Criminal law, Politics

Wasserman Schultz Says That Obama Cashing In On Wall Street Speeches Is No One’s Business

Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the chair of the Democratic National Committee until last summer, said Tuesday that critics of Barack Obama's six-figure speeches should 'MYOB'

For many voters, Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the former chair of the Democratic National Committee , is the embodiment of much that is wrong with the Democratic establishment.  She was accused of working to rig the primaries for Hillary Clinton and repeatedly lying to the public.  Given that history, one would think that Wasserman Schultz would avoid any questions that remotely deal with ethics or honesty or influence peddling. However, that is not how Washington works.  Wasserman Schultz’s supporters enthusiastically re-elected her and most folks in Washington view voters as having the attention span of a Golden Retriever.  Thus, Wasserman Schultz was trotted out on CNN to assure the public that President Obama receiving obscene amounts of money from Wall Street interests is none of their business.

For Sanders supporters, Wasserman Schultz was a primary target for allegations of special dealing and dishonesty.  Given that history, they are unlikely to be happy with Wasserman Schultz effectively telling both Senators Sanders and Warren to shut up about massive payments going to the Obamas by Wall Street firms and other powerful groups.  During the campaign, Wasserman Schultz also fended off calls for Clinton to release the transcripts of her speeches to Wall Street firms and bankers.

Many of us raised objections over how Obama quickly collected almost a half of million dollars (in fees and likely travel expenses) for a single speech from powerful interests.  Under our current system,  we have all of these bribery and influence peddling laws in place.  However, if Wall Street or lobbyists give a former president half a million dollars for less than one hour of speaking soon after leaving office, it is entirely acceptable from a legal standpoint.

There is obviously a serious concern over the corruptive impact of such speeches — the very issue that crippled the campaign of Hillary Clinton who has to this day refused to release the speeches that she gave to Wall Street investors for huge speaking fees.

Wasserman Schultz however told CNN “It is none of anyone’s business what someone who is a member of the private sector decides to accept in terms of compensation.”  Thus, according to the Wasserman Schultz book of ethics and good government, it is a matter of “MYOB” for citizens who should not be interested at all if a president immediately collects hundreds of thousands of dollars from people who seek to influence federal officials and policies.

In a line that sums by the approach of Democratic leadership supporting the Clinton campaign, Wasserman Schultz declared “With all due respect to anyone who chooses to comment publicly on what Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, or anyone earns as a member of the private sector, it’s just, like, MYOB – it’s none of your business.”

Well, at least she admitted that politics is now a simple matter of business.

142 thoughts on “Wasserman Schultz Says That Obama Cashing In On Wall Street Speeches Is No One’s Business”

  1. I am not at all surprised that former president Obama is being paid enormous sums of money for speaking to Wall Street firms. After all, Obama appointed more bankers to positions of power in his administration than any other president in history, including George H.W. Bush who was a former banker himself.

  2. This slippery piece of partisan, progressive, work is totally, lickety-split, corrupt & self-serving! Need I continue? In short, uncouth & subversive to the bone!

  3. he will never beat the Clintons on speech money. but for a president who fought wall st. for 8 years to take their money is hypocrisy.

  4. I really don’t care. It’s is none of my business. Don’t care about Trumps tax returns either. If there’s a problem let the IRS deal with it. Obamas birth certificate? Don’t care. cittizens elected him. I do care about healthcare. Taxes. Defending our borders. The national debt. People should quit grinding on things that don’t matter.

    1. ” Don’t care about Trumps tax returns either. If there’s a problem let the IRS deal with it.”

      Even if all the taxes are paid and there is no IRS problems the return could reveal business relations and the possibility of undue influence that every voter ought to consider.

      We don’t know if such exists in Trump’s case. But that is why we ought to have access to the tax return.

      When it comes to voting for president, voters ought to have all relevant information.

      1. You actually believe voters were given all the relevant information about Barack Obama’s background? Journalists had zero interest in digging up anything about his past.

        1. “You actually believe voters were given all the relevant information about Barack Obama’s background? Journalists had zero interest in digging up anything about his past.”

