Posted on 08/30/2016 11:56:45 AM PDT by grundle
In November 2011, a Swedish telecom company called Ericsson paid Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s husband, Bill Clinton, $750,000 for giving a speech. In April 2012, Obama signed an executive order which placed sanctions on telecom sales to Iran and Syria. However, Ericsson was given an exemption from these sanctions.
In this instance, how is “paying for a speech” any different than “giving a bribe”?
Same thing
Same thing. Except Clintons have immunity from normal equal justice
There will always be bribes in government. Whatever they get called. More government power, more bribes.
The Founders didn’t imagine people would be righteous, they sought to limit government so much that the incentive to offer bribes would be minimized.
Not, when that half million dollar speech comes from a speaker who is having trouble filling small venues for free.
There is no difference. It IS a bribe.
What is your point?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.