It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Hillary Clinton’s Campaign Resists Releasing Transcripts From Goldman Speeches

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 06:50 PM
link   
So at the debate last night, Hillary Clinton was asked if she'd be willing to release the transcripts of her $675,000.00 Goldman speeches...and she responded with a lukewarm and mushy: "I'll look into it.".

Today, her campaign is furiously back-tracking, with her campaign pollster saying:“I don’t think voters are interested in the transcripts of her speeches”. Predictable...and, yes, MANY voters are interested.

After all, we all remember how damaging the transcripts from Romney's 47% speech had been.

What is Clinton really afraid of...assuming she has nothing to hide?



In response to a question at Thursday night’s debate, Hillary Clinton said she would “look into” the possibility of releasing transcripts of her paid remarks to banking, corporate and financial services companies like Goldman Sachs.

But by Friday morning, it did not appear that much looking was underway.

Joel Benenson, Mrs. Clinton’s pollster, gave little indication at a Wall Street Journal breakfast with reporters that the transcripts would be forthcoming.

“I don’t think voters are interested in the transcripts of her speeches,” he said.


Whether they are made public is up to the Clinton campaign. Speaking contracts typically give the speaker the right to decide whether any material from a particular speech can be shared beyond the room. Goldman Sachs, for one, declined to make an on-the-record statement.

Mrs. Clinton spoke to Goldman employees twice: on Oct. 24, 2013, to its hedge fund and private equity clients, and again on Oct 29, at Goldman’s tech summit. Both were question-and-answer sessions, according to people who attended, and at the second, Lloyd Blankfein, the chief executive and chairman of Goldman Sachs, was among her questioners. In June of that year she was also paid for an additional event that included Goldman and other groups. She was paid $225,000 for each.

Mrs. Clinton mainly offered what one attendee called “a tour of the world,” covering her observations on China, Iran, Egypt and Russia. This person said Mrs. Clinton also discussed the dysfunction in Washington, how to repair America’s standing in the world after the government shutdown and also talked a bit about the Affordable Care Act, which had had a difficult rollout.

Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Mrs. Clinton’s opponent for the Democratic presidential nomination, has accused Mrs. Clinton of being in the pocket of Wall Street and big business by noting that she has received major donations from them and was paid more than $600,000 in speaking fees from Goldman Sachs in one year.

She has struggled to explain why she took that money, saying at a CNN forum on Wednesday night: “Well, I don’t know. That’s what they offered.”

She said she did not regret taking it, though, noting that other former secretaries of states had given paid speeches and adding that no one could influence her politically.

On Friday, Brian Fallon, Mrs. Clinton’s press secretary, told MSNBC that if anyone thought they were getting something in return for Mrs. Clinton’s speaking to their group, “they’ll probably be asking for their money back when she’s president.” He added that “no one will regulate Wall Street more strictly than her.”

In a statement later, Mr. Fallon said that “Bernie Sanders, like Karl Rove before him, is trying to impugn Hillary Clinton’s integrity without any basis in fact.” He labeled this “character assassination by insinuation” and said Mr. Sanders should either show his evidence that the money has influenced her or drop the subject.

www.nytimes.com...




posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 06:52 PM
link   
Now I'm more interested than ever!



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 06:56 PM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT

Yeah!! What is that????!!!!

"I'll look into it"?????

If she was/is sincere, she would have said: "Yeah, sure, you betcha."




posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 07:00 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Everyone last night knew "I'll look into it."...meant "Hell no!"



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 07:01 PM
link   
Let's be honest here. Very few people give a rats ass what she said at these events. Her die-hard supporters will not care.

People such as myself don't care because we already know she is a corporate, big-money stooge.

That only leaves those opposed to her politically, the Right Wing, and they don't care about exposing the corruption at the higher levels. They just want to smear her reputation for things that many, if not most, of the Right Wingers participate in as well.

Very disingenuous.

So I will agree with the pollster and say no one really gives a damn, except those want to make it a partisan point of contention.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 07:04 PM
link   
OK Bernie supporters.

Now's the time to press an issue.

Don't fail or Hillary will win.

If somebody was the Sanders Campaign manager, what would YOU do with this?

How would YOU effectively organize the effort to get these transcripts?

Now is the TIME !!






posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 07:05 PM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT

Hahaha I don't know how they can keep trying to be so dismissive of Bernie and paint him as idealistic and her as "can get things done" when they keep stealing words, ideals and now his ethics...

We don't care to follow the Conservative attack strategy on her emails, there's an investigation under way... we'll see how it unfolds. Not true of her Wall St. speeches, we very much want to know what she said in those lucrative speeches her reluctance only intensifies that, it makes us wonder what she wants to hide about them.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 07:05 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

You mean while she's "looking into it", right?



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 07:07 PM
link   
But she's the most transparent candidate ever.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 07:07 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Well, that's absurd.

Sander's campaign, nor Hillary's for that matter, does not hinge on the release of speech transcripts.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 07:09 PM
link   
It's not political dirty tricks to use a candidates own words.
Sander's people should put pressure on her to release them and get these.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 07:24 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Well no, I don't think Bernie will make a huge deal about it but I think voters very much want to know.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 07:37 PM
link   
It doesn't matter, all the old Avon ladies around the world who will vote for her think Gladman Sachs is a jewelry store.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 07:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: xuenchen

You mean while she's "looking into it", right?


NO !!



You must fight or the Campaign will die.

You must DEMAND the transcripts !!!!

Get Hillary out of the comfort zone.




posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 07:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74 Apparently he isn't allowed, every time he nicely points something out she cries womens rights, 911 and right wing conspiracy. Bernie should come out and say she lies about everything, I doubt anyone would disagree except some old ladies that read the paper and watch the local news.


edit on 5-2-2016 by Medicator because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 07:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: introvert

Well no, I don't think Bernie will make a huge deal about it but I think voters very much want to know.


Sure, but does it really matter? Do you really think it's going to make a difference in the election whatsoever?

I highly doubt it and think it's a waste of time.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 07:47 PM
link   
I recall her kowtowing to the CFR when they opened the DC branch a few yrs ago.....what a kissup speech that was!
I am surprised she lived that one down.....(Definitely the Teflon Duena)



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 08:25 PM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT

She has nothing to hide and in no way she and Bill are influenced by the 153 Million they have made in giving speeches.



$153 million in Bill and Hillary Clinton speaking fees, documented

www.cnn.com...


Whats a matter with you people? Its like you think that companies would be this slick in paying people after they have done favors for them or for in the future.

There is no way that $153 Million would make such an ethical creature like a politician do things for money over doing the right thing.

Wake up people she said that she has nothing to hide and her record of 30 years in politics even during the financial thievery and manipulation proofs she is clean as a whistle.


edit on 26229America/ChicagoFri, 05 Feb 2016 20:26:43 -0600000000p2942 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 09:14 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

xuen.....

just going to ask you directly here....

are you just mocking Sanders supporters? Or just mocking me? Or whom??? Who is it you are mocking, and whose chains are you yanking?

Your posts and threads seem really disingenuous......do you support Sanders, or not? If not, why do you egg us on?
What is it you want - what is the response to your posts and threads that you covet most???????
just saying.

It feels like mockery more often than not.







edit on 2/5/2016 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 09:22 PM
link   
If Hilary is the nominee, I will support her. But $750,000 is not a fee for speaking. It's a kick back trying to disguise itself.




top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join