2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHillary's Great Lie To Democratic Voters Will Be The Biggest Deceit in Election History
Last edited Fri Feb 26, 2016, 12:50 PM - Edit history (1)
By not releasing her transcripts, Hillary is essentially lying by omission about what she's said in private to Wall Street. If she is not held accountable for this, it will go down as one of the greatest deceits in the history of elections. That is probably why Bob Woodward has equated this to Watergate. Hillary won't release these transcripts because if she does, it will shatter the perception that she would represent the will of the people against the interest of the elite. By not releasing these transcripts she is fostering the greatest misconception of who and what she is about.
Voters should understand that she is not releasing the transcripts, not because she is being singled out, but because she is the only candidate who is running on a platform of being for the people when she's clearly for Wall Street. If she is allowed to continue forward in the primary without releasing these transcripts, the DNC is effectively participating in this deception and does not deserve the support of the people. That is the clear truth of this issue and why it is so very important.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)bjobotts
(9,141 posts)JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)bjobotts
(9,141 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)This cannot be compared to watergate. I mean... really...that is ridiculous!
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)That is kind of the point, in my view.
merrily
(45,251 posts)This is not a rhetorical question. I don't know the timeline.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)The fallout of not releasing the transcripts could destroy Hillary's candidacy. That's how I see it.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Docreed2003
(16,875 posts)That money went straight to her bank account. Illegal? No, and the Watergate comparison above is ridiculous. That being said, I have a real problem blindly trusting a politician who is saying "Trust me" without putting the proof in the pudding.
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)I know some guys broke into a psychiatrist's office--Ellsberg's, I think. Was it ever established that Nixon knew about the break in before it happened? Or before he was re-elected?
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)The Watergate breakin was about CRP (Committee to Reelect the President, pronounced "Creep", yes, they thought that was an acceptable pronunciation; of course, they did nominate and elect Agnew to VP so...) spying on the DNC's headquarters at the watergate hotel. Nobody knows why precisely they broke into the offices. It is known that Nixon was aware of and complicit in the ensuing cover up, I don't know that he was ever shown to be aware of the plans before the fact; naturally they would try to keep that from him for plausible deniability.
I would recommend you read the book by Woodward & Bernstein (two intrepid WaPo reporters who blew the cover off the scandal) and/or watch "All The President's Men" the 1976 Oscar winning film. The film is quite excellent with solid performances by Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman -- directed by the great Alan Pakula.
merrily
(45,251 posts)I am not going to read a book in time for this thread.
t is known that Nixon was aware of and complicit in the ensuing cover up.
Yes, I know that much. I asked what he had done before he was re-elected. People are talking crime. The break in was a crime, but Nixon didn't participate in the break in. Did he lie under oath before he was reelected? Even assuming he knew that CREP ordered the break in before he was re-elected, did he have a legal duty of any kind to come forward with the information? I am trying to figure out why people are implying he committed a crime before he was re-elected.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)I only pointed out that without the transcripts it is impossible to know if Hillary is as crooked as Nixon. She may be, or she may not be, but the Hillary supporters cannot defend her decision not to release transcripts and then promptly declare her blameless -- we really do not know if she is innocent.
Anyway, to your point, most of the crimes Nixon committed were related to the coverup of the coverup of the break-in, not the actual break-in. There was a cash slush fund used to pay hush money to the burglars. White house official Ehrlichman at least claimed that he was personally offered cash bribes by Nixon to remain quiet and obstruct justice.
The question of whether it was before an election or not doesn't really materially matter though, because the important thing is not whether he was corrupt or not. That's the comparison that is being made, not the specifics of the case.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Trying to bribe someone to lie to the authorities would be, though.
I know what you said, but posters are reacting as though you cursed out the Holy Spirit. I am trying to figure out if that is warranted because Nixon did commit a crime before re-election (no pun intended).
The question of whether it was before an election or not doesn't really materially matter though,
Yes, it is very important for purposes of this thread, which is all I care about right now. I am not re-opening the Watergate investigation. I am simply trying to figure out this thread.
