Clinton Promises 'Absolutely, Absolutely' Nothing to Worry About in Wall Street Speeches

[newthinking]

Clinton Promises 'Absolutely, Absolutely' Nothing to Worry About in Wall Street Speeches

New York Times editorial joins those urging Democratic presidential candidate to release transcripts of controversial speeches
by Jon Queally, staff writer

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/02/26/clinton-promises-absolutely-absolutely-nothing-worry-about-wall-street-speeches


Hillary Clinton has now said voters have no reason to worry about what's in the paid speeches she gave to Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street firms. (Photo: AP)

From the New York Times editorial board to a Republican-friendly super PAC, it appears unease is widespread over Hillary Clinton's continued refusal to release transcripts of recent paid speeches she gave to some of Wall Street's most powerful firms.

In a sharply-worded editorial in Friday's print edition, the Times described Clinton's excuses for not releasing the transcripts as those of a "mischievous child, not a presidential candidate"—arguing that "public interest in these speeches is legitimate" and that by "stonewalling" their release "Mrs. Clinton plays into the hands of those who say she’s not trustworthy and makes her own rules."

However, in an interview with MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough that aired Friday morning, Clinton again defended her relationship with Wall Street and said the voting public has no need to worry about what she may have said in the speeches that earned her millions of dollars.

Full story:
From the New York Times editorial board to a Republican-friendly super PAC, it appears unease is widespread over Hillary Clinton's continued refusal to release transcripts of recent paid speeches she gave to some of Wall Street's most powerful firms.

In a sharply-worded editorial in Friday's print edition, the Times described Clinton's excuses for not releasing the transcripts as those of a "mischievous child, not a presidential candidate"—arguing that "public interest in these speeches is legitimate" and that by "stonewalling" their release "Mrs. Clinton plays into the hands of those who say she’s not trustworthy and makes her own rules."

However, in an interview with MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough that aired Friday morning, Clinton again defended her relationship with Wall Street and said the voting public has no need to worry about what she may have said in the speeches that earned her millions of dollars.

[hobbit709]

1. Nothing to worry about for her bankster cronies maybe.

[californiabernin]

2. I'm sure there's plenty for her to worry about

In those speeches or she would release the transcripts. She's a liar.

[peacebird]

7. Exactly. By deflecting and stalling she looks even more untrustworthy....

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

3. If there's nothing to worry about, why not release them?

The only reason I can think of for not releasing them is that they do contain something to worry about.

[rhett o rick]

6. I see it a little differently. Her fans already know she works for Goldman-Sachs and Wall Street

and they don't care. And since her only quality, that I can get from her supporters is that she is tough. She is being tough.

[BainsBane]

15. At least she follows existing campaign finance law

Bernie Sanders received a warning from the Federal Election Commission, citing problems with his campaign's February finance report.

The letter states the report lists amounts of contributions, receipts, expenses and disbursements that "appear to be incorrect."

The letter also cites possible impermissible contributions that exceed the allowed limit per election cycle ($2,700 for individuals) along with donations that come from outside the United States and from unregistered political committees.

The FEC sent the letter Thursday to the campaign asking for more information regarding the report filed Feb. 20. The letter warned: "Failure to adequately respond by the response date noted above could result in an audit or enforcement action."

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/politics/2016/02/26/feds-flag-bernie-sanders-campaign-contributions/80985898/

From the FEC site, one can see the names of some of those people from whom Bernie has accepted contributions in violation of federal law. There are some interesting names on the list. In some cases, two people from the same household both contributed funds that exceed legal limits.

[zappaman]

17. I could swear I know one of those on that list.

And I'm a little shocked!

[BainsBane]

18. I'm not

Not even a little bit.

[revbones]

27. Yes, by having a super-PAC for donations to flow to

She has a super-PAC and her donors can make unlimited contributions to that - such as the $350k donation today from the Wal-mart heir.

Also, most of the donations to her actual campaign hit the $2700 max limit to her in a single donation so it's a lot easier to track than several million $27 donations...

