Home | About | Donate

Using Republicans as Shield, Clinton Dodges Again on Wall Street Speeches


#1

Using Republicans as Shield, Clinton Dodges Again on Wall Street Speeches

Jon Queally, staff writer

Just what exactly did Hillary Clinton tell Wall Street bankers when she thought only they were listening?


#2

It's astounding to me that I can't make a phone call without being surveiled, yet Hillary can give several speeches to hundreds of people and nobody has any idea of what was said. It seems that an investigative reporter could get to the bottom of this issue without too much trouble. Are there any credible, investigative reporters out there anymore?


#3

Let's get this straight Hillary, Lloyd Blankfein paid you handsomely so that you would go after him? Like The Donald, you value the poorly educated. Next!


#5

It is a travesty the scope of the limitations of whom we get to choose. As I see it, we are so far into the destruction of the planet it is past the tipping point anyway. Bar the door because a hard gale is going to blow


#6

And while this is going on the accomodationists, and others, the loathers of Bernie i.e. Joshua Frank, are putting out screed after screed to discourage Bernie backers. Smirking Chimp and Alternet are running a piece by the accomodationist Marty Kaplan, unsurprising, Joshua Frank has a typical Counterpunch hit piece telling Bernie it's over. Talk about chutzpah, his site being the landing place for every Bernie hater, with their sheepdogs in tow, in the country. Earlier, Hedges threw his support to Jill Stein, he did the same last time, and never mentions her until the next time. Yesterday there was even a piece here by a former State Department employee opining that "Democrats show signs of falling in line behind the party’s establishment candidate (Hillary Clinton), " These examples don't include the coronation being played out on the mainstream media, Rachel's giggling excitement is not charming, and Tweety Bird Williams is as clueless as ever. So it goes.


#8

We already know what she told them--exactly what they wanted to hear. That is her modus operandi. Just tell everybody what they want to hear. There's plenty of evidence of that behavior readily available. The tragedy is that what Wall Street wants to hear is what Hillary actually believes.

Will the Republicans release the content of those speeches under the cover of fake lefty journalism to hurt Clinton with the Democratic base just before Super-Tuesday? Probably not. They are reading the polls which show Sanders harder to beat in the general. The Democratic Party is poised to do what it does so well--shoot itself in the foot--by manipulating party support behind Clinton while sacrificing the candidate sure to beat the GOP, and change the trajectory of American imperialism and exploitation.


#10

lol and half of this community called this in advance. We knew she'd ride the GOP candidates to dodge yet another insincere "commitment".

You gotta treat everything Clinton says like a lawyer, because that's how she speaks.


#11

Jail? How about the gallows instead?


#14

Glenn Greenwald...can you get those transcripts?!


#15

Two points:

One. As a Republican, the presidential candidate should be given a pass and not be harassed with the content of his/her speeches to Wall Street firms. Given the general acceptance, philosophically speaking, among Republicans regarding the superiority of those who are part of the financial elite, the cozy relationship between the presidential candidate and the Wall Street firms is perfectly natural and even desirable. The specifics of what they discuss is therefore secondary and time on the campaign trail can be better spent on other matters. So, in this narrow sense, Hillary is right: she should not be subjected to a double standard and we should stop talking about what she told Goldman Sachs, etc. Which brings me to the second point...

Two. What Hillary Clinton should do (seriously), is to run for the presidency as what she is, which is a Republican. Then all these annoying transparency issues would go away. She doesn't think that the details of what she told Goldman Sachs are anybody's business, and by and large the Republican electorate probably agrees. The problem of masquerading as a Democrat is that she has to deal with a culture very foreign to her, a culture that views wealth and privilege with suspicion. This makes the process very awkward for her, and it all stems from her weird insistence of running in the wrong primary.


#16

That sounds more like a cynical slam to me.


#18

A famous response from Bill Clinton is an example of what I dislike about the Clintons: "It depends on what your definition of 'is' is." Their extremely liberal uses of evasion, triangulation, accusation and blaming are why people don't trust them and people are right not to trust them. This kind of deception has gotten the Clintons very far. Unfortunately, they tend to get away with it.


#19

Yes, I meant what Cuomo said. : )


#21

Release Chelsea Manning and let Hillary have her cell !


#22

What did HRC tell the Wall Street bankers? Well, in a nutshell, it probably went something like this: " Don't worry, I have always been your whore and will continue to be your whore"!


#23

No one paying the least bit of attention thought Hillary would ever release the transcripts! The Red Queen is as slippery as an eel - and as slimy - every statement filled with qualifiers, evasions, and escapes. The speeches are the proof and she will never release any of them! Only a massive Sanders surge in the primaries might force their release, but still doubtful......Hillary will never reveal herself politically naked........

"By giving just 12 speeches to Wall Street banks, private equity firms, and other financial corporations, Clinton made $2,935,000 from 2013 to 2015, including $675,000 for three speeches in 2013 to Goldman Sachs, an investment bank known for using its ties to public officials to influence policy". Why do you think the Clintons moved to NY, that bastion of corruption? (along with NJ!)

The "smoking guns" are the speeches and the millions paid for essentially nothing, at least on the surface - under the surface the "speaking fees" are payoffs - kickbacks - for services-rendered by both Clintons to slant/manipulate "Public policy" to the advantage of the uber-wealthy, corporate greed, and banker/Wall St/hedge-fund financial parasites!

Is this the person and corrupt morality anyone of integrity really wants as Potus? Time for Bernie to take off the gloves and stop being Mr Nice Guy to his and our detriment!


#25

I really like Chris Hedges, but he's off base with his endorsement of Stein; that is if he's seeking actual change. The Green Party should be running as many candidates as it can in every race that is not decided by the electoral college. Electing Greens to higher and higher office would have a positive effect on public policy, providing they are willing to compromise and not become a lefty version of the Tea Party obstructionists, who put party over governing.

But the electoral college will ensure that either a Republican or Democrat wins. It is most definitely bi-partisan. Should a three way race somehow result in a tie or in no clear plurality, both of which are almost a mathematical impossibility under the current political climate, the election is decided by the house of representatives. Whichever of the two parties that is in power at the time, will clearly decide on their candidate--unless there are enough Greens to throw the vote sideways.

If you choose to cast a vote for a third party candidate as a protest vote, do it. But understand, there is no way at all for Jill Stein (or any other alternative party's candidate) to be elected in this or any election until the electoral college is thrown into the trash bin of US history where it belongs or the entire composition of the House is changed.

This article is old, and I don't hold with some of the political analysis around Gore/Bush/Nader in Florida, but it does explain quite nicely about the electoral college and the structure that prohibits third party presidential candidates from becoming president anytime in the near future. Hedges, who is otherwise brilliant, is perpetuating a dangerous myth.

If Sanders has an authentic peoples movement behind him, then perhaps we will see more third party candidates win further down the ballot, but I fear that The People think a movement these days is showing up en masse to vote, and are not doing the necessary organizing and coalition building required in real people's movements. Sanders wants that movement and needs it once elected.


#29

Brilliant! I'd love to see Hillary as a Republican run against Bernie in the general election, but I suppose she'd still be too moderate.


#32

I think people are a bit shocked to see that their favorite pundit and media personality is a member of what is called the status quo entrenched elite. All the world is a stage is it not and there are plenty of actors fighting to keep their place on it.

One must even ask if some supposedly more liberal and progressive voices would rather not see a mainstream politician get into office and start making positive changes and reforms because that wouldn't fit in with their antiestablishment mystique?

Bernie was always the change things from within the system guy from way back in the 60s. It is to his undying credit that we see him standing there in a credible and very likely successful race for the presidency. Not only that but absolutely no candidate has ever created as much change already as has Bernie's presence and his bringing up issues that were never and would never have been discussed otherwise.That credit is all Bernie's. Anti - oligarchy? Heck Bernie has even gotten Hillary and the republicans to mouth platitudes about taking on Wall St. Lol. Since when did anyone ever expect to hear that talked about in a bought and paid for Citizens United election?

Yay Bernie!!!


#33

Three strategies to get HRC's Goldman transcripts released:
1. Some person or entity offers 1 (5, 10?) million dollar reward for the transcripts
2. Some person or entity offers to donate 1 (5,10?) million dollars to a (women's and or children's) charity for the transcripts
3. The Republican candidtates (or at least Trump) make their transcripts available.