PDA

View Full Version : Some people here are going to be SO dissapointed



Norman Bernstein
04-16-2016, 04:14 PM
:):)


With Hillary Clinton now being singled out for having given the same kind of paid speeches during her time out of office that all politicians have generally given when they’ve had career gaps their own, curiosity has arisen as to just what Clinton was telling entities like Goldman Sachs during these speeches. There’s no longer any need to wonder, because video footage has surfaced. As it turns out, Hillary was speaking to Wall Street to try to make the case for gender equity in the business world.

The wild conspiracy theories coming from those who oppose Hillary Clinton in the Presidential election have never made logical sense. If Clinton were preparing to deregulate Wall Street and give the big financial institutions what they want, she would logically already be singing the praises of deregulation in order to soften the ground for it, as the republican candidates are currently doing. There is no such thing as a Presidential candidate running on a platform of Wall Street reform, as Clinton is, and then getting into office and suddenly going the opposite direction.

Nonetheless, supporters of Clinton’s opponent have convinced themselves that her speeches to Wall Street were part of some secret plot against mainstream Americans. Those individuals would do well to watch the actual footage of her speech, which is all about promoting women in entrepreneurial roles. Even when Hillary Clinton was addressing Wall Street, she was pushing for gender equity, not some kind of pro-corporate agenda.


Hillary Clinton begins speaking at the 3:50 mark

see the speech at: http://www.dailynewsbin.com/opinion/when-hillary-clinton-gave-a-speech-to-goldman-sachs-the-topic-was-female-entrepreneurship/23763/

I'd say that getting paid $200,000 to pitch women's equality to Goldman Sachs was positively brilliant!!!

Garret
04-16-2016, 04:19 PM
Not even close to disappointed - pleased in fact. However - why would she try to hide saying this?

oznabrag
04-16-2016, 04:21 PM
Not even close to disappointed - pleased in fact. However - why would she try to hide saying this?

As has been posited before, I think it is highly likely that GS has some say in the matter.

Chris Smith porter maine
04-16-2016, 04:22 PM
It's Goldman Sachs...... Who cares what she pitched?

Chris Smith porter maine
04-16-2016, 04:26 PM
At 20K a minute.....

peb
04-16-2016, 04:29 PM
I am thinking there is more to the story.

oznabrag
04-16-2016, 04:36 PM
I am thinking there is more to the story.

Of course you do.

The thing that the RFP has hammered home every, single chance they have had in the twenty-odd years since 'that woman' stepped into the White House with her husband has been 'We can't prove anything, but there's clearly more to it!'

Those people are weasels, peb.

Don't listen to weasels.

BrianW
04-16-2016, 04:52 PM
:):)



see the speech at: http://www.dailynewsbin.com/opinion/when-hillary-clinton-gave-a-speech-to-goldman-sachs-the-topic-was-female-entrepreneurship/23763/

I'd say that getting paid $200,000 to pitch women's equality to Goldman Sachs was positively brilliant!!!

So, I'm going to get a big check from Wall Street, but I need to do something for that check, or it might look suspicious. I'll give a speech as that's a time honored way of raising money for campaigns.

Now during this speech, I can talk about ways I'm going to help Wall Street screw the little guy, or I can talk about something else, say maybe 'gender equality'. Knowing full well in society today, there will most certainly be a video or a recording of my speeches, which one should I give? Hmm...

That's a bit of an exaggeration, but really, we're suppose to feel better about the huge bucks she took from them, because she talked about 'gender equality'? She chose a wise topic. One that didn't matter to those people, but was safe and would appease her fans when the news finally leaked.

The question in my mind is... 'was this the right time to leak the speeches, or should she have waited a little longer?'

CWSmith
04-16-2016, 04:55 PM
The real concern is that she was paid what most people cannot imagine. That makes her appear beholding.

The subject is just smoke.

BrianW
04-16-2016, 04:56 PM
The real concern is that she was paid what most people cannot imagine. That makes her appear beholding.

The subject is just smoke.

Damn, that was what I said, only so much better.

George Jung
04-16-2016, 05:02 PM
Who leaked the video?

oznabrag
04-16-2016, 05:13 PM
So, I'm going to get a big check from Wall Street, but I need to do something for that check, or it might look suspicious. I'll give a speech as that's a time honored way of raising money for campaigns.

Now during this speech, I can talk about ways I'm going to help Wall Street screw the little guy, or I can talk about something else, say maybe 'gender equality'. Knowing full well in society today, there will most certainly be a video or a recording of my speeches, which one should I give? Hmm...

That's a bit of an exaggeration, but really, we're suppose to feel better about the huge bucks she took from them, because she talked about 'gender equality'? She chose a wise topic. One that didn't matter to those people, but was safe and would appease her fans when the news finally leaked.

The question in my mind is... 'was this the right time to leak the speeches, or should she have waited a little longer?'

I don't think any of those speeches were campaign fundraisers.

Could be mistaken.

john l
04-16-2016, 05:13 PM
I thought she had more than one speech to Wall Street.

John of Phoenix
04-16-2016, 05:36 PM
I'd say that getting paid $200,000 to pitch women's equality to Goldman Sachs was positively brilliant!!!GS would call it "positively stealing". :D

Jim Bow
04-16-2016, 06:26 PM
In this century, with this technology, with snippets like Romney's "47%" comment, don't you think that anything shattering in a Hil speech would have bee Tweeted and Facebooked ad nauseum?
There's nothing there.

Norman Bernstein
04-16-2016, 06:30 PM
So, I'm going to get a big check from Wall Street, but I need to do something for that check, or it might look suspicious. I'll give a speech as that's a time honored way of raising money for campaigns.

If you're going to condemn politicians for using speaking fees as a way or earning money and/or campaign funds, you're going to have to enlarge your target list.


Now during this speech, I can talk about ways I'm going to help Wall Street screw the little guy, or I can talk about something else, say maybe 'gender equality'. Knowing full well in society today, there will most certainly be a video or a recording of my speeches, which one should I give? Hmm...

So, let's see... you're assuming that she WOULD have given a speech about how Wall Street can screw the little guy, but she figured it might leak and sh'ed look bad? I think a psychologist would call that a 'projection'.


That's a bit of an exaggeration, but really, we're suppose to feel better about the huge bucks she took from them, because she talked about 'gender equality'?

It was an honorable topic, if ever there was one. Tell me.... was there ANYTHING she might have talked about, which would have inclined you to giver her props, rather than your very thinly veiled disparagement and contempt?


She chose a wise topic. One that didn't matter to those people, but was safe and would appease her fans when the news finally leaked.

I think I get it.. she couldn't POSSIBLY have been expressing her sincere beliefs, right?


The question in my mind is... 'was this the right time to leak the speeches, or should she have waited a little longer?'

I think we get it, Brian.

bobbys
04-16-2016, 06:41 PM
Spin control, spin control.

Emergency , Hillary is shilling for the big money boys.

Spin control , spin control spill in aisle 6 .

Get norm on this right away.

Divert if possible.

Chip-skiff
04-16-2016, 06:49 PM
If you want to see some astonishing breakthroughs in campaign funding, take a look at Texas.

They used to self-publish their speeches and the oil companies would buy copies at $1000 each. But they've gotten more sophisticated.

