If only they’d say the same regarding her emails
(NY Times Editorial Board) “Everybody does it,†is an excuse expected from a mischievous child, not a presidential candidate. But that is Hillary Clinton’s latest defense for making closed-door, richly paid speeches to big banks, which many middle-class Americans still blame for their economic pain, and then refusing to release the transcripts. (Snip)
On Tuesday, Mrs. Clinton further complained, “Why is there one standard for me, and not for everybody else?â€
The only different standard here is the one Mrs. Clinton set for herself, by personally earning $11 million in 2014 and the first quarter of 2015 for 51 speeches to banks and other groups and industries. (Snip)
Public interest in these speeches is legitimate, and it is the public — not the candidate — who decides how much disclosure is enough. By stonewalling on these transcripts Mrs. Clinton plays into the hands of those who say she’s not trustworthy and makes her own rules. Most important, she is damaging her credibility among Democrats who are begging her to show them that she’d run an accountable and transparent White House.
What makes the Times think Hillary is about transparency? What in her background would even give them that idea?
Teach
The Clinton’s are not motivated by money, neither really seems to enjoy spending it nor amassing it
Certainly they could make much more in the next 4 years by NOT being in the White House
Erik Erickson is now on record for pledging NOT to vote for Trump (liberal babykiller)
Will you take the pledge, knowing that NC is one of only a few battleground states?
“The Clinton’s are not motivated by money, neither really seems to enjoy spending it nor amassing it.”
They’ve made $230 million since leaving the White House. This is on top of the nearly $16 million Clinton has received in taxpayer funds since leaving the White House, covering everything from his pension to personnel to benefits.
Good thing they’re not motivated by money.