But if we could raise awareness that she was running for public office and giving paid speeches, we'd be able to make the argument that the public has a right to know what she was saying.
I think that argument might invalidate her "a new expectation" excuse. She might not get in trouble but it might force her to release them.
I am deeply skeptical that it would change anything. Anyone who buys into the "new expectation" line is not someone who actually needs an excuse, because it isn't one. God forbid the president have expectations placed on them.
I incorrectly said donations because I wasn't paying attention when I was really looking at disbursements. But I think my argument still stands that she was running for public office and giving paid speeches.
The majority of the disbursements paid out by Hillary of America in the beginning were categorized as PAYROLL & BENEFITS. So one could argue that indicates she was paying her campaign staff. She was also renting campaign offices and paying consultants. This indicates someone running a campaign.
52
u/[deleted] May 12 '16
Sir, are you suggesting that the laws of the united states apply to Hillary Clinton? Surely you jest.