Become part of the movement for unbiased, accessible election information. Donate today.
Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016/Paid speeches
Ballotpedia's scope changes periodically, and this article type is no longer actively created or maintained. If you would like to help our coverage grow, consider donating to Ballotpedia.
Ballotpedia's scope changes periodically, and this article type is no longer actively created or maintained. It may also contain neutrality issues.
 Democratic presidential nominee Running mate: Tim Kaine |
Democratic National Convention • Polls • Debates • Presidential election by state |
Domestic affairs • Economic affairs and government regulations • Foreign affairs and national security • Hillarycare • Tenure as U.S. senator • Tenure as secretary of state • Email investigation • Paid speeches • WikiLeaks • Media coverage of Clinton |
Donald Trump (R) • Jill Stein (G) • Gary Johnson (L) • Vice presidential candidates |
2028 • 2024 • 2020 • 2016 |
In May 2015, The New York Times reported that Hillary Clinton and former President Bill Clinton had earned $25 million in speaking fees over the previous 16 months. Their audiences included General Electric, Cisco, Deutsche Bank, Bank of America, UBS, Goldman Sachs, Microsoft, Oracle, and medical and pharmaceutical groups, among others.[1][2] Although President Clinton was the primary speechmaker in the family for more than a decade, earning $100 million from speaking fees between 2001 to 2013, after Hillary Clinton left the State Department, she commanded a standard speaking fee of $225,000 and earned $2.9 million by giving 12 speeches to large banks between 2013 and 2015.[3][4][5]
While it is neither illegal nor unethical for former public servants to give paid speeches, Clinton's critics have questioned her relationship with Wall Street, given these lucrative speaking engagements, and requested that Clinton release the transcripts from her paid speeches to show if there is a disconnect between her policy proposals and private comments to the financial industry.[6][7][8] During the Democratic presidential primary, Clinton said that she would make the transcripts public if other candidates did the same.[9]
On October 7, 2016, WikiLeaks released alleged excerpts from Clinton's paid speeches, renewing questions about whether Clinton's policy proposals aligned with what she has said in private.
Calls to release transcripts
U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Clinton's primary Democratic challenger, ramped up criticism of Clinton's relationship with Wall Street in January 2016. His campaign released an ad in Iowa and New Hampshire on January 14, 2016, highlighting Clinton's paid speeches and campaign contributions from Wall Street. "There are two Democratic visions for regulating Wall Street. One says it’s okay to take millions from big banks and then tell them what to do," Sanders says in the clip.[10]
Clinton responded in an interview with MSNBC's Rachel Maddow that Sanders' criticism could also be applied to President Barack Obama in the 2008 election. "That didn’t stop him from fighting for the hardest regulations on Wall Street since the Great Depression, signing Dodd-Frank, getting everything he could get out of the Congress at that time," she said.[11]
On January 28, 2016, the Sanders campaign released another ad indirectly criticizing Clinton. As a camera zooms in on the Goldman Sachs Tower, a narrator says in the clip, “How does Wall Street get away with it? Millions in campaign contributions and speaking fees. Our economy works for Wall Street because it’s rigged by Wall Street. And that’s the problem. As long as Washington is bought and paid for, we can’t build an economy that works for people.”[12]
On February 3, 2016, Sanders said that Clinton was "funded by Wall Street and big money interests" and questioned her commitment to progressive policies. "Most progressives that I know really do not raise millions of dollars from Wall Street. Most progressives that I know are firm from day one in opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the TPP agreement. They didn't have to think about it a lot. They were opposed to Keystone from day one, they didn't have to vacillate on that issue," he said.[13]
The following day, during a Democratic primary debate, Clinton said that she "[would] look into" releasing the transcripts. She continued, "I can only repeat what is the fact that I spoke to a lot of different groups with a lot of different constituents, a lot of different kinds of members about issues that had to do with world affairs."[14]
In April 2016, Clinton shifted her position on the issue, describing the call for her to release transcripts from her paid speeches as a "new" expectation for a presidential candidate. "You know, let's set the same standard for everybody. When everybody does it, OK, I will do it, but let's set and expect the same standard on tax returns. Everybody does it, and then we move forward," she added.[9]
