Do you know what topic rattled a Clinton advocate when he was on tv advocating for Clinton?

[Skwmom]

Speaking fees. This topic has barely been touched upon.

He was a dark haired guy, don't recall his name. He was on a day or two ago. He was very composed until this topic came up.

Also from Face the Nation:

KLEIN: Well, I think, one, there's not going to be deep divisions in the party. And it's worth saying that even in 2008 the -- while there was a lot of talk of pumas at the elections and that there would be these big splits, there didn't end up being that. People always underestimate how much having a nominee in the other party as (ph) concentrating a Democrats or a Republicans mind. (I disagree. If Clinton would have won in 2008, the party would not have held together.)

In terms of what they do, though, in a very long period where all the attention is going to a Republican campaign that's going -- that's going for month after month, they probably raise a lot of money and they do a lot of organizing, but that may not be a good period for Clinton because it's a period in which she gets covered as a president who (ph) gets investigated.

There was also another pretty interesting comment but I did not see it in the transcripts.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/face-the-nation-transcripts-january-31-2016-trump-rubio/

[truedelphi]

1. We need some type of national referendum that regulates speaking fees.

These "speaking fees" are basically the laundering of bribe monies.

Plain and simple. The Clintons were both broke when they left the White House. But now, based on the favors they have done for Corporate America, they are worth 189 million bucks.

A really really nice quid pro quo for the few Dynasty Families that get to attain these!

[tularetom]

3. I get your point, but they weren't broke when they left the white house

They are a lot better off now, for sure, but that "dead broke" was just another Hillary Clinton lie.

[rurallib]

5. discussion I had with a friend today

Is what Clinton doing illegal? No
Is it unethical? Depends on your ethics but based on mine, yes

like much of the money in our politics today - Illegal? No. Unethical? Yes

[Skwmom]

7. For most people this would be a real problem. n/t

[dsc]

9. they had a negative net worth when they left the White House

the legal bills they owed were vastly more than the limited assets they owned.

[rurallib]

16. I hesitate to say this but they did have one huge asset

that they then shopped around.

I know not if Jimmy Carter gives speeches nor what he charges, but I have not heard of Carter running into issues in this regard.

I remember reading about Harry Truman when he left the presidency and he and Bess drove back to Independence from Washington in their Oldsmobile. Not sure if he charged speaking fees or what groups he would speak to. Vaguely recall he never tried to cash in on the presidency.

Yeah I am old fashioned in that way.

[EdwardBernays]

2. of course!

because there's so much extreme tit for tat that the Clintons have engaged in, that would make most sane voters throw up if they knew about...

At some point as well John Podesta is going to be brought up, and that could literally be the end for Hillary... I've yet to see a single Clinton supporter that doesn't turn and run when he's brought up... they're scared shitless about that...

Hiring lobbyists to spend other lobbyists money to get you elected, and then turning around and giving them advisory rolls in the white house... that is not exactly something any Democrat would support... except unbeknown to most that's been the state of the Democratic Party for decades...

[tammywammy]

4. Do you have a link to the transcript your quoting? Is the Klein mentioned Ed Klein?

[Skwmom]

6. Here you go.

Not sure if it was Ed Klein.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/face-the-nation-transcripts-january-31-2016-trump-rubio/

[tammywammy]

8. Thanks for the link. It's Ezra Klein. n/t

[Nanjeanne]

10. Bernie Made $1,867.42 in total for 3 speaking fees & donated it all to charity!

From May in the NY Times:

Voters should be grateful for the government transparency laws that required Senator Bernie Sanders, a rival to Hillary Rodham Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination, to reveal how much he made last year in speaking engagement fees. The total is $1,867.42 for three appearances, a grand sum that is chump change in presidential politicking but enough for the senator to respectably donate the money to charity.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/takingnote/2015/05/26/bernie-sanders-comes-clean/?_r=0&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fm.facebook.com%2F

[Uncle Joe]

11. That shows in CNN's "missing the forest for the trees" coverage of Bernie's Wall Street Ad

Their primary focus is on whether this constitutes a "negative" ad by Bernie although Hillary's face nor name ever pop up in the ad, because Bernie has been making the case regarding those speaking fees and how Wall Street has corrupted our democracy in general.

What CNN never addresses is the actual issue of those speaking fees and how they create an obvious conflict of interest.

Thanks for the thread, Skwmom.

[Skwmom]

13. That is like a grain in the sand to what is coming...

[tk2kewl]

12. Release transcripts, audio and video of the speeches!

If there's no reason for us to believe Hillary won't be compromised by these massive pay days then she shouldn't have a problem sharing what was said.

[ancianita]

14. Maybe even share a foreign policy speech. Sorry. Couldn't help myself.

[snagglepuss]

15. .