Oct. 12, 2016 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
01:03:34
3449 The Truth About Hillary Clinton’s Wall Street Speeches
Hillary and Bill Clinton made more than $153 million for 729 paid speeches between February 2001 and May 2015 - receiving an average fee of $210,795 per speech. Hillary Clinton gave 92 speeches with a standard fee of $225,000 between 2013 and 2015, collecting $21.6 million in just under two years. Why are the Clintons' worth so much for speaking appearances and what did she say to these large institutions behind closed doors? Clinton never released her speech transcripts, but recently Wikileaks released excepts from her speeches, obtained through John Podesta’s compromised email account. Source: https://archive.org/details/HRCPaidSpeechesFlagsFreedomain Radio is 100% funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by signing up for a monthly subscription or making a one time donation at: http://www.freedomainradio.com
And now, my friends, the time has come to take you on a journey.
A journey deep.
Into the inner sanctum of financial institutions where bland, non-entity, non-argument pablum is shoved in the general direction of senior executives in said financial industry who are paying ungodly amounts of money to hear these rolling tides of nonsense roll towards them from one former president,
that would be Bill Clinton, and one former secretary of state, That would be, of course, Hillary Clinton currently in the running for presidency of the United States.
The amount of money that was paid was staggering.
The kind of insight that was presented was also staggering, although I guess in slightly a different direction.
And we will break it down all for you.
Thanks, Julian.
Thanks, WikiLeaks.
You have lifted the lid to hell itself.
But we will gird our loins and head in together, shall we?
Here we go.
So Hillary and Bill Clinton made more than $153 million for 729 paid speeches between February 2001 and May 2015, receiving an average fee of $210,795 per speech.
Yes, that's right, per speech.
Now, to be fair, the prices for the Clintons and their speeches was just a little bit lower.
Strangely enough, Bill Clintons in particular took a rather significant jump up when Hillary Clinton became Secretary of State and We're good to go.
Hillary Clinton gave 92 speeches with a standard fee of $225,000 between 2013 and 2015, collecting $21.6 million in just under two years.
Now, here's something that's very strange.
$225,000.
That's US for my Canadian friends.
Infinity.
$225,000 is really, really a lot.
It's a huge amount.
I mean, there are rock stars that don't get that to play your daughter's sweet 16 birthday.
That's a lot of money.
But the weird thing is Hillary Clinton is trying to give away her speeches for free while she's on the campaign trail, and she seems to be pretty much attended by people who got lost, people who are cleaning the floor, and people who are closing down various sections of the giant rooms that she's supposed to speak in.
Because very few people are there.
So it's kind of weird how she can charge $225,000 to give speeches at a high level to her friends in the finance industry, but when she gives away those free speeches, boy, it just doesn't seem like anyone wants to show up.
In other words, it's sort of like pick your favorite music act.
It's very, very expensive to have them play your private club, but when they give a free concert...
Almost nobody shows up.
Not the case with Queen in England or Simon and Garfunkel in Central Park and so on.
The free concerts tend to be very well attended.
So I will let you work all of that out.
Now, if you ever want to enjoy yourself and lose your soul at the same time, thanks, Satan, you can go and look at Hillary Clinton's writers for these speeches.
Let's just put it this way.
Ain't no Super 8 for the Hillbot.
Why?
Why are the Clintons worth so much for speaking appearances?
And what did she say to these large institutions behind closed doors?
Hillary Clinton on if she would release her Wall Street speech transcripts on February 18, 2016.
I am happy to release anything I have when everybody else does the same.
Now, that's what I call self-directed moral integrity.
You first, then I'll do it.
Hey, if it's a principle, it's a principle.
It doesn't matter if other people do it or not.
But maybe that's just me, little internet moral philosopher, rather than a person getting paid four kidneys and a Central American budget for giving a speech.
Now, when Hillary Clinton put out this call saying, well, I can do it.
Other people have to do it first, then I'll do it.
Well, um...
Bernie Sanders campaign spokesman Michael Briggs said on February 19th, 2016, yes, that's right, one day after, he said, Senator Sanders...
Still think I should be Colonel.
Senator Sanders accepts Clinton's challenge.
He will release all of the transcripts of all of his Wall Street speeches.
That's easy.
The fact is, there weren't any.
Bernie gave no speeches to Wall Street firms.
He wasn't paid anything while Secretary Clinton made millions, including $675,000 for three paid speeches to Goldman Sachs.
That does take some sex.
He went on to say, I think?
Isn't Hillary the person who's saying, well, if Donald Trump has nothing to hide in his tax returns, why didn't he just release his tax returns?
Just release him, release him, release him, release him.
You got nothing to hide?
Release him.
Okay, how about we take that moral boomerang and did we do that back to you there, fair lady?
No, apparently not.
That's not happened.
Can't happen.
Bernie Sanders on March 9, 2016 said, When you get paid $225,000, that means that that speech must have been an extraordinarily wonderful speech.
I would think that with a speech so great, you would like to share it with the American people.
So I think she should release the transcript.
By the by...
I just wanted to point out that, you know, everyone's got cell phones and all that.
Recording speeches like this, you know, you almost can't see a concert these days because of the forest of cell phone recording devices up there so that everyone can get shaky video and terrible audio on YouTube.
Why isn't anyone recording this?
Why was it not recorded?
Did they take people's cell phones before they went in?
I mean, did they pat people down?
I don't know.
I mean, ever since the movie Wall Street, it would seem that recording is quite a habit on Wall Street.
But no, apparently not, so...
Clinton never did release her speech transcripts, but recently, ah, WikiLeaks to the rescue.
Hey, remember WikiLeaks?
The liberals, the leftists, used to love WikiLeaks until WikiLeaks started releasing stuff about the lefties, and now, email!
So, WikiLeaks released excerpts from her speeches obtained through John Podesta's compromised email account.
They don't just mean morally.
They also mean digitally.
Although, morally, yes.
Yes, indeed.
So Donald Trump and other conservatives have criticized Hillary Clinton on immigration for her desire to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants and the belief that she supports open borders.
Echo!
There's no country!
The country has become an ocean.
Maybe we have some currents, but there's no dividing lines anywhere.
So, Donald Trump, and you know, just by the by, for those who may be new to this particular dog and pony show, the...
