Bribes are always voluntarily paid, and usually with a certain amount of glee...The speaking fees were voluntarily paid to her. So what?
So "What does it matter?", right?????
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Bribes are always voluntarily paid, and usually with a certain amount of glee...The speaking fees were voluntarily paid to her. So what?
I'm no fan of Hillary, but I don't understand why collecting speaker fees is an issue with anyone. Who here on this forum would not take 1 million dollars to speak if someone offered it to you???
The troubling question is not why would Hillary not take one million to make a speech?
The troubling question is why would someone offer her one million to make a speech?
I'm no fan of Hillary, but I don't understand why collecting speaker fees is an issue with anyone. Who here on this forum would not take 1 million dollars to speak if someone offered it to you???
The troubling question is not why would Hillary not take one million to make a speech?
The troubling question is why would someone offer her one million to make a speech?
Right, if someone offered me a million to speak about something, man I'd take it (not that anyone would or I can even speak in front of people) I want to know what their motives were, so the quest. is WHY?
Why?
Bill and Hillary have a lot of clout and pull in Washington. Paying political leaders, especially presidents and president spouses, should generate greater interest by watchdog groups. We would be extremely naïve to think money does not buy influence in Washington. Then in light of the highly scandalous Clinton Foundation, especially when Hillary was Secretary of State, I would not trust either of them or their bookkeeping. They are guilty of fraud or illicit ways of making money and making deals as far as I am concerned.Why wouldn't a corporation want a speaker as prestigious as a former First Lady, Senator and Secretary of State at one of their conferences?
You know that Donald Trump is the most highly paid public speaker in the world, right?
If you're going to be upset about Hillary Clinton making 350 grand a speech, you must be absolutely livid that Donald Trump makes $1.4 million a speech.
The speaking fees were voluntarily paid to her. So what?
So, he didn't receive $1.5m from one person? It was adding all those $500 fees?Bill and Hillary have a lot of clout and pull in Washington. Paying political leaders, especially presidents and president spouses, should generate greater interest by watchdog groups. We would be extremely naïve to think money does not buy influence in Washington. Then in light of the highly scandalous Clinton Foundation, especially when Hillary was Secretary of State, I would not trust either of them or their bookkeeping. They are guilty of fraud or illicit ways of making money and making deals as far as I am concerned.Why wouldn't a corporation want a speaker as prestigious as a former First Lady, Senator and Secretary of State at one of their conferences?
You know that Donald Trump is the most highly paid public speaker in the world, right?
If you're going to be upset about Hillary Clinton making 350 grand a speech, you must be absolutely livid that Donald Trump makes $1.4 million a speech.
PS – Hillary is as uninspiring and uninteresting of a speaker as our current president.
As far as what you say about Trump is concerned, those speaking fees of very high amounts were for a specific purpose, in a specific time frame, all given by one private firm.
Real estate mogul and star of “The Apprentice ”Donald Trump made 17 speeches to The Learning Annex between 2006 and 2007. After each speech, Trump received $1.5 million for his real estate advice and thoughts on business. Learning Annex founder Bill Zanker reportedly charged $500 per ticket to each Trump event and generated a profit for every speech.
Mary James - The 10 Highest-Paid Public Speakers of the Past 10 Years
I'm no fan of Hillary, but I don't understand why collecting speaker fees is an issue with anyone. Who here on this forum would not take 1 million dollars to speak if someone offered it to you???
The troubling question is not why would Hillary not take one million to make a speech?
The troubling question is why would someone offer her one million to make a speech?
Right, if someone offered me a million to speak about something, man I'd take it (not that anyone would or I can even speak in front of people) I want to know what their motives were, so the quest. is WHY?
Why?
Because she's a prestigious speaker who will impress investors.
Same thing.Wow, was it supposed to go to the "fund" or line their pockets? Does it make any difference?
Wow, was it supposed to go to the "fund" or line their pockets? Does it make any difference?
I'm no fan of Hillary, but I don't understand why collecting speaker fees is an issue with anyone. Who here on this forum would not take 1 million dollars to speak if someone offered it to you???
The troubling question is not why would Hillary not take one million to make a speech?
The troubling question is why would someone offer her one million to make a speech?
Right, if someone offered me a million to speak about something, man I'd take it (not that anyone would or I can even speak in front of people) I want to know what their motives were, so the quest. is WHY?
Why?
Because she's a prestigious speaker who will impress investors.
I was thinking about this, just how would she impress investors?
Did they steal enough when they left the White House to properly decorate the library?Wow, was it supposed to go to the "fund" or line their pockets? Does it make any difference?
Or to the Library!
don't forget the all important Clinton Library!
Since that money was essentially a gift, I wonder what percentage of that $150+ million did they give back to charity to help people that REALLY ARE dead broke? You know those poor people that the Clintons and the Democrats claim to care about.
From I read, there's not a lot going out to help people unless you are a Clinton or close relative.Since that money was essentially a gift, I wonder what percentage of that $150+ million did they give back to charity to help people that REALLY ARE dead broke? You know those poor people that the Clintons and the Democrats claim to care about.
So, he didn't receive $1.5m from one person? It was adding all those $500 fees?Bill and Hillary have a lot of clout and pull in Washington. Paying political leaders, especially presidents and president spouses, should generate greater interest by watchdog groups. We would be extremely naïve to think money does not buy influence in Washington. Then in light of the highly scandalous Clinton Foundation, especially when Hillary was Secretary of State, I would not trust either of them or their bookkeeping. They are guilty of fraud or illicit ways of making money and making deals as far as I am concerned.Why wouldn't a corporation want a speaker as prestigious as a former First Lady, Senator and Secretary of State at one of their conferences?
You know that Donald Trump is the most highly paid public speaker in the world, right?
If you're going to be upset about Hillary Clinton making 350 grand a speech, you must be absolutely livid that Donald Trump makes $1.4 million a speech.
PS – Hillary is as uninspiring and uninteresting of a speaker as our current president.
As far as what you say about Trump is concerned, those speaking fees of very high amounts were for a specific purpose, in a specific time frame, all given by one private firm.
Real estate mogul and star of “The Apprentice ”Donald Trump made 17 speeches to The Learning Annex between 2006 and 2007. After each speech, Trump received $1.5 million for his real estate advice and thoughts on business. Learning Annex founder Bill Zanker reportedly charged $500 per ticket to each Trump event and generated a profit for every speech.
Mary James - The 10 Highest-Paid Public Speakers of the Past 10 Years