Waddie
04-16-2016, 07:30 PM
She could have given a speech saying the moon is made of green cheese for all the subject matters. If she opposes how the big banks do business, which she says she does, she had no business taking any remuneration of any kind. She's on their payroll. What Goldman expects for that $200K is access. When they want a meeting they get it. What Goldman wants is influence; listen to our side and think about where your money comes from. Hillary is only human and that much money, multiplied a few times over by more speechmaking, and she couldn't help but pause a minute when it comes to pulling the trigger to stop some banking scheme. Actually doing serious bank reform becomes highly unlikely. It doesn't pass the smell test. Has Elizabeth Warren been taking Goldman money? How about Bernie Sanders? If Warren has been on the big bank payroll I doubt if the big banks will ever be broken up...

regards,
Waddie

Durnik
04-16-2016, 08:26 PM
If you're going to condemn politicians for using speaking fees as a way or earning money and/or campaign funds, you're going to have to enlarge your target list.

no Norman, as Waddie also said, it was to whom which mattered - and future access is what she sold.

meanwhile, Bernie is selling us access..

see? - or are you too much a Hillary fan.

bobby

Keith Wilson
04-16-2016, 08:31 PM
In the immortal words of Jesse Unruh "If you can't eat their food, drink their booze, screw their women, take their money and then vote against them, you've got no business being up here." Ms. Clinton is a master at this (with the exception of the screwing part).

L.W. Baxter
04-16-2016, 08:49 PM
Personally, I hope she gets some, Keith.

Gerarddm
04-16-2016, 08:54 PM
Well, Norman, my angle on this is that if her speeches were as benign as your C&P postulates, then politically there would be no downside at all to releasing transcripts or vids, and as we know there has been a downside to her stonewalling on the topic., So, WTH?

There is cognitive dissonance at work here.

Durnik
04-16-2016, 09:26 PM
take their money and then vote against them, ..." Ms. Clinton is a master at this..

seriously? you have reason to believe she'll vote agains them? you need to share whatever it is you're using cause that's got to be some seriously good stuff.

& Lee, if she 'got some', cool. whether or no, tho, it in no way changes my feelings about her cozying up to wall street with my.., er, our money.

Wall Street wants Hillary for prez 'cause they know she'll support them - & that hurts us.

the millions of 'us' with no investments. the millions of 'us' whose retirements were devoured by a rabid, insatiable beast. & the billions of 'us' who were not born & don't live in the right places in the few 'lucky' nations.


& Fred, gotta cut him a little slack, the dude was _excited_!

bobby

L.W. Baxter
04-16-2016, 09:35 PM
seriously? you have reason to believe she'll vote agains them? you need to share whatever it is you're using cause that's got to be some seriously good stuff.

& Lee, if she 'got some', cool. whether or no, tho, it in no way changes my feelings about her cozying up to wall street with my.., er, our money.

Wall Street wants Hillary for prez 'cause they know she'll support them - & that hurts us.

the millions of 'us' with no investments. the millions of 'us' whose retirements were devoured by a rabid, insatiable beast. & the billions of 'us' who were not born & don't live in the right places in the few 'lucky' nations.

bobby

Bobby, I'm turning over a new leaf, here. No more taking this election personally.

I'm sorry if you lost retirement savings in the crash. I lost a pile of savings as well, though not due to anybody other than my own deluded self. Hoping to die standing up, I guess. But I'm "young" yet, so who knows.

Take care,
Lee

Durnik
04-16-2016, 10:08 PM
don't know exactly what to say, Lee. 10 years ago I was young. two brushes with mortality later & I now live somewhat precariously 'hand to mouth'. but yeah, still planning to 'die on my feet'. life isn't for the timid, nor is it a dress rehersal.

good luck & thanks
bobby

John Smith
04-16-2016, 10:15 PM
I don't think any of those speeches were campaign fundraisers.

Could be mistaken.

I don't think she was a candidate at the time.

John Smith
04-16-2016, 10:19 PM
Well, Norman, my angle on this is that if her speeches were as benign as your C&P postulates, then politically there would be no downside at all to releasing transcripts or vids, and as we know there has been a downside to her stonewalling on the topic., So, WTH?

There is cognitive dissonance at work here.

That's overly simplistic. First, whomever pays for the speech may have some say. Second, there's a danger in setting a precedent.

Maybe she had a plan: Let Bernie keep making this a big part of his speeches and debates. Then let a speech get released and make him look bad.

He has attacked with innuendo all along. When pressed, he could not put a fact behind his insinuation.

skuthorp
04-17-2016, 04:15 AM
Well over here, with an election in the offing, a major Aussie bank is paying for a governing conservative party function. Back story is that the other party is promising a big enquiry into banking practices, and conservative spokesmen are saying that an enquiry would be dangerous if it exposes corruption and criminal practices, which is likely. Such exposure would damage confidence in the financial system…………….Well duh……...

Keith Wilson
04-17-2016, 09:22 AM
seriously? you have reason to believe she'll vote agains them? you need to share whatever it is you're using cause that's got to be some seriously good stuff.Asian, you're believing the propaganda. Yes, Ms Clinton is a bit to the right of Bernie Sanders, So am I. But the nonsense that she's a tool of the financial industry is just that. My claim is based based both on her record, and what she's proposing now.

Paul Pless
04-17-2016, 09:44 AM
Asian, you're believing the propaganda. Yes, Ms Clinton is a bit to the right of Bernie Sanders, So am I. But the nonsense that she's a tool of the financial industry is just that. My claim is based based both on her record, and what she's proposing now.Specifically, what bits of her record are you referring to Keith?

BrianW
04-17-2016, 10:07 AM
If you're going to condemn politicians for using speaking fees as a way or earning money and/or campaign funds, you're going to have to enlarge your target list.



So, let's see... you're assuming that she WOULD have given a speech about how Wall Street can screw the little guy, but she figured it might leak and sh'ed look bad? I think a psychologist would call that a 'projection'.



It was an honorable topic, if ever there was one. Tell me.... was there ANYTHING she might have talked about, which would have inclined you to giver her props, rather than your very thinly veiled disparagement and contempt?



I think I get it.. she couldn't POSSIBLY have been expressing her sincere beliefs, right?



I think we get it, Brian.

Very lame responses attacking the messenger, and not the message. Basically attempting to put words into my mouth in each reply. Talk about projecting!

I get so tired of this crap. You started a thread, I made some comments, I never said a bad thing about you, and this is the **** that comes back every damn time.

Why do you even start a thread if you're not looking for some different insight? Do you just want people to agree with you? Is that why you post, so everyone else can give a thumbs up or a +1 for replies?

ccmanuals
04-17-2016, 10:20 AM
Interesting that no one complains when men get these high speaking rates.

http://qz.com/441327/yes-hillary-clintons-speaking-fees-are-high-but-only-compared-with-other-women/

bobbys
04-17-2016, 10:33 AM
Norm is going to be SO disappointed when I tell him Ole Bernie flew to see the POPESTER , Hillary went to a event where the tickets were 30 grand and to sit at her feet was 350000 ..

Norm HAS to spin this but it just underscores the point Bernie made.

Norm is very afraid Bernie will win as he knows he cannot win .

Why does Hillary keep digging her self deeper as the money bag lady?

SullivanB
04-17-2016, 02:56 PM
Really? Hillary's just a "bit to the right" of Bernie?

Keith, the need that some have seen to pretend that they're essentially the same on the issues is long past. Nobody buys into that silly stuff about Hillary and Bernie the differences between the two being little. They're miles apart as candidates, that, the very reason why Sanders is doing so well. It's not just who he is that's driving his popularity; it's who and what he's not that counts just as much. He's the anti-Hillary, and the importance of that last thing in this campaign simply cannot be overstated.

SullivanB
04-17-2016, 03:22 PM
For a touch of reality on the subject of Mrs. Clinton's Wall Street speeches, consider this article. It's a bit long, so I've only included part of the text below.

The link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/release-of-clintons-wall-street-speeches_b_9698632.html

part of the text:

Release of Clinton’s Wall Street Speeches Could End Her Candidacy for President


Mr. Sanders has implied that there are only two possible answers: (a) the money wasn’t for the speeches themselves, but for the influence major institutional players on Wall Street thought that money could buy them if and when Clinton ran for President; or (b) the speeches laid out a defense of Wall Street greed so passionate and total that hearing it uttered by a person of power and influence was worth every penny.

