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).
We should know before too long about the quid pro quo stuff unless Hillary “retires.” The stuff the FBI is verifying and documenting would put a normal person in prison for life and beyond.
This is the scandal to top them all. The FBI is already trying her in the court of public opinion. Her plummeting poll numbers indicate more and more are waking up to the fact she and Bubba are criminals.
I’m betting if the Democrat electorate reads those speeches she loses the election overnight.. you could bet a lot of money she was saying the exact opposite of what she preaches on the campaign trail and in the debates.. FEEL THE BERN
Yep - pretty much the way it works. Hillary is not unique in this regard either. They will have a speech that is 80-95% canned. They’ll make some minor changes from event to event, both to “personalize” it some for whoever’s paying the bill, and also to mix in some current events, so the listener doesn’t think it’s the same-old, same-old.
The fees paid are as much about influence and access, as it is about the egos of the corporate C-suite, who has now shaken hands brushed elbows with the political elite.
If Hillary is forced to release 100 speeches, I think you’ll really see 1 speech given 100 times, which won’t make the “what were they paying for?” issue go away - it’ll make it worse.