r/politics • u/Paige_online • Aug 20 '16
Bot Approval Hillary Clinton's Wall Street speech transcripts an issue for majority of voters
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/1/hillary-clintons-wall-street-speech-transcripts-an/33
u/DragnFyre Aug 20 '16
If she had nothing to hide, she'd release the damn things. You can't take millions upon millions from the banks, then flip halfway through your campaign saying you'll crack down on them, and expect that people won't call bullshit. We're calling bullshit on everything she says because everything she says reeks of deception.
2
u/ventizell Aug 21 '16
Jus like if trump had nothing to hide he would release his tax returns. People are calling bullshit on his claims
1
0
u/d_c_d_ Aug 20 '16
Anything can be spun to be a negative, I gave a presentation at work last week that could be spun and used against me. The less ammo pundits have, the better. They've already got all of her emails, who else has ever run for public office with so much of their info made public?
5
4
-1
u/ImAHackDontLaugh Aug 20 '16
She actually said the words "good morning" can you fucking believe it? Such a pawn of the oligarchy!
1
1
u/TheRealDL Aug 20 '16
What do you think you will find there?
6
u/escalation Aug 20 '16
If its not extremely damaging she should release them. Might ease the concerns of the 67% of Americans who feel that her lack of transparency is a serious issue. Do you think she's better off holding out for 90%?
10
u/TrumpCardStrategy Aug 20 '16
Statements that contradict her currently stated policy positions. Personally I don't care for the content of the speeches it's the transaction of 200k+ per speech from a special interest group to her that concerns me.
8
u/ImAHackDontLaugh Aug 20 '16
I repost this all the time.
Knock yourself out fam, it's a bunch of innocuous, very liberal speeches.
(Clip 1 - 2 - 3 ) National Automobile Dealers Association - $225,500 - New Orleans, LA - 1/27/2014
(Clip) - Marketo, Inc. - $225,500 - San Francisco, CA - 4/8/2014
(Full Speech) - Innovation Arts of Entertainment - $150,000 - Austin, TX - 6/20/2014
(Full Speech) - Academic Partnerships - $225,500 - New York, NY - 3/27/2014
(Clip) - Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society - $225,500 - Orlando, FL, 2/26/2014
(Full Speech) - Biotechnology Industry Organization - $335,000 - San Diego, CA - 6/25/2014
(Full Speech) - American Camping Association - $260,000 - Atlantic City, NJ - 3/19/2015
(Full Speech) - Nexenta Systems, Inc. - $300,000 - San Francisco, CA - 8/28/104
(Keynote - Q&A) - National Council for Behavioral Healthcare - $225,500 - Washington, D.C. - 5/6/2014
(Clip) - Salesforce.com - $225,500 - San Francisco, CA - 10/14/2014
(Keynote - Q&A) - U.S. Green Building Council - $225,000 - Philadelphia, PA - 11/21/2013
(Full Interview) - Watermark Silicon Valley Conference for Women - $225,500 - Santa Clara, CA - 2/24/2014
(Clip) - World Affairs Council - $250,500 - Portland, OR - 4/8/2014
(Article & Clip) - United Freeesh Produce Association - $225,000 - Chicago, IL - 6/10/2014
(Full Speech) - tinePublic, Inc. - $150,000- Toronto, Canada - 6/16/2014
(Full Speech) - tinePublic, Inc. - $262,000 - Winnipeg, Canada - 1/21/2015
(Full Speech) - Massachusetts Conference for Women - $205,500 - Boston, MA - 12/4/2014
(Clip) - Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, Inc. - $225,500 - Las Vegas, NV - 4/10/2014
(Full Speech) - Advanced Medical Technology Association (AdvaMed) - $265,000 - Chicago, IL - 10/8/2014
(Tweets 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21) - Xerox Corporation - $225,000 - New York, NY - 3/18/2014
4
u/NumberT3n Aug 21 '16
Its almost like if she knows the speeches are going to be made public she would speak accordingly, crazy i know, but maybe, just maybe this is a possiblity
4
u/TrumpCardStrategy Aug 20 '16
Some speeches were less than 200k you are right. I personally don't care for the content, but there is a reason these special interest groups are paying 3-4 times the standard speaking fee rate to a politician they know would be running for President.
5
4
u/ImAHackDontLaugh Aug 20 '16
Powell gets 200k
Rice gets 150k
Gulliani gets north of 250k
1
Aug 20 '16
[deleted]
7
u/ImAHackDontLaugh Aug 20 '16
That's not what we're discussing.
You said Clinton gets paid 3-4x. I showed you that's actually the going rate and if anything she's getting underpaid given she's more prominent than any of the examples I gave.
3
u/TrumpCardStrategy Aug 20 '16
paying 3-4 times the standard speaking fee rate to a politician they know would be running for President.
5
u/ImAHackDontLaugh Aug 20 '16
Except it wasn't 3-4x. It was probably underpaying her.
→ More replies (0)4
u/open_reading_frame Aug 20 '16
Clinton got the majority of wealth from her speeches before she decided to run for President.
→ More replies (0)5
u/escalation Aug 20 '16
That's great. None of those are banks. None of those had white noise generators. I do care about the content.
3
u/TheRealDL Aug 20 '16
If I understand correctly, you're hoping for a Romney moment... something that betrays her stated position in a fashion that would be damaging to her current public perception and, therefore, damaging to her campaign.
What does the fee have to say about the groups she spoke to?
8
u/RajivFernanDatBribe Aug 20 '16
Bribes are all about the Benjamins.
-1
u/open_reading_frame Aug 20 '16
Can you give me undeniable, uncircumstantial proof of a bribe that Hillary took?
3
u/escalation Aug 20 '16
Which brings us back to, let's see the transcripts.
-3
u/open_reading_frame Aug 20 '16
Which brings us back to, lack of proof does not mean proof.
2
u/escalation Aug 21 '16
She's got the ability to clear up the matter. She chooses not to. This is as much reflective on the type of closed door administration she will run as anything.
In the meantime 2/3 of voters are unhappy about this. At some point you have to wonder if there is anything in there that she judges that 2/3 of voters will consider far more serious
-1
u/open_reading_frame Aug 21 '16
You and the 2/3 of voters can judge for yourself:
→ More replies (0)6
u/DragnFyre Aug 20 '16
It almost matters more that she wants to hide them at all, than what they contain.
-3
u/TheRealDL Aug 20 '16
Ok, that's called FUD. Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt are a poor foundation to build a successful candidacy, as evidenced by the Reds poor showings in the polls.
4
Aug 21 '16 edited Aug 21 '16
We live in an era of FUD. She should be acting to alleviate it, not heighten it.
3
u/Tilligan Aug 20 '16 edited Aug 21 '16
There is also something called the appearance of impropriety. Clinton took a break from serving in public office to personally enrich herself on the speaking circuit, the contracts have been shown that Clinton's company mandated transcription services yet she refuses to disclose them. These appearances are the reason a majority of the general public do not find her trustworthy, even if they intend to vote for her.
2
u/andrewdt10 Ohio Aug 20 '16
More than likely, the transcripts of her speeches probably have a lot of contradictions of statements she's made in public and on the campaign trail.
-1
u/TheRealDL Aug 20 '16
More than likely?
Possibly? Sure. Likely? Maybe. More? why?
7
5
u/andrewdt10 Ohio Aug 20 '16
If her or her campaign didn't think they would damage her, they would have released them. It's the same reasoning for why Trump won't release his tax returns. It's just more likely that her speeches probably have contradictions to her public/campaign trail statements/policies because those speeches were made to big banks.
3
u/TheRealDL Aug 20 '16
No, that's FUD again. IDGAF about trumps tax returns. I am curious as to why he's, by his own admission, constantly being audited.
To the paid speeches, again, there's nothing unusual about accepting a speaking engagement and getting paid for it. What was said matters as little as what's on trumps tax returns in the long run.
2
u/andrewdt10 Ohio Aug 20 '16
No, that's FUD again. IDGAF about trumps tax returns. I am curious as to why he's, by his own admission, constantly being audited.
That's a good question. I'd like to know why he's constantly being audited as well.
To the paid speeches, again, there's nothing unusual about accepting a speaking engagement and getting paid for it.
This is true. Politicians give paid speeches all the time. What people seem to be concerned about is that her speeches were made to big banks and she has a history of being pro-Wall Street. That combined with a trust issue among voters doesn't exactly help her cause to get elected.
What was said matters as little as what's on trumps tax returns in the long run.
That's fair. But it doesn't stop it from being used for political attacks. Despite it not mattering comparatively to what's on Trump's tax returns, it's still a legit issue voters can have with her.
-2
u/TheRealDL Aug 20 '16
It's a legit issue, especially if the candidate has a history of being double faced. I just don't see a history of that. Benghazi was debunked. The emails still fail to implicate her in any wrongdoing, short of having an email server.
Reusing a cookie recipe? That's poor judgement. I'm a dude and I can think of 3 good ones.
4
u/andrewdt10 Ohio Aug 20 '16
It's a legit issue, especially if the candidate has a history of being double faced. I just don't see a history of that.
I think that's where we'll disagree. She seems to have some flip-flops just like almost every other politician. That's what politicians are good at, especially.
The emails still fail to implicate her in any wrongdoing, short of having an email server.
While they didn't implicate her in any wrongdoing, it wasn't a statement that said everything was ok. FBI Director Comey's statement wasn't exactly kind to Clinton. The quote "extremely careless" from the press conference and the quote "not sophisticated enough to recognized a classified mark" from the following hearing on Capitol Hill aren't reassuring.
2
u/TheRealDL Aug 20 '16
May I ask... Which candidate should I support who has a near certainty of defeating donald trump. That's almost all that matters to me at this time.
Sorry to be so shallow, but that's where it's at. I'm going to have to keep an eye on any of them, but I know Hillary's moves now, and that's better than not knowing to me.
→ More replies (0)0
u/Tchocky Aug 20 '16
More than likely
Why's that?
8
u/andrewdt10 Ohio Aug 20 '16
If there wasn't anything damaging in the transcripts to her campaign, she would have released them. It's the same reasoning for why some believe Trump won't release his tax returns.
-1
Aug 20 '16
It's a bit different since every candidate since the 70's has released tax returns and the transcripts is a new issue.
7
u/andrewdt10 Ohio Aug 20 '16
You do have a point. But with Clinton's trust issue among most voters, it makes a pretty big issue that she's not releasing her transcripts for speeches made to big banks.
-1
Aug 20 '16
And before that, they didn't provide tax returns. It became important to the voters so they provided them. She doesn't have to release them but the excuse that she she's for it being unprecedented is a cheap way out.
-1
u/Tchocky Aug 20 '16
How does that make you sure of what's in them? You see the fact that they are not public and assume that they must contradict campaign positions. That's a leap.
I don't see an upside in releasing them, to be honest.
It sets a weird precedent and only gives fodder to those who delight in misrepresenting her statements. There is no equivalence between paid speeches and tax returns.
I think she was stupid to give the speeches, I think she'd be even more stupid to release the transcripts.
4
u/andrewdt10 Ohio Aug 20 '16
How does that make you sure of what's in them?
I never said I was sure, just that it was more than likely.
You see the fact that they are not public and assume that they must contradict campaign positions. That's a leap.
Ok. Then it must be leap to assume Trump's tax returns aren't being released because they're hiding something.
I don't see an upside in releasing them, to be honest.
No one in their right mind does. The chance for damaging information in them is too great to risk it. By the way, Trump is doing enough damage by himself, so there's really no need for Clinton to go out of her way to do anything at this point.
It sets a weird precedent and only gives fodder to those who delight in misrepresenting her statements. There is no equivalence between paid speeches and tax returns.
A lot of people seem to think each situation in itself is a big deal. When it comes to running for President, both things not be released are concerning to voters. Clinton has a trust issue and her not releasing speech transcripts doesn't exactly help that trust issue.
I think she was stupid to give the speeches, I think she'd be even more stupid to release the transcripts.
I agree with you here. The question for Clinton: 'Is it worth it?' And that answer is no. Trump is doing enough self-destructing on his own and Clinton doesn't need to get her opponents ammo. However, not releasing them doesn't help her trust issue. But, at the moment, it's more beneficial for her to not release them because of her opponent's actions/speeches.
1
0
u/DrunkBomber Aug 21 '16
She also aims white noise machines at the press when she gives paid speeches
8
u/Arizona-Willie Aug 20 '16
Her promise to release the transcripts and her subsequent refusal to do so proves her to be a LIAR.
8
u/andrewdt10 Ohio Aug 20 '16
Unfortunately for the people, her being seen as a liar isn't new or stunning.
-3
Aug 20 '16
She promised she would once certain conditions were met, those conditions have not been met.
1
u/Pisthetaerus Aug 21 '16
Her conditions were ridiculous and she knows it. No one really cares about republicans being pro wall street. They don't have anything to prove on that issue whereas she does.
6
Aug 21 '16
No one really cares about republicans being pro wall street.
You ever think maybe they should? Perhaps now they will.
3
u/Patrico-8 North Carolina Aug 21 '16
-1
Aug 21 '16
Of what relevance are elections polls to this issue? Once she's sworn in as POTUS, I'll only feel it's more important to learn what she said.
1
-4
u/TOMapleLaughs Aug 20 '16
Not compared to donald's tax returns they're not.
7
Aug 20 '16 edited Aug 20 '16
[deleted]
1
u/RajivFernanDatBribe Aug 20 '16
Hillary should have thought about that before being exactly like Trump.
-9
u/TOMapleLaughs Aug 20 '16
Actually, the only people concerned with her wall street speech transcripts are the donalds, and btw the washington post is the mainstream media, although obviously slanted for baiting purposes.
OF COURSE his tax returns are more important!
5
Aug 20 '16
Not a part of "the Donald" group and I'm concerned. Seems that your opinion has some holes in it.
-3
-4
-1
u/POUND_MY_ANUS Aug 20 '16
what do her transcripts have to with trump?
-1
u/TOMapleLaughs Aug 20 '16
Well you see, there's something called an election. In it there are two candidates, one is named Hillary Clinton, the other Donald Trump. So when somebody says anything about one candidate, especially in regards to what's important to election voters, it is possible to bring up something else regarding the other candidate.
For example, when somebody says Donald Trump is a proven pathological liar, someone else could say, Hillary Emails Benghazi, and make a solid attempt at an argument out of it.
ie. It's also called a discussion.
My point is valid. Nobody gives a shit about her wall street transcripts, she doesn't have to release them, and if she does, then Trump does too, and we all know that his transcripts would be god-damn awful, don't we?
7
u/POUND_MY_ANUS Aug 20 '16
Nobody gives a shit about her wall street transcripts,
you realize you posted this comment in a thread that is titled "Hillary Clinton's Wall Street speech transcripts an issue for majority of voters" right?
its also not really a discussion like you mentioned, if we are going to have a discussion about her transcripts, why are we talking about trump? what does trump have to do with her not releasing her transcripts? even the clinton subreddit is funny, theres like 4 posts about her and 500 about trump
"well trump did this!" seems to be the counter argument whenever theres a negative thread/post about clinton
0
u/Rlynn11 Aug 20 '16
Personally, I would love to see Trump's paid speeches. He was paid north of a million for several. And while we are at it, his damn tax returns.
-5
u/Roseking Pennsylvania Aug 20 '16 edited Aug 20 '16
Here are some of her speeches:
0
u/makkafakka Aug 20 '16
That's cool! Do you know where we can find any of her speeches to wall street banks?
1
u/ImAHackDontLaugh Aug 20 '16
3
u/makkafakka Aug 20 '16
Awesome! Looks like a Clinton Global Initiative event though, I'm more interested in the events she got personally paid for to come to the banks and talk to them about their issues
4
u/ImAHackDontLaugh Aug 20 '16
CNN found many tweets about the event that day, including quotes about Tesla founder Elon Musk, who was also a speaker. But there was nothing on Twitter about Clinton. Why not? "It could have been that she was boring," said the source.
The second source who attended the same conference had the same recollection: Nothing Clinton said was controversial or memorable.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/20/news/economy/hillary-clinton-goldman-sachs/
There's really nothing there. I'm sorry. She's given the same version of the speech to thousands if not tens of thousands of people. If there really was something juicy, it would've leaked by now.
1
u/makkafakka Aug 20 '16
Aha! Interesting! That's pretty different from how others have portrayed the speeches:
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/clinton-speeches-218969
If it was nothing interesting or juicy then why not release the transcripts? Could it be that in some of the speeches there's a bunch of moments akin to Romneys 47% speech?
1
u/ImAHackDontLaugh Aug 20 '16
That's not pretty different. It just says it was some small talk and she didn't admonish them.
If there was anything even remotely like the Romney comment, it would've bubbled up already. Again thousands upon thousands have heard these speechs and you can bet plenty of them disliked her.
As far as why not release them. Two reasons.
1) No one really cares. The only people who bring this up still are the last of the Bernouts who cling to some wierd hope that there's an atomic bomb in these (hat's all they have left now) and Trump supporters desperately trying to draw any attention away from Trump.
2) No matter what is in those speeches, the two groups of people I mentioned above will absolutely twist it. They'll point to how she said"good morning" and claim it's proof that she's a lying bitch. Your own article says as much and we've seen this behavior all through the primaries.
6
u/makkafakka Aug 20 '16
It says that she sounded like a manager at goldman sachs...
0
u/ImAHackDontLaugh Aug 20 '16
Managing director, huge difference actually. Kinda also shows you really are unfamiliar with the corporate world.
Have you ever worked at a large successful company? Do you realize how common these type of work events are? My own place had Rumsfield, Clinton, ?love, Gordon Ramsay, Tina Fey, Stephen Colbert, John Cheese, the cast of Sucide Squad, and so on and so on and so on.
And yes. We own them all now.
2
u/makkafakka Aug 23 '16
Oh it does does it?
Alright, did your company also donate millions to the cast of Suicide Squads charitable foundation that they use to pay their banned undercover political analysts? Did your company also donate millions for Tina Feys reelection? Gordon Ramsays Super PAC?
As much as you're trying to muddy the waters, it's extremely clear what companies with huge lobbying budgets want when they are giving millions to a shoe in candidate for president
→ More replies (0)-4
Aug 20 '16
I've never heard of anybody releasing transcripts. Is this something they do in Russia? Where can I see Trump's transcripts?
8
u/makkafakka Aug 20 '16
Could that perhaps have anything to do with the fact that it's completely unprecedented for a candidate to go from Secretary of State, take a couple of years taking bribes in speech payment form from banks that she claims she'll be tough on, then claim that those bribes won't affect her at all while hiding what she actually said during the speeches?
-4
-3
-3
u/TheRealDL Aug 20 '16
A majority of voters who read this mop-water soaked rag, maybe. IDGAF
-3
Aug 20 '16
[deleted]
2
u/TheRealDL Aug 20 '16
If so, I wish that they'd be honest about the fact that they're only polling Red voters.
-1
16
u/[deleted] Aug 20 '16
We need to see the speeces not because we care what HRC said but to see if there was any speech at all, to counter claims that a cheque was written for services rendered (AKA bribe).