The Democrats want to legalize illegal immigrants because illegal immigrants overwhelmingly, or legal immigrants from Mexico and South and Central America overwhelmingly vote for Democrats.
They're legalizing a voting base that will vote for them in perpetuity.
Whereas the Republicans are saying, hey, shouldn't we have kind of a debate, kind of a discussion, and not just stuff the ballot with grateful immigrants who want welfare and other free stuff?
And so that's why they're fighting it.
It's got nothing to do with racism.
It's got nothing to do with xenophobia.
It's just that Republicans don't want to be outvoted from here to eternity, literally from here to eternity, by endless crashing tsunami hordes of immigrants who are going to vote for the Democrats.
So...
That's by the by.
So that's why they're critical of open borders.
There is certainly some patriotism, some nationalism there as well.
But politically, it just will never work for the Republicans if the Democrats get their way.
So the mainstream media...
Sorry, it just seems to give me hives every single time.
The mainstream media has repeatedly criticized Republicans for making the allegation that Hillary Clinton could be, even remotely potentially, for open borders.
The Miami Herald said, Trump's claim that Clinton would create open borders is false.
PolitiFact.
Sorry, that really should be left justified.
More left justified, because that's how they roll.
PolitiFact said, Rudy Giuliani wrongly says Hillary Clinton is for open borders.
The rubes!
How crazy.
Open borders.
Ladies and gentlemen, she's not talking about the bookstore.
So Hillary Clinton, to Banco Ital, because, you know, the Italian banking sector has done so well, she started giving her sage advice in 2013, they're pretty much rock solid.
For a definition of rock solid, please see a whirlwind of quicksand that is about to hoover up all the savings of the middle class and flush them out into space.
Banco Ital, on May 16, 2013, Hillary said, My dream...
It's a hemispheric common market with open trade and open borders sometime in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it.
Powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere.
Thank you!
And that will be now $225,000.
Thank you, everybody.
Thank you, thank you.
Show me with gold.
It replaces my soul.
So, yeah, open borders.
Now, the Democrat defense, just to throw that in the mix, the Democrat defense is saying, well, she means open borders.
I think that's true.
Just say open borders.
I think what she's actually trying to say, you see, is open borders for energy.
You know, we're willing to give anchor babies to light bulbs, maybe telephone wires that snake across.
Do they vote Democrat?
Can we get them in?
Okay.
Okay.
So it's open borders for energy.
It's got nothing to do with national citizenship.
Anyway, I can't just state it.
Even as a joke, it's just crazy.
Hillary Clinton to CIBC. Hey, Canadian content.
Are you happy now, Canadians?
CIBC on January 22nd, 2015.
The North American future that I imagine is one that would give us energy connectivity, give us a much more open border where goods and services more easily flowed, would give us the chance to put our heads together about what else we can do together, bringing Mexico in to continue the work we have started on healthcare, like early warning systems for epidemic diseases.
And that will be 220...
Does this sound like $225,000?
I've got a vision.
I've got a dream.
Everybody, come with me on the magic carpet ride of wishlisty leftism.
So, um...
Yeah, goods and services more easily flow.
Well, goods, okay, that's kind of open borders, no tariffs, no restrictions.
Services, they're kind of provided by people, so a lot of times they'd have to flow back and forth.
So there's just a little bit of evidence that the whistling little old lady who falls into vans also has some support for open borders.
She also said, continued to say on CIBC, We saw that in 2009, with the spread of a particularly virulent form of the flu that first came to our part of the world in Mexico, and because of the cooperation, because of the investments we made, we were able to stop it in its tracks until it took me down on the 9-11.
That last part with me.
Hillary Clinton at the Jewish United Fund of Metropolitan Chicago Vanguard Luncheon.
Boy, that's a pretty big...
It's a pretty big card you're going to get for that one.
It folds out in landscape on October 28, 2013.
So I think you're right to have gone to the places that you visited because there's a discussion going on now across the region to try and see where there might be common ground to deal with the threat posed by extremism and particularly with Syria, which has everyone quite worried.
Jordan, because it's on their border and they have hundreds of thousands of refugees and they can't possibly vet all those refugees, so they don't know if, you know, jihadists are coming in along with legitimate refugees.
For the same reason.
Aha!
So, if you saw the debate, that would be the second debate Hillary Clinton was saying, well, I mean, it's mad!
Mad to think that we'd want to do what Trump calls extreme vetting.
See, what we're going to do is we're going to...
Vet!
Because magic.
You know, I've got this magic firewall.
It's cool.
I can't really give you the specs right now.
It's more of a state of mind, but it's totally magic, and everybody with bad intentions gets pushed back, and everyone with good intentions, low, under the 10th generation, gets allowed in.
So Trump is, what, racist for saying, well, we've got to stop this immigration stuff until we can figure out how to vet refugees.
But she says right here, right here, that hundreds of thousands of refugees, they can't possibly vet all those refugees.
They don't know if, you know, jihadists are coming in along with legitimate refugees.
That's important.
See...
I'm no military expert, but let me just give you a tip here.
When you have an enemy, you know, let's say ISIS, you have an enemy, and they say, we are going to infiltrate your Western countries through migrants, we're going to bury our people, our warriors, in amongst the migrants, and they're just going to flow into your countries.
You might want to listen just a little bit.
It's just, you know, when the goals are that transparent, you know, we're going to destroy Western economies by getting them involved in unwinnable wars in the Middle East, because that's never been a problem before.
There's no reason why Afghanistan has ever been called the graveyard of empires.
But, oh, wait, what happened to the Soviet Union?
Did they get involved in a war in Afghanistan?
I do believe they did.
Good job, Bin Laden.
Well trained by the CIA. Blowback.
So, yeah.
I mean, she says very openly, can't possibly vet the refugees.
But now, of course, she wants to increase Syrian migrants coming into the U.S. by 550%.
Why?
Well, because there's a couple of million Muslims in America.
They generally vote for the left, and she wants to keep them happy and reunite them with their loved ones and so on.
And, again, nothing to do with security.
It's just...
Thirst for power, hunger for power, it's an addiction.
Now, public and private positions.
This used to be known, I guess a bit more colloquially, as two-faced lying scumbag.
But now, politely, it's known as having both public And private positions.
You know, I would just suggest that, you know, try that in a business.
Let's say you're in charge of a business and publicly you say, oh, our business is going to double over the next five years.
