Seth Abrahamson spells out the obvious for Huffington Post readers.
Mr. Sanders has implied that there are only two possible answers: (a) the money wasn’t for the speeches themselves, but for the influence major institutional players on Wall Street thought that money could buy them if and when Clinton ran for President; or (b) the speeches laid out a defense of Wall Street greed so passionate and total that hearing it uttered by a person of power and influence was worth every penny.

Per Clinton surrogates and attendees at these speeches, the answer appears to be both (a) and (b).

Here’s a compilation of what those close to Clinton and/or the institutions that paid her obscene sums to chat with them are saying about those never-to-be-released speeches.
Go there and read if you wish.  The sums are not obscene, as we know what they are.  The speeches are obscene, in the traditional sense of actions the reader is left to infer.  But it's only drinkers of the Clinton koolaid that are likely to be shaken up by being compelled to confirm their inferences.

Those of us who understand that governance as an advance auction of stolen goods generates and dissipates rents see business as usual.  Why otherwise intelligent people remain in denial about what business as usual looks like is the bigger mystery.

No comments: