Hello and thank you for being a DL contributor. We are changing the login scheme for contributors for simpler login and to better support using multiple devices. Please click here to update your account with a username and password.

Hello. Some features on this site require registration. Please click here to register for free.

Hello and thank you for registering. Please complete the process by verifying your email address. If you can't find the email you can resend it here.

Hello. Some features on this site require a subscription. Please click here to get full access and no ads for $1.99 or less per month.

Hillary Clinton’s Campaign Resists Releasing Transcripts From Goldman Speeches

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 at Goldman events 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.

A CNN analysis shows that Mrs. Clinton and her husband, Bill, the former president, have earned more than $153 million in speaking fees since 2001, when they left the White House.

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.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 42February 6, 2016 11:34 PM

They gave her more than half a million bucks to yap at them. For what?

Indeed.

They don't get more corrupt than HRC.

by Anonymousreply 1February 6, 2016 6:35 PM

By the way, what happened to the "Rodham"? I haven't seen her maiden name pop up recently.

by Anonymousreply 2February 6, 2016 6:46 PM

Why should she have to?

by Anonymousreply 3February 6, 2016 6:54 PM

"I demand that everyone in America take a pay cut based on principle!" (the crowd goes wild!)

by Anonymousreply 4February 6, 2016 7:01 PM

I agree with R3 - this is a non-issue, really. If we start asking for speech transcripts for every politician who speaks to a group that [insert voter group here] doesn't like, we'll be swimming in paper.

Yes, Hillary has close ties with Wall Street. No, I'm not happy about that, but anyone who thinks that the next President is going to "clean up Wall Street" on his/her own is a fool. Sanders can pontificate all he wants about not being in Wall Street's pocket. If he gets into the WH (which is unlikley) he will have little or no power on his own to do much more than rail against them.

by Anonymousreply 5February 6, 2016 7:03 PM

R5 Thank you. Why does it seem like people especially millennials are getting more and more naive? I notice feelings are starting to override facts.

by Anonymousreply 6February 6, 2016 7:10 PM

Well, r5 says it's not an issue, so it's settled then.

They all do it isn't an excuse. Blah, blah, blah platitudes aren't an answer.

Let's all just flog on the whipping boys du jour, while quietly pocketing their massive infusions of cash.

by Anonymousreply 7February 6, 2016 7:11 PM

R7 Go back to your safe space.

by Anonymousreply 8February 6, 2016 7:14 PM

I'm amazed at the Hillary hate, it is so rhetorical that I believe it's all republican operatives. Ridiculousness.

by Anonymousreply 9February 6, 2016 7:17 PM

Obama took a shit ton of money from Wall Street in 08 and 12. Because he knew he'd need a billion dollars to wage a campaign against the Republicans, not because he was in love with Wall Street bankers. I don't remember this being an issue then.

by Anonymousreply 10February 6, 2016 7:21 PM

Hillary has to beg, borrow and steal for money. She's not going to turn her nose up at anybody....

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 11February 6, 2016 7:24 PM

Not releasing the transcripts raises all sorts of questions.

Like most people, I figured she just gave a pretty generic speech with some anecdotes about her years as SoS. Not releasing them makes it sound like she spent an hour dissing Obama or laughing at Elizabeth Warren. WTF?

by Anonymousreply 12February 6, 2016 7:30 PM

Obama's Wall Street donations were a big problem for liberals during his re-election campaign. The biggest problem the left has with him is the corporatism. That is partly why the young millenials lost hope and stopped voting (for midterms), and it is also why Bernie is resonating with them so strongly. He is speaking to their concerns and gripes in a powerful way. Even though it is mostly rhetoric, he has outmatched Ohama in small donations in half the amount of time. Raising 80 million dollars and counting in less than a year where 65% of those donations are $30.00 is noteworthy. Hillary struggles to raise that same amount in small donations. Hillary has a habit of depending primarily on Big Money orgs, and starting the campaign with them first. That's the problem. Shillary does a top-down approach to fundraising which makes her seem more elitist than someone who starts from the bottom-up.

by Anonymousreply 13February 6, 2016 7:32 PM

[quote] That is partly why the young millenials lost hope and stopped voting (for midterms), and it is also why Bernie is resonating with them so strongly.

Which makes them idiots. If Obama hadn't raised that amount of cash we'd be looking at President Romney.

by Anonymousreply 14February 6, 2016 7:36 PM

If Clinton was really being forthright about the speeches, here’s what she’d say:

You want to know why they paid me hundreds of thousands of dollars to give a speech? It’s because I’m famous and important, and the people who have that kind of money like to brush up against famous and important people. The executives want to get their picture taken chatting with me so they can put it up on their “brag wall.” They want to tell their buddies on the golf course, “Well here’s what I told Hillary Clinton …” It feeds their egos. And the money? Yeah, it’s hard to turn down that kind of money. So I go, I talk for an hour about the complex challenges America faces in an ever-changing world, blah blah blah, do the grip-and-grin and get a six-figure check. You would too, if you could.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 15February 6, 2016 7:41 PM

[quote]Obama's Wall Street donations were a big problem for liberals during his re-election campaign. The biggest problem the left has with him is the corporatism. That is partly why the young millenials lost hope and stopped voting (for midterms), and it is also why Bernie is resonating with them so strongly.

lmao! First off - oh, dear. Second, Millennials don't vote. Third, Democrats don't vote in the Midterms, which is why the party lost dearly.

by Anonymousreply 16February 6, 2016 7:41 PM

R14 Many millennials engage in black and white thinking. I wonder how they'll be able to function in the real world which often requires pragmatic decision making.

by Anonymousreply 17February 6, 2016 7:41 PM

R5 Using that excuse could backfire. She probably said everything those bloodsuckers wanted to hear in those speeches. These banks are destroying America and Hilary supports their agenda the same way Obama does.

by Anonymousreply 18February 6, 2016 7:47 PM

LOL at R8 quipping about safe spaces when it's the Clinton campaign that is making crying victimology its main strategy in the primaries.

