Hillary's Wall St speeches could spell the end if released

[Belsnickel]

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

Quote:The reason you and I will never see the transcripts of Hillary Clinton’s speeches to Wall Street fat-cats — and the reason she’s established a nonsensical condition for their release, that being an agreement by members of another party, involved in a separate primary, to do the same — is that if she were ever to release those transcripts, it could end her candidacy for president.

Please don’t take my word for it, though.

Nor even that of the many neutral observers in the media who are deeply troubled by Clinton’s lack of transparency as to these well-compensated closed-door events — a lack of transparency that has actually been a hallmark of her career in politics.

Nor do we even need to take Clinton’s word for it — as we could certainly argue that her insistence that none of these transcripts ever be seen by the public is itself a confession that her words would cause significant trauma to her presidential bid.

In fact, it appears they’d cause enough trauma that Clinton would rather publicly stonewall — to the point of being conspicuously, uncomfortably evasive — in public debate after public debate, to endure damning editorial after damning editorial, and to leave thousands and thousands of voters further doubting her honesty and integrity, all to ensure that no one outside Goldman Sachs, and certainly no voter who wasn’t privy to those closed-door speeches, ever hears a word of what she said in them.

[JustWinBaby]

Yawn....if she releases this, then she has no defense to releasing many other things. Par for the course.

[Rotobeast]

(04-15-2016, 10:00 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/release-of-clintons-wall-street-speeches_b_9698632.html

Sounds like a job for......

[Belsnickel]

(04-16-2016, 05:11 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Yawn....if she releases this, then she has no defense to releasing many other things. Par for the course.

For example? I am unaware of any other situations like this for her.

[McC]

I don't see how any thinking person could ever vote for her. There are so many things swirling around her. With all that smoke, there has to be fire somewhere.

[Rotobeast]

[Benton]

At this point, I don't think it will matter much. Nobody is really voting for her because of her sound policies. She's pretty much advocating everything that's gotten us a shit economy so far, and that seems to be ok with her supporters.

[fredtoast]

(04-16-2016, 08:38 AM)McC Wrote: I don't see how any thinking person could ever vote for her.  There are so  many things swirling around her.  With all that smoke, there has to be fire somewhere.

Just because she has been the subject of multiple political attacks does not mean they were true.

Remember how much "smoke" there was about Obama being born in Kenya?

Or how about all the "smoke" around Bush/Cheney being involved in the 9-11 attacks?

[fredtoast]

I am sure Hillary made some comments in these speeches that she does not want us all to hear.

What exactly are the terms she has placed on releasing them? How unreasonable are they. Seems like if everyone wants te hear what she saied that would comply with her terms.

[*bfine32*]

I sincerely hope Clinton gets the Democratic Bid. The DNC can't rig the National Election for her. I think folks are free enough with other people's money to vote for Sanders and that scares me.

[xxlt]

(04-15-2016, 10:00 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/release-of-clintons-wall-street-speeches_b_9698632.html

Calls to mind Romney's "47%" comment. Now, why anyone would have voted for him to begin with is beyond me, but that one remark really seemed to be what sunk him.

Hillary, on the other hand, is an accomplished politician and quite intelligent. She reminds me a lot of Bill Clinton (or Pete Rose if you want a sports figure comparison) - someone who may be a horrible person in many ways but is in fact very good at what she/he does for a living.

Still, I am willing to wager there are more than a few comments in her speeches quite similar to Mitt's 47 percent line that, while big hits with the Wall Street folks who bankrolled Romney and Clinton, would not play well in Peoria or even much of Manhattan. Not everyone who works there is a hedge fund manager or a stock broker.

[xxlt]

(04-16-2016, 08:38 AM)McC Wrote: I don't see how any thinking person could ever vote for her.  There are so  many things swirling around her.  With all that smoke, there has to be fire somewhere.

She is the one of the few people to whom I would not apply ^ this logic. There really has been a smear campaign against her for over 20 years now. I don't think she is pure as the driven snow, but to paraphrase Bush, some people undoubtedly "hate her for her bush," and others just hate her because there has been a decades long smear campaign against her which, at the end of the day, has turned up very little "fire" in spite of the "smoke." I conclude the smoke is manufactured by smoke machines and not her conduct about 98% of the time.

[JustWinBaby]

(04-16-2016, 07:46 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: For example? I am unaware of any other situations like this for her.

Really?  Nothing in common here with emails?  Investments?  Donors?  The Clinton foundation? Produce records for questions into one thing and you open the floodgates.  It's a lose-lose for her.


Personally I think it's damning enough that she put rules in place preventing a record of her speech and preventing any release of a record....because it should be simple enough to ask "Well what did you say that you don't want voters to know?"

[Belsnickel]

(04-16-2016, 05:35 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Really?  Nothing in common here with emails?  Investments?  Donors?  The Clinton foundation? Produce records for questions into one thing and you open the floodgates.  It's a lose-lose for her.

Personally I think it's damning enough that she put rules in place preventing a record of her speech and preventing any release of a record....because it should be simple enough to ask "Well what did you say that you don't want voters to know?"

Did she withhold any of that information? I mean, a lot of stuff that doesn't bode well for her from my perspective, but I thought, given your comment, that there were other situations in which she was withholding information like this. But I am unaware of that being the case in what you mention here.

[*bfine32*]

(04-16-2016, 06:15 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Did she withhold any of that information? I mean, a lot of stuff that doesn't bode well for her from my perspective, but I thought, given your comment, that there were other situations in which she was withholding information like this. But I am unaware of that being the case in what you mention here.

Well there was that time she took sniper fire in Bosnia. She didn't withhold any information on sharing that event.

[6andcounting]

Maybe she isn't a corrupt, deceitful politician. She's just a good business women who wants paid 100k for every person who hears the speech, like the first time she gave it.

[Rotobeast]

(04-16-2016, 07:28 PM)6andcounting Wrote: Maybe she isn't a corrupt, deceitful politician. She's just a good business women who wants paid 100k for every person who hears who speech, like the first time she gave it.

Did you type that with a straight face ?
7/10

[6andcounting]

(04-16-2016, 08:20 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Did you type that with a straight face ?
7/10

[JustWinBaby]

(04-16-2016, 06:15 PM)Belsnickel Wrote:  but I thought, given your comment, that there were other situations in which she was withholding information like this.

Sure.  Always.  You think that because she DIDN'T disclose in those situations.

Seriously.  Did you think she had a private server in order to NOT withhold info?

[Belsnickel]

(04-17-2016, 04:47 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Sure.  Always.  You think that because she DIDN'T disclose in those situations.

Seriously.  Did you think she had a private server in order to NOT withhold info?

I don't know why she has one, but she turned the emails over to the State Dept as required and it was up to them to release them. I see that as two different situations, both shady as hell and untrustworthy, but not the same thing.