Now I Know Why The SOS Hillary Doesn't want Her Transcripts Released - Case in Point

[tomm2thumbs]

&


If you take Hillary Clinton at her word (that she is the 'same person she has always been') then observe as she speaks about expanding promising job opportunities to foreign workers instead of Americans who would jump at the chance to compete for those jobs. But of course this is being said in a public forum to those she is trying to impress... so can you imagine the things she's promised behind closed doors to Wall Street firms and big corporate players who put nearly a quarter of a million dollars a pop in her pocket?!

RELEASE THE TRANSCRIPTS - prove us wrong!!!

[tomm2thumbs]

1. Release the Transcripts!

[downeastdaniel]

17. Hear Hear! I 2nd that move!

[leftofcool]

62. Has Bernie released his tax returns yet?

No? I didn't think so.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

66. lol

the clintons spend more on tax evasion each year than Sanders makes

you are funny

[dchill]

2. Transcripts? There are transcripts?

Oh, that's right, she has them. She had them made...

[noiretextatique]

24. David Brock and his shock troops

Work as well as they did against Anita Hill.

[Chicago1980]

3. How about Bernie release the tax returns his wife was "working on"?

Since when have speech transcripts of private citizens been released as apart of any campaign?

[daleanime]

5. Oh yeah.....

like there's any kind of equivalency between one couples tax returns and the dealings of multi-national corporations.

[Chicago1980]

8. Like I said,

Since when have the transcripts of speeches given private citizens been released?

Why don't you then ask for the speeches of all politicians given to corporations who are running for election or re-election?

There are 435 house members all up for re-election or election right now.... Start asking....

1/3 of the senate is up for election or re-election... Start asking

[Lordquinton]

13. We have started asking

We're starting with one running for President.

Now, where are they?

[Geronimoe]

14. Release the transcripts

Since when has a former First Lady run to become President? Since when has a former President raised over $2 billion dollars for a tightly held family trust?

[tomm2thumbs]

18. bingo - especially a former supporter of Goldwater, who was against the Civil Rights Act

seems to me this race is in need of some serious sunlight

[Chicago1980]

25. Thom Hartmann was a supporter of Goldwater.

I really don't give a damn about what someone did in their youth.

[INdemo]

23. If she didnt have anything to hide,Hillary would release them.

Given Hillary's history I would expect her speech to Goldman Sachs probably sounded more like a Quarterly Report than a speech.

[Chicago1980]

26. Why hasn't GS leaked them?

Speeches aren't required for release.

[Fritz Walter]

44. Where's Anonymous when we need them?

They're going after Daesh, Drumpf and Douche (Cruz). It should be a simple matter for them to hack into whatever Swiss-cheese server that stores her original script and eventual transcript of her six-figure pep-talk to Goldman Sacks-of-shit. Hopeful they get to the files before they've been scrubbed of "wink-wink, nudge-nudge" promises.

[nichomachus]

27. Worse still

If those transcripts made her look anything short of terrible, she would have had bound copies sent to everyone in sight. Hillary won't pass up any chance to polish her image. So, we can only assume that these transcript would sink her candidacy in about 10 minutes.

[JDPriestly]

36. How many of those politicians speak to Wall Street firms at $250,000 to $300,000 per speech.

Let the politicians who charge the most for their speeches, who receive the most for their speeches make their speech transcripts public first.

That group would certainly include Hillary.

[FailureToCommunicate]

65. ...

?w=92

[pnwmom]

4. TRADE is critical to our economy. How many jobs would we lose here without exports?

Well, guess what? Those other countries also want to create jobs, produce things, and export to the U.S.

So the ideal isn't to eliminate all trade, or trade agreements, but to negotiate them as fairly as possible, always keeping the well being of our workers at the top of our mind.

And that isn't easy.

[daleanime]

6. Especially when you have to do it....

in secret.

[Scootaloo]

9. Easier to just not try.

That's the clinton MO, after all. "This looks hard. I won't try"

[pnwmom]

12. No, that's the Bernie MO. He seems to be against all trade agreements. n/t

[JDPriestly]

37. What was the Panama trade agreement about?

Clearing the way for foreign tax cheats to park their money in the US stock market and in other US investments. That's not good for our country. It causes the prices especially on real estate in our cities to rise and puts our economy out of balance.

