Clinton promises to release Wall Street transcripts if opponents do the same

She seems to be freaking out just a little bit...

Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton on Sunday said she would be willing to release the texts of speeches she gave to big banks if other politicians running in the race release their behind-closed-doors transcripts.

“Let everybody who’s ever given a speech to any private group under any circumstances release them,” Clinton said on ABC’s “This Week.” “We’ll all release them at the same time.”

Clinton promises...

a reply to: Gumerk

And we never hear of this again......

She's got to be pretty confident that will never happen.

I don't think that anyone with a high job in the government including the president should be having closed door meetings with the banks.
The only closed door meetings they should be having should only be about national security.
But to go behind closed doors and discuss taxpayer money and how they are allowed to make bad decisions that will affect the people of the country. ...those meetings should be public

And if she did release anything it would be so redacted that you would think it was a UFO crash at area 51

a reply to: Gumerk

I don't know anyone who is worth a $225,000 speaking fee let alone a $50,000 dollar speaking fee! I don't even think it's worth paying more than $50.00 a ticket for a professional sporting event or concert. Some Doctor's, Engineers, Educators and other professionals who give back more to society don't even come close to that in a yearly salary! I guess the public is to blame because we're so willing to pay an outrageous amount of money to see or hear someone with a celebrity status.

It's bad enough the public supports these outrageous ticket fees, and than they're discriminated against based upon how much they can afford to pay for a ticket. The rich get the expensive front row or box office seats and the rest are seated in the nose bleed section. A perfect example of how the upper class in a capitalistic society gets preferential treatment.

I've never supported these outrageous ticket fees. As far as Clinton is concerned, who in their right mind would turn down a $225.00 speaking fee? She and Bill probably laugh all the way to the bank! When corporations and athletic owners are willing to pay a huge amount of money, they know exactly how gullible the public is willing to support. It's pure capitalism...charge as much as the public is willing to pay in order to reap huge profits for themselves.

a reply to: JHumm

a reply to: Gumerk

This kray kray coco for cocoa puffs, pathetic excuse for a left wing feminist, is the most hypocritical woman on the face of this blue earth! !

“But sometimes, you know, these rules need to apply to everybody."

It's mind boggling that she has the supporters that she does.....

Even republican Candidates too?

She's really getting desperate.

If she is so gall danged *PROUD* of all her so-called "accomplishments", then why not put it all out for voters to see and to analyze?

a reply to: xuenchen
It seems like there is a lt of downward pressure on these candidates this election cycle.

Guess the information war is working.

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: Gumerk

And we never hear of this again......

She's got to be pretty confident that will never happen.

Yup.

It's a classic move.

Just like the other day when the Campaign *Demanded* the 22 top secret emails be released even after the Government said they are just "too top secret".

What a phony tactic.

But it works.

More on this subject from this morning. She really can't handle being put on the spot about her political career. She gets defensive and goes on the attack -- all the while saying I, I, I, & me, me, me -- rarely us or we. She doesn't like being called out at all -- I don't think she's used to it.

It's another good political move on her part. She's a master at this game.

She takes the heat off herself by implicating everyone else in the same set of crimes that she has committed. Then she's able to get away with it because very few of the other candidates are interested in providing anything that can be used against them. Even if their "sins" are mild by comparison to hers.

-dex

a reply to: Gumerk

she knows that wont happen - hope she has a heart attack soon

originally posted by: DexterRiley
It's another good political move on her part. She's a master at this game.

She takes the heat off herself by implicating everyone else in the same set of crimes that she has committed. Then she's able to get away with it because very few of the other candidates are interested in providing anything that can be used against them. Even if their "sins" are mild by comparison to hers.

-dex

But she's not implicating anyone in any sort of crime and she herself has not been implicated in any crime.
The money from these speeches was earned in between political posts so she really wasn't in a position to push anyone's agenda if these payments were in fact bribes . As apparently some think.

Also isn't it presumptuous to assume that the other candidates are hiding anything that could somehow be used against them by Hillary? Or is everyone crooked?

originally posted by: WeRpeons
a reply to: Gumerk

I don't know anyone who is worth a $225,000 speaking fee let alone a $50,000 dollar speaking fee! I don't even think it's worth paying more than $50.00 a ticket for a professional sporting event or concert. Some Doctor's, Engineers, Educators and other professionals who give back more to society don't even come close to that in a yearly salary! I guess the public is to blame because we're so willing to pay an outrageous amount of money to see or hear someone with a celebrity status.

It's bad enough the public supports these outrageous ticket fees, and than they're discriminated against based upon how much they can afford to pay for a ticket. The rich get the expensive front row or box office seats and the rest are seated in the nose bleed section. A perfect example of how the upper class in a capitalistic society gets preferential treatment.

I've never supported these outrageous ticket fees. As far as Clinton is concerned, who in their right mind would turn down a $225.00 speaking fee? She and Bill probably laugh all the way to the bank! When corporations and athletic owners are willing to pay a huge amount of money, they know exactly how gullible the public is willing to support. It's pure capitalism...charge as much as the public is willing to pay in order to reap huge profits for themselves.

So this whole post is about the going rate for speaking engagements and other venues like concerts and the fact that some people can more easily afford better seats than other people? I'm always boggled when people hate someone just because they're rich. It seems common on these boards to hate the rich.

As far as the amounts that Hillary was paid, as she herself said, it's what they offered.

Bernie said he will release all his Wall Street transcripts......he didn't make any speeches to wall street.

"Sen. Sanders accepts Clinton’s challenge. He will release all of the transcripts of all of his Wall Street speeches. That’s easy. The fact is, there weren’t any. Bernie gave no speeches to Wall Street firms.
Heh heh heh. Not bad, Sanders campaign".
www.slate.com...

a reply to: Sillyolme

Also isn't it presumptuous to assume that the other candidates are hiding anything that could somehow be used against them by Hillary?

Perhaps it is a bit presumptuous. However, there is a very high probability that most, if not all, politicians are hiding something. Whether what they're hiding is illegal or not is the question. Some are hiding things that may simply be considered unethical. Others may be hiding things that their constituencies would find offensive, or disagree with.

My point also was not that Hillary would necessarily be the one to use another politician's "sins" against them, but rather that the establishment itself would do so. That's what is happening to her. Her opponent is not throwing dirt, it is others who are interested in what she has done.

Essentially what Hillary is saying is: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." And I compliment her on that move.

Or is everyone crooked?

In politics and high finance, I would have to answer that question in the affirmative!


-dex

a reply to: DexterRiley

Everyone's a crook. That's why they invented religion.

Hillary's not saying let he who is without sin cast the first stone. She's saying show me yours and I'll show you mine.




I've got friends in local government who are decent law abiding citizens who simply want to serve their community and make it a better place. I think most people who serve the public are not in it for what they can get. They're in it because they want to make a difference. Who'd want to put up with all the b.s. in politics otherwise. They're masochist?

a reply to: Gumerk

I like this idea. Let's do it.