Per Clinton surrogates and attendees at these speeches, the answer appears to be both (a) and (b).

Here’s a compilation of what those close to Clinton and/or the institutions that paid her obscene sums to chat with them are saying about those never-to-be-released speeches:

1. Former Nebraska Governor and Senator Bob Kerrey (Clinton surrogate)

“Making the transcripts of the Goldman speeches public would have been devastating....[and] when the GOP gets done telling the Clinton Global Initiative fund-raising and expense story, Bernie supporters will wonder why he didn’t do the same....[As for] the email story, it’s not about emails. It is about [Hillary] wanting to avoid the reach of citizens using the Freedom of Information Act to find out what their government is doing, and then not telling the truth about why she did.”

[link (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/04/us/politics/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton.html?_r=0)]

2. Goldman Sachs Employee #1 (present at one of the speeches)

“[The speech] was pretty glowing about [Goldman Sachs]. It’s so far from what she sounds like as a candidate now. It was like a ‘rah-rah’ speech. She sounded more like a Goldman Sachs managing director.”

[link (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/clinton-speeches-218969)]

3. Goldman Sachs Employee #2 (present at one of the speeches)

“In this environment, [what she said to us at Goldman Sachs] could be made to look really bad.”

[link (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/clinton-speeches-218969)]

4. Goldman Sachs Executive or Client #1 (present at one of the speeches)

“Mrs. Clinton didn’t single out bankers or any other group for causing the 2008 financial crisis. Instead, she effectively said, ‘We’re all in this together, we’ve got to find our way out of it together.’”

[link (http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clintons-wall-street-talks-were-highly-paid-friendly-1455239512)]

5. Paraphrase of Several Attendees’ Accounts From The Wall Street Journal

“She didn’t often talk about the financial crisis, but when she did, she almost always struck an amicable tone. In some cases, she thanked the audience for what they had done for the country. One attendee said the warmth with which Mrs. Clinton greeted guests bordered on ‘gushy.’ She spoke sympathetically about the financial industry.”

[link (http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clintons-wall-street-talks-were-highly-paid-friendly-1455239512)]

6. Goldman Sachs Employee #3 (present at one of the speeches)

“It was like, ‘Here’s someone who doesn’t want to vilify us but wants to get business back in the game. Like, maybe here’s someone who can lead us out of the wilderness.’”

[link (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2013/12/wall-street-white-house-republicans-lament-of-the-plutocrats-101047?paginate=false)]

7. Paraphrase of Several Attendees’ Accounts From Politico

“Clinton offered a message that the collected plutocrats found reassuring, declaring that the banker-bashing so popular within both political parties was unproductive and indeed foolish. Striking a soothing note on the global financial crisis, she told the audience, ‘We all got into this mess together, and we’re all going to have to work together to get out of it.’”

[link (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2013/12/wall-street-white-house-republicans-lament-of-the-plutocrats-101047?paginate=false)]

Did we, though, “All get into the mess together”?

Would middle-class voters considering voting for Hillary Clinton in New York on Tuesday take kindly to the idea that the Great Recession was equally their own and Goldman Sachs’ fault? How would that play in the Bronx?

Lest anyone suspect that Clinton doesn’t release the transcripts because she’s not permitted to do so under a non-disclosure agreement, think again: Buzzfeed hasconfirmed (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/clinton-speeches-218969) that Clinton owns the rights to the transcripts, and notes, moreover, that according to industry insiders even if there were speeches to which Clinton did nothold the rights, no institution on Wall Street would allow themselves to be caught trying to block their release.

And Politico and The Wall Street Journal have reported exactly the same information (http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/35162-hillary-clinton-stalls-on-goldman-sachs-speeches) about Clinton’s ability to release these speech transcripts unilaterally.