Your headline is:
Hillary's Great Lie To Democratic Voters Will Be The Biggest Deceit in Election History
This is what the body of the OP says in part:
By not releasing her transcripts, Hillary is essentially lying by omission about what she's said in private to Wall Street. If she is not held accountable for this, it will go down as one of the greatest deceits in the history of elections.
If Nixon did not commit a crime prior to re-election, then a lot of the gasping posts on this thread about crime are mistaken. If he did not even know about the break in prior to re-election, then your OP is even more correct. So, for purposes of this thread and the reactions to your OP, timing is very important. If the only things he did wrong occurred after he was reelected, they really have nothing at all to do with elections, though much to do with history in general.
Anyway, maybe I'll look at more sources, even though I looked at two that purported to be timelines. Thanks.
Bread and Circus
(9,454 posts)MariaThinks
(2,495 posts)upperatmos
(8 posts)behind the scenes?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)that follow her. Some are going to worship the American Aristocracy no matter what they say, did or do.
Personally I see it as a moral issue. The greedy culture of Big Money corruption is directly related to the high poverty rate.
You do know that Goldman-Sachs isn't going to help those living in poverty.
Oh and congrats on getting the first response within a minute. Bonus points.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)But the backlash against Hillary could be as devastating to Her campaign as Watergate was to Nixon.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)JTFrog
(14,274 posts)RNC chair Reince Priebus offered unsolicited support to Bernie
Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus was asked last week which Democratic presidential candidate hed prefer to face in a general election. The RNC chief said Bernie Sanders is probably the tougher candidate.
Its obviously difficult to take Priebus assessment at face value even if he has a firm opinion, the Republican has no incentive to tell the truth and his comments are all the more curious given what his party has been up to lately.
During Sundays Democratic debate, for example, reporters received emails from the candidates campaigns and their allies, but in a remarkable twist, the Republican National Committee also issued statements two during the event, two after defending Sanders against criticisms from Hillary Clinton and endorsing Sanders arguments.
Bloomberg Politics Sahil Kapur reported that Republican operatives have a strange crush on Bernie Sanders, and it goes beyond the RNCs pro-Sanders rapid-response during Sunday nights debates. After the debate, the Republican political action committee America Rising promoted the narrative that Sanders won the debate . Meanwhile, American Crossroads, a group co-founded by Karl Rove, is airing an ad in Iowa bolstering a core tenet of Sanders case against Clinton: that she has received large sums of campaign contributions from Wall Street, and therefore cant be trusted to crack down on big banks.
Hillary rewarded Wall Street with a $700 billion bailout, then Wall Street made her a multi-millionaire, a narrator in the ad says. Does Iowa really want Wall Street in the White House?
Yep, Karl Roves operation is not only complaining about the bailout his former boss signed into law, Team Rove is also suddenly worried about Wall Streets influence in DC just like Bernie Sanders.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)JTFrog
(14,274 posts)FighttheFuture
(1,313 posts)asking a very fair and relevant question. "Who do you really serve"? Hillary's dilemma is she has not yet figured out how to weasel her way out of it; she may not be able to.
You have to be obtuse to think that the GOP won't use this against her and that it is not ripe for the picking. "Bernie fans" have nothing to do with it, in the end. It is her pile her crap, she made it, she owns it.
Shadowflash
(1,536 posts)True Story.
green917
(442 posts)Nobody gets paid $680,000 for a single 30 minute speech by a hedge fund without some quid pro quo and if they do, there should be no hesitation to divulge the contents of said speech (when the individual is running to be president of the united states on a platform of reigning in wall street). This is a shit sandwich of her own design and whether it's now (vs bernie) or later (against whichever knuckle dragger the gop put up), she's, eventually, going to have to eat it.
Uncle Joe
(58,417 posts)Gorgatron
(95 posts)farleftlib
(2,125 posts)Her excuses and dodges make it all the worse for her, and she has no one to blame but herself.
They must be hair-raisingly bad if she's going through all this stonewalling. Too bad for her.
840high
(17,196 posts)SammyWinstonJack
(44,130 posts)RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)that it is actually an organization called "Camp Weathervane" which is doing this.
They are a Third-Way, banking, pharma, prison, and chemical company funded organization.
I cannot give more information, because if I did, they would shoot me.
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)finding out, with Donald Trump or Ted Cruz looming outside the door waiting to take over power and destroy everything we hold dear.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Especially if Democrats actually fight back instead of voting with the other side, as many did with Bush, including Hillary.
bjobotts
(9,141 posts)Why are you so disinterested in knowing what she said...so unwilling to truly know your candidate.
yardwork
(61,703 posts)retrowire
(10,345 posts)if the Republicans start caring about an issue that means its automatically taboo and we should all stop thinking that way! haha. heaven forbid they accept the science of climate change! you'd abandon ship then?
Kall
(615 posts)if Bernie refrains from mentioning Hillary's obvious problems, Republicans will too.
bjobotts
(9,141 posts)Not releasing the transcripts when asked by voters to do so makes her less than candid and makes it harder for me to trust her on the issue of Banking reforms and Wall street regulations.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)because it shows where her priorities lie: with the average person or with Wall Street.
But, the fact that she hasn't released them tells me just about all I need to know: she coddles them like puppies and doesn't plan to do squat about how they rip off the American public.
This has nothing to do the the "GOP baboons." Republicans don't care about that. Half of their base loves Wall Street. This is a purely liberal issue.
TIME TO PANIC
(1,894 posts)DiehardLiberal
(580 posts)gcomeau
(5,764 posts)When the big banks a candidate running for president promising to rein in their excesses have paid that candidate millions of dollars to speak to them in private it is a 100% legitimate public interest to know what that candidate said to them in exchange for that massive payoff.
And if you can't see that what the fuck are you even doing here?
It amazes what these sycophants will excuse. Here's a case of a candidate literally walking into Goldman Sachs, hanging out for a bit, and walking back out with millions of dollars. Repeatedly.
And they not only want you to believe that she's on our side against the big banks, they're indignant that you'd even want to know what she said to them.
It boggles the mind.
merrily
(45,251 posts)sarge43
(28,945 posts)Now that's a herd of unicorns.
How did that go again? "If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear."
artislife
(9,497 posts)She is telling us she is going to fight Wall Street after they have funded her lifestyle.
The fact that many h supporters are perfectly fine in not knowing what she was being paid for just underlines that it is a cult of personality.
tecelote
(5,122 posts)No one is helping the GOP by looking for the truth. Since when did that matter to the GOP?
Hillary can end this "smear" by simply releasing them. What harm could it do?
kristopher
(29,798 posts)So the same press that has shut out Bernie for 6 months now; the same campaign and media that set up these choreographed debates and town halls to promote Hillary and destroy Bernie, is now suddenly trying to play gotcha with Hillary?
Nope.
They are setting up the false premise that the transcripts owned by Hillary are not being released because those transcripts prove that she is engaged in nefarious behavior.
After all, almost no one trusts Hillary, right? How do you overcome that and the receipt of millions of dollars in direct payments to the candidate?
Isn't the corollary to this manufactured narrative one that, when the transcripts show nothing but a little clubbiness, it means she didn't do anything wrong?
"Of course she made money when she could" they will say.
"After all, who wouldn't, right?"
"We're all a little greedy, right?"
I mean think about it, what is supposed to be going on at these talks that could be harmful to Hillary?
Hillary's part of a rigged system, not an idiot.
This big deal being made about the transcripts is intended to direct attention away from the real issue - the money was paid to gain access. In fact, the very existence of the topic seems tailor made to clean up an otherwise disqualifying act by the candidate. Can you imagine any other candidate getting away with it?
The storyline being created by the Clinton campaign and the media, by design, diverts attention away from the fact that the money bought access to the presidential candidate.
Access is everything; paid access like this is legal corruption.
