HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » JackRiddler » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 91 Next »

JackRiddler

Profile Information

Member since: 2002
Number of posts: 24,461

Journal Archives

It's not an assumption, it's a description.

The speeches happened and the incredible fees were paid for them, that much is factual, no assumptions necessary. You can call that by whatever name you prefer. I call it a legal form of bribery or (if you prefer something less provocative) influence-buying, pay-to-play, etc.

The particular form in which the Clintons did it - through speaking gigs - is not at all unusual, but their haul is without precedent. They were pioneers, but what they did ethically is not unlike the totally legal campaign finance system, which on direct contributions favors the wealthy and lobbyists who can bundle millions in donations, and that also allows unlimited indirect soft-money donations by billionaires and corporations. It is not unlike the totally legal corporate media system, which produces "news" financed by advertising paid by corporations with political interests, as well as billions from political campaigns. These are also forms of influence buying and mutual political aggrandizement by the buyers and sellers.

If you think the corporations and organizations were not paying these exorbitant fees to the Clintons as an effort to buy influence with a potential president, and if you think the Clintons were not there to pander to potential donors for the expected HRC presidential run, then you can give it a different name.

Call these charity gigs, if you will. You wouldn't be the first.

One way potentially to clarify these issues would be for the Clintons to voluntarily release transcripts or recordings of the events. Many of which are likely to be leaked by parties with access who are hostile to Clinton, once she secures the nomination.

So have I understood? Words of the Clintons are meaningless?

They sold their words for $153 million in legal bribes from corporations and other entities -- entities who lobby governments on behalf of their own interests, and who otherwise engage in political influence.

But whatever they said, in exchange for $153 million, is meaningless and of no interest to "America."

Now if you think about it, that is an extremely insulting attitude regarding the words of the future president -- words that one would think are actually very important and meaningful words. Good words!

Most curiously of all, this dismissive attitude, that Clinton's words mean nothing, comes from her supporters in her defense.

Why do you support a person whose words mean nothing to you? Why do you prefer to be in the dark?

You ("we") and "the country" don't get to be synonyms.

"The country" you're thinking of is the one depicted by the corporate media whose owners mostly back Clinton but also love Trump as a ratings machine. They perhaps don't give a shit about her speeches... and actually they will, soon as these are leaked on Trump's behalf in the general campaign!

But think more deeply on what kind of person you have committed yourself to. Someone whose words don't count for "shit," as you say.

It's not just the awfulness.

It's the specific focus within the national security milieu and in the context of the last 20 years of war crimes under multiple administrations (which form a kind of coherent set preceded by the prior 20 years of war crimes under multiple administrations, etc.).

Here's one of the chief lawbreakers, at least on an administrative level, once again complaining about... secret-spilling as the highest crime! Clinton to me is the lead butcher of Libya, the backer of the Honduras coup, the one who probably got the Iran deal delayed and may want to return to confrontation, the one who's rushed ahead of the pack to support every damn intervention of the last 25 years and whose rhetoric now suggests much more in the works that we've seen under Obama.

I get that what she's done with the servers is a violation with an actionable history to it, but it is still being highlighted within a world of incredibly selective priorities on whom and what to investigate and prosecute, which in fact seem designed to reinforce the legitimacy or at least exculpability of far worse things (as well as likely do have a partisan background).

In other words, I'm all for her and all other politicians and officials involved in wrongdoing to have to face justice for their serious traffic violations, but it's a bit of a farce when they're not being charged for the drive-by murders they were careening their cars to and from. And it's also not excusable as "Caponing," since in this case it's Capones going after Capones.

Yeah yeah.

That is exactly what they are doing, and it is exactly how the system of legalized corruption generally works. Politicians show themselves to be reliable to corporate interests in exchange for campaign finance, and if they do well, the big payoff comes when they reenter the "private sector" at 5 to 100 times their income as "public servants." These corporations would not so consistently pay that kind of money for speeches from either Clinton (or anyone else), and the Clintons wouldn't be able to charge such fees, without the expectation that this advantages both parties politically. You think businesses do this for charity? The Clinton Foundation?! Hilarious! Everyone understands this and those of you who are playing naive about it are partisan to your particular cause, nothing more. You persuade no one with the handwringing. Call things by their proper names!

Transcripts will leak - and it is obvious why they have not yet.