But privately, you know, among your board members and among, you know, with your wife and with your friends on the go, you say, oh man, our business is totally, totally tanking.
I mean, we are down.
We are never going to make any money.
Well, that's called having a difference between public and private positions.
And that also gets you to jail sometimes because it's considered to be fraud.
Now, you could really say that if you have the kind of awesome power that Hillary Clinton had as a secretary, as, say, Secretary of State, as a senator and so on, well, that's quite a lot of power.
Having a public and private position, two-faced lying scumbag rule, that seems a little bit more important than whether some stockholders are going to make money or not.
So Hillary Clinton to the National Multi-Housing Council, April 24, 2013, said...
You just have to sort of figure out how to, getting back to that word, balance, how to balance the public and the private efforts that are necessary to be successful politically.
And that's not just a comment about today.
That, I think, has probably been true for all of our history.
And if you saw the Spielberg movie, Lincoln, and how he was maneuvering and working to get the 13th Amendment passed, and he called one of my favorite predecessors, Secretary Seward, who had been the governor and senator from New York, ran against Lincoln for president, and he told Seward, I need your help to get this done.
And Seward called some of his lobbyist friends who knew how to make a deal, and they just kept going at it.
I mean...
Politics is like sausages being made.
It is unsavoury.
And it always has been that way, but we usually end up where we need to be.
But if everybody's watching, you know, all of the backroom discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least.
So you need both a public and a private position.
And finally, I think, I believe in evidence-based decision-making.
I want to know what the facts are.
I mean, it's like when you guys go into some kind of a deal.
You know, are you going to do that development or not?
Are you going to do that renovation or not?
You know, you look at the numbers.
You try to figure out what's going to work and what's not going to work.
Thank you!
That will be $225,000!
Yeah, people do get nervous when they know the facts.
You can look up Jonathan Gruber and his description of Obamacare as a sort of platonic noble lie that we're fooling the people and lying to the people.
You know, we had to tell them all this stuff.
They keep their policies, keep their doctors.
We had to tell them that because the facts would have made them scared and might have had them change their vote.
You can't give people the facts in a democracy, otherwise it might influence their vote.
So you see, she, Hillary Clinton, totally into evidence-based decision-making.
You gotta have the evidence, you gotta have the facts in order to make a decision.
However...
When she faces the public, she really needs to keep those uncomfortable and difficult facts and evidence and reality far away from the public because then you see the public might actually end up using what she likes so much, evidence-based decision.
So during the debate when she was called, public and private positions not being in sync, she said, well...
Spielberg!
That was her defense.
She's talking about a movie.
And, you know, with all seriousness, this is important stuff.
We're going to get us to why it's so important in just a few minutes.
Yeah, this is an old saying.
There's two things you don't want to see getting made.
Sausages and laws.
I think it comes from Bismarck in Germany.
19th century.
Hey!
They were the first country to actually have a welfare state, unemployment insurance, old age pensions.
How did that work out for them?
And the rest of Europe?
And the rest of the world?
Well, I've got a presentation coming up about that, so let's hold off on that for now.
So, I don't know.
She's saying that someone in the past was two-faced, therefore it's fine.
Well, you should just tell people that, right?
If you're comfortable with it, right?
This is the thing.
If you're comfortable holding contrary positions, then you go to the public and you say, well, this is just what I'm telling you.
What I actually believe is totally different, probably completely opposite.
I have two positions, right?
I have the position I'm telling you, and I have the position that I really believe and I'm going to actually act on.
The two have nothing to do with each other.
So can I have your vote?
See, that's the thing.
If it's okay, if it's fine, if it's just politics as normal, then you should be telling everyone what you're doing.
You have a public and a private position.
So if it's normal and it's fine and it was done in the past by people everybody loves, then you should be totally comfortable talking about it.
But you ain't, are you?
I didn't think so.
Common Core.
How's that doing?
Thanks, Bill.
Sure glad you aren't working on a new version of Windows.
Hillary Clinton at Newton on July 22, 2014.
Quote, The Common Core is a perfect example.
I mean, the Common Core was negotiated by a bipartisan group of governors.
And maybe they thought...
I mean, I think this was a political failure because they negotiated something and they had no real agreed-upon program for explaining it and selling it to people.
So that they left an opening for those who are always in the education debate who don't think anybody should be told anything about what to study, even if it's the multiplication...
Tables.
So, she's not a fan of Common Core.
She went on to say, you know that that should all be left to local control.
And then you get into more complicated areas, as we all know, that that's just totally off-limits.
And then using Common Core results for teacher evaluation when everybody knew that it was going to be complicated to implement.
Again, does she even have a speechwriter?
I mean, this is like...
PJ-style word salads all over the place.
This is just like verb canon, noun canon.
Blam!
And there's your speech.
Now, of course, this is Trump's position.
It should be local control, and it's not...
Great, so, you know, just here's a tip.
Donnie, Donald, this is my tip for you.
If you want to reveal Hillary Clinton's true positions, which actually seem to agree with you quite a lot, the Common Core is not that great, local control is better, we can't vet refugees and so on, what you need to do, dress up as a bank, It's not that hard for you.
You've got a lot of money.
Dress up as a bank and hire her for $225,000 and then just publish what she says and people will see that basically she's you but falling over.
So this is, you know, just dress up as a bank, get her done, then you're all set.
Just record it and everybody will see that she kind of agrees with you.
Although, to be fair, that is her private position.
Tax code!
Ugh!
So, Hillary Clinton to ECGR Grand Rapids, June 17, 2013.
Quote, How it fits...
I'm sorry to do this voice.
I know she's not the queen or anything.
But remember, a lot of people listening on the podcast, they don't get the benefit of the tax.
So I need to know.
I need a different voice.
How it fits into an overall tax code is something that has to be given close consideration.
But I believe we can save money and become more competitive with a simpler tax code related to what we are trying to achieve.
You know, the phrase Captain Obvious is really, really great.
And I used to make fun, my coders and I used to make fun of this when the business people would come in and say, it's really, really important that we produce a product that the market wants at a cost they can afford.
Yes!
Yes, it is.
I'm going to be a movie director and I'm going to be a movie mogul by saying it's really important to produce quality movies that people will pay to go and see.
It's like, oh, saying it is one thing.
I mean...