The problem with the quotes above is not merely their content — which suggests a presidential candidate not only “gushingly” fond of Wall Street speculators but unwilling to admonish them even to the smallest degree — but also that they reveal Clinton to have been dishonest about that content with American voters.

Boater14
04-17-2016, 05:19 PM
Really, everyone in the audience had a smartphone capable of taking video and audio. Like the one that caught Romney and the 47% and the cop shooting the guy. She can be really dense and tone deaf but who thinks she said anything dangerous. Now we move the goalposts and it's not what she said but what she got paid. Let the reeps damage her bad nough and the convention will nominate Biden and he'll team up in warren. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

John Smith
04-17-2016, 08:11 PM
Asian, you're believing the propaganda. Yes, Ms Clinton is a bit to the right of Bernie Sanders, So am I. But the nonsense that she's a tool of the financial industry is just that. My claim is based based both on her record, and what she's proposing now.

Chris Dodd actually took favors from Wall Street. He still co-authored Dodd/Frank. Obama took tons of money from "Wall Street" and signed that bill.

If Bernie cannot (and he cannot) point to a favor Hillary has done for Goldman, he should apologize for the innuendo.

For someone who brags about not going negative, he spends a lot of effort doing just that.

John Smith
04-17-2016, 08:14 PM
Norm is going to be SO disappointed when I tell him Ole Bernie flew to see the POPESTER , Hillary went to a event where the tickets were 30 grand and to sit at her feet was 350000 ..

Norm HAS to spin this but it just underscores the point Bernie made.

Norm is very afraid Bernie will win as he knows he cannot win .

Why does Hillary keep digging her self deeper as the money bag lady?

She's raising money for down ticket Dems which will help them win elections in Nov. Until this week, Bernie's done none of that.

John Smith
04-17-2016, 08:19 PM
Really? Hillary's just a "bit to the right" of Bernie?

Keith, the need that some have seen to pretend that they're essentially the same on the issues is long past. Nobody buys into that silly stuff about Hillary and Bernie the differences between the two being little. They're miles apart as candidates, that, the very reason why Sanders is doing so well. It's not just who he is that's driving his popularity; it's who and what he's not that counts just as much. He's the anti-Hillary, and the importance of that last thing in this campaign simply cannot be overstated.

He's offering fantasyland. They do have the same basic goals. She's acknowledged they have to go through congress. It is unlikely either will have 60 votes in the senate, which means all his proposals are dead in the water.

Yes, it is a problem that wealth is parking itself up at the top. How does the government change that. Without 60 votes in the senate, minimum wage does not go up, and Wall Street does not get taxed. The GOP that wants to privatize Medicare is not about ot expand it. How, exactly, does 'tuition free' work without the cooperation of states, many run by Republicans?

Pointing out, or defining, the problem is one thing. Fixing it is something else. Bernie says he doesn't do negative campaigning, but you couldn't prove that by this campaign.

Frankly, if Hillary does win the presidency, I think you'll find her a pleasant surprise.

John Smith
04-17-2016, 08:21 PM
For a touch of reality on the subject of Mrs. Clinton's Wall Street speeches, consider this article. It's a bit long, so I've only included part of the text below.

The link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/release-of-clintons-wall-street-speeches_b_9698632.html

part of the text:

Release of Clinton’s Wall Street Speeches Could End Her Candidacy for President


Mr. Sanders has implied that there are only two possible answers: (a) the money wasn’t for the speeches themselves, but for the influence major institutional players on Wall Street thought that money could buy them if and when Clinton ran for President; or (b) the speeches laid out a defense of Wall Street greed so passionate and total that hearing it uttered by a person of power and influence was worth every penny.

Per Clinton surrogates and attendees at these speeches, the answer appears to be both (a) and (b).

