General Discussion

NanceGreggs

(27,835 posts)

48. So explain how ...

Mon Jun 1, 2015, 09:07 PM

Jun 2015

... any amount of money paid for speaking engagements amounts to "favours" being delivered.

She can take the money and not do a damned thing for those who might think they "bought" something. So what's the incentive to deliver anything at all?

To do so would have political (and legal) repercussions. To NOT do so would still mean she has the money-in-hand, and those who were expecting some "quid pro quo" would have no recourse to claim what it is they expected to get.

In fact, claiming that they "expected" something in return that HRC didn't deliver would only serve HER political purposes by casting her as honest and above being bought.

The whole scenario makes absolutely NO sense whatsoever. And yet there are those who will buy into that scenario nonetheless.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

62 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The Ed Show: Clinton Was PAID MILLIONS BY BANKS Backing Keystone Pipeline [View all] Segami Jun 2015 OP

K & R Koinos Jun 2015 #1

Well, DOH! Who'ld have thunk it. peacebird Jun 2015 #2

don't worry. her supporters will show up soon with their roguevalley Jun 2015 #14

I saw the same show. Alberta has already put the pipeline on hold. Laser102 Jun 2015 #31

I have removed my response to your remarks because I was roguevalley Jun 2015 #49

That's why Keystone has been approved... Cali_Democrat Jun 2015 #3

Those pesky facts again workinclasszero Jun 2015 #4

Obama vetoed it. Wilms Jun 2015 #13

Logical fallacy. The fact that it hasn't been approved isn't related to Clinton rhett o rick Jun 2015 #18

Why perpetuate this canard? The President DID NOT veto the pipeline RufusTFirefly Jun 2015 #24

Those pesky facts again bahrbearian Jun 2015 #27

One of the grandest cases of willful ignorance ever seen MannyGoldstein Jun 2015 #28

Yet it's so simple a four-year-old child could understand it RufusTFirefly Jun 2015 #37

Except by Alberta. Pesky facts. Laser102 Jun 2015 #32

At least they didn't get it. hifiguy Jun 2015 #5

Only if you don't like Hillary. upaloopa Jun 2015 #9

okay dad :D roguevalley Jun 2015 #16

So do you despute the facts of the OP or don't you care? rhett o rick Jun 2015 #19

Hillary was paid MILLIONS to do what? NanceGreggs Jun 2015 #6

I imagine she has signed contracts saying so... HereSince1628 Jun 2015 #10

Saying what? n/t NanceGreggs Jun 2015 #12

Saying she was paid to speak. HereSince1628 Jun 2015 #15

To talk about world events, geopolitics, etc. DanTex Jun 2015 #23

Wow Hillary is running to be leader of Canada too upaloopa Jun 2015 #7

Exactly, the money went directly into her bank for her personal wealth rhett o rick Jun 2015 #21

But, she was paid just to talk! HereSince1628 Jun 2015 #8

Okay, spill. NanceGreggs Jun 2015 #25

You are being very suspicious. It makes my bullshit meter go to 12... HereSince1628 Jun 2015 #26

I sincerely apologize ... NanceGreggs Jun 2015 #38

"Talk is cheap." Major Hogwash Jun 2015 #53

200K per speech doesn't seem too cheap. HereSince1628 Jun 2015 #54

That's peanuts! Major Hogwash Jun 2015 #55

The Clintons love money. earthside Jun 2015 #11

I'm a Hill Raiser. KMOD Jun 2015 #17

Translation: Hillary gave some speeches at events partially sponsored by two of the largest banks DanTex Jun 2015 #20

I live in Canada ... NanceGreggs Jun 2015 #29

And the hits just keep on coming! nt Logical Jun 2015 #22

+1000 MissDeeds Jun 2015 #46

This is what I've been saying. She is bought. Owned lock stock & barrel. [nt] Jester Messiah Jun 2015 #30

Bought by whom, exactly juajen Jun 2015 #39

How is she "bought"? NanceGreggs Jun 2015 #41

1.6 million is a lot of reasons to listen. As Dylan said: Money doesn't talk, it swears! Ford_Prefect Jun 2015 #47

So explain how ... NanceGreggs Jun 2015 #48

In the context of 250 million 1.6 is not much I agree. Ford_Prefect Jun 2015 #50

Huh? NanceGreggs Jun 2015 #52

My error indeed. You didn't discuss $400,000 let alone insist on it. My apologies on that one. Ford_Prefect Jun 2015 #57

"in return for the expectation of a favorable hearing down the line." NanceGreggs Jun 2015 #60

I guess my short response would have to be:"How do we know she didn't?" Ford_Prefect Jun 2015 #61

And my short response would be ... NanceGreggs Jun 2015 #62

oh picky. picky. picky olddots Jun 2015 #33

Has HRC clearly stated that she is adamantly opposed to the pipeline? SoapBox Jun 2015 #34

I'm sure there's no alterior motives going on with those paid speeches and... L0oniX Jun 2015 #35

money, money money......mooooney! paleotn Jun 2015 #36

What do you base that remark on. juajen Jun 2015 #40

Kick. GoneFishin Jun 2015 #42

K&R newfie11 Jun 2015 #43

lassiez faire pipline CTBlueboy Jun 2015 #44

how did that work out for the banks though dlwickham Jun 2015 #45

and here you are again azureblue Jun 2015 #51

It's the ultimate revolving door. Some people have no shame. How much fricking money does she need? Cheese Sandwich Jun 2015 #56

She wants ALL the money! Major Hogwash Jun 2015 #58

I'm sure Hillary will take a principled stand Joe Turner Jun 2015 #59