk wrote: post #74

While Hillary was Secretary of State, Bill's speaking fees from foreign interests dramatically skyrocketed. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bill-clinton-cashed-hillary-s... One example of these appears to be related to the uranium deal with Russia, where he bagged $500K. Hillary changed direction and signed off on the deal. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-... This is not the only form of pa…

Great to see partisan political commentary on HN. There is no proof of quid pro quo in that Russia uranium deal: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/... Also, Clinton sold a lot more than 3000 copies that first week; more like 85000 (still not as good as her prior best sellers): http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/18/what-do-hil...

You're confused. It's less than 3000.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/15/us/politics/clinton-book-s...

The larger number is for the disappointing sales of her previous book.

Nothing partisan about my comments. I'm not promoting any party. Just pointing out the sleaze.

Re: Why Do Famous People Get Paid $250k to Give a Speech?

#113

Post by tomohawk » Sat, Sep 17, 2016, 4:46 PM UTC

raisedbyninjas wrote: post #95

tomohawk wrote: post #74

While Hillary was Secretary of State, Bill's speaking fees from foreign interests dramatically skyrocketed. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bill-clinton-cashed-hillary-s... One example of these appears to be related to the uranium deal with Russia, where he bagged $500K. Hillary changed direction and signed off on the deal. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-... This is not the only form of pa…

The $14M advance is still a rumor AFAIK. It's not much of a record either as Bill Clinton received a $15M advance in 2004 dollars.

It was a record at the time. So now she's at number 2 and her husband is at number one.

This seems to be making my point.

Re: Why Do Famous People Get Paid $250k to Give a Speech?

#114

Post by jeffdavis » Sat, Sep 17, 2016, 4:48 PM UTC

parasubvert wrote: post #88

tomohawk wrote: post #74

While Hillary was Secretary of State, Bill's speaking fees from foreign interests dramatically skyrocketed. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bill-clinton-cashed-hillary-s... One example of these appears to be related to the uranium deal with Russia, where he bagged $500K. Hillary changed direction and signed off on the deal. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-... This is not the only form of pa…

Great to see partisan political commentary on HN. There is no proof of quid pro quo in that Russia uranium deal: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/... Also, Clinton sold a lot more than 3000 copies that first week; more like 85000 (still not as good as her prior best sellers): http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/18/what-do-hil...

So you are sayibg the original article that is basically saying "high speaking fees are normal, Clinton is normal, don't worry about it" is non-partisan; but providing a counter-argument that seems to show a conflict of interest is partisan?

It doesn't work that way.

Re: Why Do Famous People Get Paid $250k to Give a Speech?

#115

Post by MichaelGG » Sat, Sep 17, 2016, 4:50 PM UTC

AJ007 wrote: post #106

M_Grey wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that people have long since figured out that a deal over drinks and a handshake is tough to prosecute, and easy to deny.

As long as no one is wearing a wire.

Even then it doesn't always help. See David Steiner's recorded statements on how he had corrupted things so much -- all to be waved away with a "I was just lying on that private phone call".

Re: Why Do Famous People Get Paid $250k to Give a Speech?

#116

Post by tootie » Sat, Sep 17, 2016, 4:52 PM UTC

RobertoG wrote: post #79

tikhonj wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know about changing my mind per se , but I definitely got a new perspective on financial regulation after attending a talk by Barney Frank (famous for the Dodd-Frank bill). I don't remember the exact details now, but hearing about how he designed the regulations was very interesting, even if it was a pretty high-level description. It colored my understanding of the regulation in a way that just reading a desc…

Who paid the bill for that talk? I bet it wasn't Goldman & Sachs.

Look at their list of speakers. Russel Simmons, Deepak Chopra, Shaq. They invite all kinds of people. These are usually in the big offices in NY or London so most of the attendees are likely to be liberals.

Re: Why Do Famous People Get Paid $250k to Give a Speech?

#117

Post by parasubvert » Sat, Sep 17, 2016, 4:54 PM UTC

tomohawk wrote: post #112

parasubvert wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great to see partisan political commentary on HN. There is no proof of quid pro quo in that Russia uranium deal: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/... Also, Clinton sold a lot more than 3000 copies that first week; more like 85000 (still not as good as her prior best sellers): http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/18/what-do-hil...

You're confused. It's less than 3000. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/15/us/politics/clinton-book-s... The larger number is for the disappointing sales of her previous book. Nothing partisan about my comments. I'm not promoting any party. Just pointing out the sleaze.

Yes, I completely admit I had no idea she had a new book out this week. I'm assuming I'm not alone ><

Re: Why Do Famous People Get Paid $250k to Give a Speech?

#118

Post by dbg31415 » Sat, Sep 17, 2016, 4:58 PM UTC

robbiemitchell wrote: post #81

As someone who worked at a company that hired HRC to speak, I can speak from experience. We were not buying influence. She was there to impress attendees (e.g., prospective and existing clients) with a speech and photo opps afterward -- same as the other speakers we brought in previously and after. It's easy to see conspiracies from afar, but the reality -- at least our reality -- was mundane.

If that's the case, why not release the transcripts?

It's pretty clear speaking fees and donations to her foundation are just legal bribes.

Re: Why Do Famous People Get Paid $250k to Give a Speech?

#119

Post by parasubvert » Sat, Sep 17, 2016, 5:04 PM UTC

jeffdavis wrote: post #114

parasubvert wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great to see partisan political commentary on HN. There is no proof of quid pro quo in that Russia uranium deal: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/... Also, Clinton sold a lot more than 3000 copies that first week; more like 85000 (still not as good as her prior best sellers): http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/18/what-do-hil...

So you are sayibg the original article that is basically saying "high speaking fees are normal, Clinton is normal, don't worry about it" is non-partisan; but providing a counter-argument that seems to show a conflict of interest is partisan? It doesn't work that way.

The original article is non-partisan in its argument, the high speaking fees being normal applies equally to all parties, all famous people.

The OP I was responding to could be seen as making a non-partisan argument, however the focus was on Clinton rather than Trump and Clinton. So I interpreted is as partisan (and got a fact wrong about her new book). Tomahawk has responded since that it was not intended as partisan, and I'll take his/her word for it.

Re: Why Do Famous People Get Paid $250k to Give a Speech?

#120

Post by jomamaxx » Sat, Sep 17, 2016, 5:12 PM UTC

jomamaxx wrote: post #34

leereeves wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a charitable interpretation Indeed. If you trust her, you may not see a problem, but if you don't trust her, it's easy to argue this is disguised bribery. There's a huge difference between a former secretary of state with no prospects of power in the future and someone everyone knew would run for President in a few years.

It's a conflict of interest wether you trust her or not. It's a very thin line, this game. Clinton should have recused herself from all Clinton Global Initiative issues a long time ago. The massive Clinton fund with millions in donations from all sorts of political actors, mostly in nefarious places, is worse than Trump's excuses for not releasing his taxes (which he should definitely do).

Simple conflicts of interest revealed in a one minute Google search:

A) Matt Lauer, Tom Brokaw, Anderson Cooper, Fareed Zakaria, Katie Couric - and many others - are all members of the press who are supposed to objectively vet candidates, and who will/have moderated political debates, were previously listed as a 'Notable Members' the Clinton Foundation. [1]

B) More than 1/2 of the private entities she met with while Sec of State donated to her Fund - total over $50M. Foreign governments with whom she dealt with directly gave her fund over $170M - this is just the first 1/2 of her term. That's a serious conflict of interest. "Her calendars and emails released as recently as this week describe scores of contacts she (Clinton, as Sec. State) and her top aides (again government officials) had with foundation donors." [2]

C) Clinton put someone on a government board (security related) - who had no experience in the field. [3]

It's a long list.

[1] http://www.mediaite.com/online/flashback-matt-lauer-was-list...

[2] http://www.bigstory.ap.org/article/82df550e1ec646098b434f7d5...

[3] http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/clinton-donor-sensitive-intel...