Sanders responded, "I will do it. I am going to release all of the transcripts of the speeches that I gave on Wall Street behind closed doors, not for $225,000, not for $2,000, not for two cents. There were no speeches."[9]
The Hill reported on May 9, 2016, that Republican oppositions researchers from the Republican National Committee and America Rising were searching for transcripts and interviewing employees at Goldman Sachs regarding Clinton's speeches.[8]
Trump's comments
Although Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump criticized Clinton for not disclosing the content of her paid speeches, he did not focus on the issue as much as Sanders. When asked in July 2016 if he would release his personal tax returns in exchange for the transcripts of Clinton's speeches, Trump said, "I would be very interested, but not with transcripts. I'm not interested in her transcripts. I'm much more interested in her emails."[15]
In August 2016, Trump said in a statement that the speech transcripts were "hidden, deleted, obstructed and stashed away" by Clinton, along with other documents, to conceal a "corrupt scheme that reaches into the world's shady corridors of power."[16]
WikiLeaks
Alleged excerpts from Clinton's speeches to banking firms and companies between 2013 and 2015 were released by WikiLeaks on October 7, 2016. They were featured in an email to Clinton campaign chair John Podesta and other top advisers that flagged potentially damaging portions of Clinton's paid speeches.[17]
The Clinton campaign refused to comment on the authenticity of the email and asserted that Russia had been involved in the WikiLeaks release. Clinton spokesperson Glen Caplin said in a statement, "Earlier today, the U.S. government removed any reasonable doubt that the Kremlin has weaponized WikiLeaks to meddle in our election and benefit Donald Trump’s candidacy. We are not going to confirm the authenticity of stolen documents released by [WikiLeaks founder] Julian Assange who has made no secret of his desire to damage Hillary Clinton. Guccifer 2.0 has already proven the warnings of top national security officials that documents can be faked as part of a sophisticated Russian misinformation campaign."[18]
The excerpts cover a wide range of topics, including international trade, the security of electronic devices, healthcare, and banking policy.
Public vs. private policy positions
Clinton's comments in one speech about holding different "public" and "private" policy positions were discussed during the second presidential debate on October 9, 2016. The excerpt that was referenced in the debate follows:
| “ | 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 sausage being made. It is unsavory, 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 back room 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.[19] | ” |
| —Hillary Clinton, May 24, 2013[17] | ||
During the debate, Clinton restated her admiration for the political strategy used by Lincoln to secure the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment. "I was making the point that it is hard sometimes to get the Congress to do what you want to do and you have to keep working at it," she said. Clinton added that the WikiLeaks release was part of a larger problem of the Russian government "hacking on American accounts to influence our election."[20]
Trump responded that it was "ridiculous" that Clinton was "blaming the lie" on Lincoln. He continued, "Honest Abe never lied. That's the good thing. That's the big difference between Abraham Lincoln and you. That's a big, big difference. We're talking about some difference. But as far as other elements of what she was saying, I don't know Putin. I think it would be great if we got along with Russia because we could fight ISIS together, as an example. But I don't know Putin. But I notice, anytime anything wrong happens, they like to say the Russians are—she doesn't know if it's the Russians doing the hacking. Maybe there is no hacking."[20]
Personal
| “ | You go to Washington. Right. But, you know, part of the problem with the political situation, too, is that there is such a bias against people who have led successful and/or complicated lives. You know, the divestment of assets, the stripping of all kinds of positions, the sale of stocks. It just becomes very onerous and unnecessary.[19] | ” |
| —Hillary Clinton, October 29, 2013[17] | ||
| “ | 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. Never. I mean, were there 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. 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.[19] | ” |
| —Hillary Clinton, February 4, 2014[17] | ||
Wall Street
| “ | That was one of the reasons that I started traveling in February of '09, 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 do 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 to sort this out, and that came later.[19] | ” |
| —Hillary Clinton, October 24, 2013[17] | ||
| “ | Well, I represented all of you [Wall Street] for eight years. I had great relations and worked so close together after 9/11 to rebuild downtown, and a lot of respect for the work you do and the people who do it, but I do -- I think that when we talk about the regulators and the politicians, the economic consequences of bad decisions back in '08, you know, were devastating, and they had repercussions throughout the world.[19] | ” |