I don't get to be a surgeon by standing over a guy writhing in pain and saying, you know, this appendicitis really needs to be cured.
Thank you!
That will be $225,000.
Anyway, so, yeah, just nonsense that it said.
Obvious stuff with no particular plan for implementation.
Or as Trump would say, all talk, no action.
So Hillary Clinton went on to say about the tax code, I think that part of our challenge is to do what we have to do.
Which is to take a hard look at our tax code and connect it to what our national goals are.
You know, what it is we need to be collecting taxes to do.
And what it is we need to make it, in essence, so we become more competitive in the future.
And that requires the kind of thoughtful discussion that we haven't had enough of in recent years.
So she seems to want a simpler tax code and a cut down on regulations and red tape.
Hey!
What does that sound like?
Whirlpool of hair, vaguely orange skin, generally made more orange by the mainstream media and their colour filters.
But enough about that.
Yeah, it's pretty much Trump's position.
She went on to say, I think there are very good arguments that need to be aired.
I agree with you.
The corporate tax code is, you know, an impediment and kind of a dinosaur waiting to be changed.
So, this is dangling, hey, hey, give me $225,000 or whatever she charged for this particular speech, and maybe we'll get the tax code you want written, written.
So, yeah, she wants to simplify the tax code.
Boy, it seems like her private positions are pretty much Donald Trump's platform, but maybe that's just me.
Alright, so Hillary's thoughts about the relationship with Russia.
And if you ever really want to depress yourself with the state of American diplomacy, or chick diplomacy, if you want to call it that, have a look at Hillary Clinton when she went to Russia.
I'd heard about this reset thing, and I did a little bit of research on it.
And the reset was, you know, let's reset our relationship and so on.
And Hillary flew over to Russia.
With a button, a red button, a little untasteful, but a button, you know, like the Staples easy button or whatever.
She flew over and She attempted to make the relationships better by having Russian diplomats push a button.
Oh, God.
It's so sad.
I mean, it's so cheesy, so unbelievably.
Ah, it's true.
There have been tensions between our two countries, lo, these many years, and there was a Cold War, and now we're all tangled up in Syria.
But it's okay, because I bought a button which people can push, and that's going to make everything better.
It's like trying to fix a War of the Roses toxic suicidal marriage with word completion exercises and foot ruffs.
I got a button.
This is what they call high-level diplomacy in America.
I have a button.
And by the by, I want you to just imagine if I were giving these speeches, like I was giving these speeches on YouTube.
These are my speeches.
These are my thoughts.
Hey, would you like to donate $225,000?
Seriously, if you want to donate $225,000, I'll totally take it.
FreedomAidRadio.com slash donate.
But, I mean, if I just said, okay, and now that's worth $225,000, right?
People would be like, just Pablum, come on.
Well, maybe I just don't have all the big giant levers of political power to work for other people's, particularly foreign people's, interests and favors.
So, Hillary Clinton at Goldman Sachs 2013 IBD, CEO, annual conference.
June 4th, 2013, she said...
And finally, on Afghanistan and Russia.
Look, I would love it if we could continue to build a more positive relationship with Russia.
I worked very hard on that when I was secretary, and we made some progress with Medvedev, who was president in name but was obviously beholden to Putin.
But Putin kind of let him go, and we helped them get into the World Trade Organization for several years, and they were very helpful to us in shipping equipment, even lethal equipment, in and out of Afghanistan.
So, yeah, she wants more positive relationships with Russia.
So she went on to say, So we were making progress, and I think Putin has a different view.
Certainly he's asserted himself in a way now that is going to take some management on our side, but obviously we would very much like to have a positive relationship with Russia, and we would like to see Putin be less defensive toward a relationship with the United States so that we could work together on some issues.
So, speaking positively, wanting to build bridges and have a good relationship with Putin and with Russia as a whole.
Because of the button.
She's pushing my buttons, all right.
So apparently this is her private view.
Her public view is that this toxic bromance that appears in her mind to be happening between Trump and Putin is totally evil, absolutely wrong.
And the important thing is to threaten World War III with Russia over being hacked while having an open-to-the-internet.
Server in your toilet.
So, talk about a data dump.
Anyway.
Syrian no-fly zone.
Ah, well, this is fairly dark stuff, to be honest, right?
Hillary Clinton at Goldman Sachs, 2013.
Again, IBD CEO, annual conference, June 4th, 2013.
She said, so we're not as good as we used to be, but we still...
We can still deliver.
And we should have, in my view, been trying to do that so we would have better insight.
But the idea that we would have like a no-fly zone, Syria, of course, did have it when it started the fourth biggest army in the world.
It had very sophisticated air defense systems.
Again, sorry, a little bit of a word salad.
But, you know, I think for 226,000, you actually get complete coherence.
But, you know, they obviously didn't want to splash for the extra grand.
She said, they're getting more sophisticated thanks to Russian imports.
To have a no-fly zone, you have to take out all of the air defense, many of which are located in populated areas.
So our missiles, even if they are standoff missiles, so we're not putting our pilots at risk, you're going to kill a lot of Syrians.
Question.
Maybe somebody out there on the web can help me with this.
Put it in the comments and I'll see if I can dig it up.
Why the hell does Goldman Sachs want to know exactly how many Syrians you have to kill in order to create a no-fly zone?
It's been a while since I've read their annual report or business plan other than evil, but I mean...
Why are they interested in this?
Why is this really, really important for them?
Do they have some secret penguin robot army that I'm not aware of that is going to be deployed out here?
Again, everybody let me know.
I guess maybe they're helping fund the military-industrial complex.
I don't know.
So she went on to say, so all of a sudden this intervention that people talk about so glibly becomes an American and NATO involvement where you take a lot of civilians.
Um...
I don't think that means to the movies.
I think that means to the graveyard.
So this is important, that she wants this no-fly zone.
She's openly talking about how deadly it's going to be, how many civilians are going to get killed.
So when she talks about creating a no-fly zone in the present, dropping the body count, oh, I guess that's that public-private thing.
Crazy.
Hillary Clinton, during debate with Senator Bernie Sanders, April 14, 2016.
See, that's quite a little bit later.
That's almost three years.
I do still support a no-fly zone because I think we need to put in safe havens for those poor Syrians who are fleeing both Assad and ISIS, and so they have some place they can be safe.
See, you know, if only we could get those two people to meet.
The one who says, well, a no-fly zone is going to kill a lot of civilians, and the other who says, well, we really need a no-fly zone so that we can save the lives of civilians.
Just these two opposite magnets somehow get them to touch the universe.
At least if leftism would end.
I don't know.
Maybe just bring a button.
People push the button.
Everything will be glorious.
It's a shield.
The housing crash.
All right.
Hillary Clinton to the Goldman Sachs.
Now I know why she's talking about this.
Hillary Clinton to the Goldman Sachs.
Ames Alternative Investment Symposium.
October 24th, 2013.
That was one of the reasons that I started traveling in February of 2009, so people could, you know, literally yell at me for the United States and our banking system, causing this everywhere.
Now, that's an oversimplification we know, but it was the conventional wisdom.
And I think that there's a lot that could have been avoided in terms of both misunderstanding and really politicizing what happened with greater transparency, with greater openness on all sides.
You know, what happened?
How did it happen?
How did we prevent it from happening?
You guys help us figure it out, and let's make sure that we do it right this time.
And I think that everybody was desperately trying to fend off the worst effects institutionally, governmentally, and there just wasn't that opportunity to try and sort this out.
And that came later.
And with political people, again, I would say...
The same thing, you know, there was a lot of complaining about Dodd-Frank, the piece of legislation, but there was also a need to do something because, for political reasons, if you were an elected member of Congress and people in your constituency were losing jobs and shutting businesses and everybody in the press is saying it's all the fault of Wall Street, you can't sit idly by and do nothing, but what you do is really important.
And I think the jury is still out on that because it was very difficult to sort of sort through it all.
And that will be a quarter of a billion dollars.
So she's saying that Dodd-Frank was just the appearance of doing something because people were paying for blood.
And there's no insight here.
There's no facts here.
I mean, the housing crash was the Federal Reserve pumping a lot of money into the economy.
It was the government forcing banks to lend to unqualified people because they wanted to get the diversity home ownership, black and Hispanic home ownership up, get the numbers up.
And when reality adjusted, when interest rates eventually had to go up, the minorities got really taken to the cleaners.
It was brutal on blacks and Hispanics in particular and other people as well.
There's no insight of any of that here, other than the insight of, well, you know, we needed to create a kind of show that we were doing something, so we just ran through Dodd-Frank, although it doesn't really have anything to do with anything, but, you know, we've got to look busy.
Otherwise, how the hell am I going to come here and collect $225,000?
Do I sound bitter because I don't get paid that much for speeches?
Yeah, well.
I'm not, because I would rather not get the $225,000 and keep my integrity.
Thank you very much.
Banking regulation.
All right.
Goldman Sachs, Ames Alternative Investment Symposium, October 24, 2013.
Quote, I mean, it's still happening, as you know.
People are looking back and trying to, you know, get compensation for bad mortgages and all the rest of it in some of the agreements that are being reached.
There's nothing magic about regulations.
Too much is bad.
Too little is bad.
How do you get to the golden key?
How do we figure out what works?
And the people that know the industry better than anyone are the people who work in the industry.
And I think there has to be a recognition that, you know, there's so much at stake now.
I mean, the business has changed so much, and decisions are made so quickly, in nanoseconds, basically.
We spend trillions of dollars to travel around the world.
I don't know what this means, by the way.
I've looked at it, I've studied it, still have no idea what it means.
Again, enlighten me in the comments below.
She goes on to say...
We spend trillions of dollars to travel around the world, but it's in everybody's interest that we have a better framework, and not just for the United States, but for the entire world, in which to operate and trade.
God, I mean, again, it's such a problem.
It's such nonsense.
Too much of this thing is bad.
Too little is bad.
I mean, of course, too much of something by definition is a negative and too little of something by definition is a negative.
But what does this even mean?
What are you talking about?
Too much?
Too much of what?
In what context?
In what industry?
Regulated by what people?
Here she's actually describing...
What's called regulatory capture, which is if you go and regulate an industry, people will send their smartest, most manipulative people out of that industry to control the regulations to benefit particular companies in that industry.
When you say, oh, we're going to regulate Wall Street.
Yeah, well, okay, Wall Street just sends all these people to you because it's not like politicians have any clue what's going on.
The only thing they do every morning is try and talk their shoes into tying their own laces until some butler comes along and does it for them.
But...
That's regulatory capture.
That's what happens.
You try and regulate an industry, the smartest, most manipulative, most amoral people swarm out of that industry, into the halls of the regulators, and then create the regulations to benefit the major players in the industry.
And look, just imagine, you know, well, when it comes to things in life, too much of something is bad, too little of it is also bad, and you need something in the middle.
I mean, can you imagine me releasing that as a podcast and saying, please donate for me?
People would say, okay, how bad was your head blown?
Actually, come to think of it with Hillary Clinton, that is a reasonable question.
So Hillary Clinton to Deutsche Bank.
Yeah, sure helped them turn that around.
What is the stock price down now to 8% of what it was at the height in the mid-2000s?
Hillary Clinton to Deutsche Bank on October 7th, 2014.
Now, if she'd been speaking to investors or people who had money in Deutsche Bank, she'd be saying, run!
And that might actually be worth some money.
But what she said was...
Remember what Teddy Roosevelt did?
Yes, he took on what he saw as the excesses in the economy, but he also stood against the excesses in politics.
He didn't want to unleash a lot of nationalistic, populistic reaction.
Good heavens.
He wanted to try to figure out how to get back into that balance that has served America so well over our entire nationhood.
So again, you see, too much, too little, too much.
You know, this porridge is too cold.
This porridge is too hot.
This porridge is just right.
What's the temperature?
Can't tell you.
No idea.
I'm just a politician and I like quoting fairy stories and collecting my money.
Thanks very much.
Where's my check?
I'm going back to my gold bathtub.
She went on to say, today there's more that can and should be done that really has to come from the industry itself and how we can strengthen our economy, create more jobs at a time when that's increasingly challenging to get back to Teddy Roosevelt's square deal.
And I really believe that our country and all of you are up to that job.
Polite applause.
Where's my button?
Where's my button?
Oh, God.
As a guy who writes and speaks for a living...
Dare I say the Freddie Mercury philosophy, this is like being strapped to a chair with William Hung playing at variable speed over and over and over again in my brain until I end up in late movie Anthony Perkins' mindset.
Oh, boy, you know how Donald Trump talks about how the Chinese are really, really taking advantage and screwing the U.S. because of trade deals?
Apparently, Hillary Clinton thinks that's just plain crazy.
Ah, wait.
It's not crazy if it's, say, old Hillary Clinton.
Actually, that's kind of confusing.
Prior Hillary Clinton talking to eBay on March 11, 2015.
Corning, a company in upstate New York, was the inventor of Gorilla Glass, which supplies not only fiber optics but other important products all over the world to Apple, to Samsung, to so many.
Had been in China in the fiber optics business for a long time, and basically the Chinese showed up and said, we think you're dumping.
We're imposing a 17% tariff, which would have effectively put them out of business, unless you go into a joint agreement with Company X over here.
And that was the surest way to lose your intellectual property and your trade secrets and all the rest.
So, apparently, she's very concerned about other countries ripping off the United States because of incompetent trade agreements and so on.
But remember, that's just her private belief.
A public belief is that Donald Trump lives in an alternative reality and makes no sense at all.
Now, why am I doing the Queen's voice?
Well, not even the Queen's voice, but something like it.
Well, because she's openly said what if she hasn't driven a car in over 20 years or whatever.
So Hillary Clinton to CME group on November 18, 2013.
So when somebody runs for and asks for your vote, who tries to set him or herself kind of above that political process, the democratic process?
That person should not earn your vote.
And in addition, they should not earn your contribution.
Hillary Clinton to Goldman, Black Rock, February 4th, 2014.
And I am not taking a position on any policy, but I do think there is a growing sense of anxiety and even anger in the country over the feeling that the game is rigged.
And I never had that feeling when I was growing up.
Rigged.
I don't know.
Like maybe your husband goes and meets with the Attorney General on an airplane when you're being investigated for criminal wrongdoing or potentially criminal wrongdoing.
Seem like the game's kind of rigged there when you have the entire mainstream media on your side.
And, oh, let's not even get started on the number of actors and singers I now have to boycott because they're talented, they're pretty, they got nice vocal cords, but they have the intellectual agility of your average slab of sidewalk pressing down on the dying chest of future freedoms.
But that's a topic for another time.
Above the political process!
I don't know.
How about, like, rigging the primary and screwing over Bernie Sanders?
I don't know.
Above the process?
Shocking!
Appalling!
But again, that's prior Hillary.
That's just a public-private...
I don't know.
It's some kind of position.
So she went on to say to Goldman BlackRock, I mean, there were basically...
There were really rich people.
Of course there were.
My father loved to complain about big business and big government.
But we had a solid middle-class upbringing.
We had good public schools.
We had accessible health care.
We had our little, you know, one family house that, you know, he saved up his money, didn't believe in mortgages.
Now this, if a listener called into, I mean, I just go straight to the family, if a listener called into my show about this.
So, her father was complaining about big government and what has Hillary Clinton been trying to do but create bigger and bigger government her entire time in public office, for the most part.
So, screw you, Dad!
You can't tell me what to do out of a bigger government!
Solid middle, good public schools.
Interesting.
Interesting.
That's back when you could fire teachers, which the Democrats staunchly opposed, bringing back accessible health care in the 1950s and the 1960s.
Gosh, I wonder what happened.
I wonder if the government got heavily involved in health care through Medicare, through Medicaid, through massive amounts of subsidies, through forcing people to buy insurance they didn't really want, through refusing to allow people to be disallowed for pre-existing conditions, thus giving everybody the incentive to wait till they got sick through refusing to allow people to be disallowed for pre-existing conditions, thus giving everybody the incentive to wait till they got sick before No Obamacare.
So, you know, if things were so great back then, maybe you could shrink back the government down to, say, the 5 or 10 percent size that it was when you're talking about how great things were, rather than trying to make it bigger, because screw you, Dad!
So she went on to say, So I lived that, and now obviously I'm kind of far removed because the life I've lived and the economic, you know, fortunes that my husband and I now enjoy, but I haven't forgotten it.
Yeah, right.
Father didn't believe in mortgages.
So why are the Democrats forcing the banks to give more and more people mortgages and thus screwing their economic futures?
Because she had a great relationship with her dad?
I don't know.
Crazy.
Crazy.
Ah, technology critic.
Okay.
This is really, really, really important.
Hillary Clinton, the Goldman Sachs Builders and Innovators Summit, October 29th, 2013.
We have a lot of difficulties in getting...
When I got to the State Department, we were so far behind in technology, it was embarrassing.
And you know, people were not even allowed to use mobile devices because of security issues and cost issues.
And we really had to try to push into the last part of the 20th century in order to get people functioning in 2009 and 10.
See?
Couldn't even use mobile devices because of security issues.
Huh!
Maybe there was a reason for that!
Two-faced.
Maybe there's a reason for that.
Security issues.
I have no words.
I'm going to continue.
Must bring down brain swelling.
All right.
I see a lot of water in my brain.
Hillary Clinton at General Electric's global leadership meeting on January 6, 2014.
You know, when Colin Powell showed up as Secretary of State in 2001, most State Department employers still didn't even have computers on their desks.
When I got there, they were not mostly permitted to have handheld devices.
I mean, so you're thinking, how do we operate in this new environment, dominated by technology globalizing forces?
We have to change.
And I can't expect people to change if I don't try and model it and lead it.
Well, she certainly did model and lead using mobile devices, regardless of security concerns, as was pointed out by ex-Credibility, sorry, ex-FBI head James Comey.
Whose conscience is in a coma?
Hillary Clinton at NexCenter on August 28, 2014.
I mean, let's face it, our government is woefully, woefully behind in all of its policies that affect the use of technology.
When I got to the State Department, it was still against the rules to let most or let all Foreign Service officers have access to a BlackBerry.
You couldn't have desktop computers when Colin Powell was there.
Everything that you are taking advantage of, inventing, and using is still a generation or two behind when it comes to our government.
So government, you see, according to Hillary, is ridiculously and woefully and pitifully Inefficient.
In-e-fficient.
Terrible.
Terrible.
Generation or two behind has arcane rules way late in adopting technology.
So you know what would be great?
Let's have the government take over one-sixth of the U.S. economy in terms of healthcare.