This is the person in charge of Hillary's social media activity.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 19February 6, 2016 8:13 PM

R3 asks, "Why should she have to?"

This is why: It's relevant to her character. When Hillary needs to appeal to more left-leaning Democrats in this primary race, Hillary attacks Wall Street. But her willingness to accept their money raises questions about hypocrisy.

The content of the Wall St speeches is also relevant to her declared political principles. Voters should be able to compare and contrast what this public figure said very recently about global and national issues.

And finally, because Hillary said she "would look into" getting those transcripts released. Hillary should at least attempt to honor her word and do the right thing.

by Anonymousreply 20February 6, 2016 8:18 PM
Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 21February 6, 2016 9:01 PM

How about this rationale for releasing speeches made to high value and high profile donors?

T R A N S P A R E N C Y

by Anonymousreply 22February 6, 2016 9:19 PM

D E C E N C Y

by Anonymousreply 23February 6, 2016 9:46 PM

Millennials base all decisions making on how the "feel."

by Anonymousreply 24February 6, 2016 9:51 PM

Non-Millennials base their election choices on the names their fading memory can recognize.

by Anonymousreply 25February 6, 2016 9:57 PM

Weren't we Democrats all pissed off when Dick Cheney wouldn't release the minutes from his closed door meeting with reps from the energy companies? Why shouldn't we know what Clinton said in these speeches? The people who gave her this money paid for access in a future Clinton Administration. I for one would like to know what she told the people who will be influencing economic policy in her White House.

by Anonymousreply 26February 6, 2016 9:57 PM

Yes, we know pedo/r26 you're triggered.

Now go find a safe space, hon.

by Anonymousreply 27February 6, 2016 10:02 PM

Hillary has some nerve taking hundreds of thousands of dollars to give speeches at UCLA and UNLV and then talking about reducing the cost of public higher ed and reducing student debt. How many kids could have had scholarships for the amount those schools paid to Hillary to talk for an hour or two?

by Anonymousreply 28February 6, 2016 10:03 PM

What did R26 say that justifies the vile "pedo" accusation at R27??

Hillbots are really unhinged and cruel. Must be the stress from the last few days.

by Anonymousreply 29February 6, 2016 10:13 PM

from another thread r29.

by Anonymousreply 30February 6, 2016 10:14 PM

Which makes as much sense in that other thread as it does here R29. Instead of talking about the facts like a grown up R27 just hurls silly insults.

by Anonymousreply 31February 6, 2016 10:17 PM

Then maybe you should stay out of it, r31.

by Anonymousreply 32February 6, 2016 10:18 PM

^^^^ meaning r29.

by Anonymousreply 33February 6, 2016 10:21 PM

[quote]Hillary has some nerve taking hundreds of thousands of dollars to give speeches at UCLA and UNLV and then talking about reducing the cost of public higher ed and reducing student debt. How many kids could have had scholarships for the amount those schools paid to Hillary to talk for an hour or two.

You're adorably stupid.

by Anonymousreply 34February 6, 2016 10:26 PM

Haven't politicians been making money from speaking engagements for decades now? Why the big concern now?

by Anonymousreply 35February 6, 2016 10:29 PM

I saw the other thread and I've seen nothing in his posts that warrant these vile accusations. All I saw is him very candidly and earnestly giving his views on recent US political history. Randomly accusing people who post on gay forums of being pedos is trading is some horrific stereotypes. It's lovely how the Hillbots try to take the mantle of the defensors of liberal values against the "Bernie Bros" but we can all see who's going out of their way to bully and vilify.

by Anonymousreply 36February 6, 2016 10:39 PM

R35 most of them wait until they retire from public service to cash in. As Anderson Cooper pointed out in the town hall this week, the difference is everyone knew Hillary was going to run for president so there's the appearance that people are paying her this money for access and power in a future presidential administration.

Congress should take away public pensions from people who make this kind of money on the lecture circuit. Congress gave former presidents a pension when they discovered that Truman was destitute and was whoring himself out in unpresidential fashion to pay his utility bills. What Reagan, Clinton, and the Bushes have done pulling millions in speaking fees makes what Truman was doing look like amateur hour. You shouldn't get rich off of public service.

by Anonymousreply 37February 6, 2016 10:42 PM

FF triggered r36.

by Anonymousreply 38February 6, 2016 10:44 PM

R27, R30, R32, R33, R35 and R38 are all the same stupid troll. Suggest you all block it and see for yourselves so we can stay with the conversation at hand. Toward that end, I too agree that transparency is the point. Of course, that's probably not something Clinton can afford, on the supposition that her speeches contradict any populist positions she takes in her campaign. And as we all know, lack of transparency encourages suspicion. She'll damn herself whether the speeches are released or not, and Sanders surely knows that.

by Anonymousreply 39February 6, 2016 11:22 PM

FF SJW triggered r39.

by Anonymousreply 40February 6, 2016 11:27 PM

R39 = deleted his cookies so he can troll some more. Interesting it's r39's "first post. " That should tell you EVERYTHING. FF THE CUNT!

by Anonymousreply 41February 6, 2016 11:29 PM

Oh all the Hillary supporters FF and block r39 and r36 because they are the Bernbots trolling you.

by Anonymousreply 42February 6, 2016 11:34 PM
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.

Yes indeed, we too use "cookies." Take a look at our privacy/terms or if you just want to see the damn site without all this bureaucratic nonsense, click ACCEPT. Otherwise, you'll just have to find some other site for your pointless bitchery needs.

×

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!