Home | About | Donate

Clinton Speech For Deutsche Bank Was Designed To Give Cover For Wall Street Coziness


Clinton Speech For Deutsche Bank Was Designed To Give Cover For Wall Street Coziness

Kevin Gosztola

Hillary Clinton did a paid speech for Deutsche Bank in 2014 that was written by a speechwriter so she had something to show if people ever asked what she said “behind closed doors for two years to all those fat cats.”

The email sent on November 20, 2015, comes from hacked emails from Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, which were published by WikiLeaks.


Oh, gee. What a surprise!


Concurrent with her 2014 Deutsche Bank speech, Clinton admonished attendees at a GMO cartel conference in San Diego to "make GMOs more appealing to young Americans" so that she could get more of them to vote for her in 2016.

This is but one example of Clinton speeches widely covered by media that show her true center-right (charitable characterization) colors prior to Sanders' pushing her "public persona" to the center.

You don't need to dig very deep to confirm the direction Clinton's White House stint will go.


He also coined the term "control fraud" during S & L crisis and would make a good AG as far as banks are concerned.


The hard-fought progressive promises made by Hillary at the end of the primaries are fading away in the Trump's circus. Help hold Hillary accountable to her promise of fighting Inequality. I signed a petition to help Hillary re-write the rules of the American Economy to fight inequality in a comprehensive way. Please sign and share. Click here: http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/appoint-joseph-e-stiglitz?source=s.icn.em.cr&mailing_id=35627&%3Br_by=5128323&r_by=806582&%3Bsource=s.icn.em.cr


I believe they call that politics.

The timing of the release of the Trump tape, and the coordinated chorus of over-the-top interpretations of his remarks as akin to Bill Cosby's actions, are more of the same.

It's what politicians do.

Vote Sane: Vote Green.


His remarks were pretty ugly, even the Republicans I know thought so. One female Republican that I work with won't be voting for him anymore. I also have family, my aunt, that typically leans Republican who won't be voting for him. There's no way it was going to be ignored by the media.

If it was political dark arts that exposed the tape, it was really the easiest form of it. Sit on a tape then release it at the appropriate time. I can't knock it whatsoever, especially since Republicans typically don't play nice (swift boat of Kerry).


His remarks are being treated as the equivalent as an assault confession. They aren't.

But I was referring to the timing, not the content.

I don't care for Clinton or Trump, but the article seems to feel there's something wrong with politicians politicking.

It will happen as long as there are politicians.


Agreed on the timing. Excellent play by the Clinton campaign if that's what it was.

As to the confession, I can't say it was or wasn't, but it certainly was ugly. It reeked of someone who felt entitled to touch women irrespective of their desires. I can only say that most of the Republican women I know thought it was terrible. The word "pig" was bandied about quite unsparingly.


Except to the wilfully blind, it is no surprise that Clinton is loyal to the aristocracy to which she belongs, whereas the rest of us can go hang.

Oh, but we're going to "hold her feet to the fire" and ... zzzzzzzzzz ...


As the author of this post, this is what it does. It highlights and attempts to ensure the public knows Hillary Clinton and her campaign recognized her paid speeches to big banks were a problem. One speechwriter planted comments in a speech that could be held up if the press demanded to see the contents of transcripts and it ever got so bad that they had to produce at least a single transcript. They schemed to manipulate the press. This is not just politics. The CIA has engaged in this kind of activity to conceal covert operations from journalists.

And just because you are numb to it does not mean that it is not worthwhile to write about and share with others. This is important and, no, it is not just politicians being politicians.


It may be no surprise, but that certainly should not be part of any criteria for whether the content of these emails deserve attention or not.


I think Clinton is a neo-liberal neocon who never saw a war or regime change she didn't like. I think Trump, the bigoted buffoon without a lip governor, would be far less destructive as President.

But campaign strategizing is part of the game.

It's good to show the sausage being made and good to see what candidates see as their weaknesses. I appreciate this piece and others I've seen from you. What I was addressing is this: "In other words, the Clinton campaign was perfectly willing to engage in a brazen act of press manipulation so long as they could be certain it would benefit and not hurt the campaign."

All campaigns engage in brazen acts of press manipulation. It's the job of campaign managers to see they do so.

There's is much wrong with Clinton's campaign, so many differences between what she's said/done and what's she's campaigning as, that I think characterizing ordinary politicking as a brazen act is a distraction.


“Once you start looking at speeches, you run smack into Maggie Haberman’s report for POLITICO on HRC’s Goldman Sachs speech, in which HRC isn’t quoted directly, but described as saying people shouldn’t be vilifying Wall Street,” Perhaps thats why the Maggie was descibed as a repoter who would really "TEE Up" a Clinton story in another leaked e mail.


Please tell me the names of other politicians who have planted language in paid speeches in order to throw press off the scent if they came searching for details on what she said to banks like Goldman Sachs. Or name two other politicians, who have engaged in a similar act. I don't think this is routine politicking at all.