Is it really a big deal if Hillary received speech money?

[Rhea]

The fact is, people besides you find her intensely interesting. And they are willing to pay her regular fee to have her speak.

What utter nonsense.If all she was was "interesting" then she would release the speech. She is hiding the speech because she said something very interesting.

They represent the kind of boilerplate, happy talk that highly paid speakers generally offer to their hosts. Nobody pays nearly a quarter of a million dollars to have someone criticize their alleged misdeeds.

Or possibly very boring that could be twisted falsely but annoyingly.

Like the whore she is she sucked up to them bigtime

Wow. Thinking rationally, are we?
I'm not interested in that kind of discussion. Over and out.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Come on guys. This thread isn't about a bunch of other issues or Trump. It's primarily about Clinton's speeches.

She seemed to have about one every other week.

I can't fault her at all for speaking at a women's conference and I think that's cool.

But what about all the speaking engagements with Wall St. It's not just Goldman Sachs when you look at it. It's a lot more.

What is that all about?

That she refuses to release the transcripts, coupled with the fact that these are people she has vowed to regulate, is good grounds for suspicion. Trump needs to make some speeches and release the transcripts from them immediately, his supporters won't care, and Clinton will be exposed. She has stated she'll release hers once everybody else has. Sanders has already.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Actually, what I find most subversive are the places who paid her in 2013, on the off chance that 4 years later she MIGHT run for president and MIGHT win.

What a gamble. She sure has a racket going, doesn't she! I mean, she could have just shafted them all and taken the money to Cancun!

Actually, it was quite clear that there was a high probability she'd run for President. She was second to Obama last time she did run and she not only got more experience in the meantime (being Sec of State), but she also made tons of connections through her speaking engagements.

BUT, yes, there were some gambles on the part of the Canadian speaking funding. They were connecting to her over the Keystone Pipeline--that was their interest. All the while, she would make little comment on her stance. The little comment she made was about a compromise where that could be used as incentive to put US and Canada on the same page with regulations. Later on, during campaigning, she said she was against the Keystone Pipeline, not a major shift, but a small shift. Still it was sufficiently different for the Canadian bankers who funded her speeches to have lost money on their trying to engage her. On the other hand, maybe another compromise will be on the table in the future. She already knows the Canadian players so she could work out some deals.

ETA: None of this means she is the most evil person on The Earth. It does, however, mean that Keystone Pipeline funders acted in self-interest--which we would expect and that they did see a sufficient probability she'd be in a position of influence over US policy re: the pipeline.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Come on guys. This thread isn't about a bunch of other issues or Trump. It's primarily about Clinton's speeches.

She seemed to have about one every other week.

I can't fault her at all for speaking at a women's conference and I think that's cool.

But what about all the speaking engagements with Wall St. It's not just Goldman Sachs when you look at it. It's a lot more.

What is that all about?

That she refuses to release the transcripts.

There are transcripts? Most speakers we have don't have transcriptions of their talks.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

That she refuses to release the transcripts.

There are transcripts? Most speakers we have don't have transcriptions of their talks.

MANCHESTER, N.H. — Hillary Clinton, who faces mounting pressure to release transcripts of her paid speeches, routinely demanded that a stenographer be present at her events so she could maintain a record of what she said.

At least four of Clinton’s contracts include a clause stating a transcript would be produced for Clinton and that the former secretary of state would own them and control their release, according to contracts obtained by McClatchy.

“The sponsor will transcribe Speaker’s remarks as they are being delivered, which should be solely for the Speaker’s records,” according to her contract with the University of Buffalo, which paid her $275,000.

Identical words appear in contracts between the Harry Walker Agency, which represents Clinton, and the University of Connecticut, which paid her $250,000; the University of Nevada at Las Vegas, which paid her $225,000, and the University of California at Los Angeles, which paid her $300,000.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article59010478.html#storylink=cpy

Article continues:
In January, a reporter asked her after a town hall in Manchester if she would release the transcripts. She laughed and turned away.

In response to a question about whether she would release transcripts Thursday during the fifth and final debate before voting begins in New Hampshire, Clinton said, “I will look into it. I don’t know the status, but I will certainly look into it.”

“I don’t think voters are interested in the transcripts of her speeches,” top Clinton adviser Joel Benenson told reporters Friday.

And on Sunday, she said she would release the transcripts - if everyone who has ever given a paid speech also did. “Let everybody who’s ever given a speech to any private group under any circumstances release them,” she said on ABC’s This Week program. “We’ll all release them at the same time. ... These rules need to apply to everybody.”

I think that is a disingenuous argument. Instead, people who are currently running for office should release transcripts where there is a potential conflict of interest. This is a small subset of the entire set of people Clinton is claiming this applies to. It doesn't mean she's evil or guilty--just that she indeed has transcripts but is choosing not to release them.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

That she refuses to release the transcripts, coupled with the fact that these are people she has vowed to regulate, is good grounds for suspicion. Trump needs to make some speeches and release the transcripts from them immediately, his supporters won't care, and Clinton will be exposed. She has stated she'll release hers once everybody else has. Sanders has already.

You just know she's said something incriminating in those speeches, right? And if only the rest of the world knew what you did, we would all see what you see, and suddenly we would understand what you've been telling us all along.

What torture it must be for you to not have your wishes fulfilled when you know so much and millions just won't listen to you.

One tiny little problem though. But what if--and I know this sounds crazy--what if she's said nothing incriminating? Oops. You've just ripped apart the privacy rights of an individual without reasonable suspicion other than a paranoid assumption that she must be in conspiratorial cahoots with Wall Street. Oh, and free speech too! Let's not forget that.

