Clinton Renews Claim Of Being “Dead Broke” And Insists The Couple Had “To Work Unbelievably Hard” To Make The Mortgage

225px-Hillary_Clinton_official_Secretary_of_State_portrait_crop220px-Labor-Pearce-Highsmith-detail-1We have been following the bizarre struggle of Hillary Clinton to claim that she and Bill were “dead broke” after leaving the White House. Independent reviewers like Politifact have shredded the claim and the Clintons have become the fodder for commentators and comedians over the controversy. The Clintons made over $12 million in the first year after leaving the White House and they have made over $100 million from speaking fees and different events. CNN documented that Clinton earned $106 million by making speeches from the end of his presidency through January 2013. Hillary Clinton has pulled in $200,000 a speech and was criticized for receiving $500,000 in one week from Goldman Sachs . Yet, the Clintons have been doubling down on the claim like a bad gambler. Bill Clinton was brought out to vouch for Hillary that the statement is “factually true.” That resulted in a new round of mockery. We have discussed the controversy in terms of the interesting dynamic of American politics where exceptionally wealthy candidates struggle to identify with Americans struggling financially. The Clintons however will not accept that the pitch is simply not working. This week Hillary is again claiming to have been impoverished in a new interview with the German magazine Der Spiegel – a claim that even Germans find just as hard to swallow.

Hillary told the magazine that the couple was worried about not being able to afford college for their daughter and pay for a simple mortgage.The claim is based on legal debts that are common in Washington. It is well known in Washington that these debts to Democratic law firms is funny money and that these firms would have closed shop rather than pursue the Clintons for payment. The debts, as is always the case, was quickly paid off by Clinton supporters, lobbyists, and others interested in helping the powerful couple. It was debt on paper alone and both Clintons were looking at massive windfalls after leaving the White House.

However, Hillary told Der Spiegel: “Well, when we came out of the White House, we were deeply in debt because of all the legal bills that we owed because of the relentless persecution of my husband and myself, and he had to work unbelievably hard to pay off every single penny of every debt we owed. And we did.” When the magazine points out the fortune amassed by the Clintons from friends and lobbyists, Hillary responds “We are very grateful for where we are today. But if you were to go back and look at the amount of money that we owed, we couldn’t even get a mortgage on a house by ourselves. In our system he had to make double what he needed in order just to pay off the debt, and then to finance a house and continue to pay for our daughter’s education.”

CoalMinersJenkinsThe claim that they couple had “to work unbelievably hard” is not likely to sit well with many Americans holding two or three jobs to take food on the table. Being flown around in private jets and paid hundreds of thousands of dollars a speech (or a million a speech for Bill Clinton) is not viewed by most people as working unbelievably hard. The common definition of hard work does not include speaking to adoring crowds and sycophantic lobbyists. I regularly give speeches around the county (for a tad less than $250,000 a pop!), but I would never claim to be working hard. My grandfather worked hard. He was a coal miner. That is hard work.

What is interesting is that the rest of the interview is quite impressive, showing Clinton’s intellect and knowledge. I remain fascinated by the desire to claim to have been a struggling couple after leaving the White House as a political necessity.

Here is the Der Spiegel interview.

93 thoughts on “Clinton Renews Claim Of Being “Dead Broke” And Insists The Couple Had “To Work Unbelievably Hard” To Make The Mortgage”

  1. mespo, I look upon threads like this as the hot stove league. There, everyone is a GM making trades and signing free agents. Here, it’s lyin’ SOS politicians and we’re campaign managers. Plus, it’s fun for many of us ripping the Queen. This means NOTHING in the real world. Just talkin’ trash.

  2. I have no idea why this is a story: politician slants facts to enhance chances. She says she was bankrupt and we know it’s just a paper debt that won’t likely be collected. She’s right legally; we’re right practically. Political hypocrisy? So what else is new? Wanna talk buggy whip prices?

    Pretty soon we’ll have no one willing to run for high office who’s left of center and we’ll be left with that clown car show on the right.

    People forget you have to compare something real to something real. Nobody stands up to a comparison with the ideal. Not Washington. Not Jefferson. Not anybody.

  3. Hillary takes 500K from Goldman Sacks. Doesn’t this eliminate the notion that she could run as a Progressive? Who in their right mind would believe her expressed positions on economic issues that might benefit the 99%?

