DC Tom Posted May 15, 2016 Share Posted May 15, 2016 Release of Clinton’s Wall Street Speeches Could End Her Candidacy for President http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/release-of-clintons-wall-street-speeches_b_9698632.html FTA: Here’s a compilation of what those close to Clinton and/or the institutions that paid her obscene sums to chat with them are saying about those never-to-be-released speeches: 1. Former Nebraska Governor and Senator Bob Kerrey (Clinton surrogate) “Making the transcripts of the Goldman speeches public would have been devastating....[and] when the GOP gets done telling the Clinton Global Initiative fund-raising and expense story, Bernie supporters will wonder why he didn’t do the same....[As for] the email story, it’s not about emails. It is about [Hillary] wanting to avoid the reach of citizens using the Freedom of Information Act to find out what their government is doing Congressional oversight, and then not telling the truth about why she did.” She couldn't give less of a **** what the hoi polloi think of her. There's no money and no legacy in it. 7. Paraphrase of Several Attendees’ Accounts From Politico “Clinton offered a message that the collected plutocrats found reassuring, declaring that the banker-bashing so popular within both political parties was unproductive and indeed foolish. Striking a soothing note on the global financial crisis, she told the audience, ‘We all got into this mess together, and we’re all going to have to work together to get out of it.’” [link] Did we, though, “All get into the mess together”? Yes, we did. And you know what publicly stating that would be? Leadership. Instead, we get pandering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted May 15, 2016 Share Posted May 15, 2016 Release of Clinton’s Wall Street Speeches Could End Her Candidacy for President http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/release-of-clintons-wall-street-speeches_b_9698632.html FTA: Here’s a compilation of what those close to Clinton and/or the institutions that paid her obscene sums to chat with them are saying about those never-to-be-released speeches: 1. Former Nebraska Governor and Senator Bob Kerrey (Clinton surrogate) “Making the transcripts of the Goldman speeches public would have been devastating....[and] when the GOP gets done telling the Clinton Global Initiative fund-raising and expense story, Bernie supporters will wonder why he didn’t do the same....[As for] the email story, it’s not about emails. It is about [Hillary] wanting to avoid the reach of citizens using the Freedom of Information Act to find out what their government is doing, and then not telling the truth about why she did.” [link] 2. Goldman Sachs Employee #1 (present at one of the speeches) “[The speech] was pretty glowing about [Goldman Sachs]. It’s so far from what she sounds like as a candidate now. It was like a ‘rah-rah’ speech. She sounded more like a Goldman Sachs managing director.” [link] 3. Goldman Sachs Employee #2 (present at one of the speeches) “In this environment, [what she said to us at Goldman Sachs] could be made to look really bad.” [link] 4. Goldman Sachs Executive or Client #1 (present at one of the speeches) “Mrs. Clinton didn’t single out bankers or any other group for causing the 2008 financial crisis. Instead, she effectively said, ‘We’re all in this together, we’ve got to find our way out of it together.’” [link] 5. Paraphrase of Several Attendees’ Accounts From The Wall Street Journal “She didn’t often talk about the financial crisis, but when she did, she almost always struck an amicable tone. In some cases, she thanked the audience for what they had done for the country. One attendee said the warmth with which Mrs. Clinton greeted guests bordered on ‘gushy.’ She spoke sympathetically about the financial industry.” [link] 6. Goldman Sachs Employee #3 (present at one of the speeches) “It was like, ‘Here’s someone who doesn’t want to vilify us but wants to get business back in the game. Like, maybe here’s someone who can lead us out of the wilderness.’” [link] 7. Paraphrase of Several Attendees’ Accounts From Politico “Clinton offered a message that the collected plutocrats found reassuring, declaring that the banker-bashing so popular within both political parties was unproductive and indeed foolish. Striking a soothing note on the global financial crisis, she told the audience, ‘We all got into this mess together, and we’re all going to have to work together to get out of it.’” [link] Did we, though, “All get into the mess together”? Would middle-class voters considering voting for Hillary Clinton in New York on Tuesday take kindly to the idea that the Great Recession was equally their own and Goldman Sachs’ fault? How would that play in the Bronx? Lest anyone suspect that Clinton doesn’t release the transcripts because she’s not permitted to do so under a non-disclosure agreement, think again: Buzzfeed hasconfirmed that Clinton owns the rights to the transcripts, and notes, moreover, that according to industry insiders even if there were speeches to which Clinton did nothold the rights, no institution on Wall Street would allow themselves to be caught trying to block their release. And Politico and The Wall Street Journal have reported exactly the same information about Clinton’s ability to release these speech transcripts unilaterally. The truth about Hillary Clinton's Wall Street speeches - Apr. 20, 2016money.cnn.com/2016/04/20/news/. What Hillary Clinton said in her paid speeches - POLITICOwww.politico.com/story/2016/02/clinton-speeches-218969 This. It would be her "47%" moment, except it would be renamed the "0.1% moment." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer Posted May 15, 2016 Share Posted May 15, 2016 (edited) And Politico and The Wall Street Journal have reported exactly the same information about Clinton’s ability to release these speech transcripts unilaterally. The truth about Hillary Clinton's Wall Street speeches - Apr. 20, 2016money.cnn.com/2016/04/20/news/. What Hillary Clinton said in her paid speeches - POLITICOwww.politico.com/story/2016/02/clinton-speeches-218969 Exactly. Only Sanders can get traction over the speeches. Trump can't. She will release them after the primary to a momentary media franzy then it will be over. Edited May 15, 2016 by Observer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted May 15, 2016 Share Posted May 15, 2016 Exactly. Only Sanders can get traction over the speeches. Trump can't. She will release them after the primary to a momentary media franzy then it will be over. She's not going to release them. I'll bet money on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer Posted May 15, 2016 Share Posted May 15, 2016 She's not going to release them. I'll bet money on it. Wrong. We already know what she said so the transcript release is not that big of a deal but she can use them in the political game of thrones. Once Bernie is out. She will crank up the heat on Trump's tax returns...he will hit back with the transcripts. That will go on for a few days. Then she will release them and leave Trump as the only one hiding something...which will bury the content of the transcripts (which is mostly already known) as the second story to Trump's lack of transparency on taxes. Politics is a longer game. The transcripts do not hurt her with Trump as her opponent at all. They destroy her with Sanders as her opponent. Trump's taxes, should they come out, will show he's nowhere near as wealthy as he claims. That's a given. And he's going to look really bad in a superficial way that matters since he's the superficial candidate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 15, 2016 Share Posted May 15, 2016 Wrong. We already know what she said so the transcript release is not that big of a deal but she can use them in the political game of thrones. Once Bernie is out. She will crank up the heat on Trump's tax returns...he will hit back with the transcripts. That will go on for a few days. Then she will release them and leave Trump as the only one hiding something...which will bury the content of the transcripts (which is mostly already known) as the second story to Trump's lack of transparency on taxes. Politics is a longer game. The transcripts do not hurt her with Trump as her opponent at all. They destroy her with Sanders as her opponent. Trump's taxes, should they come out, will show he's nowhere near as wealthy as he claims. That's a given. And he's going to look really bad in a superficial way that matters since he's the superficial candidate. Tax returns may hint at income but they do little to indicate wealth, so your premise is just wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted May 15, 2016 Share Posted May 15, 2016 Wrong. We already know what she said so the transcript release is not that big of a deal but she can use them in the political game of thrones. Once Bernie is out. She will crank up the heat on Trump's tax returns...he will hit back with the transcripts. That will go on for a few days. Then she will release them and leave Trump as the only one hiding something...which will bury the content of the transcripts (which is mostly already known) as the second story to Trump's lack of transparency on taxes. Politics is a longer game. The transcripts do not hurt her with Trump as her opponent at all. They destroy her with Sanders as her opponent. Trump's taxes, should they come out, will show he's nowhere near as wealthy as he claims. That's a given. And he's going to look really bad in a superficial way that matters since he's the superficial candidate. Wrong. No matter her opponent, if she releases her transcripts and her supporters and especially people on the fence can no longer delude themselves into thinking that she's not in Wall Street's pockets, she's lost her "I'm for the little guy" facade and it makes her little different from Trump. IOW there is no political advantage to not releasing them to get them out of the way, even more so since Bern has been out of it for months given the Dems' rigged system. As for Trump, as 3rd said, tax returns indicate income not wealth. But even if they did, saying "Ha! You're only worth $4.1B (like Forbes estimates) and not $9B!" sounds kind of silly, donchathink? He doesn't want to release his taxes because his effective tax rate is likely far below what people think he should be paying and he saw how that effected Romney. So, how much then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer Posted May 15, 2016 Share Posted May 15, 2016 Wrong. No matter her opponent, if she releases her transcripts and her supporters and especially people on the fence can no longer delude themselves into thinking that she's not in Wall Street's pockets, she's lost her "I'm for the little guy" facade and it