Why Did Congo Offer Clinton $650,000 For Two Pics And A Speech?

[silvershadow]

Congo, one of the poorest nations on Earth, offered former President Bill Clinton a speaking fee of $650,000–a sum equal to annual per-capita income of 2,813 Congolese. Indeed, the International Monetary Fund ranks the Democratic Republic of the Congo dead last in its global income rankings. What did it expect in return for its investment?

In the proposed 2012 contract, the organizers expected a speech and at least one photograph each with the leaders of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Congo, which appeared to be splitting the princely honorarium. (Since there are two nations known as Congo, in this article, unless otherwise specified, I am referring to the Democratic Republic of the Congo whenever I write “Congo” alone.) That doesn’t seem like much of a return, two snaps and a chat. So the question is: What else did Congo want for its money?

Congo’s extraordinary offer to Clinton first surfaced in a batch of Hillary Clinton’s emails released this past August, where it won little attention at the time. Newly leaked documents, known as the “Panama papers,” shed new light on the mystery as well as the misdoings of Congo’s corrupt rulers.

While Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, America’s top official dealing with foreign leaders, former President Bill Clinton travelled the world giving speeches to world leaders and overseas interests–earning at least $48 million while his wife was America’s top diplomat. Why weren’t the payments to one Clinton not considered a bribe to the other Clinton?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/richardminiter/2016/04/17/why-did-congo-offer-clinton-650000-for-two-pics-and-a-speech/#367a300c3f11

[Buzz Clik]

1. Keep pounding the drum! (Have you converted anyone yet?)

[Mika]

3. Hard to convert away from deep seated delusion.

[Buzz Clik]

5. ..

[2pooped2pop]

4. It seems odd that you don't care if she basically sold favors while sos

What do you suppose she will sell as potus? You can deny it, but it scares the hell out of the nonheadinsand people.

[Buzz Clik]

6. You assume that I think all your claims are true. I do not.

[2pooped2pop]

7. I don't think its too hard for you to look them up and see that they are quite true.

She is a fucking disaster that we will probably never recover from. But enjoy those bones she throws to you so you will believe she is doing something for the people, but you will know that it was the rich that got the steak, while you had only bones.

[Buzz Clik]

9. Bull crap. You guys are pulling Limbaugh/Rove tricks endlessly.

Start with a fact and then start making things up.

Fact: Some FBI agents are assigned to her email server.
Bullshit: She is about to be indicted.

Fact: She gave some speeches for big money
Bullshit: She is selling the presidency

etc, etc, etc

Have the last word .... for now.

[Mika]

8. Which are true, iyo? eom

[Buzz Clik]

10. half of them.

I don't play fetch.

[Mika]

12. Seriously. I'm not asking for any details, just one or two in general?

I really haven't been following your positions here, on this.

Not going to try to debate your points. Just interested in which are considered.

[Buzz Clik]

13. Okay, from right above this subthread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1016&pid=153374

[Herman4747]

15. Especially hard to convert those unconcerned about corruption...

...but we got to keep trying, in order to build a better world.

[Buzz Clik]

16. What corruption is that exactly?

Are you guys in precognitive mode -- diving crimes before they occur?

[Herman4747]

17. All you have to do is examine the Original Post...

...to see this gem here:

"Why weren’t the payments to one Clinton not considered a bribe to the other Clinton? "

[Buzz Clik]

18. Guilt by inference, guilt by association. Got it.

[Herman4747]

19. Glad you do. You're learning! n/t

[Buzz Clik]

20. And what I'm learning is that you have no idea what you're talking about

have the last word...

[leftofcool]

2. New York New York!

[shenmue]

11. Yes!

[COLGATE4]

14. Why weren’t the payments to one Clinton not considered a bribe to the other Clinton?

Because the law doesn't usually charge one spouse with the alleged wrongdoings of the other. But don't let that stop you.