Release of Clinton's Wall Street Speeches Could End Her Candidacy for President But don’t just take

[silvershadow]

my word for it

bySeth Abrasion

The reason you and I will never see the transcripts of Hillary Clinton’s speeches to Wall Street fat-cats — and the reason she’s established a nonsensical condition for their release, that being an agreement by members of another party, involved in a separate primary, to do the same — is that if she were ever to release those transcripts, it could end her candidacy for president.

Please don’t take my word for it, though.

Nor even that of the many neutral observers in the media who are deeply troubled by Clinton’s lack of transparency as to these well-compensated closed-door events — a lack of transparency that has actually been a hallmark of her career in politics.

Nor do we even need to take Clinton’s word for it — as we could certainly argue that her insistence that none of these transcripts ever be seen by the public is itself a confession that her words would cause significant trauma to her presidential bid.

more: http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/04/15/release-clintons-wall-street-speeches-could-end-her-candidacy-president

[Thinkingabout]

1. Now that is a great dream, huh.

[Dragonfli]

3. No, but it is very unfortunate, I would prefer a couple of honest and transparent choices lacking

corruption problems and investigations to vote for in my party's primary, believe it or not, I would prefer Hillary meant her newly found liberal rhetoric and did not have transparency and corruption issues combined with unfavorable and unlikable numbers in the polls that will depress the Democratic turnout and harm our Senate retake and a larger minority in the House (taking it would be unlikely due to gerrymandering) but a larger number of Democrats in the House would still be most helpful.

There is also the problem that such low approval, trust, and likability numbers combined with a two generational seething hatred of her (deserved or not) is a unifying factor for the Republicans that will only enrich their turnout just for the privilege to hate vote against her, and will combine with a depressed turnout on our side to hurt us badly enough that both branches of Congress and the Presidency could be Republican blowouts if she wins the primary.

I like Sanders over her for my own reasons because I am not a Conservative New Democrat, but REALLY and TRULY would prefer two good candidates to increase our chances of winning and winning big should one falter in the primary.

It is not a dream, it is a very unfortunate nightmare with all due respect.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

15. Amen. nt

[renate]

16. that's how I feel

Especially at this point, when Bernie is extremely mathematically unlikely to be the nominee. I take absolutely no pleasure in the criticisms of Hillary Clinton. None.

If she takes strength and conviction from the previously silent (or, I should say, silenced) progressives in the electorate to take really dramatic and substantive steps to the left, I would be thrilled. I really hope she means what she's saying now and isn't just leaning leftward to try to take momentum away from Bernie.

Like you I am worried about how much Republicans dislike her and how, quite possibly through no fault of her own (*cough* Bill *cough*), she's got the reputation for being untrustworthy. I think she's a better person deep down than Bill ever was--he's such a repugnant narcissist, if nothing else--and I don't like seeing her painted with his colors. But she is, and will be--and I worry that Republicans will turn out in droves to vote against her rather than to vote for either Trump or Cruz. Bernie doesn't have that baggage. People won't stand in line to vote against him.

Oh well. It's not up to me.

[Thinkingabout]

23. Do you think Sanders has been vetted? No, in fact the GOP has not started vetting him, it will be

brutal. You may ask why hasn't Hillary vetted him, playing the GOP primary game does not suit her. Of all of the non scandals, investigations, etc the GOP has done in the last twenty five years on the Clintons and do not have anything but these non scandals, these speech transcripts are not going to disqualify her now. Now, maybe we need to be honest with the talking points.

[Dragonfli]

25. I think it is hard to find dirt in a glass of distilled water and will be

just as hard to find dirt on a clean politician. They will of course try to attack anyway just as Hillary does, but clean and consistent politicians, that haven't amassed multi-million dollar fortunes off the back of their political careers are actually quite hard to effectively attack, as David Brock is learning.

Her FBI investigations and several other scandals including the appearance of money laundering since 2008 when added to their already amassed baggage car of scandals they have collected over the years that she carries "vetting" as you incorrectly describe the meaning of the word, makes her on the other hand the worst possible candidate to run against their well oiled attack machine

[FreakinDJ]

26. NONE of the Republican candidates have given paid speeches to Wall Street either - just Hillary

NONE of the Republican candidates have given paid speeches to Wall Street either - just Hillary


Rubio hasn’t given paid speeches to Wall st. Kasisch hasn’t given paid speeches to Wall Street, Cruz hasn’t given paid speeches to Wall Street and Trump IS Wall Street and certainly isn’t giving any paid speeches to them.

