List 1: https://i.sli.mg/W8QqqJ.pngList 2: https://i.sli.mg/p9mKsv.jpgSneaky: https://i.sli.mg/HosCoo.jpg
REMARKS AS SECRETARY OF STATE>http://www.state.gov/secretary/20092013clinton/rm/index.htm
Does not include any speeches she gave to companies.
Contact from Cisco actively said she was NEVER there physically. The best that happened was a telepresence broadcast and a global trade thing last year.>http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/146/news_cisco/mobile/dlls/2011/corp_090911g.html
This is completely unrelated to what she got paid for, hilariously.She was never physically there to say anything, the ~$450k were probably campaign contributions or insidious cover-ups.
HEALTH-RELATED – ALSO AIDShttp://www.democraticunderground.com/12511002772This Cisco event was the one semi-credible one from the second speeches list (List 2).http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-surprise-visit-at-cisco-2014-8>Look how much she got paid for a “surprise visit”
HOWEVER (refer to Sneaky pic):Evidently the Boston Bombing was earlier that week, and she gave a speech in New York on 4/17 to the Global Fund for Women anniversary gala. I can’t find any mention of a Morgan Stanley speech for the day after though. And afterward I only see mentions of other speeches and conventions which are entirely separate from the list.Hillary Clinton reacts to Boston bombinghttp://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/hilllary-clinton-boston-marathon-reaction-090262
>As President, she would aim to sign into law a program to provide subsidies from U.S. taxpayers to Monsanto and other biotech firms, to assist their PR and lobbying organizations to eliminate what she says is “a big gap between the facts and what the perceptions are” concerning genetically modified seeds and other GMOs. In other words: she ignores the evidence that started to be published in scientific journals in 2012 showing that Monsanto and other GMO firms were selectively publishing studies that alleged to show their products to be safe, while selectively blocking publication of studies that — on the basis of better methodology — showed them to be unsafe. She wants U.S. taxpayers to assist GMO firms in their propaganda that’s based on their own flawed published studies, financed by the GMO industry, and that ignores the studies that they refuse to have published.