Would you pay the Clinton's $500,000 for a speech and expect no favors like those wonderful Russians who paid them so well to hear their BS?
- Anonymous8 months ago
there's certainly a possibility of cultivating interest, but I think that the one to one equation that some people suspect is a bit false. I think that you're most cases, people who donate money or pay for a speech such as this are not looking to effectively bribe someone. That is, they're not saying here's $500,000 now do this for me. Instead, they are looking to cultivate a relationship. The purpose of large-scale donations is 2 get yourself known by a politician. That way, when you call up with a concern they will actually take your call. You're not buying necessarily specific policies, but access.
With that being said, I don't think that we can say that the high-paid speaker circuit is bribery or buying access in all cases. In many instances it's about getting Prestige from association with people of importance. We can tell this because and number of cases people being paid large amounts of money for these speeches are people who will not hold public office again. Ex-presidents, for example, will often get very high speaking fees. So will other retired politicians. These are not people who will be an office again and that's able to exchange political favors for payment. Instead, I think that the large payments are so that they can get a prestigious figure such as a former president to speak at their event. I mean, think about it, if you were invited to a speaking event where I former president, or former Senator, was speaking you might be impressed. For the kinds of companies that can afford to blow six figures on a speech that's a reasonable investment.
There's also another matter on this issue. Even if we do regard Hillary Clinton's actions in public speeches as corrupt, the fact is that at this point it's a bit moot. She's never going to hold public office again. I don't mean to minimize any potential corruption because if someone was engaged in corruption they should be punished for it even if they are no longer holding office. Certainly, I, as a component of Trump would welcome his prosecution for the numerous legal actions he has taken once he leaves the Oval Office. But as a matter of public interest, this is little less important with Clinton. On the other hand, you don't seem to be concerned at all about the very real apparent corruption with regard to Trump. I'm talking about people who patronize his businesses. Trump, uniquely in the modern era, has opted to retain ownership of his for-profit companies while serving as president. This opens up numerous opportunities for corruption and bribery. There are two main Avenue switch this seems to have taken. First off, we have people who are buying access to him via Mara Lago. Soon after Trump became president be private club, which has now become Trump's official private residence, boosted its membership fees. So Trump is profiting off of people who presumably want to cultivate ties with him. He's also, buy frequently vacationing at his private club allowing a self curated stream people to be near him and possibly interact with and influence him. Of Greater concern is probably his continued ownership of a lease on a hotel in Washington DC. This hotel has become a hotbed for seeming corruption with various political groups, companies, and foreign governments, holding events or staying there in order to essentially bribe Trump. There are numerous instances of organizations with business before the United States government patronizing the hotel ahead of major decisions of concern to them. In some cases, there seems to be a connection between the stays at the hotel and favorable decisions in these organizations favor.
This apparent corruption on the part of trump should be a much greater concern to you because Trump is currently the president and maybe for as much as five more years. The fact that he has people who are paying him while he is President and who have vested interest in the outcome of government decisions is incredibly problematic at best.
- LeoLv 78 months ago
What did the Japanese expect when they paid Reagan a million dollars to speak in Japan, shortly after he left office?
- W.T. DoorLv 78 months ago
The Clintons were raking in the money while she was Secretary of State and again when it was assumed she would win the 2016 election. The "donations" ended when she lost. Imagine that.....
- MercuriLv 78 months ago
You do realize Hillary lost, right? She's a civilian now.
Also, you must be LIVID that Trump has so many business interests in foreign nations then, right? RIGHT? Surely you're not a hypocrite, right?
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- RoLv 78 months ago
The simple truth is that the Clinton's were in Putin's back pocket, he bought and paid for them. He also gave Hillary 145 Million dollars and Hillary made sure that he got 20% of our Uranium sources.