HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Clinton Promises 'Absolut...

Fri Feb 26, 2016, 05:52 PM

Clinton Promises 'Absolutely, Absolutely' Nothing to Worry About in Wall Street Speeches

Clinton Promises 'Absolutely, Absolutely' Nothing to Worry About in Wall Street Speeches

New York Times editorial joins those urging Democratic presidential candidate to release transcripts of controversial speeches
by Jon Queally, staff writer

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/02/26/clinton-promises-absolutely-absolutely-nothing-worry-about-wall-street-speeches


Hillary Clinton has now said voters have no reason to worry about what's in the paid speeches she gave to Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street firms. (Photo: AP)

From the New York Times editorial board to a Republican-friendly super PAC, it appears unease is widespread over Hillary Clinton's continued refusal to release transcripts of recent paid speeches she gave to some of Wall Street's most powerful firms.

In a sharply-worded editorial in Friday's print edition, the Times described Clinton's excuses for not releasing the transcripts as those of a "mischievous child, not a presidential candidate"—arguing that "public interest in these speeches is legitimate" and that by "stonewalling" their release "Mrs. Clinton plays into the hands of those who say she’s not trustworthy and makes her own rules."

However, in an interview with MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough that aired Friday morning, Clinton again defended her relationship with Wall Street and said the voting public has no need to worry about what she may have said in the speeches that earned her millions of dollars.


Full story:
From the New York Times editorial board to a Republican-friendly super PAC, it appears unease is widespread over Hillary Clinton's continued refusal to release transcripts of recent paid speeches she gave to some of Wall Street's most powerful firms.

In a sharply-worded editorial in Friday's print edition, the Times described Clinton's excuses for not releasing the transcripts as those of a "mischievous child, not a presidential candidate"—arguing that "public interest in these speeches is legitimate" and that by "stonewalling" their release "Mrs. Clinton plays into the hands of those who say she’s not trustworthy and makes her own rules."

However, in an interview with MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough that aired Friday morning, Clinton again defended her relationship with Wall Street and said the voting public has no need to worry about what she may have said in the speeches that earned her millions of dollars.

34 replies, 4117 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 34 replies Author Time Post
Reply Clinton Promises 'Absolutely, Absolutely' Nothing to Worry About in Wall Street Speeches (Original post)
newthinking Feb 2016 OP
hobbit709 Feb 2016 #1
californiabernin Feb 2016 #2
peacebird Feb 2016 #7
The Velveteen Ocelot Feb 2016 #3
rhett o rick Feb 2016 #6
BainsBane Feb 2016 #15
zappaman Feb 2016 #17
BainsBane Feb 2016 #18
revbones Feb 2016 #27
Kittycat Feb 2016 #29
BainsBane Feb 2016 #31
autonomous Feb 2016 #22
rhett o rick Feb 2016 #23
Attorney in Texas Feb 2016 #4
TCJ70 Feb 2016 #5
mindwalker_i Feb 2016 #8
99th_Monkey Feb 2016 #10
thereismore Feb 2016 #9
99th_Monkey Feb 2016 #11
Art_from_Ark Feb 2016 #33
Fairgo Feb 2016 #12
onecaliberal Feb 2016 #13
nc4bo Feb 2016 #14
whatchamacallit Feb 2016 #16
Barack_America Feb 2016 #19
MrMickeysMom Feb 2016 #20
autonomous Feb 2016 #21
delrem Feb 2016 #24
Bernblu Feb 2016 #25
togetherforever Feb 2016 #26
Docreed2003 Feb 2016 #28
actslikeacarrot Feb 2016 #30
Tierra_y_Libertad Feb 2016 #32
SoLeftIAmRight Feb 2016 #34

Response to newthinking (Original post)

Fri Feb 26, 2016, 05:54 PM

1. Nothing to worry about for her bankster cronies maybe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to newthinking (Original post)

Fri Feb 26, 2016, 05:56 PM

2. I'm sure there's plenty for her to worry about

 

In those speeches or she would release the transcripts. She's a liar.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to californiabernin (Reply #2)

Fri Feb 26, 2016, 06:01 PM

7. Exactly. By deflecting and stalling she looks even more untrustworthy....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to newthinking (Original post)

Fri Feb 26, 2016, 05:57 PM

3. If there's nothing to worry about, why not release them?

The only reason I can think of for not releasing them is that they do contain something to worry about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #3)

Fri Feb 26, 2016, 06:00 PM

6. I see it a little differently. Her fans already know she works for Goldman-Sachs and Wall Street

 

and they don't care. And since her only quality, that I can get from her supporters is that she is tough. She is being tough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #6)

Fri Feb 26, 2016, 07:22 PM

15. At least she follows existing campaign finance law

Bernie Sanders received a warning from the Federal Election Commission, citing problems with his campaign's February finance report.

The letter states the report lists amounts of contributions, receipts, expenses and disbursements that "appear to be incorrect."

The letter also cites possible impermissible contributions that exceed the allowed limit per election cycle ($2,700 for individuals) along with donations that come from outside the United States and from unregistered political committees.

The FEC sent the letter Thursday to the campaign asking for more information regarding the report filed Feb. 20. The letter warned: "Failure to adequately respond by the response date noted above could result in an audit or enforcement action."


http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/politics/2016/02/26/feds-flag-bernie-sanders-campaign-contributions/80985898/

From the FEC site, one can see the names of some of those people from whom Bernie has accepted contributions in violation of federal law. There are some interesting names on the list. In some cases, two people from the same household both contributed funds that exceed legal limits.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #15)

Fri Feb 26, 2016, 11:11 PM

17. I could swear I know one of those on that list.

And I'm a little shocked!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #17)

Fri Feb 26, 2016, 11:13 PM

18. I'm not

Not even a little bit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #15)

Sat Feb 27, 2016, 01:49 AM

27. Yes, by having a super-PAC for donations to flow to

 

She has a super-PAC and her donors can make unlimited contributions to that - such as the $350k donation today from the Wal-mart heir.

Also, most of the donations to her actual campaign hit the $2700 max limit to her in a single donation so it's a lot easier to track than several million $27 donations...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to revbones (Reply #27)

Sat Feb 27, 2016, 01:56 AM

29. Some donors will also max out primary and GE donations

Max out their primary and general donation in a single payment vs 2 with designation. One will be refunded if he doesn't make it on.

Or you know, you can just do as you mentioned, and be bought and paid for by the likes of Walmart for $350k, because that's so much more legit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to revbones (Reply #27)

Sat Feb 27, 2016, 02:44 AM

31. She doesn't "have" a super pac

No campaign does because it's illegal. The candidate who has the most super Pacs spending on their behalf is in fact Bernie.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/29/us/politics/bernie-sanders-is-democrats-top-beneficiary-of-outside-spending-like-it-or-not.html?_r=0

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/01/20/bernie-sanders-gets-some-outside-help-he-didnt-ask-for/?_r=0

Perhaps you ought to look into what campaign finance law actually allows rather than taking a politician's word for it?

Clinton gets a lot of small donations. I make them myself. The online system keeps track of how much you donate. Of course, not that I'll ever come close to maxing out.

The other point the FEC has shown is that some of those excess contributions to Sanders came in $2700 amounts, only more than one of them, as was the case with Bill Maher.
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/trackers/2016-02-12/sanders-should-refund-bill-maher-donation-public-integrity

If his campaign can't keep track of their own donations, how can we entrust him with the federal government?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #6)

Fri Feb 26, 2016, 11:22 PM

22. tough on crime, tough on fucking hippies

 

punch them all, bring them to heel!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to autonomous (Reply #22)

Fri Feb 26, 2016, 11:45 PM

23. She is for the Establishment and against the 99%. nm

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to newthinking (Original post)

