Previously, she was asked, and she cackled.
I bet the speeches are empty, boring stuff, which raises the question of what the entities who paid for them thought they were really getting. To me, duh, the obvious answer is influence. More likely, general influence—ready access—rather than quid pro quo. I believe the quid pro quo transactions were from governments and select foreign players (like the Canadian mining mogul who got Russia partial ownership of US uranium deposits).
In a nutshell, what Her Royal Heinous said to the fat cats, at an average of $225K per appearance:
“FJBs, give to me & vote for me, and I’ll let you be!”
Of course. The Devil will not recite the incantations before nonbelievers.
I at least presume she had someone in the audience, no? And largely there in media-capital NYC to boot.
Do reporters both with anything beyond attending official press conferences these days?
What is so mysterious about bribery?
100 speeches in18 months and no recordings?
The likes of Shrillary are only viable in an insane political environment such as we now have in America.
Likewise with Hillary and her "speeches" - any of which she charges enough money that could buy a very nice house for any of the rest of us.