How can we know if there was no quid pro quo if we do not know what she said in the speeches?

[SoLeftIAmRight]

logic - it works

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. Because the vampire squids of Wall Street weren't paying for speeches.

They were paying for access and face time and the possibility of future influence.

[Ed Suspicious]

2. Trust but verify. Just don't look to verify.

[eastwestdem]

3. Because she hasn’t authored or supported any legislation benefiting the big banks?

Seems logical to me.


Note: Long time DUer who changed my user name because the old name was linked to a candidate I no longer support.

[FlatBaroque]

7. The Clinton's will be paid back many times for the original sins

of repealing Glass-Stegall, and not regulating derivatives, as Brooksley Born and others so vehemently warned Clinton to do. Robert Rubin orchestrated the strategy and then took over the newly created Travelers/Citibank org. His minions have been enabling Wall Street fraud for decades. They owe everything to the Clinton's.

[Sheepshank]

4. Because it's the Democratic and American way...

....to assume guilt right off the bat.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

5. while you are here - tell me about that trip to bosnia

...

[Sheepshank]

8. Moving the goal posts. Go ahead explain to me what

You think you know

[morningfog]

6. You can trust Hillary Clinton!

She tries not to lie. Clean as a whistle!

[msongs]

9. that's funny! your crowd would still accuse hillary if her speeches turned out be nursey rhyme

recitations or quotes from a phone book. your crowd will never believe anything she says no matter what