In total, the two gave 729 speeches from February 2001 until May, receiving an average payday of $210,795 for each address. The two also reported at least $7.7 million for at least 39 speeches to big banks, including Goldman Sachs and UBS, with Hillary Clinton, the Democratic 2016 front-runner, collecting at least $1.8 million for at least eight speeches to big banks...
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/05/politics/hillary-clinton-bill-clinton-paid-speeches/
More at link aboveTotal Bill and Hillary Clinton speech income, Feb. 2001 thru May 2015:
TOTAL: AVERAGE: SPEECHES:
$153,669,691.00 $210,795.19 729
Total Bill Clinton speech income, Feb. 2001 thru May 2015:
TOTAL: AVERAGE: SPEECHES:
$132,021,691.00 $207,255.40 637
Total Hillary Clinton speech income, April 2013 thru March 2015:
TOTAL: AVERAGE: SPEECHES:
$21,648,000.00 $235,304.35 92
Originally posted http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511272314
Duval
(4,280 posts)And I like your analysis of the transcripts. Thanks, kristopher. So, guess we're going to have to "suck it up" when she becomes the nominee. The media is not giving Bernie much of a chance. I am so disgusted.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)And I'm certainly not going to change that belief at either the starting gate - or the first turn represented by Super Tuesday. The primary schedule is designed to kill the momentum of economic-liberal anti-establishment candidates but there isn't a word of truth to the claim that Super Tuesday is In Any Way Definitive.
Thank you for the kind words.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)When whatever clown car inhabitant prevails in their primaries destroys her in the GE...
merrily
(45,251 posts)SHRED
(28,136 posts)This isn't Watergate. No way.
Having said that I am deeply troubled that she is not being transparent about her connections with Wall St.
The "poor me being singled out" routine is bullshit that I'm not buying.
dchill
(38,532 posts)as patently obvious.
bjobotts
(9,141 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)so I am guessing the transcripts go beyond merely unflattering. I cannot imagine anything criminal is in them, but it has to be something worse than the suspicions her refusal to release is engendering. And "let the Republicans release them first, then I'll release mine--if I have them" is not allaying any suspicions at all.
Chantel
(23 posts)She must release the transcripts because she is asking to be the president. She must release the transcripts as an act of leadership and stop using the excuse that so must everyone else.
LexVegas
(6,094 posts)Bubzer
(4,211 posts)CoffeeCat
(24,411 posts)Fascism is defined as the corporate control of the state. This is where we are.
Corporations pay the politicians. Politicians serve the corporations.
Wow! What a knee slapper!
Stop! My sides!! I can't breath!!
So damn funny when our democracy is pummeled into submission and "We The People" lose all power!
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)Bubzer
(4,211 posts)libdem4life
(13,877 posts)Bubzer
(4,211 posts)Guess I wont have to worry about it though, after Hilary brings us to heel...
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)Think martial arts.
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)Thanks for that.
merrily
(45,251 posts)has no return window."
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Bernie really is making so many run for every cover they can find...amazing they
even know what a functioning democracy looks like..scary stuff.
randome
(34,845 posts)You don't. Clinton inartfully handled the issue when she should have simply said something like, "No, I'm sorry, private speeches are private."
Outside DU, this is a non-issue.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]
islandmkl
(5,275 posts)drray23
(7,637 posts)Besides, she was a private citizen when she gave these talks.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)Erm... no.
It's all over social media. I hear people talking about it.
The only thing that's inside DU is the bubble in which many here reside. They don't seem to recognize the American people are tired of this pay-to-play bullshit. Why do you think Trump is winning on the Republican side and Bernie's come from obscurity to challenge the "biggest front-runner in the history of politics?"
randome
(34,845 posts)Is he downplaying his connections with the corporate world? I don't see that the American people are tired enough of inequality to make this a revolution. Pinning our hopes on Sanders, whom most didn't even know existed 6 months ago, is futile since he's not likely to win the nomination.
Clinton, for all her flaws, will no doubt -IMO- surprise us, and Sanders and his supporters will be a factor is pushing her further to the left. It's not much of a 'revolution' if it's mostly taking place on social media.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]
Dustlawyer
(10,497 posts)do! When they pay her and Bill over $100,000,000 for their personal fortune on top of everything else, yes we do! When she says that she is different than all other politicians that take the big campaign money in exchange for doing those Donor's will, because all of that money has NO EFFECT on her policies, yes we do!
It is not a "non-issue" outside of DU either, that's just total denial of the facts! Hillary's lack of trustworthiness and honesty is higher than everyone except maybe Trump, and I still think she has him beat on that too! The transcripts hold the key. She can either prove that what she is telling us is what she told them, or be exposed telling them she has their back while telling us that she will reform Wall Street.
It is the key issue of this Primary battle and her not releasing them pretty much tells us that she is guilty of either lying to us or to Wall Street. I think we can figure out which one she is lying to on our own, at least those of us who are not married to her as their candidate, ignoring anything negative.
randome
(34,845 posts)But it's not looking likely so we need to focus on how to push Clinton further to the left. Those who want to throw up their hands and give up if Sanders doesn't win don't really fit the definition of 'revolutionary', IMO.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]
Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)Push her to the left. If she ain't there already, WHY are you supporting her? You can push all you want, the GOP is going to push her off the cliff with her own lies.
randome
(34,845 posts)To say that Sanders doesn't have a chance is not giving up on anything, it's simply recognizing that Sanders doesn't have a chance.
We have to work with what we get, not throw up our hands and walk away.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]
tabasco
(22,974 posts)Last time I checked, Clinton was running for office.
Logical
(22,457 posts)gcomeau
(5,764 posts)Or are you on board with Citizens United now? Money is speech, and it doesn't influence people?
Marr
(20,317 posts)she should be a Goldman Sachs executive.
If she wants to be the President, she should be transparent on this issue, yes.
DhhD
(4,695 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)tabasco
(22,974 posts)Why the secrecy?
Laughing Mirror
(4,185 posts)Inflation, you know.
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)pkdu
(3,977 posts)Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)Good Gawd.
Logical
(22,457 posts)alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)The sound of the Bernie Balloon.
Stallion
(6,476 posts)take a shower and cool off
"The Biggest Deceit in the History of the Worllllllddddd!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)and whether it comes through her or a leak.
i mean, who here actually does not believe that trump would be able to get a copy at any time (if he doesn't already have copies). he works in business. he has a lot of contacts. he has money.
he will get this and release it. if it comes out in a ge, its a landslide for trump over hillary instead of just a romp.
it would behoove her to get this out now and try and get control of the narrative. but it goes against their two primary goals
to get hillary as the first female nom for president
to keep bernie out of the white house
anyone who thinks this election, from the pov of tptb, is really about the country is, sadly, a sucker.
we are the chess pieces. the world is their board.
tokenlib
(4,186 posts)...and we know she didn't tell them they should buy stock in the pitchfork mfg companies..
GummyBearz
(2,931 posts)It would be good to know if she was winking at them as she said it though
zappaman
(20,606 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Therefore there is no reason to release them. If she did some asshole would find three words they could take out of context to creat yet another fake smear. Very much like the 15 second videos, or the longer propaganda pieces they edit together.
What videos we do have of her speeches show that there is no there, there.
Now here's the bottom line - I'm happy for you to stay here wasting your time with things like this instead of helping Bernie get elected. But that's what it is. A waste of time.
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)She honestly just isn't worth that kind of investment of emotion. Plenty of people dislike her... or, in most cases, her tendency to flip flop, or grasp at political expediency.
There's plenty of facts out there showing she lacks integrity. Those who're not pretending these facts don't exist are absolutely justified is asking for more transparency. Particularly from someone who's trying to hide something. Politics has proven time and time again, whenever someone is trying to hide something, it's because they've done something wrong.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)That should clear things up for you.
And by the way, if people had sig lines like that against Bernie they would be hidden.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Bubzer
(4,211 posts)Nothing in my sig line says I hate Hillary. As I said, she just isn't worth that kind of emotional energy. I certainly don't like her...and I sure as heck don't trust her... but then, you Hillary supporters like to conflate things like facts and dislike as being Hillary hate.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)LOL!
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)see this...it's my shocked face
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)LOL!
Feeling the Bern
(3,839 posts)hate her. . .and you're probably a sexist too for supporting the other guy too.
Bubzer
(4,211 posts)Probably a GOP or tea party operative. Or an extreme fringe liberal who just wants free stuff...
It seems like this list could go on forever.
Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)That's what she's afraid of. So she says ALL have to release. Another cowardly thing to do. The GOP aren't asking Trump for his transcripts. Do you think The Donald will release them to Hillary?
Many of her speeches show a lot of "there there" Sniper Fire comes to mind. Stupid lies just to lie. Pathological is what you call them, not President.
If she loses this for Bernie and takes us all down with her, damn right we're mad. And all for what, so she can finally be president, which she'll NEVER be.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/fl/florida_democratic_presidential_primary-3556.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/mi/michigan_democratic_presidential_primary-5224.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/sc/south_carolina_democratic_presidential_primary-4167.html
Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)Or she can release her transcripts. More and more people are asking everyday. Is she just going to laugh it off or ignore this for as long as possible. Will it be too late for Bernie when she's exposed for the liar she is. And then people here want us to vote for her anyways. We tried to warn you. And now you warn us that we will create President Trump by not supporting her, when in reality, SHE created President Trump. If she knows this info will crush her, she needs to drop out or release the transcripts and ride the wave.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)I like gambling, but not like this.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)I'm sorry you were ever under the illusion that would happen.
Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)You don't even know what socialism is, do you. It's people you you that are living an illusion you have helped create about Hillary Clinton. Illusions are sometimes interrupted at the most inconvenient times.
Bleacher Creature
(11,257 posts)And I'm certainly not new to following politics.
BTW, haven't seen you on DU for a while. Did some of our friends here put you in a forced time out? If so, welcome back!!!
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)And yes, fricking stupid, which is why no one cares.
Thanks for the welcome back!
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)Yes and no. It was more like a Schrödinger time out.
Thespian2
(2,741 posts)Lying Liars just gotta' lie...
When pigs are able to fly, the 1%er will release her speeches to Wall Street...
Skwmom
(12,685 posts)to enact meaningful bank legislation says it all.
xocet
(3,872 posts)If only she were for transparency, the voters could judge whether she actually supports the interests of all of US citizens and not primarily the interests of the bankers.
There is no inherent reason to trust her - she should realize that. Not releasing the transcripts makes her look like she is hiding something. Releasing the transcripts of her paid speeches would be a simple way to remove the appearance of impropriety.
w4rma
(31,700 posts)over legitimate things. I don't want a precedent set for Democrats to talk to Wall Streeters and tell them one thing while they lie to all the rest of us. Dump the Clintons, now! Before they hand the Whitehouse to a President Trump.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)Arizona Roadrunner
(168 posts)Can Goldman-Sachs Tax deduct the $650.000 Paid Hillary Clinton for her "speeches"? If so, then it means we are subsidizing said "speeches" by having to pay more taxes to offset the taxes lost by said deduction. We could also lose services because they don't have the revenues due to said loss of revenue. Therefore, we have standing in asking for her to release the speeches so we can see what was generated for said tax deduction.
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]
TheSarcastinator
(854 posts)The idea that a presidential candidate's life before declaring themselves viable for the office is somehow "off limits" is one of the most ridiculous things I've read on DU, and that is saying a lot. Good luck with promoting that perspective: you're gonna need it.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)Wake the hell up and think about what you are saying.
bjobotts
(9,141 posts)Arizona Roadrunner
(168 posts)The issue isn't whether she was a private citizen or not. The issue is can Goldman Sachs tax deduct the payments to her. Therefore we have standing due to the tax deduct-ability aspect.
Corey_Baker08
(2,157 posts)As a reason to invade Iraq?
Let's Not Get Overly Worked Up Over This Jesus Christ We Know She's Been Paid To Make Speeches SHE has acknowledged it so to sound the alarm and say this is the biggest scandal in political history is just an outrageous claim and sense it's not based on fact your post is a lie...
Why Can't You Make The Case For Sanders On His Record? Why Tear Hillary Down Instead Of Lifting Bernie Up?
bbgrunt
(5,281 posts)already doesn't find her trustworthy
DCBob
(24,689 posts)I'm sure its just the typical campaign donor crap virtually all candidates do.
TheUndecider
(93 posts)Her refusal to release makes me suspect there is SOMETHING in there
DCBob
(24,689 posts)The Bernie campaign and GOP will take things out of context and exaggerate and create more fake scandals. She is doing the smart thing.
TheUndecider
(93 posts)Or that's a rationalization to cover something untoward?
Cassiopeia
(2,603 posts)Clinton is campaigning on her ability and resolve to control dangerous banking techniques and reign in corruption. Releasing transcripts of her own speeches to these very organization should prove exactly that way of thinking if she truly believes in reform.
The fact that she refuses tells us those transcripts will do the opposite.
Blue_Adept
(6,402 posts)It's also great to see the circular firing squad continuing on here at DU.
trillion
(1,859 posts)I've counted many.
MariaThinks
(2,495 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)but the email servers. He gets it... and I agree... and for somebody who worked in the Committee during watergate... she should know better.
Just a correction on what he means.
George II
(67,782 posts)....been raised with any other candidate in history that I recall), she's lying about what she did or didn't say? And on top of this, it will be one of the greatest deceits in the history of elections?
Wow, I guess I must have slept through all of my American History and Civics classes.
Jitter65
(3,089 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)yourout
(7,532 posts)Anyone that actually believes she is a progressive is a fool.
brooklynite
(94,727 posts)How do we know what kind of books she's read?
TheSarcastinator
(854 posts)Lemme know how that one works out for Team Wall Street.
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)Maybe you travel in circles where it wont matter to you, due to your wealth, but for most of us it matters greatly.
I dont know you personally and I am not trying to be combative I am just stating a fact, if you are a wealthy person, you may find this issue less important.
For most people paying bills is a daily worry.
For most people not having rent for next month means you are 60-90 days away from being homeless.
I support Bernie but would gladly support Hillary Clinton were she the candidate, but please dont make lite of what this issue means to many of us.
bjobotts
(9,141 posts)jcgoldie
(11,645 posts)Bernie Sanders supporters are the greatest exaggerators in human history!!!
TheSarcastinator
(854 posts)Don't you think?
Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)Too bad for her the chickens are coming home to roost.
90-percent
(6,829 posts)If Goldmann-psychotic paid Hillary what, about $250,000 per speech, why don't a few thousand of us accumulate that amount in a gofundme campaign and purchase the transcript for the same amount GS gave her to give it?
Respectfully pay her the current going rate she charges for such things.
-90% Jimmy
seaotter
(576 posts)Bleacher Creature
(11,257 posts)The irony is that with each of these diatribes against her, I become more convinced than ever that she's going to make a damn good President and a fine representative of the party.
zentrum
(9,865 posts)Not quite Watergate. But very deceitful and all this should have been vetted by the damn DNC and other "powers" in the Democratic Establishment before they put all their weight behind her.
Hoist on their own petard.
Wouldn't it be ironic if the Clinton Machine which created 3rd way and so hurt the Democratic Party from within, now brings down the Machine through their own arrogance and incompetency?
anotherproletariat
(1,446 posts)BlueMTexpat
(15,373 posts)no THERE there ... this is the same.
But do keep repeating the meme. All it does is show how desperately you are afflicted with CDS.
I won't see any response you make, so please spare yourself the bother.
John Poet
(2,510 posts)"don't worry about the things I say in public, that's just for the ignorant masses"
kgnu_fan
(3,021 posts)great white snark
(2,646 posts)You've proven yourselves unable to make any kind of a fair assessment regarding Hillary.
senz
(11,945 posts)riversedge
(70,299 posts)Utopian Leftist
(534 posts)Like when Romney was caught on tape calling 47-percent of Americans "moochers."
Surely among all the banksters out there who flock to hear her speak, one of them must have recorded such a comment from her.
That is the type of smoking-gun it will take to completely unravel her false image.
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)Her refusal to release private transcripts doesn't even approach the deception of traveling from college campus to college campus promising free college, a $15/hr minimum wage and Medicare for all to young voters knowing the whole time that a Republican controlled House will treat such promises as dead on arrival. Not releasing private transcripts isn't even in the same league with what Bernie is shamelessly doing IMO.
Doitnow
(1,103 posts)why don't we all agree to stop reading and writing to the choir and instead start writing to our newspapers, write on our Facebook pages and all other social media we can think of how we feel about Hillary, maybe something constructive will happen. And ask who ever reads your opinion to do the same. It's easy to give up, hard to fight. If Bernie wins, he's going to ask us to REALLY work---it will just be the beginning. If you all give up now, what use would you be to Bernie if he does win!!!
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)She cannot be up front and honest.
kgnu_fan
(3,021 posts)This is a beautiful song... so sharing it here....good night!
Song: "Big Ass Election Day"
Performers: Tom & Peter Sturdevant (Father & Son)
Songwriter: Tom Sturdevant
CdnExtraNational
(105 posts)It's also unlikely that Trump did any either.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/tom-blumer/2016/02/24/press-mostly-accepts-hillary-clintons-bogus-speech-transcript
Mbrow
(1,090 posts)raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)We know they are bought and paid for. We know all they care about is money.
It's the ones who claim to be for it but are secretly against it. Who gush sweet smelling platitudes in public and then turn around and coddle the very individuals blocking any meaningful change.
randome
(34,845 posts)Or, more likely, she said amorphous political stuff like 'international trade relations need to be improved...blah, blah, blah..."
But let's keep up the fantasy that Armageddon is fast approaching. Maybe we should all meet at the Malheur refuge next week and discuss how to fight back against the government.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]
Vogon_Glory
(9,128 posts)"Biggest deceit?" excuse me? What planet were you living on sixteen years ago?
Have you forgotten "I'm a uniter, not a divider"? Maybe you overlooked that same guy's claim that he could cut defense spending AND balance the budget? Have you forgotten He-Who-Is-Afraid-Of-Horses''s Potemkin ranch out by Crawford, Texas? Or the dead silence of what he planned to do in Iraq?
I seriously wonder about your lack of knowledge. Perhaps you were still being breast-fed back in 2000? Maybe engrossed watching The Rugrats?
Now that you are presumably of age, Babycakes, maybe it is time to school yourself in recent political history before throwing around the hyperbole.
I may not be happy with the Clinton's money-grubbing, but after the Right Wing's efforts to ruin them during Bill Clinton's terms in the White House, their behavior is entirely understandable.
OhZone
(3,212 posts)I don't think I've seen too many proprietary private speeches being released by anyone.
Have you?
sarge43
(28,945 posts)Get it, got it? Good.
OhZone
(3,212 posts)Oh so wrong. many of the candidates running have given speeches.
Just a couple of examples.
http://www.reviewjournal.com/business/money/which-presidential-candidate-earns-the-most-speech
Sinan
(15 posts)Vote for Bernie in the primaries, push Hillary to the left but when the dust settles, all of you better vote for the Democrat who wins regardless of the outcome or you are going to allow Trump to win and become POTUS. If that happens, you can kiss the Supreme Court goodbye for several decades because there will likely be another three open spots to fill in the next 8 years in addition to Scalia's open seat. That makes four picks to the winner of the general election. So, have a ball until the convention and then line up behind the winner, get the vote out and crush the GOP nominee. All the rest of the issues pale in comparison with the SCOTUS picks. Wake up people.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)Now get in line and vote for more of the same.