And most of our trade agreements are not about trade at all. They are about establishing courts and in others ways establishing a system in which corporations destroy our democratic self-government and replace it with their dictatorship.

Free trade is only free for the corporations. It is not free for the rest of us.

[KPN]

10. Don't you mean ...

And that ain't done. ? ((always keeping the well being of our workers at the top of our mind)

How many jobs would we have without all the cheap imports?

This is why the D Party is facing rebellion and in trouble at the moment; rationalized views like yours are standard among leaders in the Party today. Some of them are naive --they hold and profess seemingly legitimate positions without accounting for or recognizing the corrupting influence of money in politics/elections; the rest have just plain, old sold out -- they've essentially rationalized their own corruption and in the process sold their souls.

That's the way millions of everyday democrats see it.

H

[FighttheFuture]

35. It worked real well for 200 years until Reagan started gutting trade protections then NAFTA under

Clinton, and on it goes. It's not that hard. Countries have trade protections like cells have walls. Its to allow controlled movement of resources in an out. These are blown away with these ridiculous corporate/capital friendly trade "treaties". All they really do is allow the free movement of Capital while nailing labor to a local cross of iron.

[Dustlawyer]

7. Please release the transcripts Hillary!

[pnwmom]

16. Transcripts of paid speeches have never been released by any male candidate, but tax returns

have been released by all of them for decades.

And, no, it isn't true that no male candidate in the past has ever had a paid speech. No one ever cared about a man being paid for his speeches. That's just a special requirement for Hillary.

Until 1990, it was even legal to take money for speeches while you were sitting in Congress. Kerry and many others did.

http://articles.latimes.com/2004/feb/10/nation/na-fees10

WASHINGTON — Massachusetts Sen. John F. Kerry took a small amount of political action committee money during a race for the House three decades ago, and later collected more than $120,000 in speaking fees from companies and lobbying groups as a new senator, records show.

Between 1985 and 1990, the year Congress outlawed speaking fees, Kerry pocketed annual amounts slightly under the limits for speaking fees by lawmakers, according to annual financial disclosure reports reviewed by Associated Press.

The fees came from interests ranging from Democratic groups and unions to oil companies and liquor lobbyists.

Kerry's ethics reports show he made more than 90 paid speeches between 1985, when he first took office, and 1990, when Congress began the move to end honoraria.

[Dustlawyer]

20. There is a specific issue in this campaign that she is influenced by all of the Wall Street money

she and Bill have received, both personally and for her campaign. It isn't because she is a woman, it's because Wall Street has exerted an inordinate mount of influence in our politics and Hillary has been the biggest and most unique beneficiary of their support, since it is not limited to campaign donations, but $135,000,000 in speaking fees since she left office. That is a real and totally legitimate concern, what did she tell them vs. what she has said publicly. She should have no issue about it if things are as she says, that she told them what she has said publicly before.

Bernie wasn't running against Kerry. Bernie's big issue of his campaign, before Hillary even entered the race, is the powerful influence exerted by Wall Street and the money they use to control politicians. This is his/my number 1 issue, it has to stop. Hillary is the poster child for this influence since they have given her more than anyone previously, directly in her pocket. We have a right to know what she told those corrupt bastards. If it is as she says then she should have no problem.

[pnwmom]

21. There is such a CLAIM, backed up by no evidence. What pro-bank position has she taken

because of the influence of all that Wall Street money? She has proposed policies more extensive than Bernie's for regulating the industry, because hers will rein in the shadow banking industry that his proposal doesn't even touch.

Elizabeth Warren says Hillary's on the right track with her proposals. What do you think is wrong with them? You can read them here.

hillaryclinton.com

[JDPriestly]

39. Hillary opposes a 21st century Glass-Steagall bill as I understand it.

She obfuscates by talking vaguely about "dark" money, but is unwilling to break up the big banks. And they need to be downsized, broken up and limited by a 21st century Glass-Steagall bill.

[Dustlawyer]

69. She supporter and helped push Bill's deregulation and her policies towards Wall Street reform

are mostly half steps that I don't believe she will push hard for. She has the Republicans for cover when she cannot get anything passed. Like Tom Donohue (Head of US Chamber of Commerce) said, "Hillary will sign the TPP." He went on to say that she has to say the opposite now, but not to worry (paraphrasing).

I bet she either keeps Loretta Lynch as AG, or gets someone like her and Eric Holder. Neither AG has/had any intention of really going after Wall Street, they are above the law except to pay a few fines, no indictments.

[pnwmom]

70. Oh, right. Because as First Lady of course she was supposed to publicly oppose

everything that her husband did. People didn't already hate her enough, just for saying she didn't come to the White House to bake cookies.



And repealing Glass-Steagall had NOTHING to do with the 2007 crisis. That was caused not by the regular banks that had been regulated by G-S, but by the shadow banking system that didn't even exist in the B.Clinton era.

[Dustlawyer]

71. She gave speech after speech in support, she didn't have to do that, no one forced her to.

You can sarcasm all you want, but she made her ambitions clear that she was not going to spend all of her time picking out the china.

Glass-Steagall protected us for 50 years and it would have alleviated the worst of what happened. It comes down to a matter of severity. After the S&L crisis she and Bill continued to push for deregulation instead of taking a look at our already out of control banks. Besides, Wall Street was already the biggest power broker/king maker in American politics. Instead of cracking down they sucked up to them!

I am sure you have your reasons for your support of Hillary and nothing anyone says will shake that. In my opinion though, you are looking through rose colored glasses.

[JDPriestly]

38. Thank you.

[Duval]

50. +1

[leftofcool]

63. What is Bernie hiding in his tax returns?

[FighttheFuture]

41. Wrong. It's a special requirment for these times, where people are wakling up to the bullshit

that Hillary is knee deep in. too bad for her she is on the wrong side of the changing mood of the people, who are tired of being fucked in the ass for so long.

So, it s nothing special because its Hillary, it's just one of the sore points of these times and Hillary happens to look like a tool of the rich and powerful, while running for office, at this point.

[pnwmom]

43. Except no one's demanding it from the Rethugs. It's only required of the woman in the race.

The bar is always higher for women. Let a woman make too much money and men suddenly jump to attention.

[BillZBubb]

52. That is such bullshit. You keep trying to spin this as a sexual issue. It is not.

She is the only Democrat running who has made millions speaking to the Wall Street interests. On many occasions she's taken their side.

We expect the republicans to be in the tank for Wall Street. That's part of their base. There is no need to see their speeches. We already know where they stand.

We Democrats would like to know where our candidates stand. Hillary claims one thing, but her refusal to release the transcripts makes it very probable she was telling the moneyed elite something else.

[ohnoyoudidnt]

59. If she has nothing to hide, what is she worried about?

I expect Democrats to be held to a higher standard than rethugs. Just because they won't do it isn't a good enough excuse.

She has been paid a hell of a lot of money to give these speeches. If there is nothing wrong in them, then she should just release the transcripts and put this to rest. It isn't unreasonable to assume that someone paid so much money by bank interests might feel obligated to owe them something.

I doubt Goldman Sachs will pay Bernie anything to tell them what he thinks about them.

[FighttheFuture]

72. BULL. It's NOT because she's a woman. It becaus she's a Demcorat, a CLINTON and she's aligning

more toward Bernie's positions. No one expects that of the Republicans, so really, can that crap talking point.


Let me refresh your memory. When the Clintons left the WH back in 2001, they basically had nothing in terms of wealth. In the 15 years since they amassed a fortune of over $230 million. Good luck? No. It's connections and politics. Interest that helped them on this accumulation of wealth have expectations. So, asking that she release what she spoke about to groups that gave her millions is pretty appropriate in this day an age when she is the Democratic front runner.

How The Clintons Have Made $230 Million Since Leaving The White House

Less than a week before the Clintons left the White House in 2001... a couple who had more than $1 million in legal debt and a net worth of nearly nothing at the time. ... Over the next 15 years, they earned more than $230 million before taxes.

The money flowed in fast. Bill delivered the first of hundreds of high-paying speeches on February 5, 2001, less than three weeks after he left the presidency, talking to Morgan Stanley in New York for $125,000. The firm got a bargain. Bill eventually raised his average rate to roughly $225,000 per speech, in some cases charging $500,000, ... All told, he raked in about $100 million from speaking from 2001 to 2014.
:
:
Hillary didn’t bring in the sort of money her husband did until 2013, when she left her post as Secretary of State. She quickly jumped into a lucrative speaking tour, starting, as Bill had 12 years earlier, by giving a speech to Morgan Stanley. On April 18, 2013, she spoke to the firm and charged $225,000. She continued speaking throughout the year, talking exclusively to audiences in the United States and Canada, never charging less than $225,000 for a paid speech. By the end of the year, she had earned $9 million from speaking.