[Kittycat]

29. Some donors will also max out primary and GE donations

Max out their primary and general donation in a single payment vs 2 with designation. One will be refunded if he doesn't make it on.

Or you know, you can just do as you mentioned, and be bought and paid for by the likes of Walmart for $350k, because that's so much more legit.

[BainsBane]

31. She doesn't "have" a super pac

No campaign does because it's illegal. The candidate who has the most super Pacs spending on their behalf is in fact Bernie.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/29/us/politics/bernie-sanders-is-democrats-top-beneficiary-of-outside-spending-like-it-or-not.html?_r=0

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/01/20/bernie-sanders-gets-some-outside-help-he-didnt-ask-for/?_r=0

Perhaps you ought to look into what campaign finance law actually allows rather than taking a politician's word for it?

Clinton gets a lot of small donations. I make them myself. The online system keeps track of how much you donate. Of course, not that I'll ever come close to maxing out.

The other point the FEC has shown is that some of those excess contributions to Sanders came in $2700 amounts, only more than one of them, as was the case with Bill Maher.
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/trackers/2016-02-12/sanders-should-refund-bill-maher-donation-public-integrity

If his campaign can't keep track of their own donations, how can we entrust him with the federal government?

[autonomous]

22. tough on crime, tough on fucking hippies

punch them all, bring them to heel!

[rhett o rick]

23. She is for the Establishment and against the 99%. nm

[Attorney in Texas]

4. She can't turn them over because they are being audited? No ... wait ... that's Trump's tax returns

[TCJ70]

5. OK...then just put them out there!

I really want to know what I have to say to get 5K a minute!

[mindwalker_i]

8. Translation: "Shut up about it!"

[99th_Monkey]

10. +10 nt

[thereismore]

9. What she means by "nothing to worry about" is "Don't worry about the things I said because I did not

mean any of it."

Note that she is NOT saying there is nothing incriminating in those speeches, just that we have no need to worry about what's in them.

[99th_Monkey]

11. Classic "nothing to see here" statement. nt

[Art_from_Ark]

33. How Nixonian

[Fairgo]

12. Glad that's settled...

So put them up on the internet and we can focus on the larger issue of possible indictment during the general election.

[onecaliberal]

13. I abosolutely abosolutely do NOT believe anything she says.

Shades of Mitt, failing to release the tax returns.

[nc4bo]

14. HRC:"You're asking me to say I have never, I don't believe I ever have. I don't believe I ever will"

LIE

I will never believe in your brand of promises Hillary.

[whatchamacallit]

16. So easy to prove, just release them

We all know "take my word for it" really means.

[Barack_America]

19. Okey doke, Hillary.

[MrMickeysMom]

20. heheheheheheheheheheheheheh

[autonomous]

21. I only said a few things, but hey i lied to them too!

[delrem]

24. Nothing except what the $millions$ of payola in her pocket means. n/t

[Bernblu]

25. It's bad enough she got so much money for them.

So, at the very least she should release the damn transcripts. Otherwise, she will never get another vote from me. i voted for her twice for the senate but never again if she does not release the transcripts immediately.

[togetherforever]

26. I guess that settles that then

She's never giving me a reason to think she's lying .

[Docreed2003]

28. If there's no "there there"

Then release the transcripts! I'm sorry but "Trust me on this" ain't cutting it in 2016. I have no doubt that some "transcripts" will be released soon, but I have serious doubts if they will be the actual transcripts. From her own contract with these groups, we know that she owns the transcripts and no one else. Why would I trust a "transcript" released weeks after the calls for disclosure when if there was nothing to these speeches they should have been released immediately. Sorry for letting my cynicism slip!

[actslikeacarrot]

30. Then what in the fuck is the problem?

...Release the transcripts and then everyone can move the fuck on. Forgotten in a few days if they are as innocuous as she says.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

32. If they're all that benign and flawless maybe she should demand more of a payoff for her next gig.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

34. I told my wife there was 'Absolutely, Absolutely' Nothing to Worry About

when I started spending a lot of time with that pretty rich young lady.