The original article is non-partisan in its argument, the high speaking fees being normal applies equally to all parties, all famous people. The OP I was respo

The original article is non-partisan in its argument, the high speaking fees being normal applies equally to all parties, all famous people. The OP I was responding to could be seen as making a non-partisan argument, however the focus was on Clinton rather than Trump and Clinton. So I interpreted is as partisan (and got a fact wrong about her new book). Tomahawk has responded since that it was not intended as partisan, and I'll take his/her word for it.