Time for Hillary to release the transcripts. She said she would release them AFTER every candidate has released theirs. Well it is done. They are released. It was a good bet while it lasted. Now she must own up to her promise and release them now.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/2/24/1490821/-NONE-of-the-Republican-candidates-have-given-paid-speeches-to-Wall-Street-either-just-Hillary

The GOP already knows this

[Thinkingabout]

30. Just to make a point here, there have been investigations of the Clintons for twenty five years,

what have they developed on Hillary? One was a transaction she made in the futures market, it was successful, the Sanders also invest, guess what, that is a good reason per the GOP to investigate. Do you for one moment think Trump will not rip Sanders to shreds? You may think Sanders is without fault, and it is okay to have lots of faith in your candidate, it does not make it true. All of his votes will come into play and each will be torn apart, it will not be nice. He has had a history of associating with the Sandinistas, Cuba, his sister city while mayor of Burlington, and now his agenda, it will not be nice. Can you imagine how many times you will hear Trump say "FREE FREE FREE"?

[Dragonfli]

33. They have produced an honesty rating from the public of 30% and a favorable rating in the low 40%

That's what the have developed on Clinton.

Plus a likability factor in the toilet, having more to do with her personality than their attacks and they haven't even started the new attacks, many of which include much stronger munitions to add to their salvo.

These points you raise do not help her case as an electable GE candidate, in fact quite the opposite. She will also depress our own Democratic turnout, destroy the turnout for the Democrats among Independents, and the young. While simultaneously providing the unifying factor the Republicans need to turn out in record numbers those in their party that now comprise two generations of people that passionately hate Clinton (rightly or wrongly so) that will form long lines of voting Republicans and independent Conservatives just for the privilege of hate voting against her, crawling on their belly's over broken glass if needed in fact to do so.

Her support is around half of Democrats but tepid and unenthusiastic and will depress our vote due to such lack of enthusiasm for her within the party, not only that, she also lacks the support of independent voters that any party needs to win and the young voters that until Sanders had come along, were neither engaged nor inclined to vote at all to continue policies that offer them a continually ever more bleak future.

If she wins the nomination, we will have lost what could have grown our party immensely by gaining the extremely large numbers of Independents and young people drawn to Sanders and not to her (who unlike fully partisan Dems like us) will not hold their nose and just vote for her, instead they will likely stay home or worse, vote against us. Even if Sanders enthusiastically endorses her, those independents and previously un-engaged young people will not "magically show for HER", they have not chosen her and are not his puppets that will simply vote as he asks, because they only wanted to vote for him in the first place (all his endorsement will do is somewhat unify the Democratic party, it would have little effect beyond that)

(Now combine this with the Republican unified hatred principle, that will bring their now splintered party together in their hatred of Clinton) that will turn out in record numbers to hate vote, and the end result will be - catastrophic down ticket loses rather than gains that would have taken back the Senate, catastrophic losses in the House where we could have improved our numbers considerably, even with gerrymandering, plus a major feeding frenzy of attacks on her emails including a VERY REAL FBI investigation (and allegations of money laundering and influence peddling using a charitable "initiative" that real or imagined will matter little to voters inundated with so much cannon fodder) and we will likely also lose the Presidency. Hell even if she does manage to win, she will face a Congress newly bloated with increased Republican numbers that will spend her entire Presidency investigating and trying to impeach her.

people will not respond to Trumps feeble attacks on Sanders, his votes unlike nearly any other are EXTREMELY CONSISTENT leaving no room to attack, as he also beats Trump by double digits and only racists and bigots would vote for him over a Sanders that even the youth and independents love.

You are not very good a understanding politics, at least not modern politics.

[Thinkingabout]

37. Since many of the talkinf points ae straight out of the GOP factory I am not surprised,

the same factory which these talking points came will also deliver the same to Sanders if he should be the nominee.

[Dragonfli]

39. I, at this point, don't even understand things you say as they appear rather stupid at times but may

only be a lack of communication skills that I will not deride, as such a thing is not very nice, but I can stop trying to converse intelligently with you simply because you appear unable to respond in such a way that accomplishes that goal.

I have tried a great many times this past year to do so but must now admit it is something that can't happen. Intelligent conversation does not appear to materialize when I attempt it with you.

I have therefore come to a decision to no longer to engage you as it serves no practical or educational purpose.
you are not "on ignore" or anything, I will simply ignore you instead without the use of the site software.


Good by and Goddess bless.

[Thinkingabout]

40. Attack all you want it does not change the facts, I go gladly.

[Cassiopeia]

27. Hillary and her campaign have been throwing lie after lie

at Bernie.

He's been vetted and they couldn't find anything. If you believe otherwise then your candidate is simply lazy and would rather lie than find that stuff that vetting would find.

[Thinkingabout]

31. Hillary is not going after Sanders, plain and simple.

[Dragonfli]

34. .

[snot]

2. Excellent article – K&R'd!

[pnwmom]

4. You can watch one of those terrible speeches on Youtube, where it's been since 2014.

Have fun.

Get real. This is the same woman who's had tens of thousands of private emails made public -- and the vultures haven't found anything -- and yet you are sure she'd say something incriminating in a SPEECH in front of an audience, that anyone could record.

[silvershadow]

7. And yet, this one speech isn't "all of the speeches", nor is it the actual transcripts. nt

[Scootaloo]

9. So why the lack of transparency?

And why the double standard from you?

[NJCher]

18. No, you get real

The "vultures" (AKA "watchdogs" in proper Democratic circles) have found something and that is why she is still under investigation.

If you cared to read up on the topic, you'd know she told a staffer to take off a security heading so a classified document could be transmitted. There's more.

Also, I don't need you to tell me to have fun. It would be fun if she wasn't standing in the way of properly regulating an industry known for its sociopaths.

Cher

[pnwmom]

22. No, they haven't. All we've had are Rethug rumors and President Obama encouraging

the investigators to be scrupulously thorough.

If YOU cared to read up on the topic, you would know that she had, by Federal law, the absolute right and responsibility to classify or declassify ANY state department document at will. As the head of the State Department, she was the decider.

You've been swimming in too much Rethug hate. They are liars and no one should believe them.

http://prospect.org/article/why-hillary-wont-be-indicted-and-shouldnt-be-objective-legal-analysis

Why Hillary Won't Be Indicted and Shouldn't Be: An Objective Legal Analysis

There is no reason to think that Clinton committed any crimes with respect to the use of her email server.

Richard O. Lempert (Richard O. Lempert is the Eric Stein Distinguished University Professor of Law and Sociology emeritus at the University of Michigan).

March 20, 2016

[NJCher]

45. so you're trying to tell me

that Hillary Clinton can take any government document that's
classified and re-classify it?

I find that very hard to believe.


Cher

[SHRED]

5. Hillary is part of the ruling class.

[silvershadow]

8. Yep. Part of the aristocracy of this nation. And once she clawed her way to the top she became

Marie Antionette.

[Thinkingabout]

24. From where did her beginnings start?

[Dragonfli]

28. From an upper middle class home in a Chicago suburb called Park Ridge

[Thinkingabout]

32. Yes, she had a father who was in business for himself but a far cry from ruling class.

[Dragonfli]

35. You asked where she started, not where her ruthless ambitions took her, she started between second

and third base, thinking a masterful bunt put her near third, rather than her upper middle class white privilege and with it an Ivy league education where she spent most of her time advocating for Republicans.

After that it was smooth sailing into the aristocratic position she now enjoys

[Thinkingabout]

36. If you was as successful as the clintons, would you still be as unhappy?

[Dragonfli]

38. Money does not buy happiness my dear, else they would not be addicted to acquiring ever more

Money, more money, ever more money. Beyond an amount that they could ever reasonably even spend in their lifetimes, as if it were a hoarding or addiction problem.

The happiest days of my life were spent with my starving artist wife and doing work that was not the most profitable offered to a person of my skill set but creatively rewarding, all this happiness in a one bedroom apt. that we barely kept heated and yet spent our days in laughter and contentment.

Greed is not the key to happiness my friend, love and a connection to others is. Perhaps that is why so many of the wealthy among us are constantly miserable and reach out in hatred to "punish" the less fortunate by eliminated their safety nets, livelihoods and dreams of a better life outside of poverty where meeting one;'s needs is often all that is wanted, like the Kochs aspire to do and the Clinton's successfully did when they ended welfare as we know it, while destroying so many lives and potential future livelihoods by locking up such a large number of my community in prison.

If I was as "successful" as they and with so many ruined lives and blood on their hands, hell even with clean hands and just their hoarded wealth, the honest answer would be I would be just as if not more unhappy than I am now. I only became unhappy with the passing of my wife, because as I mentioned, it is love and not greed that breed happiness.

[Lunabell]

6. If she wins the nomination

and Bernie does not endorse her, I will not vote for her. #?Bernie2016‬ ‪#?FeelTheBern‬ #?releasethetranscripts‬ ‪#?wherearethetranscripts‬

[BeanMusical]

10. Kick and R

[laserhaas]

11. Clinton's former campaign guy is following me...now

They know I'm screaming at DOJ to nail Goldman Sachs

Stay tuned.....

Hillary's back room support of Sachs e ill egg her...much

[SammyWinstonJack]

12. KnR

[jmowreader]

13. Bernie's release of his Schedule A SHOULD have ended his candidacy

How can anyone get a mortgage requiring 18.5 percent of your annual income be spent on interest and property taxes?

[tomm2thumbs]

14. you funny

[Betty Karlson]

17. K& R for the truth, even if it makes Clinton uncomfortable.

She is a GE disaster waiting to happen. 2014 is nothing compared to Clinton. Don't let Debbie ruin the party's future: vote Sanders.

[Firebrand Gary]

19. Those eyes.

They're a rollin!

[mikehiggins]

20. Most likely

the contents of the talks could contain opinions and points of view that could be manipulated by the GOP much like we pushed Romney's 47% line right in the GOP's faces.

HRC is already on record as suggesting the people who bought the bad mortgages back in the day were to blame for what happened in the mortgage collapse. Talks which seemed to boost Goldmine-Sachs as a good actor in the nation's economy could easily lead to a lot more questions than HRC wants to have asked, even though she will never answer them in the first place.

[highprincipleswork]

21. Makes total sense. The only sense. What could convince someone to ignore this?

[liberal N proud]

29. If there was any damning evidence in those speeches it would have been exposed by now

The GOP and the media would have made it a huge issue.


But keep trying!

[Bill USA]

41. Ah, I see faith in the Email 'scandal' is waning. "We" need another 'scandal' to hang on HRC!

[Bill USA]

42. "Don’t be fooled by Sanders: he’s a diehard communist" - the death of BS if he's the nominee

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016152443

[Bill USA]

43. Republicans are trying to help Bernie Sanders win, and it's not because they like his message - KOS

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016152464

But Republicans are doing much more than just sending out debate-night emails that happen to be friendly to Sanders’ cause. American Crossroads, the GOP dark money group founded by Karl Rove, is running ads in Iowa depicting Clinton as a tool of Wall Street.

[blockquote style="padding:10px;background:#eedddd;"]Narrator: “Ever wonder how Hillary Clinton can afford so many ads? Chances are, they were paid for with Wall Street cash. Hillary Clinton’s gotten 54 times more money from Wall Street interests than from all of Iowa. Hillary rewarded Wall Street with the $700 billion bailout—then Wall Street made her a multi-millionaire.”

Clinton: “I represented Wall Street.”

Narrator: “Heh. You sure did, Hillary. Does Iowa really want Wall Street in the White House?”


Karl Rove didn’t suddenly become a rabid critic of Wall Street’s influence, just like the RNC didn’t just turn into overnight Bernie fans. The truth of the matter is a lot simpler: They’d prefer to see Sanders win the Democratic nomination because they think he’d be easier to beat in November.
(more)

[silvershadow]

44. Well she certainly gave them plenty of fodder. Of course, the irony of them doing this

to her is not lost on me.