So have I understood? Words of the Clintons are meaningless?

[JackRiddler]

They sold their words for $153 million in legal bribes from corporations and other entities -- entities who lobby governments on behalf of their own interests, and who otherwise engage in political influence.

But whatever they said, in exchange for $153 million, is meaningless and of no interest to "America."

Now if you think about it, that is an extremely insulting attitude regarding the words of the future president -- words that one would think are actually very important and meaningful words. Good words!

Most curiously of all, this dismissive attitude, that Clinton's words mean nothing, comes from her supporters in her defense.

Why do you support a person whose words mean nothing to you? Why do you prefer to be in the dark?

[GreatGazoo]

1. Maybe Hillary does scenes from Blue Man Group

[JackRiddler]

2. But is she better than the original BMG?

Because I suspect Blue Man Group would have been a cheaper buy for these corporations than an average $210,000 per performance hour.

But tell me again, does BMG legislate? Do they regulate? Do they preside? Hmmmmmmm....

[GreatGazoo]

10. She is Hillarious

and she does all the parts much like one-man-Star-Wars

[rhett o rick]

3. In America we've raised a generation of authoritarian followers. Never taught to think for

themselves but taught to do as their authoritarian leaders tell them. And now they need that. They are willing to give up all their freedoms and liberties for the weak promise of security from the biggest bully. They will back the biggest bully in spite of what that bully does. Just like in Jr High.

Hillary Clinton betrayed her Party and nation and repeated the Bush lies about WMD in Iraq. Any regrets? Not more that a brush off with "it was a mistake". I could go on but why? It does not matter what she has done to her followers.

[lumberjack_jeff]

5. The whole reason we are not engaged in full scale war...

...in the middle east is cheap fracked oil.

As soon as prices return to $4... Look out Iran.

[rhett o rick]

8. Hillary has already set the stage for invading Iran. nm

[J_J_]

14. great post-that explains alot

I have been feeling like many of us have been trying to communicate with 8th graders.

[rhett o rick]

17. Reasoning takes effort. Standing up for principles takes courage. Many are lazy cowards

and will hide behind the biggest bully. Just like Jr. High. How many kids would stand by and watch the bully beat up a weaker kid? How many would root them on because they admire the perceived toughness of the bully. But it's a misconception. The bigger bully is no more brave than the weakest bully. They will not fight a fair fight. Take away the advantage and a bully reveals their cowardice. There exists a spectrum of bullies (actually authoritarians) and no matter how tough the bully, they will acquiesce before a bully with more power. And the "stand your ground" law gives the weaker bullies more power to be higher on the spectrum.

When things get tough the sheeple will turn to strong authoritarian power. In the 1930's Italy and Germany turned to brutal dictators, willingly. The US and Great Britain also turned to strong authoritarian leadership although benevolent, not that we didn't have Capitalists in the US pulling for a dictatorship (a number of the wealthy supported Hitler).

[lumberjack_jeff]

4. In fairness... I guess I am trying to have it both ways too.

Everything she says is bullshit, so why worry that she sold those speeches for millions?

[rhett o rick]

23. Once you start down the "why worry" trail you won't be able to stop.

The fight over who will be president is a total distraction while the capitalist/corporatists continue to accelerate their exploitation of the earth and continue stealing the wealth from the masses. IMHO no president will be able to stop it. The capitalist/corporatists will IMO, literally do whatever is necessary to continue their one sole quest, Mammon, the greedy pursuit of wealth (power).

Here is more of my babbling on this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/127710585

[Peace Patriot]

38. "no president will be able to stop it"--Bernie makes that very clear.

That's why I support him, among many, many other reasons. He doesn't lie to us! He needs the activation of the American people to govern in our interests. He calls it "a political revolution" but all it means is to become the citizens we once were but got battered into not being. Democracy reborn!

That can happen. That IS happening.

[snort]

6. Only the best words. The greatest.

Best in the business. You'll get tired of how great they are they're so great.

[JackRiddler]

9. About $100 a word, when they speak slowly!

[AzDar]

7. Depends on what the meaning of ... Oh, you know how it goes.

[bigwillq]

11. The Clintons are everything that is wrong with politics

I wish they would both go away. Lol

[Tarc]

12. Speaking fees are not bribes.

[tk2kewl]

13. ...

[Tarc]

15. Yep, Sanders fans hate money...unless it is the vaunted $27 donation

[JackRiddler]

20. Response: See #18, below.

Call them whatever you like. The haul was $153 million at average $210,000 per hour of presence delivered, and I would dispute that these fees were paid for the entertainment or educational value.

[randome]

21. And most of that money went to the Clinton Foundation.

Which, despite it bearing her surname, is a public charity, not a private one.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[JackRiddler]

25. Aaaaaaawwww.

The Haitians making $0.31 an hour thank the blessed foundation and its namesakes.

[YouDig]

16. The false assumption here is that speaking fees are bribes.

[JackRiddler]

18. It's not an assumption, it's a description.

The speeches happened and the incredible fees were paid for them, that much is factual, no assumptions necessary. You can call that by whatever name you prefer. I call it a legal form of bribery or (if you prefer something less provocative) influence-buying, pay-to-play, etc.

