Groups Lobbying On Trade PAID Hillary Clinton $2.5M In SPEAKING FEES

[cali]

116. I'm not saying that there was a payoff. I'm speaking to the appearance

of a conflict of interest.

Yes, Corning made a donation to the Foundation, but they also paid her personally for a speech. That in conjunction with Corning lobbying her dept is what creates the appearance of conflict. And there are other instances in the article where corporations-some unaffiliated with the Foundation, successfully lobbied her department, subsequent to which, after leaving State, Hillary was paid big bucks for speeches.

Are you saying that the article is incorrect and that she wasn't paid personally for the speech?

from the article:

During Clinton's tenure as secretary of state, Corning lobbied the department on a variety of trade issues, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The company has donated between $100,000 and $250,000 to her family's foundation. And last July, when it was clear that Clinton would again seek the presidency in 2016, Corning coughed up a $225,500 honorarium for Clinton to speak.

In the laundry whirl of stories about Clinton buck-raking, it might be easy for that last part to get lost in the wash. But it's the part that matters most. The $225,500 speaking fee didn't go to help disease-stricken kids in an impoverished village on some long-forgotten patch of the planet. Nor did it go to a campaign account. It went to Hillary Clinton. Personally.