          Clearly there were intense attempts to get all the information about Obama.

          I don’t see that the success or failure to get information about one candidate has any relevance to the need to reveal all relevant information related to other candidates.

          Whether all the information about Obama was available is irrelevant to the question of whether voters and citizens should have access to Trump’s tax returns.

          The standard I advocate is that voters and citizens have all information relevant to the candidates qualification for the position.

          Inability to meet that standard for one candidate does not mean we give up on the next candidate. On the contrary it suggest that we should take stronger measures to insure full disclosure.

          Trump must reveal his tax returns.

  6. He doesn’t just take millions from the 1%’ers, he’s now vacationing with the 1% on billionaire mega yachts in Polynesia. Hollywood is the Democrats base now. He needs their money to build his Monumental Temple of Obama Worship in Chicago. But he is giving back — he has big plans to churn out the next generation of community agitators and activists to be trained at his soon-to-be-built ‘Alinsky U’ which will be part of the Temple of Obama Worship complex. Just what the country needs – more community agitators.

    And I still have to wonder….why is Valerie Jarrett living with the Obamas at their rental mansion in DC? You can’t do political work out of your post-presidential office provided by Obama’s retirement package, so have they set up shop out of his house? What is he up to?

  7. Darren: “But of course, it is none of your business according to DNC leadership. You should just mind you own Ps and Qs and do as you are told, you unwashed commoners.”

    True that – just look at the DNC defense of the fraud lawsuit – Bernie supporters should have known it would be rigged. Their arrogance is (hopefully) going to finish off that dammed party.

  8. News report of today indicates President Obama now commands $3,000,000.00 for a speaking engagement.

    http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/802063/Barack-Obama-speech-Global-Food-Innovation-Summit-Milan-private-speech-Wall-Street

    He feels your pain Average Joe, talks you into electing him and like many other federal democrats takes you to the cleaners. He respects you as an individual to such a degree that he and his party make a fuss about how the “1%” are oppressing you and then right after leaving office take millions from .001%’ers to live a regal life.

    But of course, it is none of your business according to DNC leadership. You should just mind you own Ps and Qs and do as you are told, you unwashed commoners.

  9. LOL these are public payments for him having committed treason.

    Try him and hang him from the neck until deal.

    Lock him up! Lock him up…..

    1. Trump while in office is using his presidency to pay debts and increase the wealth
      Of the Trump Kushner empire. Obama’s fees are chicken feed compared to the billions the Trump Kushner clan are raking in.

  11. I’m sorry, but am I the only one who think she looks like Jar Jar Binks with a wig?

    1. I’m cynical enough about BO and Mooch to suggest someone look into the contractors on the program and see if any are chums with Valerie Jarrett.

      1. Are they chums with the Kushner family? If they are there are some very good deals to be made with the Chinese oligarchs.

  13. The remarkable, unfathomable ignorance of Debbie Wasserman Schultz

    by Glenn Greenwald

    The Chair of the Democratic National Committee is completely unaware of one of the biggest stories of the Obama years

    Friday 19 October 2012 20.38 EDT First published on Friday 19 October 2012 20.38 EDT
    O

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/oct/20/wasserman-schultz-kill-list

    “Anyone who observes politics closely has a very low bar of expectations. It’s almost inevitable to become cynical – even jaded – about just how inept and inane top Washington officials are. Still, even processing this through those lowly standards, I just find this staggering. Staggering and repellent. This is an elected official in Congress, the body that the Constitution designed to impose checks on the president’s abuses of power, and she does not have the foggiest idea what is happening in the White House, and obviously does not care in the slightest, because the person doing it is part of the party she leads.

    “One expects corrupt partisan loyalty from people like Wasserman Schultz, eager to excuse anything and everything a Democratic president does. That’s a total abdication of her duty as a member of Congress, but that’s par for the course. But one does not expect this level of ignorance, the ability to stay entirely unaware of one of the most extremist powers a president has claimed in US history, trumpeted on the front-page of the New York Times and virtually everywhere else.”

Comments are closed.