| —Hillary Clinton, October 24, 2013[17] | ||
| “ | 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 anybody 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 nano seconds basically. 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.[19] | ” |
| —Hillary Clinton, October 24, 2013[17] | ||
| “ | When I was a Senator from New York, I represented and worked with so many talented principled people who made their living in finance. But even thought I represented them and did all I could to make sure they continued to prosper, I called for closing the carried interest loophole and addressing skyrocketing CEO pay. I also was calling in '06, '07 for doing something about the mortgage crisis, because I saw every day from Wall Street literally to main streets across New York how a well-functioning financial system is essential. So when I raised early warnings about early warnings about subprime mortgages and called for regulating derivatives and over complex financial products, I didn't get some big arguments, because people sort of said, no, that makes sense. But boy, have we had fights about it ever since.[19] | ” |
| —Hillary Clinton, September 4, 2014[17] | ||
| “ | 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 nationalist, populistic reaction. He wanted to try to figure out how to get back into that balance that has served America so well over our entire nationhood. 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 where 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.[19] | ” |
| —Hillary Clinton, October 7, 2014[17] | ||
Simpson-Bowles
| “ | Well, this may be borne more out of hope than experience in the last few years. But Simpson-Bowles -- and I know you heard from Erskine earlier today -- put forth the right framework. Namely, we have to restrain spending, we have to have adequate revenues, and we have to incentivize growth. It's a three-part formula. The specifics can be negotiated depending upon whether we're acting in good faith or not. And what Senator Simpson and Erskine did was to bring Republicans and Democrats alike to the table, and you had the full range of ideological views from I think Tom Coburn to Dick Durbin. And they reached an agreement. But what is very hard to do is to then take that agreement if you don't believe that you're going to be able to move the other side. And where we are now is in this gridlocked dysfunction. So you've got Democrats saying that, you know, you have to have more revenues; that's the sine qua non of any kind of agreement. You have Republicans saying no, no, no on revenues; you have to cut much more deeply into spending. Well, looks what's happened. We are slowly returning to growth. It's not as much or as fast as many of us would like to see, but, you know, we're certainly better off than our European friends, and we're beginning to, I believe, kind of come out of the long aftermath of the '08 crisis.[19] | ” |
| —Hillary Clinton, April 18, 2013[17] | ||
| “ | So, you know, the Simpson-Bowles framework and the big elements of it were right. The specifics can be negotiated and argued over. But you got to do all three. You have to restrain spending, you have to have adequate revenues, and you have to have growth. And I think we are smart enough to figure out how to do that.[19] | ” |
| —Hillary Clinton, April 18, 2013[17] | ||
Campaign finance
| “ | Secondly, running for office in our country takes a lot of money, and candidates have to go out and raise it. New York is probably the leading site for contributions for fundraising for candidates on both sides of the aisle, and it's also our economic center. And there are a lot of people here who should ask some tough questions before handing over campaign contributions to people who were really playing chicken with our whole economy.[19] | ” |
| —Hillary Clinton, October 24, 2013[17] | ||
| “ | So our system is, in many ways, more difficult, certainly far more expensive and much longer than a parliamentary system, and I really admire the people who subject themselves to it. Even when I, you know, think they should not be elected president, I still think, well, you know, good for you I guess, you're out there promoting democracy and those crazy ideas of yours. So I think that it's something -- I would like -- you know, obviously as somebody who has been through it, I would like it not to last as long because I think it's very distracting from what we should be doing every day in our public business. I would like it not to be so expensive. I have no idea how you do that. I mean, in my campaign -- I lose track, but I think I raised $250 million or some such enormous amount, and in the last campaign President Obama raised 1.1 billion, and that was before the Super PACs and all of this other money just rushing in, and it's so ridiculous that we have this kind of free for all with all of this financial interest at stake, but, you know, the Supreme Court said that's basically what we're in for. So we're kind of in the wild west, and, you know, it would be very difficult to run for president without raising a huge amount of money and without having other people supporting you because your opponent will have their supporters. So I think as hard as it was when I ran, I think it's even harder now..[19] | ” |
