De Blasio Says Clinton Need Not Disclose Her Wall Street Talks
Source: Bloomberg
March 2, 2016 9:47 AM EST
New York Mayor Bill de Blasio said that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton doesnt need to release transcripts of speeches she gave to employees of Wall Street firms such as the Goldman Sachs Group Inc., for which she was paid hundreds of thousands of dollars.
De Blasio, who endorsed Clinton in October after remaining neutral for several months, said Clintons stand on Wall Street regulation was more important than what she may have said privately to groups of executives.
My blunt view is that I care what she says in her platform, de Blasio said after being questioned about the issue by MSNBCs Mika Brzezinski on Wednesday morning. Her platform would rein in Wall Street excesses more even than Bernie Sanderss would. A lot of progressives have said that.
De Blasio, the first Democrat to be elected mayor of New York in 20 years, ran on a self-described progressive platform that included higher taxes on the wealthy and programs to address income inequality such as all-day universal pre-kindergarten and higher wages and benefits for the poor and low-income workers.
Read more: http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-03-02/de-blasio-says-clinton-need-not-disclose-her-wall-street-talks
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)Snotcicles
(9,089 posts)PatrynXX
(5,668 posts)naturally the only way a Democrat could win was be a DINO or a Conservadem course a bigger problem , like the ACA which was designed for Republican votes, no Republican will vote for Hillary even if she's a Conservative X_X
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)he would likely face a serious Republican challenge in 2 years, and has thrown much of his progressive base under the bus with his endorsement of Hillary... I'm sure she has something lined up for him should she win
LiberalElite
(14,691 posts)earthshine
(1,642 posts)Clinton's true stand on "Wall Street regulation" are in those transcripts. That's why she will not release those transcripts. How much longer before an iPhone video reveals the truth?
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!
AzDar
(14,023 posts)TipTok
(2,474 posts)The Clintons are famous for their complete lack of transparency. They would never but something out like that.
My guess is that the speeches are bland and short. The implication being that the huge payment was for something else entirely.
Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)Ned_Devine
(3,146 posts)Pastiche423
(15,406 posts)But the voters deserve to see them!
Snotcicles
(9,089 posts)Might be OK with DeBasio but as a voter I'd like to have a peak
Jester Messiah
(4,711 posts)KansDem
(28,498 posts)Out of sight, out of mind.
aintitfunny
(1,421 posts)Does not change my view. She needs to release the transcripts, otherwise it will be viewed, rightly or wrongly that she is hiding something.
WDIM
(1,662 posts)She probably pulled a Romney and doesn't want people knowing how she kowtows to Wall Street
I guess I didn't get the memo telling me why I am supposed to give a damn what Bill de Blasio thinks. So I still want to see the transcripts. He can call me if wants to though.
ConsiderThis_2016
(274 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)she doesn't need to release them, it's because they would seriously damage her campaign.
I think it is safe to assume that.
Another reason to vote for Bernie. Hillary is so two-faced that she can't release the transcripts of her speeches to Wall Street.
It's up to Hillary to prove me and my assumption wrong.
The burden to prove that she said what she claimed in the first debate that she said to Wall Street, "Stop it" by releasing the transcripts of those speeches.
The longer she hesitates the more she looks like a liar.
Hillary. Come clean!
msongs
(67,395 posts)tom_kelly
(958 posts)Couldn't he have come out with that yesterday? I went and voted for Bernie this afternoon in FL early voting. If I'd known that Hilary would reign in Wall Street even more than Bernie would I could have made a more educated choice. Thanks De Blasio! Or whoever he is.
CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)Last edited Wed Mar 2, 2016, 04:43 PM - Edit history (1)
They've got heavy hitters acting as her mouthpiece--saying that she doesn't need to release her transcripts.
This is a good sign. They're devoting resources to quelling those who are asking for those transcripts.
This issue does hurt her.
And despite the Super Tuesday outcome, the Clinton camp is not happy with the result. There's a reason that she campaigned heavily in Minnesota and Mass. The Clinton camp wanted Bernie to tank so bad that he would be forced to get out of the race. That didn't happen. They absolutely know that the longer he stays in, the better the states look for him and there's a chance that she could be vulnerable.
Politicians talk about "Buyer's remorse" in long primaries like this. When the frontrunner is in a drawn out race the public can turn on them and take a second look at the underdog and change their mind. Hillary Clinton is highly susceptible to "Buyer's remorse" because she is so well known and a great deal of her support is very soft and unenthusiastic about her. Plus, she's got high negatives and high "untrustworthy" numbers. It wouldn't take much of a shift in the political winds to start eroding her support.
This Wall Street issue does hurt her and it resonates with Democrats. Regardless of anything happening in this race--the vast majority of Democrats do not want powerful, corporate interests owning the candidates in our party.
Thanks for spotlighting and magnifying HRC's nefarious dealings with Wall Street, Mr. De Blasio!
kracer20
(199 posts)That is only good news. The only bad thing is that there has been enough time, that anything released at this point has most likely been edited.
FreedomRain
(413 posts)unless she wants to show some transparency. But it is taking too long, any release now will probably be assumed to have been cleaned up. (Not saying it would be, just that the suspicion will be there) Still there might be reason to do it now--and do it straight--just to get the political fallout, if any, over with before the general
Blue State Bandit
(2,122 posts)I will vote down ballot only.
Buzz cook
(2,471 posts)Bernie won't win the nomination?
Blue State Bandit
(2,122 posts)but if not, she get's no comfort or consideration without satisfying my right to know. I'll bern my registration if it will make the point.
LibDemAlways
(15,139 posts)be insulted, criticized, and called on the carpet. I liken it to a famous musician being paid an enormous sum to entertain a bunch of millionaires at a private gig. The musician plays whatever those in attendance want to hear and doesn't diss the guy with the checkbook.
Anyone who thinks Hillary didn't tell those crooks exactly what they wanted to hear is incredibly naive.
Kip Humphrey
(4,753 posts)turbinetree
(24,695 posts)should she release this meeting of the who's who and what was said......................
Honk----------------------for a political revolution Bernie 2016
6chars
(3,967 posts)SoapBox
(18,791 posts)Wow...totally clueless AND another Entrenched Elite Establishment shills for Mrs. Wall Street.
Even more reason to fucking DEMAND those transcripts.
GeorgeGist
(25,319 posts)DeBlasio doesn't impress me much.
raindaddy
(1,370 posts)Has he ever held a national office? Whi cares what de Blasio thinks, but thanks for inserting yourself in the Dem primary Bill, it's just an opinion..
Myrina
(12,296 posts)Leading by example, clearing the record, principle and all that ...
SamKnause
(13,091 posts)Let's see the transcripts !!!
I want to know how she talks about the 99% behind closed doors.
She is extremely rude and aggressive when she talks to them one on one.
I wonder what pet names she has for us in her paid speeches, her private meetings, and
in her private life ???
Geronimoe
(1,539 posts)$600.000 for meaningless speeches. Hard to see why anyone would trust such a man who is so careless with his money.
So now do we ask why Saudi Arabia gave the Clinton Foundation $10 million? Or why NBC paid Chelsea Clinton $600,000 per year over many years for 3 months of consulting, while she was a student?
nichomachus
(12,754 posts)of what a guy says to you when he's trying to get into your pants.
The speeches show what she really is.
Darb
(2,807 posts)How dare you challenge the Berners and Baggers claim that every, single spoken word (by Hillary Clinton, only, of course, don't be ridiculous) needs to be documented and put under the microscope.
OFF WITH YOUR HEAD DE BLASIO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Mike__M
(1,052 posts)button for de Blasio?
EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)TipTok
(2,474 posts)He was having a tough time.
Geronimoe
(1,539 posts)No one is to question royalty, the inevitable President.
Shame on all of you!
Arizona Roadrunner
(168 posts)Can Goldman-Sachs Tax deduct the $650.000 Paid Hillary Clinton for her "speeches"? If so, then it means we are subsidizing said "speeches" by having to pay more taxes to offset the taxes lost by said deduction. We could also lose services because they don't have the revenues due to said loss of revenue. Therefore, we have standing in asking for her to release the speeches so we can see what was generated for said tax deduction.