2016 Postmortem

angrychair

(8,699 posts) Mon Apr 18, 2016, 11:04 PM Apr 2016

The question finally asked

By Lawrence O'Donnell. The question I have always hoped a reporter would ask:

If nothing is illegal or even suspect, without the possibility of an issue, then why is it illegal for a sitting president, member of the House or Senate or any other federal official, to give a $250,000, thirty minute speech at Goldman Sachs like Clinton has given?

Awesome.

7 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The question finally asked (Original Post) angrychair Apr 2016 OP

a private citizen not serving in government can give speeches anywhere, as bernie will when he is msongs Apr 2016 #1

Yes, but so what? beedle Apr 2016 #3

In before the "She was a Private Citizen.." comments. Yeah, that people KNEW would run for president Joob Apr 2016 #2

Great question. Thank you Lawrence /nt think Apr 2016 #4

Anybody else notice on other MSNBC shows beedle Apr 2016 #5

I thought Chris Hayes was hillary's campaign manager Rosa Luxemburg Apr 2016 #6

TRUTH Is A Rarity Among These Turds On TV! CorporatistNation Apr 2016 #7

msongs

(67,407 posts)

1. a private citizen not serving in government can give speeches anywhere, as bernie will when he is

Reply to angrychair (Original post)

Mon Apr 18, 2016, 11:05 PM

Apr 2016

retired

beedle

(1,235 posts)

3. Yes, but so what?

Reply to msongs (Reply #1)

Mon Apr 18, 2016, 11:10 PM

Apr 2016

If it's innocent, then what difference does it make?

There must be reasons why you can't give paid speeches while in government ... what are they and why would they not apply when 'between government jobs'?

After all, these are innocent $250K speeches ... so why shouldn't Hillary continue to give them now while she's running? She's not in government now ... so what reason do you have why she shouldn't?

Joob

(1,065 posts)

2. In before the "She was a Private Citizen.." comments. Yeah, that people KNEW would run for president

Reply to angrychair (Original post)

Mon Apr 18, 2016, 11:09 PM

Apr 2016

Scratch my back, I'll scratch yours.

think

(11,641 posts)

4. Great question. Thank you Lawrence /nt

Reply to angrychair (Original post)

Mon Apr 18, 2016, 11:17 PM

Apr 2016

beedle

(1,235 posts)

5. Anybody else notice on other MSNBC shows

Reply to angrychair (Original post)

Mon Apr 18, 2016, 11:33 PM

Apr 2016

that when Chris Hayes was interviewing Tad Devine, when he was talking about Obama and comparing what Hillary is doing now to what Obama was doing in 2008, he said something like "All the things you claim of US can also be applied to Obama" ... the exact wording escapes me, but the use of "US" when he was talking abut the Hillary campaign was pretty noticeable.

Maybe it was just an innocent slip, but he certainly seemed a whole lot more confrontational with Devine that he was with the Hillary surrogate that he interviewed next.

He also let the Hillary guy get away with the nonsense about Hillary being further ahead than Obama at this time ... which is a spin on the truth. Because of the different primary schedule, while Clinton was only half as far behind in pledged delegates (Hillary was behind by about 130 delegates) at that time the number of delegates left from which Hillary could catch up was only 566 ... by comparison, Bernie is down around 200 (240 by some counts, so about twice as far behind in won delegates) but Bernie has around 1900 delegates left from which to catch up (ie: over three times the number Hillary was left with.)