Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

2016 Postmortem

Showing Original Post only (View all)

newthinking

(3,982 posts)
Fri Feb 26, 2016, 06:52 PM Feb 2016

Clinton Promises 'Absolutely, Absolutely' Nothing to Worry About in Wall Street Speeches [View all]

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 = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Nothing to worry about for her bankster cronies maybe. hobbit709 Feb 2016 #1
I'm sure there's plenty for her to worry about californiabernin Feb 2016 #2
Exactly. By deflecting and stalling she looks even more untrustworthy.... peacebird Feb 2016 #7
If there's nothing to worry about, why not release them? The Velveteen Ocelot Feb 2016 #3
I see it a little differently. Her fans already know she works for Goldman-Sachs and Wall Street rhett o rick Feb 2016 #6
At least she follows existing campaign finance law BainsBane Feb 2016 #15
I could swear I know one of those on that list. zappaman Feb 2016 #17
I'm not BainsBane Feb 2016 #18
Yes, by having a super-PAC for donations to flow to revbones Feb 2016 #27
Some donors will also max out primary and GE donations Kittycat Feb 2016 #29
She doesn't "have" a super pac BainsBane Feb 2016 #31
tough on crime, tough on fucking hippies autonomous Feb 2016 #22
She is for the Establishment and against the 99%. nm rhett o rick Feb 2016 #23
She can't turn them over because they are being audited? No ... wait ... that's Trump's tax returns Attorney in Texas Feb 2016 #4
OK...then just put them out there! TCJ70 Feb 2016 #5
Translation: "Shut up about it!" mindwalker_i Feb 2016 #8
+10 nt 99th_Monkey Feb 2016 #10
What she means by "nothing to worry about" is "Don't worry about the things I said because I did not thereismore Feb 2016 #9
Classic "nothing to see here" statement. nt 99th_Monkey Feb 2016 #11
How Nixonian Art_from_Ark Feb 2016 #33
Glad that's settled... Fairgo Feb 2016 #12
I abosolutely abosolutely do NOT believe anything she says. onecaliberal Feb 2016 #13
HRC:"You're asking me to say I have never, I don't believe I ever have. I don't believe I ever will" nc4bo Feb 2016 #14
So easy to prove, just release them whatchamacallit Feb 2016 #16
Okey doke, Hillary. Barack_America Feb 2016 #19
heheheheheheheheheheheheheh MrMickeysMom Feb 2016 #20
I only said a few things, but hey i lied to them too! autonomous Feb 2016 #21
Nothing except what the $millions$ of payola in her pocket means. n/t delrem Feb 2016 #24
It's bad enough she got so much money for them. Bernblu Feb 2016 #25
I guess that settles that then togetherforever Feb 2016 #26
If there's no "there there" Docreed2003 Feb 2016 #28
Then what in the fuck is the problem? actslikeacarrot Feb 2016 #30
If they're all that benign and flawless maybe she should demand more of a payoff for her next gig. Tierra_y_Libertad Feb 2016 #32
I told my wife there was 'Absolutely, Absolutely' Nothing to Worry About SoLeftIAmRight Feb 2016 #34
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Clinton Promises 'Absolut...»Reply #0