• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Is it really a big deal if Hillary received speech money?

Don2 (Don1 Revised)

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
11,730
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
Nonpracticing agnostic
graphic-11.jpg


Some of these items I could care less about like Gap Inc. But then should we be concerned with potential conflicts of interest?

Also why would Gap be paying her hundreds of thousands of dollars?

If she was in office at the time, shouldn't we get transcripts of the speeches?

Also, is this stuff actually a big deal?
 

Colonel Sanders

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2015
Messages
738
Location
California
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
If being paid a lot of money is a crime, then yes, it's a problem. But since making a lot of money isn't a crime, then it isn't a problem.

The GOP/Tea Party, in their tepid support for Drumpf are trying to make it a big deal, but they have an alleged billionaire running for office. They admire someone who's rich simply because they're rich, yet someone who's not worth as much $ is greedy and evil.

As for conflicts of interests I think one would have to provide evidence that due to the fee paid for the speech, that she then took a certain action that either benefited the group, or that a third party received a benefit, with that third party being so closely linked with the original group that it actually was a benefit to the original.
 

arkirk

Veteran Member
Joined
May 27, 2005
Messages
3,403
Location
San Antonio, Texas
Basic Beliefs
atheist/agnostic
If being paid a lot of money is a crime, then yes, it's a problem. But since making a lot of money isn't a crime, then it isn't a problem.

The GOP/Tea Party, in their tepid support for Drumpf are trying to make it a big deal, but they have an alleged billionaire running for office. They admire someone who's rich simply because they're rich, yet someone who's not worth as much $ is greedy and evil.

As for conflicts of interests I think one would have to provide evidence that due to the fee paid for the speech, that she then took a certain action that either benefited the group, or that a third party received a benefit, with that third party being so closely linked with the original group that it actually was a benefit to the original.

Come on, Colonel, admit you have a job here to discredit Sanders. The Clinton foundation has more than $2Billion in it from Saudi and gulf sheiks. Give me a break. The Clintons are simply a profit making machine and let the Haitians be damned. Hillary opposed a raise in Haitian minimum wage to 60 cents an hour. You really think she has anything but her own self enrichment in mind, you are deluding yourself. She is a liar and cannot be trusted with anything. That's how liars are.
Some people think she is an "incrementalist" leaning toward liberalizing things. She will always make sure her increments are greater than anybody else's. Wake up and smell the coffee Colonel.:thinking:
 

Ford

Contributor
Joined
Nov 30, 2010
Messages
5,959
Location
'Merica
Basic Beliefs
Godless Heathen
I'm glad Donald Trump has never spoken for money.
He pays for his speeches out of his own pocket, so he can't be bought, unlike #CrookedHillary.

Once President Trump Makes America Great Again, anyone caught speaking for money will be loaded onto a boxcar and sent over the Wall (a really, really beautiful wall) to the land of rapists.
 

arkirk

Veteran Member
Joined
May 27, 2005
Messages
3,403
Location
San Antonio, Texas
Basic Beliefs
atheist/agnostic
I'm glad Donald Trump has never spoken for money.
He pays for his speeches out of his own pocket, so he can't be bought, unlike #CrookedHillary.

Once President Trump Makes America Great Again, anyone caught speaking for money will be loaded onto a boxcar and sent over the Wall (a really, really beautiful wall) to the land of rapists.

His crookedness just happened at a DIFFERENT POINT IN THE GAME.:thinking:
 

Ford

Contributor
Joined
Nov 30, 2010
Messages
5,959
Location
'Merica
Basic Beliefs
Godless Heathen
He pays for his speeches out of his own pocket, so he can't be bought, unlike #CrookedHillary.

Once President Trump Makes America Great Again, anyone caught speaking for money will be loaded onto a boxcar and sent over the Wall (a really, really beautiful wall) to the land of rapists.

His crookedness just happened at a DIFFERENT POINT IN THE GAME.:thinking:


Why is it that people think SHOUTING ON THE INTERNET makes their argument more valid?
 

arkirk

Veteran Member
Joined
May 27, 2005
Messages
3,403
Location
San Antonio, Texas
Basic Beliefs
atheist/agnostic
His crookedness just happened at a DIFFERENT POINT IN THE GAME.:thinking:


Why is it that people think SHOUTING ON THE INTERNET makes their argument more valid?

Eh? what did you say? I rarely use bigger letters because people like you seem to be offended by it. Now you have some idea why I did that? I didn't even use the largest font offered by the forum's menu. Methinks you complaineth too much!;)

I hope it is alright to occasionally vary my presentation when it is called for. I did feel that to argue that Trump was somehow better than Clinton because he got his money outside what we call politics. He actually is every bit as bad.
 

Ford

Contributor
Joined
Nov 30, 2010
Messages
5,959
Location
'Merica
Basic Beliefs
Godless Heathen
I did feel that to argue that Trump was somehow better than Clinton because he got his money outside what we call politics. He actually is every bit as bad.

Yeah, I hear what you're saying.

Trump, like Clinton, has called for banning all Muslims from entering the country.

Trump, like Clinton, has insinuated that all Mexicans are rapists.

Trump, like Clinton, has encouraged supporters to violently eject protestors from events.

Trump, like Clinton, has disparaged women on a regular basis.

Trump, like Clinton, has called for torturing terrorists and killing their family members.


Two peas in a pod, right there...huh?
 

arkirk

Veteran Member
Joined
May 27, 2005
Messages
3,403
Location
San Antonio, Texas
Basic Beliefs
atheist/agnostic
I did feel that to argue that Trump was somehow better than Clinton because he got his money outside what we call politics. He actually is every bit as bad.

Yeah, I hear what you're saying.

Trump, like Clinton, has called for banning all Muslims from entering the country.

Trump, like Clinton, has insinuated that all Mexicans are rapists.

Trump, like Clinton, has encouraged supporters to violently eject protestors from events.

Trump, like Clinton, has disparaged women on a regular basis.

Trump, like Clinton, has called for torturing terrorists and killing their family members.


Two peas in a pod, right there...huh?

Clintons pressed sanctions in Iraq that did nothing to Saddam but cause massive childhood deaths due to malnutrition. Her buddy Madelaine Al not-so-bright publicly opined that half a million Iraqi kids dying was not too high a price to pay for prosecuting sanctions against Hussein.

Rest assured, Clinton has her own version of "Muslims" and "Mexicans"..."born predators." Her and her husband are as guilty of racism as anybody.

Clinton's "women" are men. Big fucking deal!

Clinton is a little more careful than Trump who gets inside. They have to have money to put on the table. The few protesters at her events paid to get in.

They really are about the same and both not worth a tinker's dam.

Listen a little better, buddy.:thinking:
 

Don2 (Don1 Revised)

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
11,730
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
Nonpracticing agnostic
Come on guys. This thread isn't about a bunch of other issues or Trump. It's primarily about Clinton's speeches.

She seemed to have about one every other week.

I can't fault her at all for speaking at a women's conference and I think that's cool.

But what about all the speaking engagements with Wall St. It's not just Goldman Sachs when you look at it. It's a lot more.

What is that all about?
 

arkirk

Veteran Member
Joined
May 27, 2005
Messages
3,403
Location
San Antonio, Texas
Basic Beliefs
atheist/agnostic
Come on guys. This thread isn't about a bunch of other issues or Trump. It's primarily about Clinton's speeches.

She seemed to have about one every other week.

I can't fault her at all for speaking at a women's conference and I think that's cool.

But what about all the speaking engagements with Wall St. It's not just Goldman Sachs when you look at it. It's a lot more.

What is that all about?

It looks like you will never know. She won't release them...and Goldman Sachs won't let you know...unless she becomes a "bad girl."
 

Rhea

Cyborg with a Tiara
Staff member
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
13,456
Location
Recluse
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
And what about the American Camping Association, uh? What's her dastardly angle with them? And in Atlantic City, of all non-camping places, just shows how nefarious this is...
 

Rhea

Cyborg with a Tiara
Staff member
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
13,456
Location
Recluse
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
Actually, what I find most subversive are the places who paid her in 2013, on the off chance that 4 years later she MIGHT run for president and MIGHT win.

What a gamble. She sure has a racket going, doesn't she! I mean, she could have just shafted them all and taken the money to Cancun!
 

Don2 (Don1 Revised)

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
11,730
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
Nonpracticing agnostic
Actually, what I find most subversive are the places who paid her in 2013, on the off chance that 4 years later she MIGHT run for president and MIGHT win.