| —Hillary Clinton, January 6, 2014[17] | ||
Device security
| “ | And anybody who has ever traveled 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. We did it because we knew that we were all targets and that we would be totally vulnerable. So it’s not only what others do to us and what we do to them and how many people are involved in it. It’s what’s the purpose of it, what is being collected, and how can it be used. And there are clearly people in this room who know a lot about this, and some of you could be very useful contributors to that conversation because you’re sophisticated enough to know that it’s not just, do it, don’t do it. We have to have a way of doing it, and then we have to have a way of analyzing it, and then we have to have a way of sharing it.[19] | ” |
| —Hillary Clinton, October 29, 2013[17] | ||
| “ | Personally, having, you know, lived and worked in the White House, having been a senator, having been Secretary of State, there has traditionally been a great pool of very talented, hard-working people. And just as I was saying about the credit market, our personnel policies haven’t kept up with the changes necessary in government. 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.[19] | ” |
| —Hillary Clinton, October 29, 2013[17] | ||
| “ | You know, when Colin Powell showed up as Secretary of State in 2001, most State Department employees 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 to model it and lead it.[19] | ” |
| —Hillary Clinton, January 6, 2014[17] | ||
| “ | 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.[19] | ” |
| —Hillary Clinton, August 28, 2014[17] | ||
| “ | I mean, probably the most frustrating part of this whole debate are countries acting like we're the only people in the world trying to figure out what's going on. 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, a nanosecond. So we would take the batteries out, we'd leave them on the plane.[19] | ” |
| —Hillary Clinton, August 28, 2014[17] | ||
| “ | 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. And we knew it was going on when I would go to China, or I would go to Russia, 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. They may in many respects need to be strengthened and people need to be reassured, and they need to have their protections embodied in law. But, I think turning over a lot of that material intentionally or unintentionally, because of the way it can be drained, gave all kinds of information not only to big countries, but to networks and terrorist groups, and the like. So I have a hard time thinking that somebody who is a champion of privacy and liberty has taken refuge in Russia under Putin's authority. And then he calls into a Putin talk show and says, President Putin, do you spy on people? And President Putin says, well, from one intelligence professional to another, of course not. Oh, thank you so much. I mean, really, I don't know. I have a hard time following it.[19] | ” |
| —Hillary Clinton, October 23, 2014[17] | ||
Trade
| “ | My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time 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.[19] | ” |
| —Hillary Clinton, May 16, 2013[17] | ||
| “ | Secondly, I think we have to have a concerted plan to increase trade already under the current circumstances, you know, that Inter-American Development Bank figure is pretty surprising. There is so much more we can do, there is a lot of low hanging fruit but businesses on both sides have to make it a priority and it's not for governments to do but governments can either make it easy or make it hard and we have to resist, protectionism, other kinds of barriers to market access and to trade and I would like to see this get much more attention and be not just a policy for a year under president X or president Y but a consistent one.[19] | ” |
| —Hillary Clinton, May 16, 2013[17] | ||
| “ | So I think that Keystone is a contentious issue, and of course it is important on both sides of the border for different and sometimes opposing reasons, but that is not our relationship. And I think our relationship will get deeper and stronger and put us in a position to really be global leaders in energy and climate change if we worked more closely together. And that's what I would like to see us do.[19] | ” |
| —Hillary Clinton, June 18, 2014[17] | ||
Healthcare
| “ | If you look at countries that are comparable, like Switzerland or Germany, for example, they have mixed systems. They don't have just a single-payer system, but they have very clear controls over budgeting and accountability. If you look at the single-payer systems, like Scandinavia, Canada, and elsewhere, they can get costs down because, you know, although their care, according to statistics, overall is as good or better on primary care, in particular, they do impose things like waiting times, you know. It takes longer to get like a hip replacement than it might take here.[19] | ” |
