So in another thread I pointed out that Hillary has refused to release the transcripts of her paid speeches, and some people thought this was a legitimate criticism and other thought that this was just another fishing expedition.
She has suffered from accusations of being too cozy with plutocrats (particularly wall street types, you know, the guys that brought our global economy to its knees a few years ago) and taking money from monied interests, either personally through paid speeches or by proxy through the Clinton foundation.
So in the last town hall meeting, CNN asked Bernie and Hillary if they would release the transcripts of their paid speeches. Bernie said he would release whatever he had and Hillary said that she would do so if ALL the Republican candidates did so as well.
She acted like she was getting picked on by CNN, she asked why there is one standard for her and another standard for everyone else (conveniently ignoring the fact that Bernie was also being asked to provide this information to Democratic primary voters).
I support Hillary and would vote for either Hillary or Bernie in a general election (heck I’d even vote for that gun grabber Bloomberg) over ANY of the Republican candidates. I am probably going to vote for Trump in the primary because I find either Democratic candidate acceptable and Trump is the most liberal Republican candidate (sure, he’s pandering to racists but I suspect that he is only doing that because he has got the Republican party base figured out and he is playing them and frankly, its not like any of the others are being nominated for civil rights awards).
So the question is:
Is it fair to ask for her transcripts and to be skeptical of her refusal to do so; or
Was CNN playing gotcha journalism and making unfair precedented demands because she is Hillary?
I say its fair game because of the concerns that liberal voters have surrounding her candidacy.
A big issue in the Democratic nomination race is how much the candidates are being influenced by big donors and Wall Street financial firms, so I don’t think the question is out of bounds for a Democratic debate. Complaining that the Republicans aren’t being asked the same misses the point - as far as I know, no one on the GOP side has raised the issue (maybe everyone on that side just doesn’t see it as a problem).
I don’t see it as her being picked on. Sanders has implied that she’s been influenced by Wall Street, and she denies it, so the media is asking for evidence of influence one way or the other. Sanders is willing to be held to the same standard.
I think it’s probably fair, but her response is also fair (and probably politically wise). She knows what’s in those speeches, and if she feels they are sufficiently politically damaging, she won’t release them.
It’s fair game because of the hypocrisy aspect alone. If one constantly denounces Wall Street and then accepts large sums of money from them, there’s a big problem.
More importantly one should ask why the Democrats are so cozy with Wall Street? Why can’t we audit the Federal Reserve? Why was Democrat Jon Corzine and former CEO of Goldman Sachs elected Governor of New Jersey and not convicted for the MF Global scandal? Chelsea Clinton is married to a Hedge Fund manager. Why hasn’t a single Wall Street executive been indicted for the 2008 crash? Was the Keystone pipeline stopped so Warren Buffet could profit from having the oil transported by his trains?
The reason it applies more to her and Bernie is that both candidates have made a lot of noise about how they are going to clean up Wall Street and that they can be relied upon to do so without fear or favor. The GOP candidates have not, certainly not to the same degree.
So asking her (and Bernie, who is saying the same thing only more so) to let us know what she says to Wall Street when they are paying her six figures to say it is a legitimate question.
She won’t do it, and, as I said, this is a clever way to avoid it.
Who says Republicans aren’t being asked? Oh yeah, Hillary. Fine, Republicans, please release the transcripts of your Wall St. speeches. Ok Hillary, what’s your lame excuse now?
Hillary didn’t say she would release them when the Republicans were asked - she will when all their speeches were released. If Cruz and Rubio release their speeches, if any, she can just say that Trump hasn’t released everything he ever said in his whole career and she is off the hook again.
There also may be a question of copyright, allied to the value of her intellectual content.
Her current fee for speaking is $225,000 per speech. I would expect that if her distilled insights and pithy bon mots were freely available in paper form people would be less willing to fork out large sums to hear her say the same platitudes.
The speech circuit has been a godsend to retired politicians in recent decades, ( such as her husband ), and even when still in the game few people want to give it away for free when they can sell it; which includes the fruits of experience and public office.
This. We all know Republicans hate women and this is just another sexist ploy by them to discredit her. If they really wanted to know what she was saying they should have attended her speeches.
But yeah, this is the Democratic primary, so what does it have to do with Republicans? She just doesn’t want people to know what she told the big bucks guys on Wall Street. I don’t blame her, but what a weak excuse!!
Yeah, because it’s not like it’s possible they’re just buying influence with her.
Incidentally, my mom received an e-mail that claims Chelsea Clinton’s father-in-law was a longtime Clinton cronie, who got caught running a Ponzi scheme and served 5 years in federal prison for it.
…and now his son is married to Clinton’s daughter, and they’re running the Clinton Foundation, a shady charity that almost certainly is a vehicle to funnel money into private accounts.
Since she doesn’t want it released, one has to imagine she thinks it would be damaging. Given the context, presumably she said a lot of flattering things to her audiences. It would not be surprising to see stuff about how the banks they work for are indispensable to American prosperity, etc.
Of course it would be damaging - the Republicans are going to go thru them with a fine-tooth comb for just the sorts of things you mention. And she doesn’t want them to do that, so she made a moderately skillful deflection.
It’s the same attitude as with the e-mails, although her deflection in this case is much more skillful. “Just take my word for it - the e-mails I deleted have nothing to do with anything you need to know about it” whereas now it is “boo hoo there is a mean double-standard and it is unfair for you to ask”. Maybe she has learned something, or maybe she will follow up with “you are only asking this because I am a woman”. Or “this is part of the vast right-wing conspiracy” who are out to get her so that she can’t implement her vision for America that is so wonderful and exalted that lesser mortals have no right to question her about it.
After all, she clawed her way out of near-bankruptcy with the help of million dollar loans from her friends, and six figure fees from the Wall Street bankers she is now going to reform. Really!
How can you question that kind of inspiring, all-American Horatio Alger saga?
We do. Every year. The Office of the Inspector General conducts an audit every year and reports to congress. What Republicans want is to be able to politically influence the Fed because they don’t want them to do ANYTHING to help the economy because they think that any intervention is bad for the economy in the long run. They are particularly antagonistic to things that will help a recovery while a black man is in the white house.
For much the same reason that OJ didn’t go to jail. Because they couldn’t prove he did anything wrong. All they have is a strong suspicion.
So?
Bureaucratic cowardice at the justice department and the SEC. Guys like Angelo Mozilo paid out of pocket about 10% of what he made during the housing bubble to the SEC and they settled.
Are you serious? You don’t think that this was a political move to pander to the ecofanatics, you think it was political payback to a warren buffett???
Of course this pales in comparison to the Republicans but still, you expect Democrats to be better than this.
The suspicion is that the people paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to hear the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee and probably next president don’t actually give a shit if she spends the time telling knock knock jokes or discussing the challenges of combatting global terrorism. However, SHE might be saying things that are inconsistent with what she is saying on the campaign trail.
I doubt she was drafting each of these speeches from whole cloth. The suspicion is that she was not being paid for the content of her speeches. The particular concern with the text of her speeches is that she was saying all sorts of nice things to wall street during these speeches and bashing them on the campaign trail.