Just kidding. No matter what she said, you'll find that smoking gun even if it takes the discovery of a Da Vinci Code-like secret contained within mysterious text of the cabal she represents. The same as Obama being a secret commie/undercover Muslim/socialist/anti-American due to him being born in Kenya, after he finally produced that obviously fake birth certificate, Hillary can only stand to gain from releasing everything people like demand.

Only then can wait with baited breath for the likes of you to exonerate her so that we may all breathe more freely.

 

[untermensche]

You just know she's said something incriminating in those speeches, right?

Probably nothing criminal.

But probably a different message than she's peddling now.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

One tiny little problem though. But what if--and I know this sounds crazy--what if she's said nothing incriminating?

Then she could end this very easily by releasing the transcripts. She could show herself not to be the corporate shill and bought politician that so many suspect that she is. And no, I don't know that she said anything incriminating, nor do I care. I'm not voting in this. I'm not American. I'm an objective observer, and I am pointing out how this could be a political windfall for Trump. Hillary comes off looking suspect and corrupt and bought. Trump should play that as loudly as he can and I bet you it would damper support for Hillary and fire up Trump's (rather mindless) base.

 

[laughing dog]

The transcript "issue" is irrelevant because it is the flow of money and the appearance of the conflict of interest that is important, not the content of a speech.

As for Trump, he may try to make this an issue. It will motivate the Clinton-haters. But since he refuses to release his tax records, it will backfire on him.

 

[Rhea]

I agree. No way Trump can use this. Sanders can use it to imply there's smoke and fire, but Trump can't.

What I suspect is that she said things that were not chastising banks. And there's nothing particularly wrong with that, it's a typical team-building kind of speech that most speech givers give. But it makes a good straw-man for Sanders die-hards, and she has no reason to provide their straw.

 

[ZiprHead]

Maybe they were paying her for work already done, like with revolving doors that politicians go through. Who knows. But I don't think I've ever seen this level of amount of speaking engagements and price. There's got to be a reason for it?

I saw an analysis posted on another forum I frequent that showed her speaking fees were about the same as others of her stature. I'll see if I can find it.

 

[untermensche]

Maybe they were paying her for work already done, like with revolving doors that politicians go through. Who knows. But I don't think I've ever seen this level of amount of speaking engagements and price. There's got to be a reason for it?

I saw an analysis posted on another forum I frequent that showed her speaking fees were about the same as others of her stature. I'll see if I can find it.

Nobody says Clinton is then only one involved in this system that ensures those with the most money make all the rules.

 

[iolo]

Bliar, whom the racist nutters love, gets vast sums from this source.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

As for Trump, he may try to make this an issue. It will motivate the Clinton-haters. But since he refuses to release his tax records, it will backfire on him.

Did I mishear? I thought Trump said that he would release his tax returns before the election. Clinton said she will not release the transcripts until "everybody else does". If Sanders can use the transcripts but Trump can't, then will Clinton release them after the convention and Hillary is officially the nominee?

 

[ZiprHead]

It's a very safe bet that if Hillary releases the transcripts they will be cherry-picked so much the tree will die.

 

[Will Wiley]

I agree. No way Trump can use this.

Uh huh

What I suspect is that she said things that were not chastising banks.

Not chastising? Uh huh.

And there's nothing particularly wrong with that, it's a typical team-building kind of speech that most speech givers give.

That's right because team building speeches consist of "not chastising". That's it.

 

[arkirk]

Uh huh

What I suspect is that she said things that were not chastising banks.

Not chastising? Uh huh.

And there's nothing particularly wrong with that, it's a typical team-building kind of speech that most speech givers give.

That's right because team building speeches consist of "not chastising". That's it.

What is in the speech doesn't matter much. It is a way for outfits like Goldman Sachs to reward politicians for things they have already had done for them that fools will accept is reasonable for a (liar) person of her stature. She could get up there and say "Be boo ba boo" and still get paid for services already rendered or soon to be rendered. The money is indicative of her loyalty and believe me, it is not to you...

 

[ZiprHead]

What is in the speech doesn't matter much. It is a way for outfits like Goldman Sachs to reward politicians for things they have already had done for them that fools will accept is reasonable for a (liar) person of her stature. She could get up there and say "Be boo ba boo" and still get paid for services already rendered or soon to be rendered. The money is indicative of her loyalty and believe me, it is not to you...

So what is it that Clinton has done for GS? As I understand, Hers and Sanders votes in the senate were the same 96% of the time.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Also why would Gap be paying her hundreds of thousands of dollars?

The prestige of having Hillary Rodham Clinton speak at their corporate gathering. The illusion of success.

This is exactly correct.

 

[arkirk]

The prestige of having Hillary Rodham Clinton speak at their corporate gathering. The illusion of success.

This is exactly correct.

Gap is an international corporation exploiting cheap labor all over the orient. I just finished listening to Clinton make a glowing speech in the past about TPP. Things like TPP would be very useful to the Gap. Clinton has since flopped and I bet is not so welcome at Gap as a speaker. Underhanded people like Clinton can do many things we have no power to monitor. They have accrued obscene wealth on the basis of their political double dealing and can easily defend themselves in most cases. There is really nothing unusual about Clinton or even her story in Washington D.C. She just knows how to milk political cash cows and does it better than most. This however does not qualify her to lead our country. It actually should disqualify her.