Inside the Clinton paid speech machine

[silvershadow]

Inside the Clinton paid speech machine

What, exactly, do you get when you pay a Clinton $285,000 for an intimate, closed-to-the-press speech?

By Annie Karni
05/20/16 05:17 AM EDT

Hillary and Bill Clinton’s highly paid speeches — whose transcripts they steadfastly refuse to release despite pressure on the campaign trail — are cloaked in secrecy.

Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump have both seized on the issue, raising red flags about what the Clintons say behind closed doors to Wall Street firms and other groups that they don’t say in public. By digging in their heels, the Clintons have only drawn more attention to the question: What, exactly, do you get when you pay a Clinton hundreds of thousands of dollars for an intimate, closed-to-the-press speech?

In Bill Clinton’s case, it turns out, you get a dose of the full, unplugged Bubba.

A transcript of a private, $285,000 paid speech Bill Clinton delivered last year at the “China-U.S. Private Investment Summit” in Austin, Texas, obtained by POLITICO, offers a glimpse behind the curtain of the Clintons' controversial paid speaking gigs — and some insight into how the former president holds court out of sight of the press.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/inside-the-clinton-paid-speech-machine-223395

[merrily]

1. Interesting

I say to President Jiang, I said, ‘You know, you're doing great economically, but our country has more human rights.’ And he looked at me and he said, ‘Yes, and if you were the leader of China, Ken Starr would be in prison making running shoes.’”un

A self-deprecating Clinton admitted of those scandal-tarred days of his presidency: “I saved that cartoon for a long time. I must say there were days when I wondered who had the better model.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/inside-the-clinton-paid-speech-machine-223395#ixzz49T02o947
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

Of course, we've been losing out human rights, but don't worry about that. You probasbly don't need them anyway. The people who insisted that the Framers add the Bill of Rights to the Constitution ASAP in 1789 probably rode unicorns.

[n2doc]

2. Maybe he could ask Don Siegelman if there is really a difference n/t

[merrily]

3. Nothing like a POTUS reconsidering the Bill of Rights because he is

being investigated. Not that the Bill of Rights anymore means much beyond you can have the rights unless government doesn't want you to have them. But, still....

I'd still like to know why Susan McDougal would prefer an 18 month sentence for contempt of court over answering 3 questions about Bill Clinton's involvement in Whitewater. Given what you know of human behavior, Does that make any sense to you? How about Hillary's taking two years to respond to a subpoena ordering her produce her billing records for Whitewater from the Rose Law Firm? Claiming they just turned up out of nowhere in the dining room of the family quarters of the -- wait for it -- White House, where elves roam in out and out at will and undetected, taking papers away and putting them in dining rooms. Does that make any sense to you.

[n2doc]

4. Well it all makes sense

So long as one realizes with whom one is dealing with and what they are capable of. Godfather-like, even.

The problem is that the general populace can't be bothered to see though the flimsy excuses.

[merrily]

5. They can. The only 2 people I know who were going to vote for her said they

liked Bernie better, but were afraid of another McGovern scenario. The party did a great job of scaring people away from voting for liberals.