| —Hillary Clinton, June 17, 2013[17] | ||
| “ | You know, on healthcare we are the prisoner of our past. The way we got to develop any kind of medical insurance program was during World War II when companies facing shortages of workers began to offer healthcare benefits as an inducement for employment. So from the early 1940s healthcare was seen as a privilege connected to employment. And after the war when soldiers came back and went back into the market there was a lot of competition, because the economy was so heated up. So that model continued. And then of course our large labor unions bargained for healthcare with the employers that their members worked for. So from the early 1940s until the early 1960s we did not have any Medicare, or our program for the poor called Medicaid until President Johnson was able to get both passed in 1965. So the employer model continued as the primary means by which working people got health insurance. People over 65 were eligible for Medicare. Medicaid, which was a partnership, a funding partnership between the federal government and state governments, provided some, but by no means all poor people with access to healthcare. So what we've been struggling with certainly Harry Truman, then Johnson was successful on Medicare and Medicaid, but didn't touch the employer based system, then actually Richard Nixon made a proposal that didn't go anywhere, but was quite far reaching. Then with my husband's administration we worked very hard to come up with a system, but we were very much constricted by the political realities that if you had your insurance from your employer you were reluctant to try anything else. And so we were trying to build a universal system around the employer-based system. And indeed now with President Obama's legislative success in getting the Affordable Care Act passed that is what we've done. We still have primarily an employer-based system, but we now have people able to get subsidized insurance. So we have health insurance companies playing a major role in the provision of healthcare, both to the employed whose employers provide health insurance, and to those who are working but on their own are not able to afford it and their employers either don't provide it, or don't provide it at an affordable price. We are still struggling. We've made a lot of progress. Ten million Americans now have insurance who didn't have it before the Affordable Care Act, and that is a great step forward. (Applause.) And what we're going to have to continue to do is monitor what the costs are and watch closely to see whether employers drop more people from insurance so that they go into what we call the health exchange system. So we're really just at the beginning. But we do have Medicare for people over 65. And you couldn't, I don't think, take it away if you tried, because people are very satisfied with it, but we also have a lot of political and financial resistance to expanding that system to more people. So we're in a learning period as we move forward with the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. And I'm hoping that whatever the shortfalls or the glitches have been, which in a big piece of legislation you're going to have, those will be remedied and we can really take a hard look at what's succeeding, fix what isn't, and keep moving forward to get to affordable universal healthcare coverage like you have here in Canada.[19] | ” |
| —Hillary Clinton, January 21, 2015[17] | ||
Full transcripts
In an email released by WikiLeaks on October 15, 2016, three full transcripts from Clinton's paid speeches to Goldman Sachs in 2013 were attached. At these events, Clinton discussed Dodd-Frank, President Barack Obama's ability to work with Congress, political compromise, and the politics of running for president.[21]
The transcipts may be found here:
Other political responses
Sanders, who endorsed Clinton in July 2016, said that he planned to continue to support her campaign because of the party's platform. "Whatever Secretary Clinton may or may not have said behind closed doors on Wall Street, I am determined to implement the agenda of the Democratic Party platform which was agreed upon by her campaign," Sanders said in a statement on October 8, 2016.[22]
Public opinion
Public opinion polling showed that voters also wanted to see the transcripts. A week before Clinton earned enough delegates to secure the Democratic presidential nomination in June 2016, Morning Consult released a national poll finding that 64 percent of voters said that the transcripts of Clinton's speeches should be disclosed. Nineteen percent of voters said that they should not be released and 17 percent expressed no opinion.[23][24]
Recent news
The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Hillary Clinton Wall Street Speeches. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.
