Hillary Clinton: "I will look into" releasing transcripts of paid speeches
cbsnews.com -- Feb 5, 2016 {an eternity ago}
When asked during Thursday night's head-to-head debate in Durham, New Hampshire if she would be willing to make the transcripts of the speeches public -- not just to the investment bank, but all of her paid speeches -- Clinton responded: "I will look into it. I don't know the status, but I will certainly look into it."
This ‘sham of a promise’ has led to the mocking, derision, and a rise in her "Untrustwothy" numbers.
#lookingintoit
iwilllookintoit.com ... She's still 'looking', it seems. So much for the prospects of keeping those first 100-days promises.
…..
Given her most recent 'stonewall of a promise' -- I took it upon myself to "look into it" -- this uncomfortable, politically inconvenient, seemingly "classified" relationship between Hillary Clinton and Wall Street moguls ... (Especially since she keeps telling everyone, her Wall Street reform plan is the "strongest" ... strongest for whom, is what reporters should be asking, right about now.)
.....
Wall Street Offers Clinton a Thorny Embrace
by Nicholas Confessore, and Amy Chozick, nytimes.com -- July 7, 2014
[...]
Mrs. Clinton was the industry’s home state senator, and the financial sector was the second-largest giver to her presidential campaign in 2008. In her post-State Department life, she has been showered with lucrative speaking fees from Goldman Sachs, J. P. Morgan and other financial firms. In her talks, she says it is unproductive to vilify the industry, and she avoids the kind of language that puts off financial executives, as when President Obama referred to “fat cat” bankers in 2009.
...
But as Wall Street hopes for a warm embrace from the former secretary of state, Mrs. Clinton must grapple with a populist surge coursing through politics, on both the right and the left.
[...]
The last time Mrs. Clinton waded deeply into these issues, she was locked in a heated primary and the country was on the verge of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. She was early to call for tougher regulation of financial derivatives and private-equity markets, and in a 2007 speech called for major federal intervention in the market for subprime loans, arguing that “we need to acknowledge that Wall Street has played a significant role in our current problems, and in particular the housing crisis.”
[...]
Several people who advised Mrs. Clinton on her 2008 presidential campaign said the speech angered some of her Wall Street donors, who complained about what they viewed as her increasing antagonism to the industry. [...]
Must keep the 1% donor-base happy. They don't like to be "reminded" of their mistakes, greed, or avarice. Not cool.
Perhaps "appeasement" is a better way to go. Afterall, someone needs to stand-up for the poor mis-understood speculative Bankers … They’ve had it so rough, with all those average people being SO mean to them, and stuff.
.....
Lament of the Plutocrats
by Ben White and Maggie Haberman, politico.com -- Dec 11, 2013
[...]
Ordinarily these masters of the universe might have groaned at the idea of a politician taking the microphone. In the contentious years since the crash of 2008, they’ve grown wearily accustomed to being called names — labeled "fat cats" by President Obama and worse by those on the left—and gotten used to being largely shunned by Tea Party Republicans for their association with the Washington establishment. And of course there are all those infuriating new rules and regulations, culminating this week with the imposition of the so-called Volcker Rule to make risky trades by big banks illegal.
...
But Clinton offered a message that the collected plutocrats found reassuring, according to accounts offered by several attendees, declaring that the banker-bashing so popular within both political parties was unproductive and indeed foolish. Striking a soothing note on the global financial crisis, she told the audience, in effect:
We all got into this mess together, and we’re all going to have to work together to get out of it. What the bankers heard her to say was just what they would hope for from a prospective presidential candidate: Beating up the finance industry isn’t going to improve the economy — it needs to stop.
[...]
Notice those shades of Rahm-dissmissiveness on display there (… indeed foolish progressives.)
If those first-hand insider accounts are accurate, I predict Mrs Clinton will be "looking into it" well into the NEXT financial crisis, on her watch -- assuming she's elected.
"Break up the Too Big to Jail Banks?" -- 'Hell NO! We need to feel sorry for them instead -- afterall we ALL got into this together'
-- this Mortgage-Backed-Ponzi-Scheme that turned MILLIONS our personal Mortgages, into TRILLIONS of Banker no-paper-trail poker chips.
Afterall, a contract IS a contract, legally binding forevermore …
.....
High fashion, expense for Hillary travel
by Laura Myers, LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL -- August 16, 2014
[...]
In fact, the former president spoke at the 2012 UNLV Foundation dinner [University of Nevada, Las Vegas], taking home a $250,000 fee. His spouse will get $225,000 to speak at the annual dinner. The size of Hillary Clinton’s fee has come under fire from critics who question the large expense in an era when students are hard-pressed to cover tuition and leave school saddled with massive debt.
...
But Clinton’s $225,000 is something of a cut-rate. Documents obtained by the newspaper show that she initially asked for $300,000 and reveal that she insists on controlling every detail of the private event, large and small, to ensure that she will be the center of attention.
“It is agreed that Speaker will be the only person on the stage during her remarks,” according to the May 13 contract the Harry Walker Agency signed for Clinton’s keynote address at the Bellagio.
According to her standard speaking contract, Clinton will remain at the event no longer than 90 minutes; will pose for no more than 50 photos with no more than 100 people; and won’t allow any press coverage or video- or audio-taping of her speech.
The only record allowed will be made by a stenographer whose transcription will be given only to Clinton. The stenographer’s $1,250 bill, however, will go to the UNLV Foundation. [...]
Interesting what else that "standard contract" stipulates MUST be provided for the privilege of the Secretary’s thoughts -- things like "a Gulfstream 450 or larger jet"; and things like "a presidential suite for Secretary Clinton and up to three (3) adjoining or contiguous single rooms for her travel aides and up to two (2) additional single rooms for the advance staff."
Clinton Standard Speech Requirements [et. al.]
.….
Heckvua Job there, cultivating that "above it all" image, Madam Secretary -- that so many populists are 'hungering for' these days ...
At least Mitt had the 'integrity' to release his Tax Returns … But 'private pity-parties' with the grand masters of the Great Recession, well they’re still 'looking into it' … exactly where she filed all those inconvenient transcriptions. Maybe they’re over there, under that chair?
If the 1-percenter Clintons really believe in the Third Way Corporatism -- they should 'just own it'. At least that would be honest, that would seem genuine ...
Instead all this faux-populism pretense, they put on just for the rubes casual observer during elections.
.....
Hillary Clinton’s money problem – does she have too much?
by Peter Foster, Washington; telegraph.co.uk -- 04 Dec 2014
[...]
Like earlier this year when she launched her manifesto-memoir Hard Choices and complained peevishly to an interviewer that she and Bill were “dead broke” and in debt when they left the White House:
...
“We struggled to, you know, piece together the resources for mortgages, for houses, for Chelsea's (her daughter) education. You know, it was not easy.”
…...
A struggle that many Americans would love to have...
The Washington Post called it Hillary’s “imperial image” and plenty of ordinary Americans observed they would be happy to “struggle” on with an $8m book advance and a $145,000 US Senator’s salary.
Particularly if their husband was on a $200,000-a-year presidential pension, had his own $15m book advance and earned speaker fees starting at $250,000. [...]
They live in a different world, from the one most of us live in. And so, "being flat broke" is relative, in such rarefied air -- just ask anyone living on "poverty wages" and less, how it really feels.
But of course a REAL Progressive would know how tone-deaf it is, to continually pretend to be something your not.
.....
As Hillary Clinton soars, questions shadow lucrative speaking tour
by Gabriel Debenedetti, ORAL GABLES, Florida; reuters.com -- Feb 28, 2014
[...]
Her paid appearances have included talks with investors at high-profile Wall Street firms such as Goldman Sachs and Carlyle Group, leading some liberal groups that typically support Democrats to wonder whether Clinton might be too cozy with Wall Street for their taste.
...
"It's a big red flag," said Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, which advocates tighter financial regulation.
"If she outwardly campaigns as a corporate Democrat, it wouldn't be a conflict of interest -- it would just be a conflict with where the center of gravity in America is," Green said. [...] Some of her supporters play down the notion that she could face a backlash from her speaking tour.
Would a REAL Progressive ever take so much cash from Wall Street, in the first -- and then adamantly refuse to tell us what they said/implied/promised behind closed donor doors?
At least Obama had the brief temerity to call the Wall Street barons: Fat Cats. To the anguished howls of a thousand 'cats' at the time.
What's the worse that Hillary Clinton has ever said about them? ... I guess we'll never know ... NOT until she's done "looking into it" ...
In other words, forget about it Progressives. Those two Clintonian "worlds" shall never meet, if she has anything to say about it. And her very precise ‘cya’ Standard Contracts, say that she has the Final Word on the topic.
So That, is that. … Just ‘trust her’ … What’s the Problem!?