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 Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

marmar

(77,419 posts)
Tue Mar 1, 2016, 09:52 AM Mar 2016

Marjorie Cohn: Occupy Hillary Clinton’s Wall Street Speeches


Occupy Hillary Clinton’s 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




60 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Marjorie Cohn: Occupy Hillary Clinton’s Wall Street Speeches (Original Post) marmar Mar 2016 OP
Poor Hillary tazkcmo Mar 2016 #1
LOL, thank you! senz Mar 2016 #22
What are you afraid Hillary? What are you hiding from us? Dustlawyer Mar 2016 #2
Private speeches made when she was a private citizen. randome Mar 2016 #10
She is running for President! Dustlawyer Mar 2016 #14
She likely did neither, just said a lot of feel-good, amorphous things that everyone can nod to. randome Mar 2016 #34
Then why doesn't she just release them and put the whole thing to rest? nt Svafa Mar 2016 #54
who cares if it will "impact the willingness of other high profile individuals in giving speeches?" tk2kewl Mar 2016 #18
She should show her resume to the American people if she wants the job. senz Mar 2016 #23
Well, we already know part of that was by giving paid speeches. randome Mar 2016 #35
Content, baby, content. senz Mar 2016 #38
What would our democracy become if politicians hesitated to give high dollar private talks? BernieforPres2016 Mar 2016 #31
Well, she wasn't a politician then. randome Mar 2016 #36
She's been a politician since she left the White House. senz Mar 2016 #39
Goldman Sachs doesn't have Goldman Handcuffs' transcripts. She does as stipulated in her contract Arazi Mar 2016 #33
She was a "private citizen"... dchill Mar 2016 #43
No, Goldman has no claim on the transcripts. They are solely hers by contract. hedda_foil Mar 2016 #44
Even if speeches were innocuous, Clinton's are reflexively secretive -- Same as MonicaGate Armstead Mar 2016 #3
Well apparently they don't. It's disgusting. Punkingal Mar 2016 #5
The Clintons do not respect the people. senz Mar 2016 #40
Only an issue for Camp Sanders Tarc Mar 2016 #4
She's going to need Camp Sanders in November... TCJ70 Mar 2016 #6
Then you can build a bridge and get over your single-issue hangups Tarc Mar 2016 #8
It's fortunate for her that I think it's wrong to judge a candidate... TCJ70 Mar 2016 #11
An honest comment! Amazing. senz Mar 2016 #24
Well this member of the Democratic base does. Punkingal Mar 2016 #7
Says a Hillary supporter madokie Mar 2016 #9
Wouldn't You Feel Like You've Been Made A Fool Of If.... global1 Mar 2016 #17
I would, if "big banks" were an issue I was interested in Tarc Mar 2016 #19
That says a lot NWCorona Mar 2016 #20
So I Guess Your Prepared To Bail Them Out Again..... global1 Mar 2016 #21
The Big Picture awaits you, Tarc. senz Mar 2016 #25
So you're saying the majority of the Democratic base doesn't care if she's on the take? n/t revbones Mar 2016 #27
There goes the new guy with the logical fallacies again Tarc Mar 2016 #47
So you should want her to release the transcripts then right? revbones Mar 2016 #49
I don't care about em Tarc Mar 2016 #50
Oh sorry, thought you were trying on super-hero costumes fighting for truth. revbones Mar 2016 #51
Wait, the NYTimes is in camp Bernie? Arazi Mar 2016 #37
A good part of the Democratic base does indeed care. And 41% of voters are independents. hedda_foil Mar 2016 #45
You keep telling yourself that, someday it might magically come true Tarc Mar 2016 #46
I don't know if Bernie can win against the entire establishment, but the divisions are for real. hedda_foil Mar 2016 #57
Nixon in a pantsuit. / FlatBaroque Mar 2016 #12
Good description. n/t PonyUp Mar 2016 #16
Totally. senz Mar 2016 #26
That's what I was about to post and have said previously BernieforPres2016 Mar 2016 #30
True, Nixon was pre-Reaganimics. senz Mar 2016 #32
As I think about it more, comparing Nixon to the Clintons is unfair to Nixon BernieforPres2016 Mar 2016 #42
somebody better than me with photoshop Merryland Mar 2016 #29
no - Nixon was more liberal - he wanted... SoLeftIAmRight Mar 2016 #53
He also gave us the EPA / FlatBaroque Mar 2016 #58
down to the Drug War policies MisterP Mar 2016 #56
I heard a great speech today that detailed the Nixonian FlatBaroque Mar 2016 #59
well, 80s and 90s MisterP Mar 2016 #60
Respect and votes both should be earned loyalsister Mar 2016 #13
I don't know which is more disturbing fredamae Mar 2016 #15
It's the triumph of Luntz, Rove, Murdoch, even Limbaugh. senz Mar 2016 #41
She and Hollywood are the same, and it's our fault for buying the ticket . orpupilofnature57 Mar 2016 #28
K & R AzDar Mar 2016 #48
Why is she ashamed of what she said? nt WDIM Mar 2016 #52
I'm amazed that anyone can support this liar n/t arcane1 Mar 2016 #55

tazkcmo

(7,397 posts)
1. Poor Hillary
Tue Mar 1, 2016, 10:02 AM
Mar 2016

Being held accountable for the words she says is Sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo Right Wing Smear (TM).

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
10. Private speeches made when she was a private citizen.
Tue Mar 1, 2016, 10:25 AM
Mar 2016

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

(10,504 posts)
14. She is running for President!
Tue Mar 1, 2016, 10:47 AM
Mar 2016

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)
34. She likely did neither, just said a lot of feel-good, amorphous things that everyone can nod to.
Tue Mar 1, 2016, 01:04 PM
Mar 2016

[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]

 

tk2kewl

(18,133 posts)
18. who cares if it will "impact the willingness of other high profile individuals in giving speeches?"
Tue Mar 1, 2016, 11:59 AM
Mar 2016

in fact it should deter people seeking policy making positions from making high paid private speeches to special interests.

 

senz

(11,945 posts)
23. She should show her resume to the American people if she wants the job.
Tue Mar 1, 2016, 12:41 PM
Mar 2016

How did she make her living since 2012? We have a RIGHT to know.

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
35. Well, we already know part of that was by giving paid speeches.
Tue Mar 1, 2016, 01:05 PM
Mar 2016

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)
38. Content, baby, content.
Tue Mar 1, 2016, 01:09 PM
Mar 2016

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)
31. What would our democracy become if politicians hesitated to give high dollar private talks?
Tue Mar 1, 2016, 12:59 PM
Mar 2016

I shudder at the thought.

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
36. Well, she wasn't a politician then.
Tue Mar 1, 2016, 01:06 PM
Mar 2016

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]

Arazi

(6,829 posts)
33. Goldman Sachs doesn't have Goldman Handcuffs' transcripts. She does as stipulated in her contract
Tue Mar 1, 2016, 01:03 PM
Mar 2016

She's entirely responsible for them

dchill

(39,088 posts)
43. She was a "private citizen"...
Tue Mar 1, 2016, 01:20 PM
Mar 2016

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.

 

Armstead

(47,803 posts)
3. Even if speeches were innocuous, Clinton's are reflexively secretive -- Same as MonicaGate
Tue Mar 1, 2016, 10:18 AM
Mar 2016

They keep shooting themselves in the foot by deciding the normal rules don't apply to them

Tarc

(10,491 posts)
4. Only an issue for Camp Sanders
Tue Mar 1, 2016, 10:18 AM
Mar 2016

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)
6. She's going to need Camp Sanders in November...
Tue Mar 1, 2016, 10:20 AM
Mar 2016

...it would be good to start at least attempting to win some over.

TCJ70

(4,387 posts)
11. It's fortunate for her that I think it's wrong to judge a candidate...
Tue Mar 1, 2016, 10:26 AM
Mar 2016

...by their supporters. That being said, it's not my job to build that bridge. It's hers.

Punkingal

(9,522 posts)
7. Well this member of the Democratic base does.
Tue Mar 1, 2016, 10:21 AM
Mar 2016

And she will need my vote if she gets the nomination.

madokie

(51,076 posts)
9. Says a Hillary supporter
Tue Mar 1, 2016, 10:24 AM
Mar 2016

in the best authoritarian voice that can be mustered up.

I don't believe a word you typed.

global1

(25,541 posts)
17. Wouldn't You Feel Like You've Been Made A Fool Of If....
Tue Mar 1, 2016, 11:49 AM
Mar 2016

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.

global1

(25,541 posts)
21. So I Guess Your Prepared To Bail Them Out Again.....
Tue Mar 1, 2016, 12:37 PM
Mar 2016

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)
25. The Big Picture awaits you, Tarc.
Tue Mar 1, 2016, 12:46 PM
Mar 2016

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.


Tarc

(10,491 posts)
47. There goes the new guy with the logical fallacies again
Tue Mar 1, 2016, 02:42 PM
Mar 2016

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)
49. So you should want her to release the transcripts then right?
Tue Mar 1, 2016, 02:50 PM
Mar 2016

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.

 

revbones

(3,660 posts)
51. Oh sorry, thought you were trying on super-hero costumes fighting for truth.
Tue Mar 1, 2016, 02:51 PM
Mar 2016

Must've misunderstood your position then. Carry on.

Arazi

(6,829 posts)
37. Wait, the NYTimes is in camp Bernie?
Tue Mar 1, 2016, 01:07 PM
Mar 2016

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

(16,416 posts)
45. A good part of the Democratic base does indeed care. And 41% of voters are independents.
Tue Mar 1, 2016, 02:28 PM
Mar 2016

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.

hedda_foil

(16,416 posts)
57. I don't know if Bernie can win against the entire establishment, but the divisions are for real.
Tue Mar 1, 2016, 03:56 PM
Mar 2016

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.

BernieforPres2016

(3,017 posts)
30. That's what I was about to post and have said previously
Tue Mar 1, 2016, 12:57 PM
Mar 2016

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.

BernieforPres2016

(3,017 posts)
42. As I think about it more, comparing Nixon to the Clintons is unfair to Nixon
Tue Mar 1, 2016, 01:17 PM
Mar 2016

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 Laureate’s founder and chief executive officer, Doug Becker, convinced these investors’ firms to take his company private in a deal worth $3.8 billion, Kravis’s 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, Chile’s National Accreditation Commission voted to strip accreditation from one of the company’s schools, Santiago-based Universidad de Las Americas, or UDLA.
In its decision, the commission wrote that, since 2010, UDLA’s 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 company’s biggest coup was hiring Clinton. The former president declined to comment on his role, and Laureate wouldn’t disclose how much he’s paid. Becker says Clinton joined Laureate because he believed it has a strong social mission.
Laureate has installed several people from Clinton’s 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, Clinton’s 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.

FlatBaroque

(3,160 posts)
59. I heard a great speech today that detailed the Nixonian
Tue Mar 1, 2016, 04:54 PM
Mar 2016

War on Drugs. Given the timing in 1968, I see it as as white supremacist push-back for the Civil Rights Act.

loyalsister

(13,390 posts)
13. Respect and votes both should be earned
Tue Mar 1, 2016, 10:43 AM
Mar 2016

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)
15. I don't know which is more disturbing
Tue Mar 1, 2016, 10:56 AM
Mar 2016

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)
41. It's the triumph of Luntz, Rove, Murdoch, even Limbaugh.
Tue Mar 1, 2016, 01:15 PM
Mar 2016

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.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Marjorie Cohn: Occupy Hil...