See also
- Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016
- Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016/Banking policy
- Hillary Clinton email investigation
- Presidential election, 2016
Footnotes
- ↑ The New York Times, "Clintons Earned $30 Million in 16 Months, Report Shows," May 15, 2015
- ↑ CNN Money, "Wall Street has made Hillary Clinton a millionaire," October 13, 2015
- ↑ The Washington Post, "How the Clintons went from ‘dead broke’ to rich: Bill earned $104.9 million for speeches," June 26, 2014
- ↑ CNN Money, "The truth about Hillary Clinton's Wall Street speeches," April 20, 2016
- ↑ The Intercept, "Hillary Clinton Made More in 12 Speeches to Big Banks Than Most of Us Earn in a Lifetime," January 8, 2016
- ↑ Politico, "Bernie v. Hillary," April 26, 2016
- ↑ Concord Monitor, Hassan: Clinton should release speech transcripts," October 12, 2016
- ↑ 8.0 8.1 The Hill, "GOP operatives on the prowl for secret Clinton transcripts," May 9, 2016
- ↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 CNN, "Full transcript: CNN Democratic debate," April 15, 2016
- ↑ Bernie 2016, "Experts Back Sanders’ Wall Street Reform Plan, New TV Ad Contrasts ‘Democratic Visions,'" January 14, 2016
- ↑ The Washington Post, "Clinton responds to Sanders’s ‘attack’ ad: Obama took Wall Street money too," January 14, 2016
- ↑ TIME, "Sanders Hits Clinton Indirectly in New Ad," January 28, 2016
- ↑ CNN, "Sanders: Clinton is 'funded by Wall Street,'" February 3, 2016
- ↑ The New York Times, "Transcript of the Democratic Presidential Debate," February 5, 2016
- ↑ The Hill, "Trump not budging on releasing tax returns," July 28, 2016
- ↑ Donald J. Trump for President, "Trump Campaign Statement on Hillary Clinton's Taxes," August 12, 2016
- ↑ 17.00 17.01 17.02 17.03 17.04 17.05 17.06 17.07 17.08 17.09 17.10 17.11 17.12 17.13 17.14 17.15 17.16 17.17 17.18 17.19 17.20 17.21 17.22 17.23 WikiLeaks, "HRC Paid Speeches," accessed October 11, 2016
- ↑ The Huffington Post, "WikiLeaks Publishes Alleged Transcripts Of Hillary Clinton’s Wall Street Speeches," October 7, 2016
- ↑ 19.00 19.01 19.02 19.03 19.04 19.05 19.06 19.07 19.08 19.09 19.10 19.11 19.12 19.13 19.14 19.15 19.16 19.17 19.18 19.19 19.20 19.21 19.22 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ 20.0 20.1 The Washington Post, "Everything that was said at the second Donald Trump vs. Hillary Clinton debate, highlighted," October 9, 2016
- ↑ NPR, "WikiLeaks Claims To Release Hillary Clinton's Goldman Sachs Transcripts," October 15, 2016
- ↑ The Hill, "Sanders: Despite Clinton's Wall Street speeches, I support Dem platform," October 8, 2016
- ↑ Associated Press, "AP count: Clinton has delegates to win Democratic nomination," June 6, 2016
- ↑ Morning Consult, "Poll: Voters Uneasy About Hillary Clinton’s Private Email Usage," June 1, 2016
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