Here’s a compilation of what those close to Clinton and/or the institutions that paid her obscene sums to chat with them are saying about those never-to-be-released speeches:

1. Former Nebraska Governor and Senator Bob Kerrey (Clinton surrogate)

“Making the transcripts of the Goldman speeches public would have been devastating....[and] when the GOP gets done telling the Clinton Global Initiative fund-raising and expense story, Bernie supporters will wonder why he didn’t do the same....[As for] the email story, it’s not about emails. It is about [Hillary] wanting to avoid the reach of citizens using the Freedom of Information Act to find out what their government is doing, and then not telling the truth about why she did.”

[link (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/04/us/politics/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton.html?_r=0)]

2. Goldman Sachs Employee #1 (present at one of the speeches)

“[The speech] was pretty glowing about [Goldman Sachs]. It’s so far from what she sounds like as a candidate now. It was like a ‘rah-rah’ speech. She sounded more like a Goldman Sachs managing director.”

[link (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/clinton-speeches-218969)]

3. Goldman Sachs Employee #2 (present at one of the speeches)

“In this environment, [what she said to us at Goldman Sachs] could be made to look really bad.”

[link (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/clinton-speeches-218969)]

4. Goldman Sachs Executive or Client #1 (present at one of the speeches)

“Mrs. Clinton didn’t single out bankers or any other group for causing the 2008 financial crisis. Instead, she effectively said, ‘We’re all in this together, we’ve got to find our way out of it together.’”

[link (http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clintons-wall-street-talks-were-highly-paid-friendly-1455239512)]

5. Paraphrase of Several Attendees’ Accounts From The Wall Street Journal

“She didn’t often talk about the financial crisis, but when she did, she almost always struck an amicable tone. In some cases, she thanked the audience for what they had done for the country. One attendee said the warmth with which Mrs. Clinton greeted guests bordered on ‘gushy.’ She spoke sympathetically about the financial industry.”

[link (http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clintons-wall-street-talks-were-highly-paid-friendly-1455239512)]

6. Goldman Sachs Employee #3 (present at one of the speeches)

“It was like, ‘Here’s someone who doesn’t want to vilify us but wants to get business back in the game. Like, maybe here’s someone who can lead us out of the wilderness.’”

[link (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2013/12/wall-street-white-house-republicans-lament-of-the-plutocrats-101047?paginate=false)]

7. Paraphrase of Several Attendees’ Accounts From Politico

“Clinton offered a message that the collected plutocrats found reassuring, declaring that the banker-bashing so popular within both political parties was unproductive and indeed foolish. Striking a soothing note on the global financial crisis, she told the audience, ‘We all got into this mess together, and we’re all going to have to work together to get out of it.’”

[link (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2013/12/wall-street-white-house-republicans-lament-of-the-plutocrats-101047?paginate=false)]

Did we, though, “All get into the mess together”?

Would middle-class voters considering voting for Hillary Clinton in New York on Tuesday take kindly to the idea that the Great Recession was equally their own and Goldman Sachs’ fault? How would that play in the Bronx?

Lest anyone suspect that Clinton doesn’t release the transcripts because she’s not permitted to do so under a non-disclosure agreement, think again: Buzzfeed hasconfirmed (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/clinton-speeches-218969) that Clinton owns the rights to the transcripts, and notes, moreover, that according to industry insiders even if there were speeches to which Clinton did nothold the rights, no institution on Wall Street would allow themselves to be caught trying to block their release.

And Politico and The Wall Street Journal have reported exactly the same information (http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/35162-hillary-clinton-stalls-on-goldman-sachs-speeches) about Clinton’s ability to release these speech transcripts unilaterally.

The problem with the quotes above is not merely their content — which suggests a presidential candidate not only “gushingly” fond of Wall Street speculators but unwilling to admonish them even to the smallest degree — but also that they reveal Clinton to have been dishonest about that content with American voters.


Didn't you notice the OP?

John Smith
04-17-2016, 08:25 PM
It is entirely possible that her speech getting to the public was planned. Let Bernie keep making this an issue, so the idea she's hiding something builds, then a speech comes out and it's not at all what they hoped for. Soon the FBI I expect will clear her officially.

then we'll see how the elections go.