"I wish someone would pay ME that much money to speak!"

Guess that blows your stupid theory out the water.

http://zfacts.com/2016/02/clinton-speaking-fees/

$80,000 Malcolm Gladwell Author: Blink, and Outliers
$100,000+ Bill Maher Left commentator MSNBC
$150,000 Condilezza Rice Sect. of State, W. Bush
$200,000+ Jerry Seinfeld Comedian, actor, writer
$200,000+ Hillary Clinton Sect. of State, Obama
$200,000+ Lady Gaga Singer & empowerment speaker
$200,000+ Larry The Cable Guy Radio personality, comedian
$400,000 Ben Bernake Ex-Fed chairman, Bush, Obama

Some will skim this page, see it supports Hillary, and make unsupported accusations. But it is unfair to Hillary to let such false claims go unchallenged, and it is tearing the Democrats apart.

Goldman Sachs paid her $225k in 2013, about $10k less than her average in the list above, and the lowest fee paid in 2013.

It would be foolish to try to bribe someone with a slightly low-ball payment for services. And of course there is a far simpler explanation: She was just earning money by giving speeches. Money for her expenses (sure she lives, but she also works incredibly hard), for the campaign and for her Foundation. End of theory. We’d all love to win the lottery, and she won a decent sized lottery—the speaking-fee lottery. So she cashed in her winning ticket. Wouldn’t we all?

Let's see the transcripts.

I don't think she's perfect. I understand she has vulnerabilities and I freely admit she makes gaffes. But I still support her. Not blindly. In fact, I do so with my eyes wide open. There are frankly very few (ok, one) politicians with whom I am in total or near agreement.

Turning this primary into a cult of personality "fan" or "foe" shit is divisive.

I support both of our candidates and will proudly vote for the nominee in November. But I am not a "fan" of either.

I am a fan of Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers. And the Violent Femmes (who have a new album out, by the way!)

too bad our similarities end there.

eom

His fee: $100,000.

I guess if you're unfamiliar with the teaching circuit, these fees seem high.

benefit their employers.

Sounds fair to me... it's the same demand you're making.

on services yet to be rendered?

But it doesn't stop you from making the implication.

smear, smear, smear.

because those contributions to her standard of living will be present in her mind every time she is involved with an issue relating to those corporations.

for one speech. That's wrong. So is taking money from those you are telling to "cut it out".

seating the next Treasury Secretary and the next head of the DoJ? lol

Hillary Helps a Bank—and Then It Funnels Millions to the Clintons
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/hillary-helps-a-bankand-then-it-pays-bill-15-million-in-speaking-fees/400067/

Elizabeth Warren Recalls a Time When Big Donors May Have Changed Hillary’s Vote
http://billmoyers.com/story/elizabeth-warren-recalls-a-time-when-big-donors-may-have-changed-hillarys-vote/

How quid pro quo works..in many ways and not mysteriously:

Bill Black: Second Circuit Decision Effectively Legalizes Insider Trading


snip*Wall Street’s court of appeals (the Second Circuit) has just issued an opinion not simply overturning guilty verdicts but making it impossible to retry the elite Wall Street defendants that grew wealthy through trading on insider information. Indeed, the opinion reads like a roadmap (or a script) that every corrupt Wall Street elite can follow to create a cynical system of cutouts (ala SAC) that will allow the most senior elites to profit by trading on insider information as a matter of routine with total impunity. The Second Circuit decision makes any moderately sophisticated insider trading scheme that uses cutouts to protect the elite traders a perfect crime. It is a perfect crime because (1) it is guaranteed to make the elite traders who trades on the basis of what he knows is secret, insider information wealthy absent successful prosecutions and (2) using the Second Circuit’s decision as a fraud roadmap, an elite trader can arrange the scheme with total impunity from the criminal laws. The Second Circuit ruling appears to make the financial version of “don’t ask; don’t tell” a complete defense to insider trading prosecutions. The Second Circuit does not simply make it harder to prosecute – they make it impossible to prosecute sophisticated insider fraud schemes in which the elites use junior cutouts to create (totally implausible) deniability.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/12/bill-black-second-circuit-decision-effectively-legalizes-insider-trading.html

the comparisons are ludicrous.