Can a tax payer sue Clinton for release of those speeches to Goldman-Sachs? If Goldman-Sachs tax deducted those speeches as an "expense", then it would be interesting to find out if a regular taxpayer has "standing" to sue. This would be based on the "regular" taxpayer paying more in taxes or getting less in services because of the lost revenue to the government due to the $675,000 tax deduction.

This situation is why she stands at between 57% and 59% disapproval rate. Her lack of perceived "honesty" makes her a VERY flawed candidate. Frankly, if she were to get elected, if Republicans retain control of the Senate and House, they will file impeachment charges on day one, and there will a transaction by transaction investigations of her and Bill's speeches, their "foundation" and ties to decisions made while she was Secretary of State such as the Swiss bank UBS situation.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/hillary-helps-a-bankand-then-it-pays-bill-15-million-in-speaking-fees/400067/

The bottom line is there are too many risks for her getting elected let alone being allowed to govern due in large part to the and Bill's actions. Is it true they registered corporations in Delaware? If they did, the only reason one does that unless they live in Delaware is to evade and/or avoid something.

Clinton stands at between 57% and 59% disapproval rate. Her lack of perceived "honesty" makes her a VERY flawed candidate. Frankly, if she were to get elected, if Republicans retain control of the Senate and House, they will file impeachment charges on day one, and there will a transaction by transaction investigations of her and Bill's speeches, their "foundation" and ties to decisions made while she was Secretary of State such as the Swiss bank UBS situation. How do you and can you govern with that kind of a climate you are operating in?

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/hillary-helps-a-bankand-then-it-pays-bill-15-million-in-speaking-fees/400067/

The bottom line is there are too many risks for her getting elected let alone being allowed to govern due in large part to her and Bill's actions.

Is it true they registered corporations in Delaware? If they did, the only reason one does that unless they live in Delaware, is to evade and/or avoid something. How can you argue you are concerned with the average persons concerns when you live with and under the rules for the rich and famous? They aren't FDR!Also, on this being equal pay day, what did Clinton do to improve wages for the Walmart employees when she was on the Board of Directors? In the case of the Clinton's, follow the money!

Follow the money......

https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/04/07/19521/how-citizens-united-helping-hillary-clinton-win-white-house

Here is just one example of whether Hillary has been properly vetted. Suggest she has not in reality. The potential for conflicts of interest with speech fees accepted, Clinton foundation etc. may be much greater than we currently know of at this time. Here is one example. By the way, if she is so transparent, why hasn't she had a general press conference for months?

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/hillary-helps-a-bankand-then-it-pays-bill-15-million-in-speaking-fees/400067/

The following URL will take you to said article. If it doesn't, Google "Hartford Courant story on Bernie Sanders". Enjoy!!!

http://www.courant.com/opinion/op-ed/hc-op-insight-bernie-sanders-bailed-me-out-0228-20160226-story.html

Can Goldman-Sachs Tax deduct the $650.000 Paid Hillary Clinton for her "speeches"? If so, then it means we are subsidizing said "speeches" by having to pay more taxes to offset the taxes lost by said deduction. We could also lose services because they don't have the revenues due to said loss of revenue. Therefore, we have standing in asking for her to release the speeches so we can see what was generated for said tax deduction.