Posted on 04/03/2008 9:00:34 AM PDT by Sub-Driver
The Clinton Tax Returns: What Will They Reveal? An ABC News Review Has Found the Clintons Have Made More Than $50 Million Since Leaving the White House By BRIAN ROSS and AVNI PATEL
April 3, 2008—
Hillary Clinton has been pulling out all the stops to win the Democratic nomination for president -- but one: she still has not released her family's tax returns.
The campaign says they will release the documents sometime before April 15. Without them, many questions remain about how the Clintons made tens of millions of dollars -- and whether they used arcane tax loopholes available to the super-rich, an expert says. A Clinton campaign spokesman says the couple has paid all U.S. taxes at ordinary income tax rates.
An independent review by ABC News has found that since leaving the White House seven years ago, the senator and her former president husband have made well over $50 million, much of it from paid speeches made by Bill Clinton.
A review of Sen. Clinton's annual ethics filings found that her husband has earned $47 million in fees from more than 280 speeches he has made around the world.
Clinton's biggest patrons include New York-based investment firm Goldman Sachs, which paid him $650,000 for four speeches in recent years, and two foreign firms. Gold Services International, a Colombian-based event organizer, brought Clinton to Latin America in 2005 for four days of speeches, earning Clinton $800,000. Another company, Toronto-based Power Within, paid Clinton $650,000 for a series of motivational speeches in Canada in 2005.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
She won’t release the tax returns unless someone stays on her about it and maybe not even then.
It just never ceases to amaze me that people can stand to be in the same room with Slick, let alone pay to listen to him.
Wasn’t it GHW Bush who received a ton of criticism for receiving $1,000,000 to speak in Japan after his presidency? Not a peep about Bubba receiving $47 million.
Paying him for lying to them. What a bad joke. And what idiots to do it.
Sorry, it was Reagan. This link points out the NYT criticism at the time.
http://www.cynicalnation.com/2007/02/expresidents_on_the_lecture_ci.html
Not to mention the MILLIONS hidden in the “Clinton Library” funds that will never be disclosed.
Its nothing compared to what Gore has gotten since 2000. Apparently Google really liked him
That was Reagan—$2M. And Nancy spent it all, and more, during the years of caring for him.
Algore was worth less than $1M when he left the WH. Now he’s worth $100M.
By “worth,” you understand, of course, I’m talking strictly about $$$.
Hillary is evidently hiding things, here.
I suspect that her tax files will be released as soon as they are scrubbed (or oops, shredded.)
(Maybe she's made big bucks by betting big on long-odds cattle futures short sales...again).
maybe the question should be.... Did they file a tax return.
Big ticket speeches are money laundering events.
Say I want to give you $50,000 as a reward for some political favor. I go to my alma mater and tell them I'll donate $100,000 to the alumni fund if they pay you $50,000 for a speech on, um, Pajama Bloggers Effects on the Political Landscape of Suburbia.
You do the speech, a couple of hours work, and get paid by the school, not me. Not traceable, either, unless someone recorded the quid pro quo conversation with the school. It does not matter how the speech is promoted or how many people are there to hear it.
This would explain the “book deals” people get, too- six million for a lightweight poorly ghostwriten fake biography?
I think $50 million is a very conservative estimate for Clinton income since 2000. Al Gore has raked in more than $100 million in 8 years. Ron Burkle, Vinod Gupta of InfoUSA and others represent the new method of bribe laundering the Clintons have adopted for the 21st Century. In the 1990’s Charlie Trie, Johnny Chung and John Huang served this function.
You are absolutely correct and here’s another way the educational institutions launder money—a donor gives the university $1 million and accepts $100,000 as an “adjunct faculty” member in return, paid out over several years....
I’ll be curious to see what paltry sum they gave to charity. Rememeber when she took a tax deduction for Bill’s used underwear?
This article is INCORRECT about the InfoUSA shareholders lawsuit against Vinod Gupta. The lawsuit was not dropped completely by the judge. Instead, some of the complaints concerning the Clintons were dismissed, but others will continue to trial, and the Clintons are still likely to be involved.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.