As we know, for years the Wall Street banksters, military contractors and many other transnational corporations paid big money to legally bribe the Clintons to deliver closed-door speeches. And many of these entities are now raining millions on the Clinton campaign, in expectation of political service. That's how the system works. It's wrong. It's bad for us. And it's legal.

No doubt there are hundreds of people among these organizations who can get their hands on transcripts of, or who already have unauthorized recordings of one or more of these speeches. (Hello, the year is 2016!)

Some ask, why haven't we seen any leaks of transcripts yet? But is this a serious question?

It's a safe guess most of the audience members liked what they heard, don't want to violate non-disclosure rules, don't care, support her -- I bet a majority of these crowds do, why would they not? -- or would not think of taking the bother or the risk. And again, most will not have access to records.

Most also probably don't think it's a "secret" how Clinton really stands on the issues dear to them. Puh-lease, what's secret after three decades of corporate kowtowing by the Clinton machine? (If she said she wants to give them sweet new tax loopholes, they'd like that, no?)

There is little doubt that the transcripts will be embarrassing and damage Clinton in the world of those who were not present, among people who may be trying hard to convince themselves she is progressive. (This is of course not a demographic predominant at Goldman Sachs and Co.!) The transcripts are unlikely to reveal anything the non-self-deluded don't already know, but their release would create problem stories for the campaign in the media and give ammo to interests who want to bring her down.

Now. It is a sure bet that at least a few among those who can access transcripts or recordings will be partisans who want to harm the Clinton campaign or help elect the Republican, and who are motivated to act.

Anyone thinking that way would be smart not to leak anything until she is the nominee. Why would they endanger her nomination? You think the people at Goldman Sachs and Co. who are invited to these shindigs have a lot of Sanders supporters in their ranks? Ha!

In short, I am arguing one or more and probably many transcripts will be leaked, after the nomination is secured.

It is pretty obvious why the transcripts aren't released yet.

Most of the audience members presumably liked what they heard, don't want to violate non-disclosure rules, don't necessarily care, support her (I bet a majority of these crowds do), or wouldn't think of bothering.

And they don't think it's a "secret." Puh-lease, what's secret after three decades of corporate kowtowing by the Clinton machine? (If she said she wants to give them tax breaks, they like that, no?)

The transcripts are bad because they'll be embarrassing and damage Clinton among those who were not present and trying hard to convince themselves she is progressive, i.e. not a demographic predominant at Goldman Sachs and Co.!

The transcripts will not reveal anything the non-self-deluded don't already know, but their release would create a shitstorm for the campaign.

The executives of course are happy to finance her - they paid high bribe money already for the speeches, legally of course. Wall Street is raining down millions to finance her campaign - they hardly need to mention they have the speeches in reserve. She's a reliable servant.

But those are right who say MANY PEOPLE heard the speeches, and dozens no doubt can get their hands on the transcripts or have recordings. Some among them will be partisans who want to harm the Clinton campaign.

Those motivated to do so (or who want to elect the Republican) would not leak anything until she is the nominee. Why would they endanger her nomination? You think the audiences at Goldman Sachs and Co. invited to these shindigs had a lot of Sanders supporters in their ranks? Ha!

So much projection here!

Sanders' supporters were a movement before the campaign and though they love him they don't rely on him for identification. Some will shrug, some will work for or against Clinton, but all will continue to fight for economic and social justice in 2017 and beyond. This kind of cult behavior you are attributing is actually the Clinton Camp, which exists only for Clinton, cannot give a genuine political reason why, and has no coherence otherwise.

cute

But as you surely know yourself, all this shows is some of the chaos and confusion generated by the 50+ separate contests in basically arbitrary sequence, each under over-complicated rules and laws, and with a biased DNC at the top, all of which obviously favors insiders and those with access to funding. That Sanders was able to break through thanks to his campaign's ability to tap into social media and millions of small donations from committed social-change activists is impressive.

Of course the FBI would pursue an investigation without merit.

That's practically their middle name. They are a political police who have a history of fabricating fake "terrorism" cases and for a long time acted as the red squad disrupting left and black groups - right up to assassination, in the case of Fred Hampton.

Nevertheless, this case is not what you would expect them to pursue on political grounds unless Comey or someone is pushing it as a GOP loyalist. But let's be clear, they have rarely been the good guys.
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 91 Next »