Hillary Keeps Maligning Obama as She Tries to Confuse Voters About Her Paid Wall Street Speeches:

[amborin]

This morning, Hillary continued her attempts to confuse voters regarding her paid Wall Street speeches; she keeps trying to pretend that the issue is campaign donations. Well that is NOT the issue. And she knows that.

Hillary said:

Well, Barack Obama took more money from Wall Street than any candidate who's ever run for president.

Clinton On Not Releasing Wall Street Speeches: 'I'm On The Public Record'

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/hillary-clinton-wall-street-transcirpts-question




But, Hillary, we're not talking about campaign donations; we're talking about personal checks from Wall Street that go straight to YOUR BANK ACCOUNT!

even the pro-Hillary NY Times pointed this out:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/22/us/politics/in-race-defined-by-income-gap-hillary-clintons-wall-street-ties-incite-rivals.html?_r=0

(she keeps) comparing herself to President Obama, who took millions of dollars in campaign contributions from Wall Street but went on to enact some of the furthest-reaching financial regulations in decades.

But the new attacks strike at what even some allies believe may be one of Mrs. Clinton’s biggest vulnerabilities: not her positions on financial regulation, but her personal relationships with Wall Street executives, along with the millions of dollars Mrs. Clinton, her husband, and their family foundation have accepted in speaking fees or charitable contributions from banks, hedge funds and asset managers.

Unlike Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Obama has never earned speaking fees from Wall Street.

“The reason that Bernie is focusing on the speaking fees is that Hillary can’t use the Obama defense,” said Ed Rendell, a former Pennsylvania governor,

[PatrickforO]

1. No, Ed. The reason is we want to see what she told the Wall Street lizards

so we can compare it to what she's telling us now. This will give us insight into how she's evolved.

[Jefferson23]

2. Yes and I doubt Obama appreciates the can of worms she has opened with that line of defense for

LOTS of reasons.

[Fred Sanders]

3. As poorly written as poorly edited....campaign donations go straight to personal accounts???....

Who knew!?

[libtodeath]

4. Her answers are just never the complete truth on something.

[FlatBaroque]

6. The intention is ALWAYS to mislead.

[BernieforPres2016]

5. Why don't we just agree

that under any reasonable set of laws that it should be illegal for politicians to accept large donations and speaking fees from corporations and individuals they are supposed to regulate whether the money goes into their private bank account, their political campaign fund, or into a SuperPAC they supposedly have no control over?

The idea that Goldman Sachs paid Hillary Clinton $675K for 3 "speeches" and expects to get nothing for it is laughable to anybody who wasn't born yesterday.

[99th_Monkey]

7. Hillary, you can run

but you cannot hide those transcript without looking corrupt to the core.

[kristopher]

8. Kicked and Recommended

[Octafish]

9. Most people don't make that much in a lifetime.

$153 million in Bill and Hillary Clinton speaking fees, documented

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/05/politics/hillary-clinton-bill-clinton-paid-speeches/

Well, Wolf, we earned it.