Fair enough.
Yeah, talking about the Republicans at this stage is evasion. She’s not running against any Republicans right now.
Did you mean to say “true”? Except that it was apparently the Nigerian Scam, and not a Ponzi scheme (my bad; I’m pretty sure the e-mail did say “Nigerian scam”), the claims were true.
More specifically than that, the suspicions are that she’s saying things like, “Go ahead and make stupid, irresponsible decisions. If your company gets into trouble, I’ll make sure sure the Fed shows up with a dumptruck full of free taxpayer money to bail you out. Provided you hire me for a couple more speeches, that is.”
The question nobody has had the guts to ask yet is, at what point does this kind of thing cross the line into bribery and/or influence peddling?
Seems like a hair splitting difference to me, between HRC who may indeed owe big money brokers some favours, or, one of the actual big money brokers who is accustomed to purchasing said favours from politicians with his financial contributions. After all, isn’t the Donald simply cutting out the middle man? It seems like either way, big money (with only craven self interest), gets to call the shots.
It’s not hair-splitting between Hillary and Bernie. He has already released the transcript of every speech Wall St. paid him to make. That is the issue here, the difference between Sanders and Clinton, since that so obviously makes her look bad she wants to change the question.
Exactly.Hillary is acting like she has already won the nomination and her rival is some Republican.
As other have pointed out, the Republicans are a red herring at this point, because the accusations against Hillary are being made by fellow Democrats (like Bernie Sanders).
Altho, as much as I can’t stand Trump, at least he’s honest about who he is. He’s stinkin’ rich & proud of it. I suspect that’s a big part of his appeal: you don’t have to try to guess where he really stands on things.
Therefore we should keep it in mind. 
Regards,
Shodan
I think the excuse is reasonable (while still being an obvious excuse), since releasing the speeches while her (presumed) general election opponent does not would possibly be ceding a weakness.
Probably. If she thought that she was in serious danger from Bernie, and releasing the speeches would help, she’d do it in a heartbeat – but right now she either doesn’t see herself in serious danger from him, or doesn’t think releasing them would help.
Has Sanders ever given a paid speech to Wall St?
And it’s not like he is either an influential politician or married to a past President and an obvious future candidate for the White House. His candidacy has come pretty much out of nowhere, so there is no reason to try to influence him by paying him six figures to give them a speech.
Regards,
Shodan
They weren’t being made by Bernie AFAICT, the request was made by CNN based on comments (probably from Bernie supporters).
I think that is part of his con. He covers up his real position on things like abortion and guns by making outrageous statements that I don’t think he actually believes about other stuff.
He has given paid speeches, not to wall street but he has been paid to give speeches. He gets like a $500 honorarium and he usually donates that to charity (I bet that number goes up after this). Why try to buy something that isn’t for sale?
With that said, I don’t think he can get anything accomplished and I think Hillary can. Sure she is corrupt in a “business as usual” sort of way but she is not significantly more corrupt than most politicians and aside from guns, I agree with her on just about everything.
Either everyone release theirs or nobody releases there, that’s the only way. If people want to release their speech transcripts themselves, good for them
Oh, I forgot to add… Fair? FAIR??? Fair, IN POLITICS!!!
I’m laughing so hard I might keel over.
On this issue one of his big appeals is that he claims to already be rich so he can’t be bought, unlike everyone else in the GOP debates. It’ll be funny if in the Clinton-Trump debate he says he knows Hillary is bought because he has the receipts.
What’s in her speeches is irrelevant. Unless she discovered the cure for cancer there’s nothing she can publicly say in 20 minutes that warrants $315,000. Matching the speech up to the fee does present itself with a fair amount of entertainment value.
Must pause to recognize the excellent work the event organizers apparently did at making sure nobody surreptitiously recorded the speeches, so nothing would leak out. Or else the outstanding degree of discipline shown by whoever does have that surreptitious recording, holding on to it and not leaking it out too soon.
That would be one of the high points in American History 
Serious question: Do we have any evidence that she actually gave those speeches? Because if it’s really just a bribe, then why should she bother going thru the trouble of preparing a speech nobody wants to hear?