Hillary Clinton said she left the White House with her still-smiling-from-all-the-oral-sex husband “dead broke”:
“You have no reason to remember, but we came out of the White House not only dead broke, but in debt,” Clinton said. “We had no money when we got there, and we struggled to piece together the resources for mortgages for houses, for Chelsea’s education. It was not easy. Bill has worked really hard. And it’s been amazing to me. He’s worked very hard.”
I grant that Bill worked really “hard” and “very hard.” But that was mostly Monica Lewinsky’s doing. truth to be told.
But the “worked hard” jokes aside, what an out-of-touch LIAR Hillary Clinton is.
Make that what a filthy RICH out-of-touch liar.
Even the reliably leftist Politifact rules Hillary’s ridiculous claim as “mostly false.” And that after giving her every possible benefit of the doubt imaginable.
Do you know what “dead broke” means? It means you’re begging your parents to let you have your old room back. It means you’re sleeping on somebody’s couch. Hey, it means you don’t have gracious parents or gracious friends and you’re HOMELESS.
It DOESN’T mean you’re paying your mortgages for multi-million dollar HOUSES (plural).
As Hillary Clinton backpedaled this week on comments that she and Bill Clinton were “dead broke” after leaving the White House, financial disclosure forms shed more light on just how shaky that claim really was.
Technically, Bill and Hillary Clinton were in debt when they left the White House. Financial forms filed for 2000 show assets between $781,000 and almost $1.8 million — and liabilities between $2.3 million and $10.6 million, mostly for legal bills.
But as the outgoing first couple, they had tremendous earning potential. And within just one year, their financial troubles were effectively gone.
Hillary Clinton’s Senate disclosure forms show that in 2001, they reported earning nearly $12 million. Most of that came from Bill Clinton’s speechmaking, and the rest came from an advance for Hillary Clinton’s book.
And that didn’t even include Hillary Clinton’s Senate salary, Bill Clinton’s pension or money made on investments.
As soon as they left the White House, Hillary Clinton entered the Senate and was earning a $145,000 salary; her husband’s pension was also north of $150,000.
All told, their financial snapshot in 2001 was drastically different than when they left the White House — assets were listed at between $6 million and $30 million; liabilities were between $1.3 million and $5.6 million. And despite their financial issues, they got help from family friend and fundraiser Terry McAuliffe (now, the governor of Virginia) to secure a loan at the time for a $1.7 million home in Chappaqua, N.Y.
These finer details made Clinton’s comment about being “dead broke” all the more questionable.
But it was a DEAD BROKE DOZEN MILLION, WASN’T IT?
NEW YORK, June 23, 2014 /PRNewswire/ — Hillary and Bill Clinton’s current net worth is US$120 million, according to a Wealth-X estimate released today, a far cry from the less than US$5 million they had in the bank in 2001 at the end of Bill’s tenure as US president.
The net worth of the former First Lady, US Senator, and US Secretary of State, who is a likely Democratic presidential candidate for 2016, is under intense media scrutiny after she said in a recent interview with ABC News’ Diane Sawyer that she and her husband were “dead broke” when they left the White House in 2001.
Wealth-X estimates that the combined net worth of the Clintons was below US$5 million when they left the White House. They amassed their current US$120 million fortune through fees from speaking engagements, revenues from their books, and her salary from her government positions.
Other sources have her wealth at $200 million, which she “earned” by “giv[ing] speeches to Goldman Sachs for $200,000 each.” Which by the way puts her into Mitt Romney territory in pretty much every imaginable sense.
On the heels of her “dead broke” hypocrisy, hypocrite Hillary further twisted reality into a pretzel by declaring, “I’m not truly well off” like that arch-fiend who shall not be named [Mitt Romney]:
Hillary Clinton, who has a net worth upwards of $50 million, said in an interview that she is “unlike a lot of people who are truly well off.”
Clinton was derided for comments made last week that her family was “dead broke” when it left the White House in 2000 although they were far from the poverty line. Bill and Hillary Clinton have reportedly made more than $100 million since leaving the White House.
But Hillary, who charges a six figure speaking fee, says with a burst of laughter that she is not “truly well off” and that her wealth is the result of “hard work,” according to The Guardian.
America’s glaring income inequality is certain to be a central bone of contention in the 2016 presidential election. But with her huge personal wealth, how could Clinton possibly hope to be credible on this issue when people see her as part of the problem, not its solution?
“But they don’t see me as part of the problem,” she protests, “because we pay ordinary income tax, unlike a lot of people who are truly well off, not to name names; and we’ve done it through dint of hard work,” she says, letting off another burst of laughter. If past form is any guide, she must be finding my question painful.
Hillary’s attitude on wealth has been the target of criticism, even from the left. Howard Fineman called her “dead broke” comment “disastrous” and “offensive to even some Democrats.” MSNBC’s Chuck Todd said that Hillary comes off as a “politician who perhaps only hangs out with millionaires and donors and feels poor by comparison.”
I mean, what would she have us believe? Who paid $200,000 a speech from this woman? Homeless people??? Obviously not: she got filthy rich telling filthy rich people exactly what they wanted to hear. And as for her “hard work,” how hard is it to put your name on books that three other people are known to have actually written for her???
She got paid MILLIONS of dollars for work she didn’t do; but she “feels little people’s pain”???
I suppose that’s better than when she was earning her living by slandering little girls who were victimized by child rapists and getting hard-core pedophiles off scott free with technicalities.
Hillary Clinton is a LIFE of quintessential, abject, demon-possessed hypocrisy. Which is why liberals love her so much. She campaigns on “the war on women” when SHE warred on women far more viciously than damn near any man but the rapist she got off. And she has the man-sized balls to run on “economic fairness” when she is every bit as filthy rich and every bit as in bed with the filthy rich as the people she demonizes.
When the Republicans have a rich candidate, you can count on the demonic-hypocrite Democrat Party and their media propaganda machine to demonize that candidate over wealth; when it’s THEIR candidate who is filthy rich – like FDR, like JFK, and more recently like John Kerry and now Hillary Clinton – suddenly the wealth of the candidate is entirely irrelevant.
And of course, the left plays the same abject hypocrite game with “the war on women.” Obama pays his females far less than his males while demonizing EVERYONE ELSE for doing what HE DOES. Obama was documented has having created a hostile workplace for women. Female White House staffers called it a “boy’s club.” I mean, literally, if a man is beating and raping a little GIRL, but he’s for aborting the child he fathers as a result of his raping, liberals like Hillary Clinton are FINE with it.
This is a sick nation that is about to die as a result of it’s voting for the wrath of God in the form of every Obama policy that Hillary Clinton would gleefully continue and accelerate.
You either care for America’s children the way Hillary Clinton “cared” for the little girl she demonized and raped a second time, or you would willingly lay down your life if it would stop A SECOND Saul Alinsky radical from taking office.