What a gamble. She sure has a racket going, doesn't she! I mean, she could have just shafted them all and taken the money to Cancun!

Maybe they were paying her for work already done, like with revolving doors that politicians go through. Who knows. But I don't think I've ever seen this level of amount of speaking engagements and price. There's got to be a reason for it?

- - - Updated - - -

or...

Feb 1, 2013 - Outgoing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who steps down from her post at the State Department today,

Right, but now that she's running for office again, we should see them, just like we should see Trump's tax returns.
 

Ford

Contributor
Joined
Nov 30, 2010
Messages
5,959
Location
'Merica
Basic Beliefs
Godless Heathen
It's not such an issue if politicians are paid to do speeches if people are prepared to pay them.


It is only an issue when Hillary does it. Former public officials can make all the speeches they want, and charge whatever they want for them.


Hillary is evil and when she charges for speeches it is because she's the devil incarnate.
 

untermensche

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
24,504
Location
Here
Basic Beliefs
magic mood ring
It's not such an issue if politicians are paid to do speeches if people are prepared to pay them.


It is only an issue when Hillary does it. Former public officials can make all the speeches they want, and charge whatever they want for them.


Hillary is evil and when she charges for speeches it is because she's the devil incarnate.

It's only an issue if Hillary is running against somebody who's never done it and who thinks it is a form of corruption, which it is.
 

Nice Squirrel

Contributor
Joined
Jun 15, 2004
Messages
6,083
Location
Minnesota
Basic Beliefs
Only the Nice Squirrel can save us.
That is why we need the transcripts of her speeches. She has obviously admitted to every evil. just read every third word
 

Ford

Contributor
Joined
Nov 30, 2010
Messages
5,959
Location
'Merica
Basic Beliefs
Godless Heathen
That is why we need the transcripts of her speeches. She has obviously admitted to every evil. just read every third word


Buried somewhere in the transcripts is her admission that she murdered Vince Foster.
 

Don2 (Don1 Revised)

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
11,730
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
Nonpracticing agnostic
Politico said:
When Hillary Clinton spoke to Goldman Sachs executives and technology titans at a summit in Arizona in October of 2013, she spoke glowingly of the work the bank was doing raising capital and helping create jobs, according to people who saw her remarks.

Clinton, who received $225,000 for her appearance, praised the diversity of Goldman’s workforce ...

I agree with Clinton. Goldman should be praised for diversity.

Politico said:
...and the prominent roles played by women at the blue-chip investment bank and the tech firms present at the event...

That sounds good, too.

Politico said:
She spent no time criticizing Goldman or Wall Street more broadly for its role in the 2008 financial crisis...
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/clinton-speeches-218969#ixzz49Rt36O4H

Why not? I mean, she had the floor. Wouldn't it be a good idea to give them some advice on how to not be jerks?

You know, as someone independent from the financial industry, she could give both some fair [and constructive] criticism, and tell them about how they are also being positive.
 

untermensche

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
24,504
Location
Here
Basic Beliefs
magic mood ring
I agree with Clinton. Goldman should be praised for diversity.

Politico said:
...and the prominent roles played by women at the blue-chip investment bank and the tech firms present at the event...

That sounds good, too.

Politico said:
She spent no time criticizing Goldman or Wall Street more broadly for its role in the 2008 financial crisis...
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/clinton-speeches-218969#ixzz49Rt36O4H

Why not? I mean, she had the floor. Wouldn't it be a good idea to give them some advice on how to not be jerks?

You know, as someone independent from the financial industry, she could give both some fair [and constructive] criticism, and tell them about how they are also being positive.

That's only what people are saying. Hillary and leaders of the banks that almost destroyed the nation think alike.

She doesn't see it as a problem one bit. And neither do a lot of people.

But some people see it as huge conflict of interest especially if they do the same thing again. I mean it was profitable last time to wreck the economy.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,522
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
It's not such an issue if politicians are paid to do speeches if people are prepared to pay them.


It is only an issue when Hillary does it. Former public officials can make all the speeches they want, and charge whatever they want for them.
I think that is a bit unfair. The issue is the appearance of a conflict of interest. If Hillary Clinton was not running for office, there is no appearance of any potential conflicts of interest. In my case, I think it shows a bit of a lack of judgment on her part because I believe she has been planning to run since before 2013.

