@Renickulous
That's not unusual for speeches by politicians of either party for speaking engagements after they leave office. Bill Clinton was involved in very successful fund raising, along with both Bushes to end AIDS throughout Africa. Their energies and endeavors were having tremendous success. Because of his humanitarian effots (at least he had humanitarian efforts as opposed to the POS in office now), and his experience as a past president, put him in demand as a celebrated speaker. His money went to his and the Bushes relief effort in Africa, and yes he took his cut as is done by any speaker.

At least he's not wiping jes off his face like Donald Trump.

@Renickulous
Completely different activities and different agendas.
Its very unfortunate that you are unable to see the distinction. Conflating the two is both disingenuous and dishonest.

@Renickulous Not true. The first 100 pages of Mueller's report laid out beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Rusdians did insert themselves into the campaign and the election. He also certfied that the Russian interference did impact the outcome of the election. Because of the DOJ memo regarding indicting a sitting president, Mueller was not at liberty to bring a felony indictment. He intimated that collusion occurred at various levels.

Furthermore, Mueller laid out 10 places in Chapter Two of the report whereby the AG could bring charges against Trump for Obstruction of Justice. Mueller laid out a clear cut case whereby he proved that any other explanation other than Trump obstructing justice was not possible. For the reasons stated above Mueller felt it was the AG's job to bring the necessary charges.

Unfortunately the AG chose to mislead the American public without even reading the evidence (his admission today) summarizing the report findings. He chose to act as the president's lawyer and PR spokesperson instead of the people's lawyer which is his real job. It will cost him.

Now, I do not know if you do not understand the nuances and implications of all the events occurring, or are purposely acting in denial as a matter of stubborn intractability. Your intransigence is noteworthy as an example of how Trump supporters are incapable of facing facts and the truth.

@Renickulous
so sad. You are unable to tell gaslight from fact. Your paranoia and biases belie you. So sad.

I am not a supporter of the Clintons, but I am a fan of the truth. The continued focus on the Clintons is a deflection from the debacle of an Adminisration that is in the WH presently. At some point Republicans are going to have to admit that they have backed a lame horse and will ultimately lose the race.

@Renickulous
"Gaslighting" - to say something unture long enough that people begin to believe its true.

Gaslighting - conflating Clinton' motivation for accepting money from Russia for a guest appearance versus Trump laundering Russian oligarch money (this will be demonstrated in the SDNY and SDV law suit) in the near future, along with setting up a Trump Hotel.

Gaslighting - extolling Trump's exoneration in the Mueller report. Not true, substantial knowledge of Russian intervention in the campaign and knowledge by Trump and his family. Enough links were found to infer, but not enough direct evidence to bring felony charges. (Chapter One of Mueller Report). They could not find direct evid4rnce of a CRIMINAL INTENT to commit conspiracy, but ample evidence to engage in collusion.

Gaslighting - that Trump was not guilty of Obstruction of Justice. 10 specific counts were outlined by Mueller (Chapter Two). They were lain out so that a prosecutor could bring charges agsinst Trump when he left office, as Mueller is a procedural person and chose not to go against the DOJ memo.

@hankster thanks old friend

@hankster so diplomatic

Come over here I will give you a hug

standard hankster