 |
April 5 (Bloomberg) — Former President Bill Clinton has earned $15.4 million from billionaire Ron Burkle’s Yucaipa Cos. investment firm since 2003, according to tax documents released by his wife, presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.
The earnings represent 20 percent of the approximately $75 million Bill Clinton earned during the same period, according to the documents. That may raise new questions about what services he performed for Los Angeles-based Yucaipa, whose investors include the ruler of Dubai, Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid al- Maktoum. Tax lawyers said the Yucaipa partnership income for Bill Clinton looks to be a form of salary because it was in round numbers for most years. “Most people who make that much money work for it,” said Yale University tax law professor Michael Graetz, a former Treasury Department official in President George H.W. Bush’s administration. “What are they being paid for, and if it’s the Sheikh of Dubai paying the husband of somebody who might be the next president of the United States, what do they think they’re paying for?”
“The flat amounts received from Yucaipa are odd,” said Tom Ochsenschlager, vice president of taxation at the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, who agreed that it signaled Bill Clinton was performing a service. “That’s quite unusual.” Previously, Hillary Clinton reported only that the former president earned “more than $1,000” a year from Yucaipa on financial disclosure forms she is required to file in the Senate.
Bill Clinton’s ties to Yucaipa have sparked controversy over the past year, including a September report in the Wall Street Journal that detailed how one of the former president’s aides had helped arrange a partnership with Burkle that dissolved amid litigation over allegations of misused funds. The bulk of their income, $51.9 million, came from Bill Clinton’s speeches, the campaign said in a summary. The former president also earned $1.2 million from his presidential pension and $29.6 million from royalties and an advance for his autobiography. At a Democratic Party convention in Grand Forks, North Dakota, last night, Hillary Clinton said that her husband “has made a lot of money since he left the White House doing what he loves most, talking to people.”
To anyone wondering if these payments might create any conflict of interest, I have only two words for you: Marc Rich.
And to those who might argue that Bill and Hillary can’t be considered together, I have two more words: FARN pardons. Look it up if you aren’t already familiar with this travesty of justice. Bill’s pardons were to help pave the way for Hillary’s Senate run.
There are no angels among the Presidential contenders (McCain: Keating Five; Obama: Tony Rezko lot purchased next door; Clintons: Too many things to mention). The only scrupulously honest person (at least by political standards) who ran and had a chance was Romney.
What? A Clinton scandal.
This has got to be Bush’s fault.
I agree with #1, except that McCain’s involvement in the Keating scam was marginal at best; he was included only because he was a Republican (the sole Republican).
#3–roeman==I agree. I admire McCain in certain respects, don’t think he would make a good president, and do think he is pretty clean. Chief evidence is his lack of earmarking over the years. Difficult to pull off as they say, but doesn’t his and a few other doing it show that it really IS possible===and all the other politicians are just criminals in pin suits?
Romney was honest? A religious guy is successful in business? All I heard was he ran the Olympics well. Anyone that gets rich in relationship to a government project is not honest.
BUT to be sure, Bill Clinton should be in jail for the pardons he granted—not that he is any different than all of them.
#3 (Bobbo): I agree that on the whole the evidence seems to indicate that McCain is relatively honest–Keating Five not withstanding.
Romney was already VERY wealthy before he was pulled in to SAVE an Olympics fiasco that was circling the drain. In fact, in his capacity re: the Olympics, he rooted out and put the kibosh on a lot of shenanigans. He didn’t make much/anything on the Olympics, and his fortune was made entirely in the private sector. You may not like his religion, but as far as anyone can tell (and I know people who’ve dealt with him professionally and they corroborate this), he’s an honest guy.
Bobbo, I agree that McCain is about as squeaky clean as a politician can be, but that doesn’t make him a great president. It does speak well for his integrity, though.
To go a little off topic:
You may have Romney misunderstood. Apparently he didn’t make much money in politics nor in the Olympics. He earned his money by being a competent businessman.
He co-founded Bain Capital, an investment group. “During the 14 years he headed the company, Bain Capital’s average annual internal rate of return on realized investments was 113 percent… He invested in or bought many well-known companies such as Staples, Brookstone, Domino’s, Sealy Corporation and Sports Authority.”
“In 1990, Romney was asked to return to Bain & Company, which was facing financial collapse. As CEO, Romney managed an effort to restructure the firm’s employee stock-ownership plan, real-estate deals and bank loans, while increasing fiscal transparency. Within a year, he had led Bain & Company through a highly successful turnaround and returned the firm to profitability without layoffs or partner defections.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_romney
If you believe that the Government should be focused domestically, be held accountable, and be transparent, then Romney has better qualifications than those now in the running. Can’t say much about any other issues, though.
One thing I can say, I don’t think his religion is an issue. People seem to think he is a mormon puppet, but that doesn’t hold water.
Romney’s position on most political issues is somewhat to the right.
Harry Reid’s position on most political issues is solidly to the left.
Harry Reid is also a mormon.
On another note:
Although I am not a huge fan of Bill Clinton, I still caution against his income being “Guilty by Association”. Although the article from finds the amounts Bill received from Yucaipa as “odd”, that is hardly damming. Apparently they both made most of their money in speeches and book royalties. Well, if people want to pay that much to hear them speak, more power to them.
I’m totally with you on Bill going to jail for the pardons, etc.
I have just come up with an idea. I need to get buddy buddy with a president, do all sorts of nefarious things, get the pardon, go on speaking tours, rake in the cash…
The more I hear about any of the three finalists, the more I want to go find a cave to live in.
The Clintons are getting a free pass from even the Obama supporting press regarding the many fund raising scandals connected to them. Oh, they get mentioned for a day or two, then they get dropped. (Compare to anything connected to any Republican, other than McCain. He is getting soft treatment as well.)
McCain reminds me of JFK, but with some guts.
I like the fact that the $10mil they gave to charity is going to a charity that they control. Interesting is that very little has been distributed and what has usually co-insides with primarys in a specific state.
Shouldn’t the GOP slime be directed at Barak Obama?
Somebody at GOP party central is going to get fired for wasting slime on a retired president.
I’m beginning to think Hillary’s campaign is actually doing better than it seems.
One of the big contributors is InfoUSA, which sells mailing lists to telemarketers. Critics will say they sell targeted lists of gullible seniors who crooks can con.
#4 bobbo, and #5, kwad,
… he’s an honest guy.
I think you will find most politicians honest. Not all, but most. The fact that Bill Clinton accepted money to give a speech is nothing new. Gerald Ford became a very wealthy man by giving speeches after he left the White House. So has George H. W. Bush. And if people are willing to pay to have them attend their affair and say a few words, then so be it.
As for Obama’s association with Rezko making him dirty are just plain wrong. I photographed a wedding last fall where I knew the bride slightly. The groom is now doing three years for drugs. I sure hope my business association doesn’t mean that I’m now dirty.
For Clinton, on the other hand, the association of her husbands business dealings might be enough for a conflict of interest.
And remember, McCain is just too uncaring (or stupid) to get any appropriations for his home state.
When I read this part “Hillary Clinton said that her husband “has made a lot of money since he left the White House doing what he loves most,…”, “talking to people” was not the phrase I expected next.
Does this mean he owns all of Arkansas now?
#14(JamesHill) Yeah, the Walton’s think Bill is such a great guy, the gave him all of their shares in Wal*Mart, which makes Bill the owner of the biggest corporation in the world (est. market cap of $214.45 billion). Not a bad deal, a $214 billion dollar company for a mere $75 million.
If Obama goes down because of the Rezco scandal, he can just bring up Hillary’s Refco scandal. She made 100,000 in bribes to help Tyson Foods for 9 million. All of this got hidden as the profits from a $1000 investment in cattle futures, where the broker would pick and choose whose trades got filled. Price goes up, it was Hillary’s shares, price goes down, it was someone else.
I’m not so sure about McCain being honest. The Clinton’s definitely aren’t, and Obama generally is, but this latest campaign is bringing out plenty of dishonesty from him.
I still don’t understand the calls for Hillary to drop out. Why is it assumed that she can’t win 522 delegates out of the remaining 910?
#5–Kwad, #6–Ah Yea==ok, thanks for the education.
How good a business man can anyone be if they go to Michigan and say they are going to bring all the car jobs back thru new legislation??
Now “everyone” knows Romney was willfully lying when me made those speeches==but we should just trust him to tell the truth when his own financial rewards are on the table?
Same with Condie Rice. Liar through and through. I wouldn’t stay in the same room with them, unless I wanted something from them. I understand neither of them is ever alone.