Let's expand government and controlling things more and more and more because it's just terrible at what it does and so inefficient and so behind the times.
So bigger is better, right?
It's the scream of dying freedom that only dogs and teenagers can hear.
Hillary Clinton at the Goldman Sachs built as an innovative summit on October 28, 2013, very concerned about cybersecurity.
And it's not only on the government side that we should be worried about.
I mean, the cyber attacks on businesses, and I'm sure many in this room have experienced that, is aimed at commercial advantage.
In some instances, when it's aimed at defense businesses, it's aimed at, you know, security and strategic advantage.
Sorry.
Ah, queen of obvious land has made her entrance.
So yeah, cyber attacks, you know, when you attack a business, you're often trying to make money.
But when you're attacking the defense department, you're trying to break security and get strategic advantage.
You know, robbers are often trying to take something for nothing.
Thank you!
That will be 225...
She went on to say, But you know, the State Department was attacked hundreds of times every day.
Some by state-sponsored groups, some by more independent operators.
But it was the same effect.
People were trying to steal information, use it for their own purposes.
2013.
See, she's talking about just how vulnerable the State Department is to being hacked and intruded upon, so...
Well, clearly, since the target is the State Department, you want to get a DNS with your name on it, move your computer to your toilet, or maybe your barn, because, you know...
How many people get into barns from Russia?
I mean, what are they going to do?
Are they going to burrow?
Of course not, right?
Because the State Department is like the center of the octopus, right?
Everyone's trying to attack it.
You've got to get your computers out of the State Department and put them somewhere on your farm because then they're like, they're out of the way.
Hillary Clinton at UConn, April 23rd, 2014.
But at the State Department, we were attacked every hour, more than once an hour, by incoming efforts to penetrate everything we had.
And that was true across the U.S. government.
See, she knows just how dangerous this stuff really is.
Security!
Very, very big deal.
Hey, what does that C mean?
Does that sound for cute?
Because that font is really adorable.
She went on to say...
And we knew it was going on when I would go to China or I would go to Russia and we would leave all of our electronic equipment on the plane with the batteries out because this is a new frontier.
And they're trying to find out not just about what we do in our government.
They're trying to find out about what a lot of companies do And they were going after the personal emails of people who worked in the State Department.
So it's not like the only government in the world that is doing anything is the United States, but the United States, compared to a number of our competitors, is the only government in the world with any kind of safeguards, any kind of checks and balances.
Hillary Clinton at the Goldman Sachs Builders and Innovators Summit on October 29, 2013.
It's really dangerous, see?
International travel.
And anybody who has ever travelled in other countries, some of which shall remain nameless except for Russia and China, you know that you can't bring your phones and your computers.
And if you do, good luck.
I mean, we would not only take the batteries out, we would leave the batteries and the devices on the plane in special boxes.
Now, we didn't do that because we thought it would be fun to tell somebody about it.
Hmm.
We did that because we knew we were all targets and that we would be totally vulnerable.
Yeah.
Totally vulnerable.
Totally vulnerable.
Hillary Clinton at McSanta on August 28, 2014.
I mean, every time I went to countries like China or Russia, I mean, we couldn't take our computers, we couldn't take our personal devices, we couldn't take anything off the plane because they're so good, they would penetrate them in a minute less than nanoseconds.
So we would take the batteries out, we'd leave them on the plane.
So this is how good foreign hackers are.
But don't worry, folks.
She said on the debate, and she said repeatedly, there's no evidence that my server was hacked.
My personal email server, no evidence it was hacked.
Although they're so good they could do it in a nanosecond.
And I assume it'd leave no trace.
The cat burglar who's invisible and can walk through walls, there's no evidence he was ever in my house.
So, this is what she says.
It's so incredibly dangerous, you see, to have electronic devices.
You've got to take the batteries out, leave them in a special box and so on.
So, the FBI's investigation this year confirmed that Clinton's immediate staff used their personal email accounts in combination with their state-provided OpenNet email accounts for official state business while outside the United States.
OpenNet email accounts.
Now, that's a well-named product.
Pretty much truth in advertising.
The FBI investigation quote Clinton and her immediate staff were notified of foreign travel risks and were warned that digital threats began immediately upon landing in a foreign country since connection of a mobile device to a local network provides opportunities for foreign adversaries to intercept voice and email transmissions.
FBI investigation determined that hundreds of emails classified confidential during the state FOIA, Freedom of Information Act process, were sent or received by Clinton while she was outside the contiguous United States.
But don't worry.
No intent.
He's confused.
You know, she cleans her server with a wipe.
So, yeah, she knew all about it, knew how dangerous it was.
Did it anyway.
FBI said, on occasion, while outside contiguous United States, Clinton has direct email contact with an email address for President Barack Obama and...
Boom, people!
That's why the investigation went nowhere, as I said, months and months and months ago, because Barack Obama was involved.
He was emailing back and forth with her.
And if she goes down, he goes down.
And can't be having that if you're in the left-wing press.
And, you know, I'm pretty sure Comey likes his kids.
Putting lives in danger.
Hillary Clinton at the Goldman Sachs Builders and Innovators Summit, October 29, 2013.
Quote, The WikiLeaks problem put at risk certain individuals.
We had to form a kind of investigative team that looked at all the names and all the documents, which was quite a challenge to make sure that identities that were either revealed or described in enough detail that they could be determined would not put people who were at risk.
I mean, without going into detail, you know, maybe there are...
Let's just hypothetically say that there was somebody serving in a military in a certain country who was worried about some of the activities of the military that he served because he thought they were doing business with rogue states or terrorist networks, and so he would seek out an American diplomat to begin a conversation.
And the American diplomat would report back about the concerns that were being expressed about what was happening in this country.
And then it's exposed to the world.
So we had to identify, and we moved a number of people to safety, out of where they were in order for them to be not vulnerable.
So...
Yeah, really, really got to make sure that you don't put anyone's lives in jeopardy or you don't put anyone's identity in jeopardy by being careless, say, by using personal devices in foreign countries, which you know is very dangerous because, you know, you don't want to put anyone's lives in danger.
But don't worry.
There was no intent because...
because that's what I was told.
So...
This is the depth and the insight that was provided.
This is not full transcripts and so on, but that is what was provided.
Does that sound like it's worth $225,000 on average to you?