Hillary is evil and when she charges for speeches it is because she's the devil incarnate.
That is precisely the attitude of some people.
 

Colonel Sanders

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2015
Messages
738
Location
California
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
If being paid a lot of money is a crime, then yes, it's a problem. But since making a lot of money isn't a crime, then it isn't a problem.

The GOP/Tea Party, in their tepid support for Drumpf are trying to make it a big deal, but they have an alleged billionaire running for office. They admire someone who's rich simply because they're rich, yet someone who's not worth as much $ is greedy and evil.

As for conflicts of interests I think one would have to provide evidence that due to the fee paid for the speech, that she then took a certain action that either benefited the group, or that a third party received a benefit, with that third party being so closely linked with the original group that it actually was a benefit to the original.

Come on, Colonel, admit you have a job here to discredit Sanders. The Clinton foundation has more than $2Billion in it from Saudi and gulf sheiks. Give me a break. The Clintons are simply a profit making machine and let the Haitians be damned. Hillary opposed a raise in Haitian minimum wage to 60 cents an hour. You really think she has anything but her own self enrichment in mind, you are deluding yourself. She is a liar and cannot be trusted with anything. That's how liars are.
Some people think she is an "incrementalist" leaning toward liberalizing things. She will always make sure her increments are greater than anybody else's. Wake up and smell the coffee Colonel.:thinking:

I think you need to dial your paranoia meter down from the 10 you have it pegged on.

And that's as much as I'll engage you.

Ya' know, because I'm so afraid and unwilling to face all the scary things. Yawn.
 

Will Wiley

Veteran Member
Joined
May 24, 2012
Messages
1,692
Location
Mincogan
Basic Beliefs
naturalist
If being paid a lot of money is a crime, then yes, it's a problem. But since making a lot of money isn't a crime, then it isn't a problem.
So, something is only a problem if it's a crime?
wow....if we ever get in a problem we can just change the law.

- - - Updated - - -

The problem is she is scared as shit people will find out what she said
 

Rhea

Cyborg with a Tiara
Staff member
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
13,456
Location
Recluse
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
Well, at least we can feel reassured that you all will definitely vote against Trump no matter what.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/washingtons-highest-lowest-speaking-fees/story?id=24551590#1

Donald Trump - $1.5M

Topping the list by a longshot is billionaire birther and infamous reality-TV host Donald Trump. “The Donald earned a staggering $1.5 million per speech at The Learning Annex’s ‘real estate wealth expos’ in 2006 and 2007,” according to Forbes. “Trump appeared at 17 seminars and collected this fee for each one.”

I find the fact that she gave speeches to be completely unremarkable. The fact that Goldman Sachs paid her the SAME fee as the American Camping Association, the American Fresh Produce Association, the International Deli-Dairy-Bakery Association and the Women's Group proves, to me, that her speeches are worth $225,000 to all those who wish to have her speak.

It'd be pretty stupid payback if Goldman Sachs said, "yeah we'll bribe you by paying you exactly what everyone else pays you for your services!" Man, that's coded, you know? Bet they go far with a bribe like that!

The fact is, people besides you find her intensely interesting. And they are willing to pay her regular fee to have her speak.


Don2 said:
She seemed to have about one every other week.
I don't think I've ever seen this level of amount of speaking engagements and price
Now she's bad for working hard?

untermensche said:
It's only an issue if Hillary is running against somebody who's never done it and who thinks it is a form of corruption, which it is

Aaah, but Sanders HAS taken speaking fees! Booya! He's made 4 figures combined! 6 figures if you count the pennies!
Maybe it's just that more people think Clinton is interesting than think Bernie is?
**MAYBE** it's because Sanders is a career politician who has never been out of office so he can't have a second job as a full-time speaker?

And maybe cherry picking things that Bernie hasn't done and claiming this reflects an evil of anyone who is not JUST like Bernie is just silly?
 

Will Wiley

Veteran Member
Joined
May 24, 2012
Messages
1,692
Location
Mincogan
Basic Beliefs
naturalist
The fact is, people besides you find her intensely interesting. And they are willing to pay her regular fee to have her speak.
What utter nonsense.If all she was was "interesting" then she would release the speech. She is hiding the speech because she said something very interesting.
Like the whore she is she sucked up to them bigtime
 

Don2 (Don1 Revised)

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
11,730
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
Nonpracticing agnostic
Don2 said:
She seemed to have about one every other week.
I don't think I've ever seen this level of amount of speaking engagements and price
Now she's bad for working hard?