How about just who owns these publishing houses that paid Bill some much for his book(s). The same goes for other past presidents. I think there’s more to this than meets the eye. Ronald Reagan got millions to do a Tv commercial in Japan, after leaving office. Honestly, are we to believe that wasn’t some kind of a payoff?! Who’s worth that much money for one stinking Tv ad? Many of the large publishing houses have been bought up over the years. I figured it was to control what might be printed. But maybe its to funnel the dough that ex-presidents and other politicos expect for their misdeeds, into their pockets for some lame book they wrote.
#9…Duke….I have to speak up. I don’t like Bill Clinton in any way, shape or form. But from what I understand most of their charity disbursments are for causes in Africa and Asia.
Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m a firm believer in the theory that if the Clintons are involved, check your wallets.
#10…Dallas….sorry loser, but the questions about the Clintons earnings are coming from liberal Democratic slimers, like the New York Times and The Washington Post among others. I really get tired of people like you that can’t grasp the notion that crooks, perv’s and slimeballs are in both major parties.
#20…Glen…Yep, Reagan got 2 million for doing that gig, and every Liberal and Liberal paper in the country screamed for months. But Bill Clinton has been making speech’s for 250,000.00 a pop since leaving office, not a word. He brokered a deal for Yucipa with the goverment of, I think I have the right *stan* here, Kazikistan?… for some kind of oil or gas pipeline, using his past Presidential contacts to make 5 million as his share. When that deal was done about 2 years ago, only 1 major paper raised a red flag, the Washington Post.
I have just shook my head for the last 6 years as Bill has racked up what we now know was 59 million plus for his Yucipa/speech’s, remembering the screams and awful cries when Reagan got a lousy 2 million for a legal job.
These people left the White House with the family silver(ours, not their family’s), literally, plus a few paintings and other trinkets, but finacially broke. They owed approx. 5 million in legal fee’s(which they tried to get the tax payers to foot the bill for) and had less than 400,000.00 in the bank. 7 years later they have earned 109 million. Who said politics is a stupid mans job?
#21, joshua,
… questions about the Clintons earnings are coming from liberal Democratic slimers, like the New York Times and The Washington Post among others.
Why would I expect you to come up with a line like that. The two most honest and best newspapers in America are somehow “slimers”. Really, you’ve been listening to too much Rush.
Reagan got 2 million for doing that gig, and every Liberal and Liberal paper in the country screamed for months.
Hhmmm, must be you were the only one that heard because no one else remembers it. And for months too. Geeze, where do you right wing nuts find this garbage? If you get it from where I think you do you, must have quite an oversized butt.
But Bill Clinton has been making speech’s for 250,000.00 a pop since leaving office, not a word.
So what is your point? I noticed you don’t say a word about Ford getting rich off his post Presidency. Or Kissinger. Or Reagan, other than one instance.
[The Clintons] left the White House with the family silver(ours, not their family’s), literally, plus a few paintings …
They took some art work that was given to them. The issue was whether the President can receive gifts as a private citizen while in office. It was resolved in their favor as I recall. But don’t let the truth get in your way.
They owed approx. 5 million in legal fee’s(which they tried to get the tax payers to foot the bill for)
True, because the Congress insisted on persecuting the President. Isn’t it funny how the right wing nuts wanted to prosecute the President then complain that he defended himself?
>>Well, if people want to pay that much to hear them speak, more power to them.
If you really believe that politicians command such huge speaking fees because corporations find thousands of dollars in every word spoken, rather than as compensation for services rendered/to-be-rendered, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
Didn’t Reagan get a $2M fee for two speeches in Japan after leaving office? Everybody cashes in.
>funny how the right wing nuts wanted to prosecute the President then complain that he defended himself?
They were just using Hillary’s standard! When she was on the Watergate Committee, she pushed for not allowing the president a right to counsel in impeachment proceedings.
If by the furniture issue being resolved in their favor, you mean that they returned some furniture and paid upper 5 figures for some others, then you are correct.
#24, Lyin’MikeN
When she was on the Watergate Committee, she pushed for not allowing the president a right to counsel in impeachment proceedings.
She had nothing to do with the “impeachment proceedings.” She was an assistant council on the House Committee investigating Nixon.
The President is not brought before the Committee. The Committee investigates and like a Grand Jury makes a recommendation to the full House. The House either votes for and not for Impeachment. Any “Impeachment” is done by the full House. If they vote for Impeachment, the trial takes place in the Senate. It is the Senate Rules that govern removing the President from office.
Jesus H. Christ, where do you wing nuts find this garbage?