RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events Hillary’s Paid Speech Problem Just Got Worse

Firms that paid for Clinton speeches have US gov’t interests

• WASHINGTON (AP) — It’s not just Wall Street banks. Most companies and groups that paid Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton to speak between 2013 and 2015 have lobbied federal agencies in recent years, and more than one-third are government contractors, an Associated Press review has found. Their interests are sprawling and would follow Clinton to the White House should she win election this fall.
  
  
  The AP’s review of federal records, regulatory filings and correspondence showed that almost all the 82 corporations, trade associations and other groups that paid for or sponsored Clinton’s speeches have actively sought to sway the government — lobbying, bidding for contracts, commenting on federal policy and in some cases contacting State Department officials or Clinton herself during her tenure as secretary of state.
  
  Presidents are not generally bound by many of the ethics and conflict-of-interest regulations that apply to non-elected executive branch officials, although they are subject to laws covering related conduct, such as bribery and illegal gratuities. Clinton’s 94 paid appearances over two years on the speech circuit leave her open to scrutiny over decisions she would make in the White House or influence that may affect the interests of her speech sponsors.

This may explain why she has been so reluctant to release her speech transcripts.

Do you really view this as much of a problem? Considering Trump's has a bunch of problems like mob ties and confusion as to what to do when the KKK endorses him I suspect this isn't going to be much of a problem for her in the general.

What office was Trump holding while "mob tied" (and potentially accepting bribes from) again?

So you think mob ties and all the other stuff isn't a problem for Trump because he hasn't held political office? I'm just asking because while I know you hate Hillary, it's a real world out there where everybody is judged for what they say and do. He's not just going to be able to declare he's now going to be more presidential and it all just becomes okay.

Bad behavior by Trump does not excuse potential bribery of Hillary

I think we just broke through to the Twilight Zone. This version of 'a Republican did it first' involves a guy who was originally a Democrat.



And just to make my stand clear: no matter who in the current running gets chosen, we're fucked.

Well it really wasn't a case of "a republican did it first", it just doesn't seem like a problem. I couldn't imagine G-man having a problem with a GOP candidate giving a speech for money. It wouldn't even occur to me to make a thread about it. BTW I would guess Trump was one of those republicans who said they were democrats because it helped him doing business in New York. He obviously is in full scary and fucked up republican tea party mode now. You might not care for Hillary but he's the one campaigning on having members of a certain religion register with the government. They are not comparable.

I'm wondering who Trump's VP will be. Because that's who'll be president. Trump's out the moment he realizes that he can't use the Navy to ship his products from China to the US.

The reliably center-left AP wrote the article I quoted noting the potential legal implications here. If it's serious enough for them to bring it up, it's obviously something even the DNC would have concerns over. In fact, this (and, to a lesser extent, the server) issue is probably why Bernie still even in the race. The isn't something I fabricated out of whole cloth.

I didn't say you fabricated the story, I asked if you really thought it was something you would have a problem with if it was a republican candidate. And is the AP "center left" or would it be the case of you being on the right and having a problem with the center?

You're hoping WB will show up and start debating whether AP is center left and we can forget about Hillary's paid speeches and the potential legal problems created by her holding office at the time, aren't you?

I just asked what you really thought. I think you pretty much confirmed what I thought with your ducking the question. There really is no debate on media bias. You guys have made it clear that you only think conservative ran media is "fair".

The fact you're unhappy with my explanation of the difference between the two in no way means I did not explain the difference between Trump and Hillary as I see it.

I'm not unhappy nor even surprised that you didn't answer what I original asked.