Could be. But do you think he then replies, “I’ll release those as soon as you release those speeches you made behind closed doors,” or something?
(I mean, he has to know the release-your-tax-returns bit is coming – sure as he’s seen Bernie Sanders come after Hillary to release the transcripts, right? So do you figure he just waits to deliver his line on the heels of her delivering that one?)
I mentioned this back when Romney was running. Someone should float rumors out there stating some horrible things in Trump’s tax returns: offshore money havens, illegal sweatshops, payment to guerilla forces in Central America, stealing from veterans, cancellation of donations to children’s cancer research to fund hair restoration experiments, hand enlargement surgeries, etc. Get it trending “#Tiny hands steal big bucks!”, and force him to spend time replying to them all. Make sure the only way to prove it is to come out with his tax returns
If his tax returns would reveal more heinous facts that the ones you are (essentially) “making up”, then he still won’t do it, and just accuse you of “making shit up”. Facts do not impact Trump, he simply substitutes his own facts. His supporters do not care, and will not listen. This effort will only impact the reasoning and intelligent Trump voter. And he is likely already wavering in his support.
I’m not surprised there’s only one.
There can be only…no, can’t do it. It would be wrong.
Again, isn’t the obvious counter-move for Trump – who ‘just asks questions’ about where folks were really born, and so-and-so’s involvement in JFK’s assassination, and so on – to allege that Hillary made promises in those behind-closed-doors speeches, complete with far-out claims about kickbacks and pardons and who she’ll let decide on political posts up to and including the vice-presidency and the Supreme Court, and the only way to prove otherwise is to simply release the transcripts?
Yes, this. Drumpf’s usual response to stuff like this is to sue someone. But I can’t think that would redound to his benefit in a presidential campaign. And Hillary can point out that when he sued the guy whose book claimed Drumpf’s net worth was <$300M, he lost. I very much hope she does this. And then, as I say, when he tries to counter-charge about her speeches, she should just say that she’s curious enough about his taxes to offer him the unfair trade of her taxes and her speeches, just for a peek at those returns of his. 
Then I would really hope every time he talks to a news reporter, he gets some version of:
“Mr. Trump, Hillary Clinton has already released her own taxes, but she has offered to also release her speech transcripts as well, just in return for your releasing your taxes like every major party nominee has done over the past forty years. What is wrong with that deal?”
Oh LAWDY! Look what Faux News found! The Democrat Party = Puppet of Wall Street.
Clinton sought secret info on EU bailout plans as son-in-law’s doomed hedge fund gambled on Greece
"In 2012, Mezvinski, the husband of Chelsea Clinton, created a $325 million basket of offshore funds under the Eaglevale Partners banner through a special arrangement with investment bank Goldman Sachs. The funds have lost tens of millions of dollars predicting that bailouts of the Greek banking system would pump up the value of the country’s distressed bonds. One fund, exclusively dedicated to Greek debt, suffered near-total losses.
Clinton stepped down as secretary of state in 2013 to run for president. But newly released emails from 2012 show that she and Clinton Foundation consultant, Sidney Blumenthal, shared classified information about how German leadership viewed the prospects for a Greek bailout. Clinton also shared “protected” State Department information about Greek bonds with her husband at the same time that her son-in-law aimed his hedge fund at Greece.
That America’s top diplomat kept a sharp eye on intelligence assessing the chances of a bailout of the Greek central bank is not a problem. However, sharing such sensitive information with friends and family would have been highly improper. Federal regulations prohibit the use of nonpublic information to further private interests or the interests of others. The mere perception of a conflict of interest is unacceptable."
And I would trust Murdoch and Company’s word why? Color me completely unsurprised that you do, though.
Let’s see, she shared classified information about how the Germans viewed Greece with her son-in-law, who then invested in Greece. Those investments proceeded to lose money. Ok, maybe sharing classified information is a bad thing, but generally one is concerned about insider trading in terms of making money, not losing money. If someone acted on intelligence that they should not have had and ended up losing money because the intelligence ended up being misinterpreted, inaccurate, or otherwise useless in predicting the future, most people wouldn’t care one bit. And in a case where it has not even been proven that the intelligence was illegally shared, one might even look at the outcome of the situation and say that the result of the investments tends to show that the intelligence was not shared.
sez who? Fox? it is to laff.
Even were it true, where would the information have come from? Secret polling by the CIA? Or, more likely, perfectly ordinary polling from perfectly ordinary sources that somebody along the chain slapped a “classified” label on for no particular reason? Does it surprise anyone with even a smattering of information about Europe that Germany tends to take a dim view of Greek problems?
The accusation is what the German leadership was thinking and saying, presumibly behind closed doors, was passed along. Not publicly available opinion polls.
If you want to mock it effectively you should probably read it first.
I’ll read it when it’s posted on a reputable news site. Funny how it hasn’t been yet.
To review:
-The article itself states that it was part of the SoS’s job to be apprised of the situation.
-The article itself states that there is no indication she improperly shared the info with anyone in an effort to capitalize on non-public information.
-The article itself states that Clinton’s son-in-law LOST HIS ASS betting on a smooth recovery of the Greek economy, when it’s hard to envision any secret info coming out of the German government that would have led him to that conclusion.
IOW, lolwut?
Of course! Angela Merkel wanted to sabotage the Clintons! That’s why she had disinformation passed to Hillary! Even though damned near everybody knew that the German leadership did not enthuse over sending their good money to a bunch of Greek olive-grubbers! They would say different and thus lure Goldman Sach’s and Hillary SIL bwah-ha-ha-ha!
Then, with Trump POTUS, meld an American/German Facist alliance. But what comes next, “profit” or “annex the Sudenland”? Somebody call Tom Clancy, he’ll know!
I’m combing through her emails at JudicialWatch.org. I’ll report back when I find the smoking gun. In the meantime, emulate Marc Mezvinsky’s every financial move and you’ll be wealthy.
Wow…the last thing I’d ever expect from you is innuendo.
It’s the email right after the one where Hillary admits she had Vince Foster killed.
HILARY CLINTON’S son-in-law wanted health and welfare slashed to enrich Gold Man Sacks investors.
“The only “situation” Eaglevale seems to have invested in was buying distressed Greek bonds at big discounts. The hedge fund speculated that the European Union would protect bondholders, requiring Greece to slash health and welfare spending.”
And Breitbart as a cite, too! It’s all so… consistent!
Also, Hillary killed Lincoln! …
http://www.newyorker.com/.../fox-new-evidence-hillary-killed-lincoln?intcid=mod-most-popular