makes her little different from Trump. IOW there is no political advantage to not releasing them to get them out of the way, even more so since Bern has been out of it for months given the Dems' rigged system. As for Trump, as 3rd said, tax returns indicate income not wealth. But even if they did, saying "Ha! You're only worth $4.1B (like Forbes estimates) and not $9B!" sounds kind of silly, donchathink? He doesn't want to release his taxes because his effective tax rate is likely far below what people think he should be paying and he saw how that effected Romney. So, how much then? Guess we'll see how it plays out. We already know more or less what Hillary said from the many eyewitness accounts. So that will be a non story. Trump's tax returns, however, will be a story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted May 15, 2016 Share Posted May 15, 2016 Guess we'll see how it plays out. We already know more or less what Hillary said from the many eyewitness accounts. So that will be a non story. Trump's tax returns, however, will be a story. They will both remain stories because neither side will release them and each side (and the media in Trump's case) will continue to push for them to be released. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 15, 2016 Share Posted May 15, 2016 They will both remain stories because neither side will release them and each side (and the media in Trump's case) will continue to push for them to be released. Romney let himself be bullied into eventually releasing his tax returns and looked weak in doing so. All Trump needs to do is say "I've got nothing to hide and I'm not releasing them. It's none of your business. If the IRS doesn't have a problem with them, what's the purpose?" So "F" off and let's talk about the wall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted May 15, 2016 Share Posted May 15, 2016 It doesn't matter if it's trump or not. WHOMEVER is the REPUBLICAN candidate will be smeared and face scrutiny and vetting that a democrat would NEVER receive from the media. If the media Was objective Obama would never have had a meteoric rise to power, very little in his past or record was ever investigated. Clinton would be held accountable, good Lord you could write a novel on her wrong doings and Someone would ask self proclaimed socialist Bernie Sanders how socialism has failed Venezuela. It doesn't matter who the REPUBLICAN candidate is. Whether you love or hate trump don't Kidd yourself into thinking another candidate would be treated fairly or better. Trump will at least stick up for himself. Mccain, Romney etc those losers just let the media paint an extremely negative portrait of themselves and never did anything to stop it. The Republican brand is effectively destroyed in the national level and it's not trumps fault. Their image is destroyed and voters are extremely disenfranchised. Look at the republicans overwhelming taking back the house and Senate. They rode a tsunami of voter anger back to office. What have they accomplished? Nothing. Paul Ryan is fighting trump more than he or Congress has ever stood up to Obama. That's a problem. With the way things are going changing demographics and tend of millions of illegal invaders who can vote, for all intents the Republican brand on a national level is dead and this is a one party system. Its just full out socialism or socialism lite for our future, the progressives have masterfully out maneuvered conservatives. They control an ever increasing social entitlement budget, education and indoctrinating the next generation. With colleges safe spaces and anti hate speech, the first amendment is in trouble. Give it 20 years and it might be struck down....ugh I need to stop. Very true. What regular Republican gives two ***** about preventing the top 1% getting a higher tax on "income" above $5million? What regular Republican doesn't want immigration reform so millions of low skilled laborers can't come into the country and stay at will? What regular Republican wants the US to be engaged in fruitless, endless wars across the globe? What regular Republican wants their parents and grand parents to have their social security payments reduced? The party's leadership want those things. We mock Obama for "leading from (his) behind" while the Party is being led by an established clique of politicos, consultants, speech writers, and special interest donors who have in their interests to remain in power. Same is true with the Dems. But Republicans are fooling themselves if they are blind to what the controlling powers of the party are after. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted May 15, 2016 Share Posted May 15, 2016 Romney let himself be bullied into eventually releasing his tax returns and looked weak in doing so. All Trump needs to do is say "I've got nothing to hide and I'm not releasing them. It's none of your business. If the IRS doesn't have a problem with them, what's the purpose?" So "F" off and let's talk about the wall. Except the IRS apparently DOES have a problem with them -- at least according to Trump -- because is currently going through audits that have lasted for years, which was his original excuse for not releasing them. Notfernuthin', but I want to see the tax returns of the person who is about to lead the free world. And by the way, it is now " 'F' off and let's talk about my suggestion about building a wall." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted May 15, 2016 Share Posted May 15, 2016 This just in: NYT interviews 50 Trump women over the last six weeks and releases article talking about what a dirtbag he is. The New York Times interviewed dozens of women who had worked with or for Mr. Trump over the past four decades, in the worlds of real estate, modeling and pageants; women who had dated him or interacted with him socially; and women and men who had closely observed his conduct since his adolescence. In all, more than 50 interviews were conducted over the course of six weeks. It's almost like they waited for him to be the presumptive nominee before unleashing these articles. If only someone saw this coming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted May 15, 2016 Share Posted May 15, 2016 This just in: NYT interviews 50 Trump women over the last six weeks and releases article talking about what a dirtbag he is. It's almost like they waited for him to be the presumptive nominee before unleashing these articles. If only someone saw this coming. Like I said earlier, it DOESNT MATTER WHO the Republican nominee is. The media will smear whoever the candidate is. Don't think for a second the media would have been fair to cruz, kasich, Paul or Carson. The media would dig up a questionable and irrelevant slandering story from 25 years against anyone standing in Hillary's way to the crown. It doesn't matter. The media is not objective. The Republican party led by guys like McCain and Romney allowed themselves to be portrayed how the media wants and were always too quick to back down and apologize when they had done nothing wrong. Its all a crock. Republicans/conservatives/libertarians will NEVER get a fair deal in the media. They are 100% in lock step unison with the progressive agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 15, 2016 Share Posted May 15, 2016 This just in: NYT interviews 50 Trump women over the last six weeks and releases article talking about what a dirtbag he is. It's almost like they waited for him to be the presumptive nominee before unleashing these articles. If only someone saw this coming. Wow. That sotory makes him sound almost as bad as Bill Clinton... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted May 15, 2016 Share Posted May 15, 2016 (edited) Trump states he's already released financial statements. I have not looked for them online but that's more interesting than a tax return IMO. If Trump releases his returns, my guess is the left will go nuts if they see he's using 1031 exchanges to defer capital gains tax on re-invested property proceeds. They'll say he's using a loophole to avoid taxes when in fact he's using tax law. I can't recall a Democrat politician ever speaking out against 1031 exchanges. Edited May 15, 2016 by keepthefaith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg F Posted May 15, 2016 Share Posted May 15, 2016 This just in: NYT interviews 50 Trump women over the last six weeks and releases article talking about what a dirtbag he is. Isn't being an ass one of the qualifications to run for president? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted May 15, 2016 Share Posted May 15, 2016 Like I said earlier, it DOESNT MATTER WHO the Republican nominee is. The media will smear whoever the candidate is. Don't think for a second the media would have been fair to cruz, kasich, Paul or Carson. The media would dig up a questionable and irrelevant slandering story from 25 years against anyone standing in Hillary's way to the crown. It doesn't matter. The media is not objective. The Republican party led by guys like McCain and Romney allowed themselves to be portrayed how the media wants and were always too quick to back down and apologize when they had done nothing wrong. Its all a crock. Republicans/conservatives/libertarians will NEVER get a fair deal in the media. They are 100% in lock step unison with the progressive agenda. Don't bother. LA lives in a world where the media would be posting that Cruz and Christie are the bestest candidates in the whole wide world if meany Donald didn't beat them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted May 15, 2016 Share Posted May 15, 2016 (edited) Don't bother. LA lives in a world where the media would be posting that Cruz and Christie are the bestest candidates in the whole wide world if meany Donald didn't beat them.My point was the nicest guy in the race, Dr. Carson would still get skewered by the media. Even the media putting up a front fawning over the "sensibility" of kasich, as soon as he got the nominee they would have switched gears and crushed him too. Its not an issue over trump. Its just the media in general. I think the sooner conservatives and libertarians realize the media will NEVER be on our side, the better. Then you can accept it and move on and worry about the issues not the media liking us, because unless you are progressive they will all gang up on you with their social justice mob mentality. Edited May 15, 2016 by drinkTHEkoolaid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted May 15, 2016 Share Posted May 15, 2016 Yup. That's one thing I like about Trump. He'll tell the media to go !@#$ themselves, they'll get their panties in a bunch for a time...and then come back for more. And like him or not, you have to admit he ran a brilliant campaign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts