Hillary's own words on Trust in Government and the Revolving Door. Is it a wonder there are questio

[Rilgin]

Earlier I started a thread on the revolving door and how Hillary is an example of it. My point was democrats have been leary of the revolving door for ages and that Hillary's and Hillary's supporters dismissal of some of our concerns over her money relationship is air. In debates, she has said noone questions that she can be influenced. Well that made me think what would Hillary Clinton 1.0 think of Hillary Clinton 2.0 so I went to google.

Found a blog post co-authored by her about trust in government and the relation of lack of trust of government and the relationship between government workers and private money after or during their service.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hillary-clinton/wall-street-revolving-door_b_8064504.html

To make it simple, she explains the direct relationship between trust in government and the concern over "foxes in the hen house" (her words). Her daughter is married to a hedge fund manager. Her fortune was made giving speeches to powerful interests and companies. Is it no wonder a lot of us have problems with her speeches and money and want to see proof of her speeches rather than just affirmations of trust me.

Here are Hillary's words (there are plenty more) explaining why it creates trust issues when people whose past was tied to an industry go back into government service. Her recent past and future is clearly tied to corporate interests to the tune of millions of dollars and the endowment of a foundation.


"But increasingly, Americans' trust in government is eroding. And a big reason for that is the so-called revolving door between government and the private sector.

Inviting outside voices into government is often a good thing. When public servants have experience beyond Washington, they bring new ideas, new perspectives, and new knowledge to the work of governing this huge, complicated country of ours. Some of America's most dedicated public servants got their start in technology, business, academia, or other fields. Most of the time, that private-sector experience is an asset, not a liability.

But in some cases, it can affect the public trust -- for example, if a public servant's past and future are tied to the financial industry. That's when people start worrying that the foxes are guarding the hen house."

[MaggieD]

1. She's never worked for Wall Street or been a lobbyist for any Corp

In addition, she has worked in public service for over 40 years. And those who smear her relentlessly for her efforts can not point to one single favor she has every done for Wall Street.

As a result this type of innuendo is just old and no one except those who hate her or fear her political abilities pays any attention to it any longer. Waste of time.

On the plus side, if all the folks that spend so much time smearing her had spent that time volunteering for Bernie he might have actually been a real threat.

[NWCorona]

2. Did you see that Warren video?

[MaggieD]

9. Yes, I saw that edited piece of garbage

From before Warren was a senator when she was still innocent and no clue about politics. I'm a little sick of hearing how it was okay for Bernie to vote for mass incarceration, against immigration reform, control and all the rest while HIS supporters want to claim that voting for a bankruptcy bill because it protected women and children, but did not pass means she is in the tank for Walk Street.

It's absurd, it's an unwarranted smear, and it's typical of DU these days.

[NWCorona]

12. I'm not talking about the edited version but the complete interview.

I do agree with you on Bernie's vote. I also have issues with it but it's offset somewhat when I look at the violence against women act but you are right. The one difference for me is the fact that he didn't use demonizing language to push it through.

MaggieD, I'm fully aware that Bernie isn't perfect just like I realize that Hillary isn't all bad.

[Bread and Circus]

3. False. She gave speeches (work) and received millions (compensation) from Wall Street.

[MaggieD]

10. She got paid $675k to give speeches

But what favors did she do them? Not one damn thing. Smears and innuendo. That's all it is. All it has ever been.

[Bread and Circus]

14. No, you said "worked for" which is categorically false. She performed a service and was compensated.

That's called work.

Now, for the sake of truth, admit you made a mistake and move on.

[Rilgin]

4. Dont listen to me. Listen to Hillary. Then answer your familar "Don't Care"

Hillary herself explains whats wrong with it. She does not say lobbyist. She writes past and future is tied to the financial industry. She has made millions in the past from the financial industry. Her foundation is funded by the financial industry and other corporations. Her daughter is married to and she has worked for hedge funds. That is past and future ties dont YOU think?

Why dont you explain it to Hillary since she wrote it or is that too much congnitive dissonance.

[MaggieD]

11. She talking about working for Wall Street and then the Government

She has never worked for Wall Street. The analogy is false.

[Rilgin]

13. Its not an analogy

She does not say work. She does not say work. She points out that it lowers trust in government when people in government have a past or future involvment with the people they oversee or regulate. It is not an analogy to anything. It is not innuendo.

It shows she knows and you should know that her relationship, Bills Relationship, Chelseas relationship and the massive amounts of money earned by them and contributed to the foundation while she was SOS and afterwards can cause doubt in many people. It explains why it was a mistake if she was going to run for president again and explains why its not unreasonable for us to have doubt about her motives -- in her words.

Putting out the transcripts would at least address directly some of those doubts. But every post you ever put out is basically "I dont Care" when confronted by any problems in her past even those set out so clearly in her own words.

[jeff47]

6. False. Wall Street entities paid her for speeches. (nt)

[tk2kewl]

7. so...

so she has none of the experience she highlighted as useful from the private sector, just the benefit of getting paid by them.

[Dems to Win]

8. She worked for Goldman Sachs for three hours, brought home $675,000

To say this isn't what I want in my future president is an understatement.

So greedy, so sleazy, so corrupt. So politically tone-deaf to do this two years after the launch of Occupy Wall Street and two years before launching her new and improved presidential campaign.

[Dems to Win]

5. $20 million in paid speeches, cashing in on her public service

Total haul for the Clintons since leaving the White House: over $200million. I consider it to be sleazy, greedy, and corrupt.

Bill's payola includes $16million for being on the board of Laureate, a for-profit chain of colleges. Greedy, sleazy, preying on the poor, cashing in on his public service. This issue alone is enough that I don't want Bill back in the White House in any capacity. And there are more.

I miss Harry Truman, and his post-presidency ethics.

Truman lived in an ordinary house in Missouri after his presidency, and wouldn't take any money from corporate interests because he knew they didn't want him, but were trying to buy the power of the presidency. Truman wouldn't sell it. The Clintons were happy to be bought.

This is why my Dad, a lifelong moderate Republican who is disgusted by Trump, won't vote for Clinton. If it's Trump vs. Clinton, he'll vote for a 3rd party. He is adamantly anti-Clinton, every bit as much as he is anti-Trump.