CNN: Bill and Hillary took $153 MIllion in Speeches from 2001 until 2013

[Jackson]

Why wouldn't a corporation want a speaker as prestigious as a former First Lady, Senator and Secretary of State at one of their conferences?

You know that Donald Trump is the most highly paid public speaker in the world, right?

If you're going to be upset about Hillary Clinton making 350 grand a speech, you must be absolutely livid that Donald Trump makes $1.4 million a speech.

Bill and Hillary have a lot of clout and pull in Washington. Paying political leaders, especially presidents and president spouses, should generate greater interest by watchdog groups. We would be extremely naïve to think money does not buy influence in Washington. Then in light of the highly scandalous Clinton Foundation, especially when Hillary was Secretary of State, I would not trust either of them or their bookkeeping. They are guilty of fraud or illicit ways of making money and making deals as far as I am concerned.

PS – Hillary is as uninspiring and uninteresting of a speaker as our current president.


As far as what you say about Trump is concerned, those speaking fees of very high amounts were for a specific purpose, in a specific time frame, all given by one private firm.

Real estate mogul and star of “The Apprentice ”Donald Trump made 17 speeches to The Learning Annex between 2006 and 2007. After each speech, Trump received $1.5 million for his real estate advice and thoughts on business. Learning Annex founder Bill Zanker reportedly charged $500 per ticket to each Trump event and generated a profit for every speech.
Mary James - The 10 Highest-Paid Public Speakers of the Past 10 Years

So, he didn't receive $1.5m from one person? It was adding all those $500 fees?

No, he received $1.5 million dollars from one person - who claims that he later made a profit by selling tickets.

Donald Trump didn't get a percentage of the door.

Which was generated from the composite of the $500 fees.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Why wouldn't a corporation want a speaker as prestigious as a former First Lady, Senator and Secretary of State at one of their conferences?

You know that Donald Trump is the most highly paid public speaker in the world, right?

If you're going to be upset about Hillary Clinton making 350 grand a speech, you must be absolutely livid that Donald Trump makes $1.4 million a speech.

Bill and Hillary have a lot of clout and pull in Washington. Paying political leaders, especially presidents and president spouses, should generate greater interest by watchdog groups. We would be extremely naïve to think money does not buy influence in Washington. Then in light of the highly scandalous Clinton Foundation, especially when Hillary was Secretary of State, I would not trust either of them or their bookkeeping. They are guilty of fraud or illicit ways of making money and making deals as far as I am concerned.

PS – Hillary is as uninspiring and uninteresting of a speaker as our current president.


As far as what you say about Trump is concerned, those speaking fees of very high amounts were for a specific purpose, in a specific time frame, all given by one private firm.

Real estate mogul and star of “The Apprentice ”Donald Trump made 17 speeches to The Learning Annex between 2006 and 2007. After each speech, Trump received $1.5 million for his real estate advice and thoughts on business. Learning Annex founder Bill Zanker reportedly charged $500 per ticket to each Trump event and generated a profit for every speech.
Mary James - The 10 Highest-Paid Public Speakers of the Past 10 Years

So, he didn't receive $1.5m from one person? It was adding all those $500 fees?

No, he received $1.5 million dollars from one person - who claims that he later made a profit by selling tickets.

Donald Trump didn't get a percentage of the door.

Which was generated from the composite of the $500 fees.

Your timeline is the issue.

The fee was paid and then the tickets were supposedly sold.

 

[Jackson]

Why wouldn't a corporation want a speaker as prestigious as a former First Lady, Senator and Secretary of State at one of their conferences?

You know that Donald Trump is the most highly paid public speaker in the world, right?

If you're going to be upset about Hillary Clinton making 350 grand a speech, you must be absolutely livid that Donald Trump makes $1.4 million a speech.

Bill and Hillary have a lot of clout and pull in Washington. Paying political leaders, especially presidents and president spouses, should generate greater interest by watchdog groups. We would be extremely naïve to think money does not buy influence in Washington. Then in light of the highly scandalous Clinton Foundation, especially when Hillary was Secretary of State, I would not trust either of them or their bookkeeping. They are guilty of fraud or illicit ways of making money and making deals as far as I am concerned.

PS – Hillary is as uninspiring and uninteresting of a speaker as our current president.


As far as what you say about Trump is concerned, those speaking fees of very high amounts were for a specific purpose, in a specific time frame, all given by one private firm.

