New from WikiLeaks: Hillary sang a different tune when the health care industry was paying her to speak

Just a reminder: You can't believe a word that comes out of Hillary's mouth. You knew that, of course. Just about everyone has known that for a very long time. What I still can't quite work out is why anyone would pay serious money to hear her say something thaat they have to know isn't worth the index cards it's written on. How dumb would you have to be to do that? Pro tip: Don't get sick. The health care industry is chock full of geniuses who actually paid Hillary $3.5 million for the privilege of being able to listen to her shrill, shrieking speeches, then contributed an additional $11 million to her campaign - even after they knew she was saying one thing to them and another thing entirely on the campaign stump.

---

Is the only possible explanation that they were pretty sure the real Hillary was the one telling them what they wanted to hear, and not the one trying to win the hearts of the Bernie bros by pushing socialized medicine. If you're investing $14 million in that kind of hope, pardon me if I try a witch doctor instead of you. Get this:

The difference between Clinton’s tone as a candidate and her paid remarks to the industry is evident when it comes to her comments on how drugmakers deal with the burden of paying high U.S. taxes and issues of costs. In 2014, Clinton seemed sympathetic to the struggles of the drug industry when she appeared alongside Jim Greenwood, chief executive of the Biotechnology Innovation Organization, a trade association that includes large drugmakers such as Pfizer and Gilead Sciences.

---

---

“I don’t want to see biotech companies or pharma companies moving out of our country simply because of some kind of tax — perceived tax disadvantage and potential tax advantage somewhere else,” she said, according to an excerpt included in the email released by WikiLeaks. The group paid Clinton $335,000 for the speech, according to her disclosure form. But as a candidate, Clinton has attacked the industry on several fronts. Her campaign website, for instance, singled out the now-defunct proposed merger of Pfizer and Allergan, which would have allowed Pfizer to avoid taxes by moving its headquarters to Ireland, for “eroding the U.S. tax base.” And Clinton sent biotechnology stocks tumbling last year when she rebuked “price gouging” by the specialty drug market, tweeting a link to an article about Turing Pharmaceuticals and then-chief executive Martin Shkreli. Greenwood, the BIO executive who sat with her in 2014, criticized Clinton’s jab, saying at the group’s convention two years later that, “Even a lone tweet by a candidate for high office can have unintended, market-moving consequences.”

---

---

Say, isn't one the arguments against Trump's "temperament" that a president spouting off irresponsibly can have massive and troubling consequences? I give you the smartest woman in the world, America. Good luck with her. As I've said before, but I guess it bears repeating, the news isn't that Hillary says one thing to people who are paying her money and another thing from people from whom she wants votes. This type of dishonesty and duplicity has been a Hillary staple for as long as she's been on the scene. The news is how thoroughly America has grown comfortable with this type of nonsense, to the point where people are actually prepared to put this liar in the Oval Office as the "safe" choice. I guess the people paying for the speeches - not just in the health care industry but everywhere - figured it was like a cover charge for their access to the future Hillary Administration if the nation ever got stuck with one. I'm sure it was made known by Hillary's people when she was still making bank speaking that cushy gigs would not be forgotten - nor would the opposite be forgotten by anyone who might need something in the future. But by this point you've priced the corruption and the dishonesty into the Hillary brand and it's old news to you, right? Have fun! I'm sure this will be fine.

---