And doesn't it confirm everything that you think about certain politicians, that they'll just tell you whatever you want to your face in order to get your vote, and while they've made all these promises to everyone who's been funding their campaign all the way along.
Barack Obama took the most of any candidate from Wall Street.
Not really any prosecutions.
Well, no, they got Deutsche Bank.
Overseas, yes.
Domestically, really not so much.
So this is really, really important.
This is part of the giant welfare state for the rich, right?
Which is that government intervention produces disasters, and then what happens is rich people say, and everyone says, well, you see, we need security.
We need protection.
We need regulation.
Got to control these guys.
Out of control is crazy.
It's like a hyped up, coked up horse charging its way through the playground.
Got to tackle that thing down.
Bring it down.
Disaster produced by government.
Call for more regulation.
Regulators are then populated.
Regulation is then controlled and populated by people in the industry being regulated, and they use it for their own benefit.
This is why the rich get richer, the middle class is dying, and the poor expand.
And, you know, we all know.
Come on, we all know.
It's an in-club for the evil kids, and you're not invited.
You know, they've got their cozy relationships.
They've got their tentacles.
Their squid, money-sucking, soul-destroying tentacles are embedded in each other.
It's an in-club.
I'm not in it.
You're not in it.
You're never going to be in it.
I'm never going to be in it.
We're as much part of this team As a pig being led to the slaughter is part of the team called the farm.
You're just livestock.
You're just to be controlled, to be manipulated.
And they talked recently about how it's great that people are being dumped down.
So this is the in-club.
This is what we're bought and sold for.
We are merely the pawns that they trade upon.
Our productivity is merely the money they use as collateral to borrow, give us a penny or two, and keep the rest for themselves.
I mean, it's all that.
Now, does that mean that we just give up completely?
Because there is this temptation to fall into the black hole of cynicism, right?
And say, well, nobody has any integrity.
The system is irritably broken.
There's nothing that can be done.
No!
Not yet!
We do not have that luxury as yet.
There is still...
A chance.
Still a chance.
And I know I'm as surprised as anyone, if not more so, that I, of all people, am saying this.
And I hope that gives you some sense of credibility.
It gives you some sense that I have credibility in this area, because I've argued against this in the past.
Now, America, the West, is not full-on banana republic as yet.
There is still a chance to punish America.
Two-faced liars.
And I don't just mean by withholding office from them.
Although, Lord knows, for power junkies, for political junkies, that's reason enough.
You know, political power is more addictive than cocaine biochemically.
We get a high, a dopamine hit when we rise up in the political chain.
It's not just keeping their drug of choice away from them.
As Trump said, special investigators.
Jail time.
It's potential.
The West is not a full-on banana republic yet, but we are close.
In America, I'm going to use the we.
I'm not an American, but we are all in this together, trust me.
We are right on the border.
America is not a full-on banana republic yet.
But it is only one election away from becoming one.
One election away.
It may sound catastrophic, but let's look at it this way.
You're going to get millions of more people coming in from the third world.
You are going to get the legalization of tens of millions of illegal immigrants.
And look at the countries they're coming from.
You know, when you bring the third world to the first world, you don't get the first world.
You get the third world.
Until we can figure that out, how to transfer Western values to the third world, You're going to get the banana republic if the left gets in, if the Dems get in this election.
We are very, very close to losing it all.
The entire Western experiment to losing it all.
And this is why I'm working so hard.
This is why I'm doing two or three or more shows a day.
And this is why I am...
Working my brain to the melting point to get this across to you.
We are one election away from losing it all.
Whether we end up pulling back from the brink, Whether we end up taking the higher road back to reclaim the freedoms that we are right on the edge of losing.
That's up to you.
Please, you must understand this.
I am not doing these videos for your entertainment.
I hope that they're enjoyable.
I am not doing these videos so that you feel, oh no, it's covered!
People are out there doing stuff, so I don't have to worry about freedom anymore.
No!
It is up to you!
Up to you and you alone.
It's not me.
I'm not going to fix it for you.
Not Mike Cernovich, not Ann Coulter, not Charles C. Johnson, not Paul Joseph Watson, not Alex Jones, not Lauren Southern, not Vox Day, Jason Wichwiner, even Donald Trump.
Nobody is going to save what we have but you!
You understand?
This is the time when the planets align.
This is the time when everything comes together.
This next month is the time when everything, everything comes together.
And you don't have to play a game.
You don't have to play a video game.
You are in a war of ideas at the moment and now is the time to step up.
Now is the time to get involved.
Now is the time to get people motivated.
Now is the time to get people to go and vote.
Now is the time to save everything that we have inherited.
Everything that our forefathers bled and died to provide to us.
us.
Now is the time.
Do not be a spectator in the most important battle in history.
you This time will come and go faster than you imagined.
It's like that whiny decline of noise of an ambulance going past.
This time will come and go faster.
Like the last heartbeat on your deathbed.
It's just one more, but it's the last one.
All the ones that came before, the little drumbeats of surviving.
Didn't matter.
You didn't notice.
Maybe you're lifting the couch up a chair.
You hear it in your ears.
Doesn't matter.
This is the last one.
This is the last chance.
Do not be a spectator.
Do not sit idly by.
Do not wait for others to save you.
Do not wait for history to do something on its own.
It is all your decision, your choice.
Because now, you see, you're watching this channel, you're watching other people's channels, you've got the knowledge.
See, if you know the heimlich maneuver and someone's choking to death, and you don't do something about it, you are an asshole.
And you are responsible for someone's death.
Because you know, once you know the heimlich maneuver, someone's choking in a restaurant, do what is necessary to save them.
Now you have this knowledge, I have given you the great gift of knowledge and the great curse and blessing of responsibility, called responsibility.
You understand?
Responsibility.
Now that you know what needs to be done to save the world, you are now responsible for saving the world.
And there is No magic.
No forgiveness.
No absolution powerful enough to lift the curse of regret from you should you fail to act in these crucial times.
You will be forgiven by nothing.
And no one, not even God himself, can provide forgiveness for the failure to act to save the world when you have been given the gift of knowledge and wisdom and facts and arguments.
Act now.
Act wisely.
Act courageously.
Act peacefully.
Otherwise the fall of freedom.
The end of all that makes wise men want to get up in the morning and fight for a better world.
All that we have inherited.
All the gifts so hard won in our bitter and bloody history that have been given to us.
