2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumBrock warns of ‘slippery slope’ on Clinton disclosures
I think theres nothing to hide, but I think that could be a slippery slope and we could end up asking for all sorts of things, David Brock, the founder of the pro-Clinton Correct the Record PAC, said in an interview with MSNBCs Morning Joe.
In defending Clintons paid speeches to Goldman Sachs, in particular, Brock cited former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who embarked on his own speaking tour prior to running for the Republican nomination in 2008.
She got fair market value for her speeches. She made that decision, he said, remarking that it is up to Clinton and her campaign to decide whether to release the transcripts.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/david-brock-hillary-clinton-disclosures-219420
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Who was it that didn't oh, right, Mr 47% Romney was the other one who wanted to make sure none of his private speeches got released. Seems like the only reason to put in your contract that nobody but you gets to record your speeches is because you KNOW you're saying things that would hurt your electability numbers if they ever got out.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)When Democracy becomes capitalism.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)RiverLover
(7,830 posts)By slippery Brock.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)With a grain of salt
VulgarPoet
(2,872 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)2pooped2pop
(5,420 posts)He's not exactly clean himself.
dana_b
(11,546 posts)if that's the standard then she's in bigger trouble than we realize.
Punkingal
(9,522 posts)The destroyer of Anita Hill, the guy who helped gift us with Clarence Thomas, is a top surrogate for Hillary Clinton.
beedle
(1,235 posts)... yeah, that would be deadly for Washington politics ... and criminals - but I repeat myself.
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)Hillary loves to compare herself to Republicans.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)"She got fair market value" vs "that is what they offered"
OopS!
Orsino
(37,428 posts)Dumbass doesn't know that "slippery slope" is a name for a type of logical fallacy.
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)She got fair market value for her speeches. She made that decision,
So they are a commodity, to be bought and sold.
cali
(114,904 posts)Babel_17
(5,400 posts)So I guess many journalists are hesitant to take him on, and want in some ways to emulate his success, which they respect. Beyond that it's hard to see why he's not more of a story, and in the news, for what he's doing.
The Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill movie is coming out, and though I don't see him being listed as being portrayed in the film, maybe it will serve as an incentive to remind the public of how he rolls.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_%28film%29
Confirmation is an upcoming American television drama film, directed by Rick Famuyiwa and written by Susannah Grant. It is about Clarence Thomas' Supreme Court nomination hearings, and the controversy that unfolded when Anita Hill came forward to say she was a victim of Thomas' sexual harassment. It stars Kerry Washington as Hill and Wendell Pierce as Clarence Thomas, as well as Erika Christensen, Jennifer Hudson, Greg Kinnear, Jeffrey Wright, Bill Irwin, and Eric Stonestreet in supporting roles. The film will air on the cable network HBO on April 16, 2016.[1]
Given all current focus on The Supreme Court, I expect this movie to have a great chance of getting a lot of attention.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)it gets the 'fair and balanced' treatment?
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)He's admitted to acting horrifically to Hill, and to having been a stranger to the truth, so just a reminder of that will be good.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)expect glossing.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0266622/?ref_=ttfc_fc_dr1
daleanime
(17,796 posts)Babel_17
(5,400 posts)For younger DU members who don't remember the woman for whom Brock spent so much time and effort in his attempts at smearing her, here's a quick reminder. It's from the previously released documentary.
TCJ70
(4,387 posts)...yikes.
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)After all this time, THAT is what he came up with as a defense for not releasing the transcripts? Oy veh.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)If Hillary doesn't release them, every journalist in America should be searching for whistleblowers and leakers who will.
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)It is the very same banks that almost destroyed the world economy, acted as predatory lenders in black communities, and who now have control of our government and laws.
I think we have a right to know why Hillary was so dang expensive, but well worth the price!
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)farleftlib
(2,125 posts)kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)Giuliani isn't a Democrat, and wouldn't get the support of Democrats in the primary. Maybe you are thinking of the wrong party. You know, the one that traffics in lies and bullshit and tons of campaign cash.
FlatBaroque
(3,160 posts)Judge people by the company they keep.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)noretreatnosurrender
(1,890 posts)Why she is allowing her campaign and it's surrogates to distort her opponent's record to give the voters the impression that they are no better than she is thus ensuring that her dishonesty won't be an issue. Voila!
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)that's what we're seeing.
Response to TubbersUK (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Those who proudly stand with David Brock are hard to take seriously as advocates for women.
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)He apologized to Professor Hill, and that meant something to me. I was also impressed by his book, Blinded by the Right. But I think when you're turning a page on that kind of behavior, you need to really turn the page. He's been too underhanded recently for me to consider his conversion as totally sincere.
Another reminder of the person he tried to smear.
Huh, this just in: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/02/hillary_campaign_needs_a_scapegoat_david_brock_a_leading_candidate.html
Key Democratic players are worried that Hillary Clintons super-PAC ally David Brock could be hurting her image and hampering her chances of winning the presidency.
In interviews over the past month, Clinton donors, fundraisers and operatives have told The Hill that the concerns about Brocks comments, particularly some of his attacks on Bernie Sanders, stretch all the way to the top of Clintons political machinery.
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/269791-david-brocks-hardball-tactics-worry-clinton-supporters
A leading figure in the Democracy Alliance, the liberal equivalent of the conservative Koch brothers donor network, said donors he associates with would like to put Brock back in the can.
I have heard people express concern that what he does could be harmful generally to the campaign, the donor said.
Longtime Clinton fundraiser Bill Brandt, an Illinois-based businessman and personal friend of Bill Clinton, said of Brock, David is well meaning but I think perhaps like a zealot. He should keep it in check a bit. I dont think this needs to be about tearing Bernie down. Its getting nasty and it doesnt need to be.
d_legendary1
(2,586 posts)I call it more of a conflict of interest than a slippery slope.
Avalux
(35,015 posts)You bet it would be a slippery slope, directly to the implosion of her campaign and well-constructed public facade.
Ino
(3,366 posts)...what other "sorts of things" should be looked at! What else is hiding in her closet, hmmm? Clinton Foundation accounting sheets perhaps?
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Do they have any fucking idea how much they are reminding voters
how this wink wink relationship works?
amborin
(16,631 posts)DefenseLawyer
(11,101 posts)krawhitham
(4,643 posts)Hey the republicans did it so it must be ok