I did not imply that.

The questions are working hard at what exactly?
and how do you know?

All I see are many, many deals with extremely little information on content.
 

Rhea

Cyborg with a Tiara
Staff member
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
13,456
Location
Recluse
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
The fact is, people besides you find her intensely interesting. And they are willing to pay her regular fee to have her speak.
What utter nonsense.If all she was was "interesting" then she would release the speech. She is hiding the speech because she said something very interesting.

Politico said:
They represent the kind of boilerplate, happy talk that highly paid speakers generally offer to their hosts. Nobody pays nearly a quarter of a million dollars to have someone criticize their alleged misdeeds.



Or possibly very boring that could be twisted falsely but annoyingly.

Like the whore she is she sucked up to them bigtime


Wow. Thinking rationally, are we?
I'm not interested in that kind of discussion. Over and out.
 

Jolly_Penguin

Banned
Banned
Joined
Aug 22, 2003
Messages
10,366
Location
South Pole
Basic Beliefs
Skeptic
Come on guys. This thread isn't about a bunch of other issues or Trump. It's primarily about Clinton's speeches.

She seemed to have about one every other week.

I can't fault her at all for speaking at a women's conference and I think that's cool.

But what about all the speaking engagements with Wall St. It's not just Goldman Sachs when you look at it. It's a lot more.

What is that all about?

That she refuses to release the transcripts, coupled with the fact that these are people she has vowed to regulate, is good grounds for suspicion. Trump needs to make some speeches and release the transcripts from them immediately, his supporters won't care, and Clinton will be exposed. She has stated she'll release hers once everybody else has. Sanders has already.
 

Don2 (Don1 Revised)

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
11,730
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
Nonpracticing agnostic
Actually, what I find most subversive are the places who paid her in 2013, on the off chance that 4 years later she MIGHT run for president and MIGHT win.

What a gamble. She sure has a racket going, doesn't she! I mean, she could have just shafted them all and taken the money to Cancun!

Actually, it was quite clear that there was a high probability she'd run for President. She was second to Obama last time she did run and she not only got more experience in the meantime (being Sec of State), but she also made tons of connections through her speaking engagements.

BUT, yes, there were some gambles on the part of the Canadian speaking funding. They were connecting to her over the Keystone Pipeline--that was their interest. All the while, she would make little comment on her stance. The little comment she made was about a compromise where that could be used as incentive to put US and Canada on the same page with regulations. Later on, during campaigning, she said she was against the Keystone Pipeline, not a major shift, but a small shift. Still it was sufficiently different for the Canadian bankers who funded her speeches to have lost money on their trying to engage her. On the other hand, maybe another compromise will be on the table in the future. She already knows the Canadian players so she could work out some deals.

ETA: None of this means she is the most evil person on The Earth. It does, however, mean that Keystone Pipeline funders acted in self-interest--which we would expect and that they did see a sufficient probability she'd be in a position of influence over US policy re: the pipeline.
 
Last edited:

Nice Squirrel

Contributor
Joined
Jun 15, 2004
Messages
6,083
Location
Minnesota
Basic Beliefs
Only the Nice Squirrel can save us.
Come on guys. This thread isn't about a bunch of other issues or Trump. It's primarily about Clinton's speeches.

She seemed to have about one every other week.

I can't fault her at all for speaking at a women's conference and I think that's cool.

But what about all the speaking engagements with Wall St. It's not just Goldman Sachs when you look at it. It's a lot more.

What is that all about?

That she refuses to release the transcripts.
There are transcripts? Most speakers we have don't have transcriptions of their talks.
 

Don2 (Don1 Revised)

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
11,730
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
Nonpracticing agnostic
That she refuses to release the transcripts.
There are transcripts? Most speakers we have don't have transcriptions of their talks.

MANCHESTER, N.H. — Hillary Clinton, who faces mounting pressure to release transcripts of her paid speeches, routinely demanded that a stenographer be present at her events so she could maintain a record of what she said.

At least four of Clinton’s contracts include a clause stating a transcript would be produced for Clinton and that the former secretary of state would own them and control their release, according to contracts obtained by McClatchy.