Real estate mogul and star of “The Apprentice ”Donald Trump made 17 speeches to The Learning Annex between 2006 and 2007. After each speech, Trump received $1.5 million for his real estate advice and thoughts on business. Learning Annex founder Bill Zanker reportedly charged $500 per ticket to each Trump event and generated a profit for every speech.
Mary James - The 10 Highest-Paid Public Speakers of the Past 10 Years

So, he didn't receive $1.5m from one person? It was adding all those $500 fees?

No, he received $1.5 million dollars from one person - who claims that he later made a profit by selling tickets.

Donald Trump didn't get a percentage of the door.

Which was generated from the composite of the $500 fees.

Your timeline is the issue.

The fee was paid and then the tickets were supposedly sold.

Did Zanker ever expect to pay that $1.5 out of his pocket? He profited from those attendees as well. It was never interpreted to be from Zanker.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Bill and Hillary have a lot of clout and pull in Washington. Paying political leaders, especially presidents and president spouses, should generate greater interest by watchdog groups. We would be extremely naïve to think money does not buy influence in Washington. Then in light of the highly scandalous Clinton Foundation, especially when Hillary was Secretary of State, I would not trust either of them or their bookkeeping. They are guilty of fraud or illicit ways of making money and making deals as far as I am concerned.

PS – Hillary is as uninspiring and uninteresting of a speaker as our current president.


As far as what you say about Trump is concerned, those speaking fees of very high amounts were for a specific purpose, in a specific time frame, all given by one private firm.

Real estate mogul and star of “The Apprentice ”Donald Trump made 17 speeches to The Learning Annex between 2006 and 2007. After each speech, Trump received $1.5 million for his real estate advice and thoughts on business. Learning Annex founder Bill Zanker reportedly charged $500 per ticket to each Trump event and generated a profit for every speech.
Mary James - The 10 Highest-Paid Public Speakers of the Past 10 Years

So, he didn't receive $1.5m from one person? It was adding all those $500 fees?

No, he received $1.5 million dollars from one person - who claims that he later made a profit by selling tickets.

Donald Trump didn't get a percentage of the door.

Which was generated from the composite of the $500 fees.

Your timeline is the issue.

The fee was paid and then the tickets were supposedly sold.

Did Zanker ever expect to pay that $1.5 out of his pocket? He profited from those attendees as well. It was never interpreted to be from Zanker.

It wasn't "from Zanker" - it was from The Learning Annex - and of course they "profited" from it, otherwise they wouldn't have done it. Same with any company that's paid Hillary to speak.

 

[Jackson]

So, he didn't receive $1.5m from one person? It was adding all those $500 fees?

No, he received $1.5 million dollars from one person - who claims that he later made a profit by selling tickets.

Donald Trump didn't get a percentage of the door.

Your timeline is the issue.

The fee was paid and then the tickets were supposedly sold.

Did Zanker ever expect to pay that $1.5 out of his pocket? He profited from those attendees as well. It was

So, he didn't receive $1.5m from one person? It was adding all those $500 fees?

No, he received $1.5 million dollars from one person - who claims that he later made a profit by selling tickets.

Donald Trump didn't get a percentage of the door.

Which was generated from the composite of the $500 fees.

Your timeline is the issue.

The fee was paid and then the tickets were supposedly sold.

Did Zanker ever expect to pay that $1.5 out of his pocket? He profited from those attendees as well. It was never interpreted to be from Zanker.

It wasn't "from Zanker" - it was from The Learning Annex - and of course they "profited" from it, otherwise they wouldn't have done it. Same with any company that's paid Hillary to speak.

It wasn't "from Zanker" - it was from The Learning Annex - and of course they "profited" from it, otherwise they wouldn't have done it. Same with any company that's paid Hillary to speak.

What is the relationship between Zanker and The Learning Annex, if any?

Do people always pay to listen to Hillary or Bill speak?

 

[Jackson]

No, he received $1.5 million dollars from one person - who claims that he later made a profit by selling tickets.

Donald Trump didn't get a percentage of the door.

Your timeline is the issue.

The fee was paid and then the tickets were supposedly sold.

Did Zanker ever expect to pay that $1.5 out of his pocket? He profited from those attendees as well. It was

Did Zanker ever expect to pay that $1.5 out of his pocket? He profited from those attendees as well. It was never interpreted to be from Zanker.

It wasn't "from Zanker" - it was from The Learning Annex - and of course they "profited" from it, otherwise they wouldn't have done it. Same with any company that's paid Hillary to speak.

It wasn't "from Zanker" - it was from The Learning Annex - and of course they "profited" from it, otherwise they wouldn't have done it. Same with any company that's paid Hillary to speak.

What is the relationship between Zanker and The Learning Annex, if any?

Do people always pay to listen to Hillary or Bill speak?

Lost my post.. here it is again.
What is the relationship between Zanker and The Learning Annex, if any?
Do people always pay to listen to Hillary or Bill speak?[

 

[Jackson]

So, he didn't receive $1.5m from one person? It was adding all those $500 fees?

No, he received $1.5 million dollars from one person - who claims that he later made a profit by selling tickets.

Donald Trump didn't get a percentage of the door.

Which was generated from the composite of the $500 fees.

Your timeline is the issue.

The fee was paid and then the tickets were supposedly sold.

Did Zanker ever expect to pay that $1.5 out of his pocket? He profited from those attendees as well. It was never interpreted to be from Zanker.

It wasn't "from Zanker" - it was from The Learning Annex - and of course they "profited" from it, otherwise they wouldn't have done it. Same with any company that's paid Hillary to speak.

I've been to many meetings where the company paid for the speaker without asking for contributions from the people who attend.

Likewise, I have been to conferences where I have paid for listening to different speakers or one speaker about a variety of topics who does that for their own personal gain. But that is probably irrelevant because the speaker is doing an in-service rather than running for president.

 

[Penelope]

I'm no fan of Hillary, but I don't understand why collecting speaker fees is an issue with anyone. Who here on this forum would not take 1 million dollars to speak if someone offered it to you???

The troubling question is not why would Hillary not take one million to make a speech?
The troubling question is why would someone offer her one million to make a speech?

Right, if someone offered me a million to speak about something, man I'd take it (not that anyone would or I can even speak in front of people) I want to know what their motives were, so the quest. is WHY?

Why?

Because she's a prestigious speaker who will impress investors.

I was thinking about this, just how would she impress investors?

Just by being there.

You know this is a real industry, right? There's an entire industry involved in speaking engagements - managers, agents, etc.

Sure motivational speakers or how to invest speakers, but I guess I find her talking to banks and investors, when she was affiliated with the government a conflict of interest.

 

[Jackson]

The troubling question is not why would Hillary not take one million to make a speech?
The troubling question is why would someone offer her one million to make a speech?

Right, if someone offered me a million to speak about something, man I'd take it (not that anyone would or I can even speak in front of people) I want to know what their motives were, so the quest. is WHY?

Why?

Because she's a prestigious speaker who will impress investors.

I was thinking about this, just how would she impress investors?

Just by being there.

You know this is a real industry, right? There's an entire industry involved in speaking engagements - managers, agents, etc.

Sure motivational speakers or how to invest speakers, but I guess I find her talking to banks and investors, when she was affiliated with the government a conflict of interest.

It goes further than that. She approved deals with Russia and other foreign countries that the investors were made rich, or richer. They donated to the Clinton Foundation. Millions of dollars...This is while she was SoS.
Google "Uranium One".

 

[Penelope]

Right, if someone offered me a million to speak about something, man I'd take it (not that anyone would or I can even speak in front of people) I want to know what their motives were, so the quest. is WHY?

Why?

Because she's a prestigious speaker who will impress investors.

I was thinking about this, just how would she impress investors?

Just by being there.

You know this is a real industry, right? There's an entire industry involved in speaking engagements - managers, agents, etc.

Sure motivational speakers or how to invest speakers, but I guess I find her talking to banks and investors, when she was affiliated with the government a conflict of interest.

It goes further than that. She approved deals with Russia and other foreign countries that the investors were made rich, or richer. They donated to the Clinton Foundation. Millions of dollars...This is while she was SoS.
Google "Uranium One".

Oh yes your right, I have read about Uranium One. Yes the Clinton Foundation, a tax haven is what most of these are. A way the rich trade their wealth.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Your timeline is the issue.

The fee was paid and then the tickets were supposedly sold.

Did Zanker ever expect to pay that $1.5 out of his pocket? He profited from those attendees as well. It was

It wasn't "from Zanker" - it was from The Learning Annex - and of course they "profited" from it, otherwise they wouldn't have done it. Same with any company that's paid Hillary to speak.

It wasn't "from Zanker" - it was from The Learning Annex - and of course they "profited" from it, otherwise they wouldn't have done it. Same with any company that's paid Hillary to speak.

What is the relationship between Zanker and The Learning Annex, if any?

Do people always pay to listen to Hillary or Bill speak?

Lost my post.. here it is again.
What is the relationship between Zanker and The Learning Annex, if any?
Do people always pay to listen to Hillary or Bill speak?[

Bill Zanker is the founder of The Learning Annex.

I'm not sure I'm understanding your other question.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The troubling question is not why would Hillary not take one million to make a speech?
The troubling question is why would someone offer her one million to make a speech?

