Home | About | Donate

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


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

Seth Abramson

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.


The re-write she releases won't hurt her at all.


So on top of everything you're a comedian too! Multi-talented!

Here's the info about Sanders' taxes. Awaiting Clinton to fulfill her promise to release the GS transcripts after Sanders "releases" his already public tax data.


No one comments about the curious fact that as Clinton keeps insisting that while she supposedly got tough with Wall St that Wall St would pay huge sums for another two speeches of her getting tough with Wall St. The first one would have told them where she stood and it is not likely that they would pay her that much money to help her with an eventual run for the presidency.


Actually they talk about the three together. I pointed out that there would have been only one speech had she said what she claims she said.


She can't release them. They would be to her campaign what Romney's 47% speech did to his. Total destruction. God she's such a liar.


Clinton already has as many Murkins voting FOR her as she will ever have. They either have a vested interest in voting for her, are dyed in the wool partisans or simply want to be part of something bigger than themselves by voting for the first female president.

Any additional Murkins who mark the Clinton box on the ballot are voting AGAINST her opponent(s), Sanders in the primary, and the GOP and third party candidates if she runs in November.

This dynamic makes it undesirable for Clinton to release any non public information that will only result in her losing votes.


If she were stupid enough to do that - fabricate her speech - it would be instantly exposed and the blow-back would end her prez bid dead-stop!


The difference is, Bernie will eventually make those returns public. Hillary will never make those transcripts public. And there can only be so many reasons why she won't. There is absolutely nothing you can say to defend Clinton's hiding those transcripts from the eyes of potential voters.


Just as some posters only get it that the playing field is anything but level when frames of "both sides" are used to explain events in Palestine; it could be that the following example exposes the point I work to make in this forum about how the term WE is used to conflate the "evil doers" with everyone else. This twist of vernacular is purposely designed to allow those doing the evil to walk away scot-free while everyone else is left with the guilt and displaced culpability. (It's the psychological version of the elites' preferred program wherein they enjoy profits while externalizing costs.)

“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.’”

Here's an optimistic thought....

There were the Pentagon Papers, and more recently, the Panama Papers. There were also the Snowden and Manning exposures.

What if some guest listening in at a Hillary Banker Fest taped it, and, deciding it was time to work off some felonious karma, outed the material... ya' know, sent it over to WikiLeaks...

It COULD happen.

I am of the opinion that LOTS of Wall Street types require good deed to ward off their heavy karmic tabs. This might be ONE way to burn karma...


You'd be more convincing AS a clown.


Your lack of faith disturbs me.........just as defense of the indefensible corruption, and utter lack of HRC's moral compass - its not Bernie's fantasy GS "investments" you "smell"...........


So, when he releases them in the next couple of weeks and there is nothing untoward in them, what will you say then?

At that point, this issue will have been resolved. And I'm pretty certain, by then, Clinton will still not be releasing those transcripts. Again, what is she hiding in those speeches that she won't simply release them and put the issue to rest? You have no answer for that.


When did I say that Bernie was Christ off the cross? Straw man fallacy.

Again, after Bernie has released his tax returns (which it is very likely he will do), and Clinton still refuses to release the transcripts of her speeches, what will be your defense of her refusal to do so?

Are you actually arguing that the contents of those speeches are not relevant to her candidacy and how she might make decisions about financial issues? Are you actually arguing that it is none of the voters' business what she said in these speeches?

Stick to the issue and answer the question.


No, I'm not particularly worried about it. Because Bernie not producing tax returns (as required by law) would be rather out of character for him, given the way he has run his campaign and most of his political career. He has been slow to produce them, but that doesn't mean he won't. If he refuses to, I may get worried.

With regards to the transcripts of Hillary's speeches, you have again avoided answering the question I have put to you. No, there is no law stating that Hillary must release the speeches, but there is obviously a trust issue here and obvious connections to policy in terms of taking that kind of money for giving speeches to those entities. Hillary already has a significant problem with trust and honesty among voters as reflected in polls. Bernie does not.

So, again, are you saying that voters don't have the right to know what Hillary told a major economic actor in exchange for hundreds of thousands of dollars? What legitimate reason could she have for not releasing them and putting the issue to rest. Answer the question, Keith.


No, but like any well-trained troll, there's always something KL can hit reply on...


No, the only "issue" here is your inveterate bullshit. Can't such an obvious bullshitter just be blocked?


Bernie has not refused to release his tax returns. You are making an issue out of the fact that he has been slow to do so.

On the other hand, Clinton is actually refusing to disclose information that has significant implications for policy and trustworthiness.

I think it is safe to say, that you have no intention of answering the simple question that I have put to you numerous times.

It's a waste of time talking to you further.


That's what I have thought all along. The person who does have the "Hillary tapes" is most likely a conservative operative, or sold them to one. They are simply waiting now for the best moment to release them. Most likely after she is nominated, so as to inflict maximum damage to not only Hillary's campaign, but the Democratic Party as a whole.
Tha is going to be a sleazy campaign.


So, your blathering aside, who are you voting for?