“The sponsor will transcribe Speaker’s remarks as they are being delivered, which should be solely for the Speaker’s records,” according to her contract with the University of Buffalo, which paid her $275,000.

Identical words appear in contracts between the Harry Walker Agency, which represents Clinton, and the University of Connecticut, which paid her $250,000; the University of Nevada at Las Vegas, which paid her $225,000, and the University of California at Los Angeles, which paid her $300,000.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article59010478.html#storylink=cpy

Article continues:
In January, a reporter asked her after a town hall in Manchester if she would release the transcripts. She laughed and turned away.

In response to a question about whether she would release transcripts Thursday during the fifth and final debate before voting begins in New Hampshire, Clinton said, “I will look into it. I don’t know the status, but I will certainly look into it.”

“I don’t think voters are interested in the transcripts of her speeches,” top Clinton adviser Joel Benenson told reporters Friday.

And on Sunday, she said she would release the transcripts - if everyone who has ever given a paid speech also did. “Let everybody who’s ever given a speech to any private group under any circumstances release them,” she said on ABC’s This Week program. “We’ll all release them at the same time. ... These rules need to apply to everybody.”


I think that is a disingenuous argument. Instead, people who are currently running for office should release transcripts where there is a potential conflict of interest. This is a small subset of the entire set of people Clinton is claiming this applies to. It doesn't mean she's evil or guilty--just that she indeed has transcripts but is choosing not to release them.
 

Colonel Sanders

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2015
Messages
738
Location
California
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
That she refuses to release the transcripts, coupled with the fact that these are people she has vowed to regulate, is good grounds for suspicion. Trump needs to make some speeches and release the transcripts from them immediately, his supporters won't care, and Clinton will be exposed. She has stated she'll release hers once everybody else has. Sanders has already.

You just know she's said something incriminating in those speeches, right? And if only the rest of the world knew what you did, we would all see what you see, and suddenly we would understand what you've been telling us all along.

What torture it must be for you to not have your wishes fulfilled when you know so much and millions just won't listen to you.

One tiny little problem though. But what if--and I know this sounds crazy--what if she's said nothing incriminating? Oops. You've just ripped apart the privacy rights of an individual without reasonable suspicion other than a paranoid assumption that she must be in conspiratorial cahoots with Wall Street. Oh, and free speech too! Let's not forget that.

Just kidding. No matter what she said, you'll find that smoking gun even if it takes the discovery of a Da Vinci Code-like secret contained within mysterious text of the cabal she represents. The same as Obama being a secret commie/undercover Muslim/socialist/anti-American due to him being born in Kenya, after he finally produced that obviously fake birth certificate, Hillary can only stand to gain from releasing everything people like demand.

Only then can wait with baited breath for the likes of you to exonerate her so that we may all breathe more freely. :rolleyes:
 

Jolly_Penguin

Banned
Banned
Joined
Aug 22, 2003
Messages
10,366
Location
South Pole
Basic Beliefs
Skeptic
One tiny little problem though. But what if--and I know this sounds crazy--what if she's said nothing incriminating?

Then she could end this very easily by releasing the transcripts. She could show herself not to be the corporate shill and bought politician that so many suspect that she is. And no, I don't know that she said anything incriminating, nor do I care. I'm not voting in this. I'm not American. I'm an objective observer, and I am pointing out how this could be a political windfall for Trump. Hillary comes off looking suspect and corrupt and bought. Trump should play that as loudly as he can and I bet you it would damper support for Hillary and fire up Trump's (rather mindless) base.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,522
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
The transcript "issue" is irrelevant because it is the flow of money and the appearance of the conflict of interest that is important, not the content of a speech.

As for Trump, he may try to make this an issue. It will motivate the Clinton-haters. But since he refuses to release his tax records, it will backfire on him.
 

Rhea

Cyborg with a Tiara
Staff member
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
13,456
Location
Recluse
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
I agree. No way Trump can use this. Sanders can use it to imply there's smoke and fire, but Trump can't.

What I suspect is that she said things that were not chastising banks. And there's nothing particularly wrong with that, it's a typical team-building kind of speech that most speech givers give. But it makes a good straw-man for Sanders die-hards, and she has no reason to provide their straw.
 
Top Bottom