Elizabeth Warren

That is a generous assumption.

What talents is she using?

And to what extent is she hired for her talent, and to what extent is she hired for her influence or the hope that she has influence. She is paid to speak to wealthy people who want special favors from the government and from Democrats in the government.

She may be doing nothing wrong. But the appearance of corruption is there whether she is or not.

Attorneys often are not worth the money you pay them. But among the things you pay for are a guarantee of confidentiality. An attorney faces ethical review if he or she talks to third parties about your confidences in the attorney. You also pay the attorney to act in your interest and to avoid taking cases or otherwise representations that would conflict with your interests. In other words, when an attorney accepts a fee to represent you, that attorney agrees to limit his work for others who have interests in the matter that oppose yours or that would harm yours.

So when you pay attorney's fees, you pay for a certain degree of loyalty. The problem is that Hillary Clinton wants to be president. She wants to represent us. But she has accepted fees that can be interpreted as intended to hire her to represent the interests of others who may be opposed to us.

Granted this is a problem for all politicians who accept donations and fees from people and interests who oppose the interests of the average American voter or who oppose the interests of the politician's voters.

So Hillary's accepting large speaking fees from corporate interests including Wall Street leaders presents a problem of conflict of interest and of betraying her voters.

Who is she planning to represent? Those who pay her the big bucks or the rest of us?

An attorney represents his client, whether the case is pro bono (no bucks at all) or big bucks. That's the deal.