Madame Hillary’s Protection Prone to Leaks

There’s been endless speculation for years about whose bed post Hillary hangs those pants suits on and if you even think to say Bill’s you’ll likely get hoo-hawed outta the room. But we’re not going any further in that vein; it’s the political bedpost where Hillary discards her duds that interests far more of us than her personal peccadilloes. When you see a true power-couple like Bill and Hill leave the world’s most prestigious job in serious debt and then just a few years later posting a net worth north of a hundred million, you tend to get curious as to who’s been financially sleeping around.

When the distaff half of that couple is a presidential candidate, the public’s curiosity expands so as to overflow the void created by the Clinton’s Omerta-like silence on the subject. Questions are being asked and answers demanded. The media’s glib explanation for the Clinton’s miraculous wealth is speaking fees, and therein lies the rub. A hundred million bucks constitutes either one helluva lot of speeches at a reasonable rate or much fewer speeches at an exorbitant, some might even say an extortionate, rate. This being the Clintons we’re discussing, we can easily assume the latter with little fear of being disproved.

We now know that Bill received $1.5 million for a series of what are being called question and answer sessions with executives of Swiss banking giant UBS when that organization was being threatened by the American IRS. The American secretary of state, who just happened to be Bill’s wife, helped work a deal which got UBS off the hook and deprived the U.S. treasury of untold millions in avoided taxes. And of course we can assume that the subsequent joining of UBS with the Clinton Foundation to provide more than $30 million in loans is all purely circumstantial.

But such miraculous windfalls for the Clintons have been pooh-poohed away by the Democrat establishment and the media who slobber like Pavlov’s dog when they hear “President Hillary.” Until now, that is. The issue of Hillary’s extortionist speaking fees is back in the news cycle and this time it’s not about the money but, if you can believe it, the content of her speeches. Hillary, who constantly bashes Wall Street as being the evil puppeteers who pull the economic strings of this nation to their constant advantage, apparently has been a bit duplicitous between her public denunciations and her more, shall we say intimate, dealings with Wall Street.

At this moment, Hillary is being pressured to release the transcripts of the three speeches she made to Goldman Sachs executives which one of them describes thus:

“It was pretty glowing about us,” one person who watched the event said. “It’s so far from what she sounds like as a candidate now. It was like a rah-rah speech. She sounded more like a Goldman Sachs managing director.”

Sounds to me like La Madame Hilláire draped her pantsuit on the Goldman Sachs bedpost and slipped into something a little more comfortable for the occasion. Now the whole world knows who it is she’s been sleeping with and awaits with bated breath to hear the actual pillow talk. But there’s a bit of a problem: Madame Hillary required exclusive rights to the recorded contents of her breathy encouragements and passionate praises of performance, which is of course, the extortionist speechifier’s political equivalent of making those Goldman Sachs studs wear protection.

Someone should have warned Madame that such protection is prone to leaks.

Crossposted at American Thinker

Category: Politics