[desmiller]

11. Hillary, I want to see those transcript today, not tommorrow.....

.......ooopsie.

[tomm2thumbs]

15. My guess is Republicans have audio copies and will release during the general if it gets that far

Afterall, it was the big-money corporations to whom she was speaking, and no doubt the contents will not be pretty, or she would have already released them to prove there is nothing to hide

[JDPriestly]

40. My guess too.

[Hawaiianlight]

42. The rethugs absolutely have audio

They will sit on it until the right moment to launch. Clinton is a time bomb candidate.

[lumberjack_jeff]

67. doubtless. nt

[MrMickeysMom]

19. So, THAT'S why.... Clinton supporters cannot spell :-O

YOU KNOW... THERE'S GOT to be the reason THEY.HAVE.NOT RELEASED THE TRANSCRIPTS... There are too many typos!

???

Where ARE those transcripts, BTW???

[florida08]

22. lol

[Land of Enchantment]

28. Release the Transcripts! Free them from their electronic bondage! nt

[zentrum]

47. ^Fantastic Drawing^ Thank you! n/t

[Land of Enchantment]

48. Thanks but I did not do this one...artist unknown...I thought it exquisite.

[zentrum]

49. Yes, I did realize that but...

…thank you for posting it. Agree—it's exquisite.

Your graphic is hysterical.

[LiberalArkie]

54. It is Birdie Sanders. I bought a print of it.

BIRDIE SANDERS
by Chris Paints
Art Print / MINI 8" x 9"

[Faux pas]

29. Yeah, what does she care?

She's got her's.

[felix_numinous]

30. We all didn't like Cheney's secret energy meetings

15 years ago, how is keeping these transcripts of meetings from the people while running for president any different?

Third Way is enabling this party to take another hard right turn. They have no desire to involve the American people in their decision making, it is clear.

[pacalo]

31. Please release the transcripts -- not tommorrow, but todday.

[tomm2thumbs]

32. LLOLL

almost lost my coffee!

[rhett o rick]

33. What's the big fuss??? I got an exclusive peek at the transcripts from Anonymus and they

aren't that exciting. Actually not very long either. From memory they went something like this, "I H. Clinton, want to make it crystal clear, that I will not now nor never support any legislation that will attempt to regulate the banks I love. Please make checks out to Clinton Cash and have my car brought around"

[JDPriestly]

34. K&R.

[zentrum]

45. Read today

….that at a 27K per bundle fundraiser in Colorado, Clinton turned noise machines towards the press section so that they couldn't hear her remarks to the 1%ers.

Does any one know the follow up to this story?

[Hotler]

46. Locking!

This post is mean, hurtful and disruptive.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

[Hoyt]

51. Americans hatred of foreign workers - here or there - is really disgusting.

[BillZBubb]

53. Hey hoyt, this is bullshit, and welcome to IGNORE!

[Hoyt]

55. Although I'm on Ignore, I have to ask. I assume you support Sanders?

[highprincipleswork]

56. They don't need to be released. You know what they said - let's collude together.

[Hoyt]

57. Sure. She stood in front of hundreds, including Democrats and some detractors, and said let's carve

up the poor's remains assets. She said it knowing there were cameras and recorders in the audience and staff.

[highprincipleswork]

60. OK, you win, release the fucking transcripts already!

[Hoyt]

61. Why? Youll take everything out of context, say it's been changed, say she went off

script, she said something else before or after speech, etc. It'll never end, and you guys would just end up manufacturing more conspiracy BS.

[highprincipleswork]

68. You're working way too hard to explain the actions and inactions of your candidate.

[wildbilln864]

58. indeed release them all! k & r! n/t

[ish of the hammer]

64. Sydney Blumenthal and John Podesta - friends of the Clintons and named parties

in the Panama papers. 153 million dollars in speaking fees?
something stinks and it's not Limburger!