2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumMarjorie Cohn: Occupy Hillary Clinton’s Wall Street Speeches
Occupy Hillary Clintons Wall Street Speeches
Posted on Feb 29, 2016
By Marjorie Cohn
Hillary Clinton refuses to make public the transcripts of her speeches to big banks, three of which were worth a total of $675,000 to Goldman Sachs. She says she would release the transcripts if everybody does it, and that includes Republicans. After all, she complained, Why is there one standard for me, and not for everybody else?
As the New York Times editorial board pointed out, The only different standard here is the one Mrs. Clinton set for herself, by personally earning $11 million in 2014 and the first quarter of 2015 for 51 speeches to banks and other groups and industries.
Hillary is not running in the primaries against Republicans, who, the Times noted, make no bones about their commitment to Wall Street deregulation and tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.
She is running against Bernie Sanders, a decades-long critic of Wall Street excess who is hardly a hot ticket on the industry speaking circuit, according to the Times.
Why do voters need to know what Hillary told the banks? Because it was Wall Street that was responsible for the 2008 recession, making life worse for most Americans. We need to know what, if anything, she promised these behemoths. .............(more)
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/occupy_hillary_clintons_wall_street_speeches_20160229
tazkcmo
(7,419 posts)Being held accountable for the words she says is Sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo Right Wing Smear (TM).
senz
(11,945 posts)Dustlawyer
(10,515 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)In addition, does Goldman Sachs needs to acquiesce in releasing the transcripts? If they did, would it impact the willingness of other high profile individuals in giving speeches?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]
Dustlawyer
(10,515 posts)She made it an issue by saying she told Wall Street to "cut it out!" The big issue is whether she is influenced by all of that money, it is the key issue of the battle with her and Bernie!
Do you believe she talked tough to them in the speeches, or did she suck up to them? I think we know the answer, is that someone you want, a liar? Someone who sold us out?
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]
Svafa
(594 posts)tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)in fact it should deter people seeking policy making positions from making high paid private speeches to special interests.
senz
(11,945 posts)How did she make her living since 2012? We have a RIGHT to know.
randome
(34,845 posts)I suppose we'll see her tax returns at some point.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]
senz
(11,945 posts)In a democracy, the people have a right to KNOW their candidates. She tries to project an image. That's not enough. We have a right to know what she actually represents.
BernieforPres2016
(3,017 posts)I shudder at the thought.
randome
(34,845 posts)I do get your point but I'm not sure how we can restrict what people do on their 'free' time.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]
senz
(11,945 posts)You know that as well as I do.
Arazi
(6,882 posts)She's entirely responsible for them
dchill
(40,099 posts)With every intention of running for President. It's fair game; in fact it would be
lunacy to not question the content of those speeches.
hedda_foil
(16,483 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)They keep shooting themselves in the foot by deciding the normal rules don't apply to them
Punkingal
(9,522 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)Tarc
(10,561 posts)The Republicans and the majority of the Democratic base do not really care what words Clinton said at a fundraiser, sorry.
TCJ70
(4,387 posts)...it would be good to start at least attempting to win some over.
Tarc
(10,561 posts)and c'mon over.
TCJ70
(4,387 posts)...by their supporters. That being said, it's not my job to build that bridge. It's hers.
senz
(11,945 posts)If only your candidate could be so clear.
Punkingal
(9,522 posts)And she will need my vote if she gets the nomination.
madokie
(51,076 posts)in the best authoritarian voice that can be mustered up.
I don't believe a word you typed.
global1
(25,847 posts)you believe what Hillary is telling you about how she would deal with the Banksters and if the transcripts or worse yet her actions after she's elected are totally different.
I'd want to know before I voted for her that she is being straight with me.
Tarc
(10,561 posts)NWCorona
(8,541 posts)global1
(25,847 posts)and you don't care if your retirement money has vanished.
Let's just keep on rewarding them. After all they need their bonuses and it's ok if they get them on the backs of the 99%er's.
senz
(11,945 posts)Ask yourself who is in control of the government. Who pulls the strings?
Consider the meaning of democracy. Consider the Constitution.
Don't tell me this doesn't matter.
revbones
(3,660 posts)Tarc
(10,561 posts)Giving speeches does not imply quid pro quo. (Fancy Latin there, btw)
No proof, just political grandstanding is all you have.
revbones
(3,660 posts)And I agree with you that just giving a speech doesn't imply that, however when it can be seen by the people in her campaign staff, by the actions and positions, by her hiding the transcripts, etc... it takes a lot to be able to ignore it. Congratulations on what must be a rather difficult job.
Tarc
(10,561 posts)revbones
(3,660 posts)Must've misunderstood your position then. Carry on.
Arazi
(6,882 posts)Or Wapo? Or the Wall Street Journal or... (insert any of the thousands of media outlets that are reporting this over and over again )
It's not going away and its not restricted to Sanders supporters
hedda_foil
(16,483 posts)The Indies distrust and dislike her too, but they support Sanders. That's why he consistently polls a lot better against all of the Republicans she does.
Tarc
(10,561 posts)hedda_foil
(16,483 posts)The question isn't just who votes, but who stays home. And your take on who will vote in November doesn't add up to a large enough total to win. The moderate and left leaning independents are less likely to show up when they're not enthused by the top of the ticket. Certainly some will show up to vote against Trump, but he's running to Hillary's left on jobs and trade, and those positions are far more popular. I'd prefer to be wrong about this, but I don't think I am.
FlatBaroque
(3,160 posts)PonyUp
(1,680 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)Except Nixon was not a money grubber.
Isn't that amazing?
BernieforPres2016
(3,017 posts)The Clintons are everything bad about Nixon plus money grubbers to boot. Though in fairness, if Nixon had been President in a period when so much wealth was flaunted and everything had been tilted to the top 0.1%, he would most likely have been a money grubber too. As a matter of status, if nothing else.
senz
(11,945 posts)The Clintons have fed off of Reaganomics from the get-go.
BernieforPres2016
(3,017 posts)I don't think Nixon would have sucked up nearly $20 million over 5 years to be the public face of a sham "for profit" university that was owned by Wall Street like Bill Clinton did.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-01-06/clinton-pitches-kkr-backed-college-chain-amid-controversy
<Laureate is backed by several of the biggest names in finance, including Henry Kravis, George Soros, Steve Cohen and Paul Allen. When Laureates founder and chief executive officer, Doug Becker, convinced these investors firms to take his company private in a deal worth $3.8 billion, Kraviss firm, KKR & Co., took a $487.5 million stake.>
<Laureate has stirred controversy throughout Latin America, where it derives two-thirds of its revenue. In October, Chiles National Accreditation Commission voted to strip accreditation from one of the companys schools, Santiago-based Universidad de Las Americas, or UDLA.
In its decision, the commission wrote that, since 2010, UDLAs academic standards have suffered as it has added almost 10,000 students while reducing the number of full- and half-time teachers to 399 from 408. Graduation rates were as low as 15 percent in some majors.>
<The companys biggest coup was hiring Clinton. The former president declined to comment on his role, and Laureate wouldnt disclose how much hes paid. Becker says Clinton joined Laureate because he believed it has a strong social mission.
Laureate has installed several people from Clintons administration in key executive and board positions, including Richard Riley, the former secretary of education; Joseph Duffey, the former head of the information agency; and Henry Cisneros, Clintons secretary of housing and urban development.>
Perhaps not coincidentally, Bill Clinton's 5 year contract with this fraudulent company ended 2 weeks after Hillary Clinton launched her 2016 Presidential campaign.
Merryland
(1,134 posts)ought to get to work on this!
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)guaranteed minimum income
FlatBaroque
(3,160 posts)MisterP
(23,730 posts)FlatBaroque
(3,160 posts)War on Drugs. Given the timing in 1968, I see it as as white supremacist push-back for the Civil Rights Act.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)loyalsister
(13,390 posts)Hillary's secrecy born out of her sense of entitlement may keep that from happening. If she were to win the GE with a large number of people who voted for her only grudgingly because of the SC, she would have very little political capital. Good luck with congress, world leaders, and a second term under those conditions.
fredamae
(4,458 posts)A) HRC refuses/stalls the release of these transcripts or B) That Voters have to Explain Why this information is Important.
senz
(11,945 posts)The American people have been dumbed down by the corporate media. They no longer understand their Constitutional power over the government. They are slipping into serfdom.