When Will Hillary Clinton Release Her Wall Street Transcripts?
Last edited Sat May 14, 2016, 01:23 PM - Edit history (1)
She needs to do it soon because this charade is dragging the democratic party through the mud and giving the republicans a plenty of ammo to make the us look bad.
You know Trump is gonna unleash on them soon, so it is time to just release them.
You know the people that do not sit in front of their tv watching cable news 24/7. More like the people that watch reality shows and read the enquirer at the check out line.
Likewise with Trump's tax returns.
Why not release them and defuse the attack. I'm sure she told Goldman how she would never allow another bank bailout at tax payers expense, and would break them up so they were not "too big to fail". Right?
Ok... I guess this one is just too big of a demand? She released like 50,000 emails, but a few hours worth of speeches is too much? I just wonder why? Hmm...
That is how we decide which one we vote for.
The conversation he had with Lockheed/Martin, NRA and What he said about women at playboy. My right.
Go ahead and ask him, I'd like to know more about him as well
So we need to see the transcripts to make sure this would be achieved by President Clinton.
Clinton over the head with. And just think, If Sanders hadn't started this whole faux outrage, we wouldn't have to go thru it during GE.
I want Sanders health reports. I want the notes when Sanders sold his vote to the Democratic party. I want to hear what Sanders was saying when discussing food lines to be a good thing. Give ME!!!
I hate to discount you completely, but to do otherwise
would be pretty stupid.
so there is no quid-pro-quo in question.
Additionally, what men have been asked to release transcripts?
there's something very fishy about that.
said at those speeches. Also, that someone who attended one to a Wall Street corporation said she spoke so glowingly of them she may as well have been an executive. There is no way in hell she would speak against their predatory practices for that kind of money, also no way in hell they wouldn't be fully convinced their pay-to-play wouldn't buy favourable actions from her, knowing she was running for President. I don't know why she believes people are so stupid.
Mitt Romney's 47% remarks would never have become public either were it not for one brave person with a cellphone camera.
I'm pretty sure Snowden was told not to release data.
The waiter with the cell phone also did what he wanted.
The Bernie crowd has already made fun of her telling Wall Street to "cut it out"...are you saying now that it worked?
predatory contributors to suffering around the world.
As if those with an agenda, could not have leaked info.
One of you co-horts on another thread claims to have found some long lost quote from a bank speech....is that then a lie? you calling your fellow Bernie Supporter a liar? Here, let me make it easy for you: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1948716
of course it was unsourced, but that doesn't matter to the likes of you, does it?
I posted my opinion, the only agenda I have is against anyone, anywhere who supports the predatory super-billionaires spreading their suffering around the planet. Maybe 'the likes of you' have to look beyond your single-minded 'agenda' of preserving the status quo at all cost - those not making it under it are of no concern to you, are they?
and you are big on opinions you try to pass as facts...just like the link I gave you, with un-sourced info..."the like of you" tend to pass of hit pieces, as fact.
Last edited Thu May 12, 2016, 01:29 PM - Edit history (1)
You'd think those huge corporations and banks would be more concerned about who attended their events. I doubt they'd allow just anyone with an interest to attend. Strange, if they were so open to the public, there'd be no transcripts or video ........... anywhere.
What's with the white-noise machine she used recently? Obviously she didn't want 'outsiders' to hear what she was saying. Doesn't make sense, if she was as open to outside scrutiny as you claim.
Sanders conversation with the Democratic party selling his vote to them in '91, or chatting about how food lines are a good thing. Might find some gotcha there too. Or conversation with a bunch of men at Playboy. Lets see what he says about women.
I can completely understand why you need to minimize the importance of where possible presidential loyalties really lie, but that 47% 'gotcha moment' (is that like Palin's 'gotcha' moments re journalists questions???) firmly cemented in millions of people's minds how corruptible he was and how little he cared about the 'little people'.
Preserve the status quo at all cost!
The rest of your post makes no fucking sense whatsoever.
Hey.... why not the same for Sanders? Doesn't work that way for you though, as you make a post of fabricated accusations of insults.
You do not have the same expectation of your candidate as you do the one you oppose. I am consistent. You are not.
Sanders never gave speeches to Big Banks pushing the TPP, Wall Street predators, global giant corporations. She said she was the most transparent politician running, and that she'd release the transcripts when everyone else did - that was a 'gotcha' moment, no? - she fucking knows no-one else made millions being paid by the people ruining the lives of millions.
doesn't have to be transparent. Got it.
The MSM had been going on about even in 2014. Your 'personal earning' meme is complete bullshit. All those speeches were pay-to-play - and those corporations and banks causing so much suffering throughout the world knew damned well she was going to run. Get it???
Looks corrupt as hell to keep hiding them. Up to Clinton to dispel our suspicions, and she can do it any time she likes.
Unless Goldman-Sachs has her under an NDA. Should a future president have a prior oath to our enemies?
on outside circumstance to beat an already winner, Clinton.
..unless there is some secret agreement with G-S that prevents her simply publishing the transcripts she owns.
...and bar anyone else from making a record.
However, the voters live on Planet Earth.
justify that time in her life nor give you documents from teh job she was doing. You do not get to look at her diary, either.
Kerry didn't have to provide his small business information. No other speaker for any reason being demanded to give up speech notes. None of your business. You all make a demand. And expect Clinton to provide. Not consistent. Not asked of others. NO.
We cannot even get Sanders taxes. He has no right to make demands of any one else. Just another example of his hypocrisy.
I think these demands that are constantly put on Clinton is all about her being a woman and the diffferent standards we live to men.
Do not tell a me what I believe, how arrogant.
...that her contracts barred any other recording of the events?
"Personal"? That's ludicrous. "Private," yes, but that was more or less my point. Why were these speeches so private? What is her secret agenda in dealing with the authors of the Great Recession?
"Cut it out" wouldn't need to remain a secret. Something else is in there, and I suspect it's chummier than Clinton has so far let on.
and just expect her to meet your demands.
None of your business.
No gotcha. Nothing special and still....
None of your business.
People do not get this. All the past, all those today, no running president has not had this demand placed on them. But, Sanders decides he wants to see her transcripts and demands she accommodates. No.
The actions and agenda of a presidential candidate are indeed subject to special scrutiny. Typically, this means television or print coverage, or the presence of reporters who make teir own recordings for later transcription/commentary.
"Personal" is a silly label when she didn't know and never met most of the people in those rooms.
"Special," undoubtedly, since she took unprecedented care to ensure that only she could reveal the texts of her speeches. Just exactly what was so special, though, remains her secret.
I think it's mostly because her tone was too chummy or too laudatory, and would contradict her "cut it out" claim.
and Sanders demand. Never enough, always demands, ... No.
...to include financial disclosures and tax returns.
Particularly the "private" assurances or harangues Clinton made to the architects of financial ruin when she tnought none of us could hear.
countries, conversations with communist Russia.
...from disclosure on her secret addresses to the financial sector in the run-up to her candidacy.
his true beliefs of socialism, which absolutely has a huge impact on his governing style, as it is outrageous demanding Clintons transcripts. The difference. We would NEVER make that demand of Sanders, or any man in the same posiiton of Clinton. What us women know, is making these demands of women are normal, and people expect and further demand a woman comply. How dare she say no to Sanders. Pisses him and his people off that much more.
...is it because they locked up under a secret NDA with G-S, are classified, are unflattering, or have been lost?
Or is there another explanation for the continued secrecy?
Really, none of our business, just vote and hope for the best?
I do not buy it. I think it petty. I think it is all about arrogance of man, making his demand, looking for a gotcha.
nothing to see there?
falsified mortgage paperwork and foreclosures.
a list so long I will just stop here, knowing you know it too.
what issues concern you?
attacking Dems, totally ignoring the Repugs that brought us that, by again, I do not buy that agenda.
In the mean time, I don't see Hillary doing anything that could complicate her path to the nomination. For her not to have released them early on, I think it's safe to assume that there's a source of some bad PR in them, even if they are truly fundamentally benign. Even if only in the way one phrases the same idea to a group of people friendly to an idea than you would present it to the general public. So I don't assume there's anything truly terrible in them, but yeah, for her to have felt the bad PR of not releasing them was worth it, she must feel that the PR would be worse if she released them.
for many years?
Of course, what IDIOTS would pay to hear Mr Word Salad? The same ones who pay Ms Word Salad Palin.
And when are DUers going to stop pretending that Trump is all powerful and untouchable on this level? OPs like this one are all about deflating Dems as if they have no counter to what Trump does or will do going into November. I think this post is exceedingly disingenuous.
What's with your use of the word 'us', anyway? You think WE should be shivering in our boots and need to buy into every lie and 'scandal' the GOP propaganda machine crafted for us? They do that 24/7 nonstop since 1980. Guess you never bothered to NOTICE, eh?
Donald mostly speaks off the cuff, and I would not be surprised if he had no interest in having anyone transcribe what he said.
all you want, but, those of us armed with insight into how they operate on the internet will not.
It is odd that someone who is supposed to be opposed to Trump's crazy ideas wants to keep her speeches so secret.
Aside from that, there's really no compelling reason for her to do that. It makes no sense for her to "release the transcripts" simply to flatter the egos of people who have no intentions of voting for her anyway. And the "transcripts" make no difference to anyone else.
Time to face another fact and another disappointment. Bernie fans will not get their "47%" moment. Hillary is too smart for that.
What she said in a paid speech as a private citizen
doesn't matter at all.
Al Franken said in his book that he liked speaking at
the private corporate functions because the fees were high.
As far as I know nobody's ever asked for the
transcripts to any of his speeches.
yesterday she was going after Trump to release his tax returns, saying, "What's he hiding?" My mouth just hung open when i saw her saying, "We're' going to get to the bottom of it." Until she releases her transcripts, she's never going to get away with this line of attack on him.
his tax returns just like every other candidate for many years now hasn't done so is obviously equal to someone releasing private speeches given to private groups when she wasn't a candidate. =/=
She gave those speeches as a private citizen, not an elected official, at a private, not public, affair. End of story.
if she doesn't release them and provide full transparency, then I see no reason for her to expect anyone to vote for her.
End of story.
Last edited Thu May 12, 2016, 04:01 PM - Edit history (1)
post is not her transcripts. Who really gives a shit. The REAL problem is the CONSTANT BULLSHIT surrounding HRC. There's always something. I'm guessing people are use to it, and just accept it as part of life.
What are they hiding?
I suspect former is much richer than he lets on and the latter is much poorer.
saying he would do so. IRS 2015 deadline is just past, unless an extension was needed because of campaigning.
Guess what? He wasn't hiding any pay-for-play Foundations in them!
How about 1 tax return for 1 speech?
Certainly that's not too high a hurdle for the Vermont independent to overcome.
We have two candidates in the race who are reticent to release tax returns. I suspect that is because they would indicate one is much richer than he lets on to be and the other is much poorer.
But will revisit the convo, if you like, when I get off later. Have a good one.
has to release "transcripts" of speeches they give as private citizens?
We can't even get two candidates to release a record of tax returns like every candidate does!
Let's try to hold everyone to the same standards - even if it is Hillary!
You can't blame voters who withhold their vote as a consequence of her not showing them.
I shouldn't blame you - "Just release the transcripts, Hillary!"
OK. I won't.
pushing the Keystone XL. Did she talk to them about pipeline safety? How to run a pig down the line? What??? Nah ....... she was voicing her support to them in getting it to pass, all while knowing she was going to run for President. She gave other speeches in various cities sponsored by other groups (mostly also paid for by those big banks) schooling us on 'Terror, Terror'! and how we need to be alert and ready. I guess she forgot Canada lost troops from the very beginning in some of the most dangerous areas in Afghanistan - and the hundreds committing suicide since getting back home. Reporters following the speeches asked her about the Keystone XL, which she never mentioned, and replied "No comment".
As a tax paying citizen, I want to know why my taxes helped pay for someone from another country to give speeches to backers of yet another pipeline that not only affects her own country but ours also.
And yes ............. I do have the right to know.
My taxes help pay for all of this, in one way or another. It's not just you who are affected by yet another pipeline - Canadians have been protesting it from the start. We don't need a 'private citizen' (if you really believe she had no plans to run for President) from another country pushing it in speeches. If she did, I want to know why.