    The American compulsion to serve dynastic impulses of the Bush and Clinton lineage is I believe the product of bank and media oligarch’s desire to ensure that one of their own is installed to maintain the status quo. Business as usual is good for business. Elect either Jeb or Hilary and nothing would change. No meaningful economic reform. No tax code reform. No abatement of the continued contraction of the middle class.

    The solution that would serve this country well would be to elect true reformers that actually have character and courage. Since Senator Bernie Sanders may be a wit to radical for some and I do not intend to provoke the Conservative denizens of Turley’s Blog; how about a Feingold/Warren or A Warren/Feingold ticket. Their respective resume’s include campaign finance and financial regulation reform.

    1. Warren was in the forefront of bankruptcies that cut workers’ pensions. She is not going to live that down on a national stage.

  4. Beating up the Queen is the first order of business. She’s out of shape and again thinks she will be anointed. Go for a quick knockout or @ least have her gassed for the later rounds. Folks LOVE to take down people like her. It’s politics, not beanbag. I just don’t want her to win. And, there are a lotta folks like me. She is unworthy.

  5. the hillary haters are out in force today.

    too bad most of the don’t have any better (or workable) ideas.

    (and paul, even with your “street cred” i wouldn’t hold my breath waiting on that consulting call from willard).

    1. pete – no one in the right mind would hire me as a political consultant. 😉

  6. SWM, I will give credit here it’s due. The people most responsible in getting Clinton elected were Carville and Stephanopolus. Begala was a coffee runner.

  7. swarthmoremom quoted Paul Begala “If Clinton runs on an agenda of empowering working people … few voters will care how fat her bank account is”

    I read the article to confirm that Begala actually said that because it speaks volumes of how stupid voters are in this country.

    He did not say, “If Clinton implements an agenda of empowering working people and is successful.” He believes that voters will sing her praises if she merely *promises* such an agenda.

    He is probably correct with respect to the next presidential lottery. We are doomed.

  8. nick, Whatever, nick. Begala was the chief strategist for the 1992 Clinton Gore campaign in 1992. They won 333 states. He grew up in the oil fields of Texas and has good instincts with regards to voters and voting patterns.

  9. What type of inauguration ceremony would be fit for Hillary? Maybe something like this…..With all the bells and whistles, no expense spared. And fit for a queen.

  10. Bob Shrum is supposedly a “very good political strategist.” So is Steve Schmitt. But, they’re really just ass kissing losers. Politicians love sycophants.

  11. He’s an ass kissing sycophant. But, then most “political strategists” are.

  12. Chelsea is an affluent area in central London,[1] bounded to the south by the River Thames. Its frontage runs from Chelsea Bridge along the Chelsea Embankment, Cheyne Walk, Lots Road and Chelsea Harbour. Its eastern boundary was once defined by the River Westbourne, which is now in a pipe above Sloane Square tube station. The modern eastern boundary is Chelsea Bridge Road and the lower half of Sloane Street, including Sloane Square. To the north and northwest, the area fades into Knightsbridge and South Kensington, but it is safe to say that the area north of King’s Road as far northwest as Fulham Road is part of Chelsea. Chelsea is home to the well-known football club Chelsea F.C., which is located on Fulham Road.

    The district is part of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. From 1900, and until the creation of Greater London in 1965, it formed the Metropolitan Borough of Chelsea in the County of London.

    The exclusivity of Chelsea as a result of its high property prices has historically resulted in the term Sloane Ranger to be used to describe its residents. From 2011, Channel 4 has broadcast a reality television show called Made in Chelsea, documenting the “glitzy” lives of several young people living in Chelsea. Moreover, Chelsea is home to one of the largest communities of Americans living outside of the United States, with 6.53% of Chelsea-residents being born in the United States.[2]


    So, Billy Bob and Hillary: You name your kid after the ritzy suburb of London and decry it when people call her the Sloane Ranger.

  13. I’m encouraged. Liberals disparaging liberals.

    Chelsea Clinton is well endowed with political acumen (I hope that was polite).

    She follows in the footsteps of her politically savvy parents (I hope that was polite).

    Chelsea makes $75K per speech.

    1. John – isn’t Chelsea Clinton making 600k for a no-show job?

  14. SWM, Wow, quite a scoop. A glowing piece on Hillary from sycophant, Paul Begala.

  15. Jill, I don’t think democrats think Hillary Clinton is a savior but maybe they think that about Warren.

  16. Prediction:
    The 2016 elections will be between a Clinton and a Bush.
    You know… Royalty and Dynasty. Oh and freedumb.

Comments are closed.