ElectionsInfo.net     An Internet archive of election results and analysis

ElectionsInfo

United States

International

Search

   Kathleen Willey blasts Hillary's 'dead broke' claim

NEWS INFORMATION

Parent

Parent

News Date

6/14/2014 4:00 pm

Author

Bob Unruh

Media

WorldNetDaily

Category

News

Database Record

Entered 6/14/2014, Updated 6/14/2014

Original Article

Link

Description

"Kathleen Willey, a Democrat activist who with her husband, Ed, founded Virginians for Clinton and helped send Bill and Hillary to the White House in 1992, is blasting Hillary Clinton’s recent claim that she and the president left the White House in 2000 dead broke. “For her to say dead broke. … I can tell you what it is to be dead broke and owing money,” she told WND in an interview. Hillary Clinton, who has walked back her claim, told ABC’s Diane Sawyer she and her husband “came out of the White House not only dead broke but in debt.” “We had no money when we got there, and we struggled to piece together the resources for mortgages for the houses, for Chelsea’s education,” she said. ‘You know, it was not easy.” The Washington Post’s Michelle Singletary, however, pointed out that since the Clintons left the White House, they have been paid more than $100 million over 14 years. And when they left the White House, not only was Bill Clinton guaranteed a vast pension, but Hillary Clinton was not far away from a salary as U.S. senator. The houses Hillary Clinton mentioned were multi-million dollar mansions. “Don’t you hate it when wealthy folks cry poor?” Singletary wrote."


NEWS OF NEWS

Date

Category

Headline

6/22/2014

Idiocy

Hillary Clinton: Her family is not like the 'truly well off'


DISCUSSION

D

Jason said

on 6/15/2014 3:09 pm

It's almost as though Hillary is trying to make herself as detestable as possible for 2016.

 

IND

Monsieur said

on 6/15/2014 3:10 pm

Another one of Hillary's embellishments. She has an unfortunate habit of this.

 

D

Labour Dem said

on 6/15/2014 3:24 pm

Republicans and their allies are going nuts knowing that they are going to have trouble defeating Hillary in 2016 if she runs. If she actually wins, some people will hit the roof.

 

D

MadViking said

on 6/15/2014 9:24 pm

She said that when she left the White House they were broke, the article counters that by saying since they left the White House they have made 100 Million. That hardly works as a counter argument. I was dead broke when I finished college, but I have earned money in the 14 years since then. It doesn't change the fact that in 2000 I was dead broke. Considering the legal bills they had over the course of the Presidency I would believe they were in debt in 2000.

 

IND

Monsieur said

on 6/15/2014 9:55 pm

She said that when she left the White House they were broke, the article counters that by saying since they left the White House they have made 100 Million. That hardly works as a counter argument. I was dead broke when I finished college, but I have earned money in the 14 years since then. It doesn't change the fact that in 2000 I was dead broke. Considering the legal bills they had over the course of the Presidency I would believe they were in debt in 2000. From the article: The report said the Clintons technically were in debt when they left the White House, with liabilities between $2.3 million and $10.6 million and assets between $781,000 and almost $1.8 million. The liabilities were mostly legal expenses for the defense of Bill Clinton over the various scandals he triggered while in office. Hillary Clinton entered the Senate and began earning a $145,000 salary when they left the White House, and her husband’s pension was more than $150,000, Fox News said. Within a year, their assets were listed at between $6 million and $30 million. Liabilities were between $1.3 million and $5.6 million. Sorry, this is not dead broke. Even if you think they were dead broke because their liabilities exceeded their assets immediately on leaving office, they (especially Bill) had the ability to make money extremely quickly through public speaking and book deals, which they did do. That is in addition to the $295,000 in annual income the two were earning between her Senate salary and his pension.

 

D

Labour Dem said

on 6/15/2014 10:57 pm

Unless one has access to their books from that time, no one can determine that they were not broke. World Net Daily is the source of a lot of birther claims, many of which were based on guessing like is done in this article.

 

D

Jason said

on 6/15/2014 11:25 pm

Unless one has access to their books from that time, no one can determine that they were not broke. When your argument is a semantic one about rich-person-broke as opposed to being actual broke, then you've missed the point.

 

D

WesternDem said

on 6/16/2014 10:09 am

Yes, and when that's your defense in a political context, you've already lost the argument.

 

R

kal said

on 6/16/2014 2:25 pm

No, I agree with Jason. Rich person broke is way different than being actual broke. Western DEM, how much would you support Donald Trump saying he was "dead broke" since he's declared bankruptcy a few times?

 

D

Andy said

on 6/17/2014 3:02 pm

how much would you support Donald Trump saying he was "dead broke" since he's declared bankruptcy a few times? No, this is definitely stupid and indefensible on Hillary's part. Beginning to think there's a reason she blew the 2008 Presidential primary -- she's just not that good of a candidate outside of a deep blue state full of one-percenter cash like New York.

 

SAP

Gaear Grimsrud said

on 6/17/2014 6:27 pm

She's good in Appalachia if she has someone with too high a melanin content running against her.

 

D

WesternDem said

on 6/17/2014 10:02 pm

Western DEM, how much would you support Donald Trump saying he was "dead broke" since he's declared bankruptcy a few times? My only point was that it is politically stupid for anyone with the earning potential and assets of Clinton in 2000 or Trump to claim any relationship to the word "broke".

 

R

Hikikomori Blitzkrieg! said

on 6/18/2014 10:57 pm

Its always been my belief that Hillary Clinton as the Democratic nominee, means a Republican victory. She's one of the worst candidates I've ever witnessed. She's horrible, in pretty much every way. The fact anyone's bothering to defend her, is ludicrous. She's a fabulously wealthy woman, whining about her alleged poverty, in a country where the economy has been in the toilet for almost 15 years now. You can spend the rest of your life constructing an elaborate semantic justification for what she said, but that ain't gonna help with the voters. And she'll doubtless say something equally stupid in October of 2016. Because that's pretty much all she does. She gaffes. That's the extent of her political career. And she's ungraciously mean to people who've inadvertently slighted her, I guess. Am I leaving something out?

 


All information on this site is © ElectionsInfo.net and should not be used without attribution.