Do you think Big Banks would pay a person 250k-600k to hear about world affairs & Bin Laden raids ?

[Truprogressive85]

[Proserpina]

1. No. The information she could offer is neither specific, nor timely, nor useful to banks

Furthermore, the secrecy laws would stand in the way.

It's sheer influence-peddling....campaign fundraising by another name, or payoff for favors on order or already delivered.

[global1]

2. Let's Find Out....

Demand that she release the transcripts of those speeches. We need to know if she is telling us one thing and something else to them.

[MrChuck]

4. I would be glad to read the transcripts

but I don't think the content would much matter.

I think that the former SOS is probably not far off the truth in saying she gave a bland version of her experiences. I can't imagine that she gave salacious red meat evisceration diatribes against the middle class or any such horned beast type nonsense.

What matters, and what we're maybe all thinking, is that the hushed "thank yous" and "you're welcomes" that were uttered when the money actually changed hands, or perhaps when the speaking engagement was arranged, is of much more substance.

After all, we're implying that the fees were payment for influence. It's that simple. She needn't give a speech on how she's "totally going to hook it up for the big banks" in order for that to be true.

I could be wrong but I think that the fact that she hasn't denied taking the fees or their amount is enough.

I don't need to see any transcript to make my decision.

[global1]

7. The MSM Had Hung Other Politicians For A One Word Misspeak....

She gave a few speeches. Surely must have said something controversial that they can find and hang her with. There's a lot of words in those speeches.

[MrChuck]

8. I do not disagree

I feel more like she already has plenty of rope to hang HERSELF and save us all the trouble.

I just sense that The Gentleman from Vermont has set the bar in this race, starting from nothing and doing nothing but accelerating toward victory based on his positive approach. I think that spending energy, at least official campaign energy, on seeking out dirt on the former SOS would be counter to that methodology.

It doesn't mean that someone else shouldn't look for it and it doesn't mean I won't be glad for Senator Sanders' benefiting from that revelation. It just means that sullying one's hands is a job for a person who won't mind having them dirty. I don't think Sanders can afford to come up with dirty hands, not this far into his career.

[JDPriestly]

3. I bet video copies will turn up if she becomes our nominee. What better way to turn off

Liberal Democrats than to release videos of her speeches to the bankers?

[Proserpina]

5. The banksters wouldn't queer their own pitch!

They are buying her services...they aren't going to screw the pooch and waste all that influence!

[nc4bo]

6. Sheesh, this actually worries me. We have no idea who's holding what dirt on HRC

and if she is the nominee, that stuff will come out like a geyser. Destroying any hopes we have of winning the election.

[Autumn]

9. Hillary could not tell them anything more than they can read in a newspaper or a news program.

So that claim is bull shit.