Hacker News Reader

Comment by tomohawk | Hacker News Reader

While Hillary was Secretary of State, Bill's speaking fees from foreign interests dramatically skyrocketed.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bill-clinton-cashed-hillary-s...

One example of these appears to be related to the uranium deal with Russia, where he bagged $500K. Hillary changed direction and signed off on the deal.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-...

This is not the only form of payola for corrupt elites. Hillary's new book, for which she received a record $14M advance, sold less that 3000 copyies its first week. We've seen this before.

View on HN

Great to see partisan political commentary on HN.

There is no proof of quid pro quo in that Russia uranium deal: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/...

Also, Clinton sold a lot more than 3000 copies that first week; more like 85000 (still not as good as her prior best sellers):

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/18/what-do-hil...

She's also going to be selling copies for the next 10 years.

Quoting Politifact isn't a rebuttal. Also, "quid pro quo" as used by politicians who peddle their influence is basically unprovable. It's a great standard for them to make mainstream, but unfortunately fails to accurately describe all the ways influence peddling and bribery schemes work.

You're confused. It's less than 3000.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/15/us/politics/clinton-book-s...

The larger number is for the disappointing sales of her previous book.

Nothing partisan about my comments. I'm not promoting any party. Just pointing out the sleaze.

Yes, I completely admit I had no idea she had a new book out this week. I'm assuming I'm not alone ><

No problem. There's more important stuff to keep up with.

So you are sayibg the original article that is basically saying "high speaking fees are normal, Clinton is normal, don't worry about it" is non-partisan; but providing a counter-argument that seems to show a conflict of interest is partisan?

It doesn't work that way.

The original article is non-partisan in its argument, the high speaking fees being normal applies equally to all parties, all famous people.

The OP I was responding to could be seen as making a non-partisan argument, however the focus was on Clinton rather than Trump and Clinton. So I interpreted is as partisan (and got a fact wrong about her new book). Tomahawk has responded since that it was not intended as partisan, and I'll take his/her word for it.

The problem is that people have long since figured out that a deal over drinks and a handshake is tough to prosecute, and easy to deny.

As long as no one is wearing a wire.

Even then it doesn't always help. See David Steiner's recorded statements on how he had corrupted things so much -- all to be waved away with a "I was just lying on that private phone call".

The $14M advance is still a rumor AFAIK. It's not much of a record either as Bill Clinton received a $15M advance in 2004 dollars.

It was a record at the time. So now she's at number 2 and her husband is at number one.

This seems to be making my point.

Results of the book's sells aren't that shocking if the sells per new book from her past books are accounted for: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/09/15/us/politics/clinton-boo...

Is shocking she got 14-million, which seems really fishy to me.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com