Right, if someone offered me a million to speak about something, man I'd take it (not that anyone would or I can even speak in front of people) I want to know what their motives were, so the quest. is WHY?

Why?

Because she's a prestigious speaker who will impress investors.

I was thinking about this, just how would she impress investors?

Just by being there.

You know this is a real industry, right? There's an entire industry involved in speaking engagements - managers, agents, etc.

Sure motivational speakers or how to invest speakers, but I guess I find her talking to banks and investors, when she was affiliated with the government a conflict of interest.

Why is "talking to banks and investors" a conflict of interest for someone "affiliated with the government"?

 

[jasonnfree]

So payback started soon after bubba left the white house. Probably for the crap trade pacts he stuck Americans with. WTO, Nafta, MFN, as well as ending glass - steagal. Payback after the fact insures that future politicians will be rewarded, obama for his backstabbing secret transpacific partnership for one. cruz and rubio will be rewarded for making sure mass immigration from the 3rd world stays on schedule. Only Trump talks against this. Well, hillary lately also, and I'm sure we can take her for her word, right?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

No, he received $1.5 million dollars from one person - who claims that he later made a profit by selling tickets.

Donald Trump didn't get a percentage of the door.

Which was generated from the composite of the $500 fees.

Your timeline is the issue.

The fee was paid and then the tickets were supposedly sold.

Did Zanker ever expect to pay that $1.5 out of his pocket? He profited from those attendees as well. It was never interpreted to be from Zanker.

It wasn't "from Zanker" - it was from The Learning Annex - and of course they "profited" from it, otherwise they wouldn't have done it. Same with any company that's paid Hillary to speak.

I've been to many meetings where the company paid for the speaker without asking for contributions from the people who attend.

Likewise, I have been to conferences where I have paid for listening to different speakers or one speaker about a variety of topics who does that for their own personal gain. But that is probably irrelevant because the speaker is doing an in-service rather than running for president.

At those meetings where the company paid for a speaker, do you believe that your company was bribing the speaker?

 

[Jackson]

Did Zanker ever expect to pay that $1.5 out of his pocket? He profited from those attendees as well. It was
It wasn't "from Zanker" - it was from The Learning Annex - and of course they "profited" from it, otherwise they wouldn't have done it. Same with any company that's paid Hillary to speak.

What is the relationship between Zanker and The Learning Annex, if any?

Do people always pay to listen to Hillary or Bill speak?

Lost my post.. here it is again.
What is the relationship between Zanker and The Learning Annex, if any?
Do people always pay to listen to Hillary or Bill speak?[

Bill Zanker is the founder of The Learning Annex.

I'm not sure I'm understanding your other question.

I guess what I am saying, is sometimes the attendees pay to hear a speaker and sometimes, if the speaker wields any influence, influence can be bought.

Let's assume I know a Senator, Jake Traitor and I wanted him to vote against increasing the minimum wage, because it influenced not only my profits but dividends to stockholders,etc. , I could give 1M to this Senator to speak at a nearby college about whatever he wanted. But, he pockets the $$$. Just sayin, it could happen when paying someone in government to do anything for them.

 

[Jackson]

So payback started soon after bubba left the white house. Probably for the crap trade pacts he stuck Americans with. WTO, Nafta, MFN, as well as ending glass - steagal. Payback after the fact insures that future politicians will be rewarded, obama for his backstabbing secret transpacific partnership for one. cruz and rubio will be rewarded for making sure mass immigration from the 3rd world stays on schedule. Only Trump talks against this. Well, hillary lately also, and I'm sure we can take her for her word, right?

Of course. lol.

 

[Jackson]

Which was generated from the composite of the $500 fees.

Your timeline is the issue.

The fee was paid and then the tickets were supposedly sold.

Did Zanker ever expect to pay that $1.5 out of his pocket? He profited from those attendees as well. It was never interpreted to be from Zanker.

It wasn't "from Zanker" - it was from The Learning Annex - and of course they "profited" from it, otherwise they wouldn't have done it. Same with any company that's paid Hillary to speak.

I've been to many meetings where the company paid for the speaker without asking for contributions from the people who attend.

Likewise, I have been to conferences where I have paid for listening to different speakers or one speaker about a variety of topics who does that for their own personal gain. But that is probably irrelevant because the speaker is doing an in-service rather than running for president.

At those meetings where the company paid for a speaker, do you believe that your company was bribing the speaker?

How could I be sure? I don't even know the participants. I just know it happens and if there is controversy around the person about quid quo pro, it should be investigated.