Fri Feb 26, 2016, 05:57 PM

4. She can't turn them over because they are being audited? No ... wait ... that's Trump's tax returns

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to newthinking (Original post)

Fri Feb 26, 2016, 05:58 PM

5. OK...then just put them out there!

I really want to know what I have to say to get 5K a minute!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to newthinking (Original post)

Fri Feb 26, 2016, 06:02 PM

8. Translation: "Shut up about it!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mindwalker_i (Reply #8)

Fri Feb 26, 2016, 06:04 PM

10. +10 nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to newthinking (Original post)

Fri Feb 26, 2016, 06:02 PM

9. What she means by "nothing to worry about" is "Don't worry about the things I said because I did not

mean any of it."

Note that she is NOT saying there is nothing incriminating in those speeches, just that we have no need to worry about what's in them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thereismore (Reply #9)

Fri Feb 26, 2016, 06:05 PM

11. Classic "nothing to see here" statement. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #11)

Sat Feb 27, 2016, 03:01 AM

33. How Nixonian

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to newthinking (Original post)

Fri Feb 26, 2016, 06:17 PM

12. Glad that's settled...

So put them up on the internet and we can focus on the larger issue of possible indictment during the general election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to newthinking (Original post)

Fri Feb 26, 2016, 06:18 PM

13. I abosolutely abosolutely do NOT believe anything she says.

Shades of Mitt, failing to release the tax returns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to newthinking (Original post)

Fri Feb 26, 2016, 06:43 PM

14. HRC:"You're asking me to say I have never, I don't believe I ever have. I don't believe I ever will"

LIE

I will never believe in your brand of promises Hillary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to newthinking (Original post)

Fri Feb 26, 2016, 07:25 PM

16. So easy to prove, just release them

We all know "take my word for it" really means.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to newthinking (Original post)

Fri Feb 26, 2016, 11:15 PM

19. Okey doke, Hillary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to newthinking (Original post)

Fri Feb 26, 2016, 11:19 PM

20. heheheheheheheheheheheheheh

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to newthinking (Original post)

Fri Feb 26, 2016, 11:20 PM

21. I only said a few things, but hey i lied to them too!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to newthinking (Original post)

Sat Feb 27, 2016, 12:03 AM

24. Nothing except what the $millions$ of payola in her pocket means. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to newthinking (Original post)

Sat Feb 27, 2016, 01:41 AM

25. It's bad enough she got so much money for them.

So, at the very least she should release the damn transcripts. Otherwise, she will never get another vote from me. i voted for her twice for the senate but never again if she does not release the transcripts immediately.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to newthinking (Original post)

Sat Feb 27, 2016, 01:43 AM

26. I guess that settles that then

 

She's never giving me a reason to think she's lying .



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to newthinking (Original post)

Sat Feb 27, 2016, 01:51 AM

28. If there's no "there there"

Then release the transcripts! I'm sorry but "Trust me on this" ain't cutting it in 2016. I have no doubt that some "transcripts" will be released soon, but I have serious doubts if they will be the actual transcripts. From her own contract with these groups, we know that she owns the transcripts and no one else. Why would I trust a "transcript" released weeks after the calls for disclosure when if there was nothing to these speeches they should have been released immediately. Sorry for letting my cynicism slip!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to newthinking (Original post)

Sat Feb 27, 2016, 02:10 AM

30. Then what in the fuck is the problem?

...Release the transcripts and then everyone can move the fuck on. Forgotten in a few days if they are as innocuous as she says.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to newthinking (Original post)

Sat Feb 27, 2016, 02:57 AM

32. If they're all that benign and flawless maybe she should demand more of a payoff for her next gig.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to newthinking (Original post)

Sat Feb 27, 2016, 03:02 AM

34. I told my wife there was 'Absolutely, Absolutely' Nothing to Worry About

 

when I started spending a lot of time with that pretty rich young lady.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread