Trump is one setting a bad precedent by being the only candidate for the last 40 years to not release Tax returns. Clinton’s surrogates should be hammering him with this, pointing out that his bullshit about “can’t release while being audited” is completely false.
Wow!
Donald has exactly one tax return.
How many speeches has Hilary given again?
Yeah, that seems fair!
Once again, the only equivalence to Donald releasing his tax return is Hilary releasing hers. A child could see as much.
(You’re the one that just keeps banging THIS drum, in reality!)
“We will CRUSH the Prolitariat beneath the Iron Fist of Capitalism, before ROASTING THEIR FLESH in the flames of our Lust for Gold!”
Yeah, no, can’t see Hilz saying this either, myself.
The corporate sleazebuckets don’t pay Hillary to influence policy. They don’t pay her to advise them of her political opinions. Her opinions are theirs for clicking a mouse. They don’t give her money because of their passion for centrist politics. They do it to prove what a big, important and powerful company they are. They do it so the CEO can have a picture modestly placed on his wall, showing him giving his advice as she gazes in rapt attention.
They do it to show off. Nothing more evil here than standard greed, pride and folly.
The terms NDA and Confidentiality Agreement were not meant in the most literal sense, sorry. I just mean that there is probably a contract that forbids the distribution of the contents of her speech by Goldman Sachs and/or HRC. As for her speaking fee, $250K is really not out of line with what I’ve heard we’ve paid our speakers at our events.
…and yes, to a point I agree with Elucidator. We hire them a.) because they bring very interesting perspectives to our clients and b.) it is somewhat an ego thing for both our company (we bring former Presidents, CEOs, etc., to speak to you) and for our clients (we saw/met President Bush at a conference).
I agree that’s mainly why Clinton doesn’t want to publicize the speech transcripts. The main problem is that every rational and well informed person knows (even if in pro-Hillary campaign mode they deny it) that these speaking fees were payoffs for the understanding that Goldman’s (and other firms who paid) concerns would get a direct high level hearing in a future Clinton administration. The average employee bonus at Goldman in good years has been a few $100k, average of all employees from the mail room up. That’s not a lot of money to them. So there’s no reason to believe there was a dark and dastardly specific quid pro quo, and it certainly wasn’t stated in the speeches. These were just ‘courtesy payments’ to ensure access, but they couldn’t just cut her a check without her doing anything.
Every reasonably well informed person knows this, she isn’t really hiding anything we don’t already know. But the average voter is poorly informed, and if there’s a week or two of the media parsing every sentence in the speeches, besides a few embarrassing phrases it will just focus attention on the basic problem of Clinton influence peddling.
Hillary needs to make the election as much as possible a referendum on whether Trump is a basically suitable person to hold the office. His tax returns might be a gold mine to do that, but we really don’t know why he’s so reluctant to release them, and if it’s a gold mine for her he’s not going to. Nor does she get a lot of traction talking about it if he can say ‘how about the speeches’. OTOH she can reasonably hope for a continuing stream of stupid statements from him she can add to previous ones to make her case that he’s unsuitable, and keep the focus off herself as much as possible.
Chelsea has actively campaigned for her mother and thus fair game.
Liberal and progressives who support Clinton have zero integrity. They’ve been screaming about reigning in Wall Street, and yet, have no problem with Clinton family having a close relationship with the CEO of Gold Man Sacks or accepting 21 million in speech money. Of course, Clinton will be making policy to benefit Wall Street at the expense of Main Street. And that disparity in fundraising between her and Trump is all Wall Street money too.
I may have zero integrity, but I know how to use the word “reining.”
Even if all this is true, it’s still entirely reasonable and consistent to believe that Trump would be worse, and therefore support for Hillary is best for the country.
I guess this isn’t quite as embarrassing as conservative attempts back in 2008 to convince black people they shouldn’t vote for Obama because he wasn’t really black.
Despite the story that Trump supporters and conservatives want to sell, there’s no big surprises in those “secret” speeches. We all know Hillary Clinton is a pro-business moderate. There are progressives on the left who are unhappy about this but they’re not going to be surprised by it.
And even the people who hate Clinton have to admit she’s not an idiot. She’s been in the spotlight for decades. She’s not going to say anything in a public speech that will come back to haunt her. I’m sure her speeches consisted of a bunch of safe anecdotes and bland platitudes.
Yes, it’s just terrible when presidential candidates have close connections to companies like Goldman Sacks.
It’s possible to dislike Clinton’s Wall Street connections and still think she’s a better choice than Trump by miles and thus support her on that basis. I’m sure there’s someone out there touting Clinton as a champion of the common man fighting against the banks but I haven’t seen it yet. Usually that sort of rhetoric attaches itself to Warren.
[QUOTE=Corry El;19429837The main problem is that every rational and well informed person knows (even if in pro-Hillary campaign mode they deny it) that these speaking fees were payoffs for the understanding that Goldman’s (and other firms who paid) concerns would get a direct high level hearing in a future Clinton administration. … These were just ‘courtesy payments’ to ensure access, but they couldn’t just cut her a check without her doing anything.
.[/QUOTE]
This is just your opinion. Stating it as a fact that “every rational and well informed person knows” doesnt make it so.
Sure, they could, they could donate to her campaign or a PAC. Just write a check.
Hilary also spoke at several college commencement/graduation events. Were they buying “access”? She was on NPR’s “Wait-Wait”- was NPR buying access?
I went to an inner city public high school with unionized Democrat teachers so you must forgive me.
So did I, but I know how to use ‘reining.’ Maybe a little more time studying?
-
Donations to her campaign or PAC wouldn’t be into her own pocket, or not legally anyway. This was money legally paid into her pocket. A large series of such payments from all kinds of special interests are the major component of the Clinton’s going from ‘broke’ when Bill left office (albeit a bit of poetic license when Hillary said that) to centimillionaires.
-
Just because Goldman and other financial institutions, foreign govts etc who provided a big piece of the Clinton fortune were obviously buying an option on access to a future Clinton admin (what exactly could Hillary tell them they didn’t already know?) doesn’t mean every other purchaser of Clinton speeches was. There’s no logic in that, and I didn’t imply it. But actually, paying commencement speakers is itself controversial (about 2/3’s of colleges don’t, did Hillary always get paid for hers? I don’t know), and NPR has an interest in public policy and a friendly administration as it relates to funding NPR. OTOH NPR is in the (non-profit) business of publicly disseminating news, and what Hillary Clinton says about eg. her time as Secy of State of First Lady is news, same sense as paying somebody to write a published book. Goldman has no particular mission or interest of that kind.
So I’d stick with saying it’s obvious to any rational and well informed person what was going on with the Goldman and other Wall Street speeches, and put you in the category of ‘those in pro-Clinton campaign mode’. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt IOW and assuming you know you’re spinning here.
Because of course, you could check their Political party…:rolleyes::rolleyes:
Where I went to school, it was pretty much a foregone conclusion; the teachers’ union’s endorsements were of Democratic candidates. Doesn’t mean there weren’t conservative teachers; I can remember a couple of kneejerk conservative types who weren’t reticent about their views in the slightest.
Yes, likely the majority were, since the GOP fiercely attacks Unions, especially teachers unions. So they support Dems. Or maybe it was the Egg first.
The Dude: Yeah, well, that’s just, like, your opinion, man