I've said where I was from 200 times here. Why are you confused, I said in my post that Canadians have been protesting the pipeline and we have a right to know why someone from another country is up here speaking to the backers of it. Is she a pipeline safety expert in her personal life? Why wouldn't we be allowed to know what she said to them ...... news articles of her other speeches regarding 'terra!!' were sent out - why the secrecy on the Keystone XL?
suggests that citizens of a foreign nation may intervene in the internal political affairs of another nation, demanding that one of its candidates provide some given 'information'?
Do you pay taxes in the U.S,?
the right to demand from a country's internal political system where you are neither a citizen nor taxpayer.
She's not so special that I don't get to know how she's affecting decisions wrt pipelines that cross our land also. Every other speech she gave schooling us on 'terra' was reported on - issues that affect the environment and that so many Canadians have protested, including those indigenous people whose lands are affected by all of these pipelines, should be suddenly secret. Bullfuckingshit.
from your own government and/or political party. I, as a non-citizen and non-taxpayer would not. The reverse is also true. None of our Presidential candidates owes you any explanation or justification nor do you have any right (except an imaginary one) to demand it. You are attempting to insert yourself into a process where you are merely a bystander.
have no right to know.
Good luck with that.
Obviously there must be some legislation somewhere which supports your contention. Do you also believe that you have a right to vote in our primary elections?
Why would I believe I have a right to vote there?
You seem to be making shit up from nothing.
So that is where I left it!
when discussing serious issues but you keep on keeping it "plain and simple". Obviously works for you.
But keep on trying to justify your thoughts even though the simple facts stair you straight in the face.
Slightly modified for each audience, I'd bet.
Obviously Bernie, and his supporters, are not aware that groups, organizations, and companies will hire speakers for events and meetings. Rarely do they ever speak about the business of those groups, organizations, or companies. They are hired to speak about their life experiences. The more interesting those experiences, the more they are paid. I've been fortunate to hear a lot of interesting paid speakers over the years. None ever spoke about the functions of those groups they were addressing. So yes, it is the same speech, with a little ad lib tossed in.
By Hillary supporters regarding this. I have a feeling Trump has something in his back pocket on this for a nice October Surprise.
No "speeches" - just a wink, nod and a bribe? Poor Hillary, there's nothing to produce, just maybe?
There would be thousands of people out there who have listened to her speeches and not one of them has come forward yet? It is odd.
Release them now and get out in front of it, or this may be the October surprise. If leaked at the prefect moment this could make Trump President
Maybe you imagine that printed transcripts of her speaking engagements were handed out to the audience? Since she was speaking as a private citizen, her notes, drafts, outlines, and any texts would have come from her personal computer or her private office, so you're envisioning a fantasy that someone on her staff is a Bernie mole who would have unlimited access to her IT systems, steal her speeches, risking criminal charges for the theft of Clinton's intellectual property, and face a lawsuit for violating any non disclosure agreements?
Like many public speakers, Hillary often gives extemporaneous talks, in which case there is nothing in writing. Or she only uses a general outline of the key topics she wants to highlight. How is that so important that someone is going to risk their career to leak it?
If the transcripts make Hillary Clinton look good, they would have been released long ago.
It is ludicrous to believe that the sums of monies taken from such economically powerful institutions would not effect past and subsequent acts by Clinton.
Bad for the Democratic party.
....if there even are "transcripts" of any speeches she gave as a private citizen?
No, she doesn't. This is your issue, the guileless Bernie fan club thinks this is their ticket to an easy victory, but no one cares. Here's a shocker; Hillary's speechifying was probably probably pretty anodyne and saccharinely polite to her audience -- at the very least, $225,000 would get them some pleasant sounding words -- but thats likely about the extent of it.
Mrs. Clinton mainly offered what one attendee called a tour of the world, covering her observations on China, Iran, Egypt and Russia. This person said Mrs. Clinton also discussed the dysfunction in Washington, how to repair Americas standing in the world after the government shutdown and also talked a bit about the Affordable Care Act, which had had a difficult rollout.
Yeah, sounds real devastating to Hillary's campaign.
Here 6 days and already stirring shit. Enjoy your stay.
Along with an explanatory text of why the 2016 election was a turning point in favor of the lovely oligarchy Panem that you and your grandchildren know and love.
Hillary has an honesty problem, you are assuming the speech money was for an actual speech.
For argument's sake, let's assume a real speech was given. All Trump has to do is offer a reward for it. He will get it in no time and use it to bash the democratic party along with Hillary. Trump already has plenty of material to use against Hillary. She has a metric ton of baggage. All done while painting himself as an outsider populist. The corporate media will help him win.
Let's hope Bernie wins so we can avoid the embarrassment.
Primary Elections Popular Vote as of May 12, 2016
Hillary Clinton: 12,647,581
Bernie Sanders: 9,570,415
Total Delegate Support
Clinton: 2220 of 2384 required (93%)
Sanders: 1478 of 2384 required (62%)
and the media has done everything imaginable to bury the Sanders movement. What does that tell ya?
In addition there is the disturbing fact that some of those 10 million votes BS had gotten are from Republicans who would not vote for him in the GE.
05/10/16 09:30 PMUPDATED 05/11/16 08:00 PM
By Alex Seitz-Wald
Unfortunately there has been a trend of Republican voters casting their votes for Bernie Sanders.
In fact, 39 percent of Sanders voters said they would vote for Trump over Sanders in the fall. For Clinton, nine percent of her voters say they plan to come out for Trump in the general election.
West Virginia has an open primary, meaning independents can vote in the Democratic contest. With the GOP nomination wrapped up, its possible mischievous Trump supporters sought to damage Clinton, the likely Democratic nominee, by voting for Sanders.
There was also a competitive Democratic gubernatorial primary Tuesday and no Republican one so Trump voters might have turned out for that and then weighed in on the presidential ballot line while they were at it.
Either way, Sanders coalition in West Virginia doesnt fit with many of the patterns weve come to expect of Sanders voters after more than 40 primaries and caucuses.
For instance, Sanders, the Vermont Democratic Socialist, won self-described conservative voters. He also won 62 percent of voters who said they want less liberal policies than Obamas.
That suggests some of Sanders voters may have been motivated more by a desire to vote against Clinton, rather than to support Sanders policy ideas.
Nice of you to inflate her numbers. I wouldn't be surprised if Bernie wins the remaining states since corporate media suppression tactics don't last long term. We are taking it all the way to the convention.
The only people clamoring for her speeches she made as a CITIZEN are the Bernie supporters. This is an intrusion on her private life, painting it any other way is nonsense. She is doing the right thing by holding the line on over intrusiveness.
for even the Neo-Dem machine to do anything about it.
She is having yet another laps in judgment right now by not releasing them.
And meanwhile there's those transcripts floating around. It's unbelievable.
Please explain how "Hillary is dragging the party through the mud and making it look bad".
But that won't matter because audio of one of the events will be a Republican campaign commercial.
answer is: never. She never intended to, and never will. What does that make her?
alleged democracy minded voters shrug.
real ones shudder.
So, you gonna vote for Trump now?
Are we all on "Double Secret Probation", and you're not giving it up like Dean Werner?
Nor will she ever shrink from attacks whether from Trump (expected) or from fellow "Democrats" (unexpected and getting more and more desperate by the day).
You just have to post the YouTube link and it shows up. DU is very YouTube friendly.
Lockheed Martin. We know he was influenced by NRA, and with continuation of funding to Lockheed Martin for the F-35 program, wonder what else we will find.
Produced a relationship where Hillary was influenced.
To defeat his opponent when he was elected to Congress.
The difference is that he does not say one thing to one audience and then completely change position for a different audience. He has already taken the heat for his position on guns and not tried to backtrack unlike what Clinton does all the time. So no one is going to be ever be surprised by something he has said.
some GOP folks at Goldman Sachs or one of those Wall Street speaking engagements had some way of recording her.
They're just waiting for the right moment like the folks who released Romney's 47% remarks did.
Things like this seem to have a way of getting out.
The GOP obviously know if she's not releasing them, that they're damaging politically.
That this issue of her transcripts is a RW talking point but it is not. Had 2008 not happend maybe that is all it would be but 2008 did happen and many thousands if not millions of people's lives were turned upside down because of the fraud done and then to add insult to injury those same people were forced to bail out the very bankers that created the mess. One of my biggest disappointments with President Obama was he side step of holding Wall Street accountable for its actions.
So what HRC said to bankers is important to many people.
But they definitely kept you guys distracted for a few months.