Hillary Clinton’s REAL message to corporate America

It’s almost like Hillary Clinton and her campaign assume that we’re all too stupid to know how to Google something, or connect obvious dots, or think for ourselves or…I don’t even know.

Just last week, this appeared on Hillary Clinton’s Twitter feed:

Hillary Clinton tweet

This is such utter nonsense coming from either Clinton that I don’t know where to file it in my brain. When I read it, I almost felt like just shutting off my computer and watching cartoons because even Spongebob Squarepants would be more closely aligned to reality than this Tweet. But like a thread you begin to pull on, as I unravel the hypocrisy of what Hillary Clinton says, as opposed to what she does,  I feel more compelled to point it out.

Her real message to corporate America can be seen in the iFrame document below from a CNN article which itemizes some of what the Clinton’s raked in from 729 speeches from February 2001 to May 2015 totaling $153 million dollars:

Okay, now let’s look at that Tweet again:

Hillary Clinton tweet

  • So Goldman Sachs, who have actually paid Hillary Clinton $760,740 in speaking fees, and which Hillary Clinton refuses to release transcripts of, was recently fined $5.1 BILLION dollars by the Justice Department for (wait for it…) SCREWING America in pretty much every position you can imagine. For more on that, here is a link. They have ALSO contributed $821,031 (as of January 31, 2016) to Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

And, by the way, her husband, Bill Clinton, made 9 speeches of his own to the same crooks (Goldman Sachs) totaling $1,550,000, so you can see just how “accountable” they’re being held by the Clinton family.

  • How about JPMorgan Chase, who have donated $771,111 to Hillary Clinton’s campaign (as of January 31, 2016)? I guess she really showed them, right? Oh wait. She didn’t, but the Justice Department did.

JPMorgan Chase has also been fined billions of dollars for what they’ve done to America. Here is a link to one of their fines from 2015 (for $136 million) for bilking credit card holders through illegal tactics and falsifying documents, and then there was another fine for $13 BILLION dollars for their part in destroying America and American homeowners. So, Hillary Clinton really showed them, right? She was probably laughing all the way to the bank to deposit her checks.

  • And let’s not forget Morgan Stanley, who have paid the Clintons $350,000 for speeches and have contributed $754,538 to Hillary Clinton’s campaign (as of January 31, 2016). How “accountable” have they been for their part in the Great Recession? Clearly, the Clintons don’t hold them at all accountable, but just a few weeks ago, Morgan Stanley got dinged $3.2 billion for their part in driving thousands of American homeowners into despair, financial ruin, and foreclosure. But hey, just so long as they paid $3.2 billion which is, of course, chump change for them. As in, “we Americans are the chumps.”
  • And how about Citigroup? They ALSO love the Clintons. To the tune of $700,000 to Bill Clinton for a handful of speeches and $883,547 (as of January 31, 2016) to Hillary Clinton’s campaign. What kind of “message” has Hillary Clinton sent Citigroup? How about “No hard feelings, fellas.” But the Department of Justice and the Federal Reserve would beg to differ, having fined Citi $1.3 billion for illicit foreign practices including a US class-action lawsuit and they even made them admit GUILT (sacre bleu!) for their corruption, on top of an earlier settlement for domestic and international wrongdoing costing them over $1 billion dollars in fines, and fraud and illegal activity in Mexico which cost them millions, but that’s just couch pennies compared to the $7 billion dollars the Department of Justice fined them in 2014 for their part in cheating investors and homeowners with their toxic mortgages.

  • As a late addition, I’m throwing UBS into the mix. I had left them out because this post was getting too long, but what the hell? As you can see from the iFrame above, Bill Clinton made 9 paid speeches to UBS and Hillary Clinton made one (for $225,000). Together, they raked in nearly $2 million dollars from UBS, but that’s not really where the big payoff came (in terms of UBS). Here is an article about the Clintons, and in particular, UBS that gets a lot more disturbing, in my opinion, and involves a whole lot more than just $2 million dollars in speaking fees (it involves the Clinton Foundation and potentially damning links to legislation passed). The article, which appeared in Truth Out, but which includes other links, sort of annoys me because they intermittently refer to UBS as USB, but the information is otherwise verifiable. The Truth Out article further reinforces that icky feeling that Hillary Clinton makes sure her benefactors have “cover.”

But how well-behaved is UBS in their business dealings? Not surprisingly, they’re not at all (well-behaved). It’s almost like shooting fish in a barrel.  In 2011, they got fined $160 million by the Department of Justice for corruption and criminal wrongdoing, with Assistant Attorney General Christine Varney saying:

UBS and its former executives engaged in illegal conduct that corrupted the competitive process and harmed municipalities, and ultimately taxpayers, nationwide.”

And those criminal activities are nothing compared to the multitude of other felony criminal activities that UBS perpetrated which included foreign currency manipulation, setting up Swiss bank accounts for their American clients to hide money in (to avoid paying taxes) and a litany of other felonies they got caught committing which bilked US taxpayers out of many billions of dollars. They incurred not only the criminal convictions but over a billion dollars in fines and settlements with the Department of Justice. A Congressional bitch slap letter referring to parts of that saga can be read here. So, the Clintons aren’t even good at pretending to “hold them accountable.” Not by a long shot.

I’ve only scratched the surface here of both the fines, convictions and settlements that Wall Street endured for their part in utterly destroying the American economy in 2008 and the hundreds of millions of dollars that both Hillary Clinton and her husband have raked in from that very same gang of thieves. It’s disgusting, actually. And I don’t mean just because she’s running for President and if she wins, she will be utterly beholden to Wall Street. It’s despicable for a former US President to be so cozy with literal crooks. When you sprinkle in things like that Tweet…

Hillary Clinton tweet

it feels almost criminal to me that Hillary Clinton issues that hollow, meaningless drivel on Twitter during a contentious presidential campaign and expects anyone to buy it. That ridiculous Tweet, which feigns indignation that the same people who have made her so rich should (bizarrely) now be scared of her not only defies explanation, but, to me, displays how little she respects the American people.

As the CNN article illustrates (and which can also be seen on Open Secrets and in countless other articles and documents), the very same organizations that pay absolutely no heed to the laws of this land, truly are a reflection of the contempt and disregard that Hillary Clinton and her husband have for those same standards of conduct.

6 comments

  1. Clinton claims that we have made all our money back on the bank and auto bailouts, and she says these fines and settlements prove the system works. It’s working for them. The fines and settlements are a drop in the bucket of the damage they caused. And if we’ve made all that money back, then where did it go? It’s certainly not getting back to the people who lost so much.

    I want to read those speeches. Maybe she releases them in a book after Sanders gets the nomination, you know… to make a buck.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Those claims of hers sound a lot like some sort of bastardized “trickle down” economics, except that a) that never worked, and b) I suspect it all “trickled up.” Very well said, Robert. Politico and others have spoken with audience members at some of those speeches and they (the audience members) say that if the transcripts were to be released, she’d be toast. How utterly slimy is it that, as we speak, she and her advisors are probably scheming and maneuvering about those transcripts? Really ticks me off. Thanks for your comment, Robert.

      Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.