3 ms·

This is, in fact, cynical. Getting a luminary like an ex-president is a huge draw and extremely valuable to the institutions paying for them. Someone like Bill

by tootie 6y ago

This is, in fact, cynical. Getting a luminary like an ex-president is a huge draw and extremely valuable to the institutions paying for them. Someone like Bill Clinton, took a lot of speaking fees _after leaving office_. Meaning, if someone was trying to bribe a president, maybe they shouldn't have waited until his terms were expired. What exactly is the quid pro quo that could possibly have transacted? When Hillary signed on as SecState, did she ever did a single favor for any of the place that paid her fees? She spent literal days in front of Congress testifying to political opponents. The Clintons are probably the literal most investigated people in the history of American politics. What actual conflict of interest has ever been uncovered? I can honestly with 99% confidence that these two are not at all corrupt. As a counterpoint, we have seen far worse corruption in broad daylight and it's not coming from people who took speaking fees. May I further suggest that the decades-long propaganda campaign against the Clintons has worked wonderfully and you are possibly a victim of it. And not just you, but millions of people.

syops 6y ago
Rubin and Clinton passed the repeal of Glass-Steagall. Rubin goes on to make many millions of dollars at Citigroup and the Clinton make many millions of dollars in speaking fees for speeches at Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, and other places. These speaking engagements were not at venues for the general public and tickets were not sold for these speeches. These companies paid millions to have the Clintons speak at them. It may not have been corruption but it certainly has that appearance to me. The Obama administration famously never prosecuted the finance industry. He's now making millions a year. Reagan got millions to visit Japan shortly after leaving office. The leaders of our government are getting rich after being in government. I think it's corruption. Much of the investigations against the Clintons have been political theater. It's hard to prove the sort of corruption I'm pointing out. It's also in no politician's best interest to do so. They make millions after service so their economic interest is to investigate inane accusations rather than real corruption.
- tootie 6y ago
  Glass-Steagall repeal had broad bipartisan support and was an act of congress that Clinton signed. I think it's kinda preposterous to think that Clinton pushed this bill past both houses or might have vetoed if he didn't expect to get paid speaking fees from Citi years later. More likely, he supported it because he thought it was a good idea at the time and Citi hired him to speak because he was very influential and knowledgable about economic policy. They've also given loads of speeches for public health groups, environmental groups, colleges, etc. More like they are supporting people who are ideologically aligned to their interests rather than anything resembling a quid pro quo. It's an extremely low bar for what you could consider corruption. Maybe coziness at worst. Like would these policies simply not have happened without speaking fees?
  - syops 6y ago
    People as smart as Rubin, Clinton, and Greenspan knew this was bad policy. Greenspan famously encouraged ARMs before the crash. After his chairmanship he was amply rewarded. It could, of course, all be as you say and these are just instances of public servants doing what is in the public good who go on to get enriched by the industries their policies benefited. I don't think so though.

by tootie 6y ago

syops 6y ago

Rubin and Clinton passed the repeal of Glass-Steagall. Rubin goes on to make many millions of dollars at Citigroup and the Clinton make many millions of dollars in speaking fees for speeches at Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, and other places. These speaking engagements were not at venues for the general public and tickets were not sold for these speeches. These companies paid millions to have the Clintons speak at them. It may not have been corruption but it certainly has that appearance to me. The Obama administration famously never prosecuted the finance industry. He's now making millions a year. Reagan got millions to visit Japan shortly after leaving office. The leaders of our government are getting rich after being in government. I think it's corruption. Much of the investigations against the Clintons have been political theater. It's hard to prove the sort of corruption I'm pointing out. It's also in no politician's best interest to do so. They make millions after service so their economic interest is to investigate inane accusations rather than real corruption.

tootie 6y ago
Glass-Steagall repeal had broad bipartisan support and was an act of congress that Clinton signed. I think it's kinda preposterous to think that Clinton pushed this bill past both houses or might have vetoed if he didn't expect to get paid speaking fees from Citi years later. More likely, he supported it because he thought it was a good idea at the time and Citi hired him to speak because he was very influential and knowledgable about economic policy. They've also given loads of speeches for public health groups, environmental groups, colleges, etc. More like they are supporting people who are ideologically aligned to their interests rather than anything resembling a quid pro quo. It's an extremely low bar for what you could consider corruption. Maybe coziness at worst. Like would these policies simply not have happened without speaking fees?
- syops 6y ago
  People as smart as Rubin, Clinton, and Greenspan knew this was bad policy. Greenspan famously encouraged ARMs before the crash. After his chairmanship he was amply rewarded. It could, of course, all be as you say and these are just instances of public servants doing what is in the public good who go on to get enriched by the industries their policies benefited. I don't think so though.