The particular form in which the Clintons did it - through speaking gigs - is not at all unusual, but their haul is without precedent. They were pioneers, but what they did ethically is not unlike the totally legal campaign finance system, which on direct contributions favors the wealthy and lobbyists who can bundle millions in donations, and that also allows unlimited indirect soft-money donations by billionaires and corporations. It is not unlike the totally legal corporate media system, which produces "news" financed by advertising paid by corporations with political interests, as well as billions from political campaigns. These are also forms of influence buying and mutual political aggrandizement by the buyers and sellers.

If you think the corporations and organizations were not paying these exorbitant fees to the Clintons as an effort to buy influence with a potential president, and if you think the Clintons were not there to pander to potential donors for the expected HRC presidential run, then you can give it a different name.

Call these charity gigs, if you will. You wouldn't be the first.

One way potentially to clarify these issues would be for the Clintons to voluntarily release transcripts or recordings of the events. Many of which are likely to be leaked by parties with access who are hostile to Clinton, once she secures the nomination.

[YouDig]

19. No, it's an assumption.

Speaking fees are fees for speaking. A lot of people take speaking fees, including plenty of progressives and liberals and socialists. It's a common thing.

Bribery is money paid to a public official in exchange for favors.

They are totally different things. You are making the assumption that Hillary was paid not for speaking but in exchange for political favors. There is no evidence of that.

[JackRiddler]

22. Sure, it's not bribery under the law, and I didn't say so.

You prefer to avoid thinking this money was paid to the likeliest next president (and her husband) in exchange for future access and influence on questions of policy and law. You go ahead and tell yourself that.

Perhaps we can agree on the concept of tribute? After all, the speaking contracts were certainly not tied to clauses entailing direct favors. The favors to the beneficiary corporations from the later President Clinton will come as a matter of general philosophy or "good economic sense." Our advanced system of capitalism in which politics is a free market has largely made direct payoffs superfluous. For Goldman Sachs, it's a very cheap investment in future access. They're just promoting someone they like, for some unfathomable reason.

[YouDig]

24. It's not bribery under any definition.

Unless you have evidence that she was paid for policy favors and not for speaking, then you just have a conspiracy theory. And you have no evidence.

And if you did have evidence, I'm not entirely sure, but I think that would be bribery by law also.

[JackRiddler]

26. It obviously is under my definition.

Not yours, so be it. Evidence enough is in the names of the donors, the logical presumption that it goes to the next president (as well as already highly influential policy lobbyists), and in the exorbitant fees delivered for "services rendered."

[YouDig]

28. Because you just made up your own definition.

By changing the meanings of words, you can call it "chicken salad" if you want.

Evidence would be if there was video of Hillary saying, OK, give me a check for $300K and I'll veto this law you don't like.

All you have is a conspiracy theory, and also you don't like seeing Hillary make a lot of money. But making a lot of money is not a crime, and plenty of high-profile people get paid hundreds of thousands to give speeches. It's a whole industry.

Here's a list of people in the $200K+ category.

https://www.allamericanspeakers.com/searchfee.php?fee=6

[BillZBubb]

31. How many of them are running for president?

Of course Hillary and her buyers aren't going to have a quid pro quo arrangement. She's a lawyer and is smart enough not to leave any evidence.

This speech bribery was all done on a wink and a nod. She knew what she was getting and they knew they'd have a lot of influence in her policies.

Someone with an ounce of morals and ethics would never have ta ken those exorbitant fees if planning to run for high office as a Democrat. At the very least is smells to high heaven. None of that mattered to Ms Money Grubber.

[YouDig]

34. Who cares? Hillary was a private citizen at the time, earning money the way thousands

of other people do. It bothers her detractors that she is so admired that she draws the same kind of speaking fees as George Clooney, but everyone successful has jealous haters.

There's not even a trace of evidence that this is bribery. It's just a conspiracy theory, like all the rest. Silly.

[BillZBubb]

39. Keep your head buried in the sand. That's fine. She took their money.

They'll get something in return.

[Seeinghope]

41. Is George Clooney's running for President? Is he refusing to release transcripts of the speeches?

I don't think so. Hillary Clinton knew that she was going to run for President of the United States again. She is in politics George Clooney's is an actor, big difference here..

[closeupready]

36. Most people on DU disagree with that claim.

[YouDig]

37. People on DU don't have the ability to change the definitions of words.

[closeupready]

40. If a word connotes bribery, then yes, they do.

[arcane1]

29. Correct that Record!(tm)

[YouDig]

30. Does doing that really make you feel better about losing?

[arcane1]

32. Aww, did I hurt your feelings?

[YouDig]

35. Is that what you were trying to do? Trying to hurt people's feelings won't help your own pain.

[ViseGrip]

27. Spot on! Hillary is either lying to Wall Street or lying to voters!

So far, I've seen several videos of Hillary lying for 13 straight minutes.

So if she thinks what she said to Wall Street is not important, nor her supporters find it important, tell me why I should believe what she says to me, a voter?



Hint: I DON'T BELIEVE A FUCKING WORD, LIKE MOST. Her terrible numbers prove what I just said.

[NorthCarolina]

33. Broader than that, words of the neocon crowd to the commoners are, by design, meaningless. -nt-