Chicago Tribune Editorial Board: WHAT Hillary Clinton Said BEHIND Closed Doors

[Segami]

~snip~

And there you have the dilemma facing Clinton the now-candidate for president: She has refused calls to release speech transcripts because, she has said, other candidates haven't done so — although it appears there is no other candidate who has pocketed financiers' money for palaver as aggressively as she has. Yes, if she discloses what she's said to bankers, her detractors — led by Bernie Sanders — may find reasons to lambaste her for cozying up to special financial interests. But if she won't release the transcripts, the public will fill in the gap with nasty presumptions. As Clinton edges closer to knocking off Sanders for the Democratic nomination, the focus may shift to other issues, but it shouldn't. Voters have a legitimate interest in exploring what she has said to rooms full of bankers and investors in the context of evaluating her perspective on financial regulations and economic growth.


Does what she says now in public jibe with what she said then to small, select gatherings of the rich and powerful? If not, what's changed? Clinton was in the speechmaking business for about two years. Business was good, as it has been for her husband, former President Bill Clinton. He has earned more than $100 million on the lecture circuit since leaving office, The Washington Post reported in 2014. Hillary Clinton earned $21.7 million from about 100 speaking engagements after her tenure as secretary of state, according to The Wall Street Journal. She spoke to many business groups. Of all the paid gigs, one trio garners most of the attention: three appearances she made at Goldman Sachs client conferences, for which the firm paid her a reported $675,000. What did Clinton tell Goldman Sachs? Well, let's assume the firm didn't pay $225,000 per session to get a dressing-down. Politico quoted one attendee saying Clinton praised the firm for its role in the economy: "It's so far from what she sounds like as a candidate now. It was like a rah-rah speech. She sounded more like a Goldman Sachs managing director." Clinton has been dogged by Sanders over the Wall Street connection because of the theme central to his campaign: that he's for the little guy and gal, while she stands with the big money boys and girls who nearly destroyed the economy.

~snip~

The issue here is that Clinton, now a would-be president, earned an extraordinary living giving speeches and making appearances. All transcripts from those activities should be available for public scrutiny, just as all presidential candidates' previous professional work should be open to examination. For example, if Donald Trump wins the Republican nomination, expect to read a lot more details about his decades in business. And rightly so. Voters deserve to know, and understand, how he made his money. Why are those particular speeches and conversations important for assessing Clinton's candidacy? Because how she presented herself to influential people in a private setting reflected her judgment. Voters are reasonable to ask: How did she handle the situation? Better than Mitt Romney? In 2012 he did himself in by talking disparagingly about low-income people in private to wealthy donors.


We're guessing Clinton made nice with Wall Street and feels uncomfortable about it now. Maybe she said something to damage her credibility among some potential supporters. So be it. Clinton could have avoided scrutiny by finding different work. Instead, she earned big speaking fees based on her experience as a public servant. If she likes that role and wants to be president, she has an obligation to share what she said.


cont'

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-hillary-clinton-speeches-goldman-sachs-edit-0429-jm-20160428-story.html

[Segami]

1. Chicago Tribune Editorial Board: "...If she likes that role...

"...and wants to be president, she has an obligation to share what she said..."

[CorporatistNation]

29. NOW... NOTTTTT Later!

WE... DEMOCRATS Deserve to KNOW BEFORE She IS Given the "wave through" to move forward! Fess Up Honey or step down!

[pnwmom]

35. Here she is speaking at a Goldman Sachs event in 2014. It's not that exciting.

[TCJ70]

40. That's not what anyone is talking about...

...but you knew that.

[pnwmom]

41. It's one of the speeches for which Goldman Sachs paid her foundation a lot of money . n/t

[randome]

60. Smack. Down.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

[dchill]

62. Who smacking who?

[rhett o rick]

103. The speeches were a poorly disguised excuse to funnel money to her personal wealth.

[glinda]

116. fundraising for what she is doing now

technically I think a candidate is not legally to do that until after they announce but oh well...we are no longer a Country of Laws....

[rhett o rick]

117. I am not speaking of "fundraising" I am speaking of money given to Clinton's personal wealth account

by banksters for a few minutes of speech. It's not so cleverly disguised graft.

[glinda]

118. and I am still speaking of fundraising

even though it was "for paid speeches". Money has a funny way of sliding round with her.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

76. True, almost nobody is, but I still wanna know if she mentioned social security

and in what context.

But no, almost nobody even knows the history of this in the first place, just us addicts.

[Scuba]

51. That's not a Goldman-Sachs event, it's a Clinton Global Initiative event.

Do you not even see what you're posting?

The speeches in question are not available for us voters to see. As for me, I'll assume the worst.

[dchill]

61. Lying is contagious, and in some quarters...

pervasive.

[Segami]

59. +100000

[frylock]

2. Aaaaand here comes the vetting.

Bon appetite.

[Bread and Circus]

48. I have wondered if the media will turn on her.

Given that she may represent the powers that be better than her eventual opponent. As in "she's a sure thing" for Wall Street and K Street and the MIC.

[elehhhhna]

52. of course they will, thats why they want her to be our nominee

[Fairgo]

3. Undeniably True

I am watching closely

[northernsouthern]

4. How have so few come forward on this.

Last edited Sat Apr 30, 2016, 03:04 AM - Edit history (1)

We get an occasional blurb like the one in this saying what she said. How small was the audience? Were these speeches, or just bribes with the dressings of a speech?

[Blue_In_AK]

109. Don't we just love autocorrect?

Were these peaches or bribes? I'll take peaches, please. LOL.

[northernsouthern]

122. Yeah I have a very faulty ap for the keyboard and the android spellcheck is horrid.

It auto-corrects the most stupid things...including phone numbers, and ignores the most atrocious misspellings. If you look at my posts I have many an edit on my history. The smaller screen makes it a bit more annoying to proof afters.
You never know the peaches could be the ones that the Monkey King took.

[grasswire]

5. BOOM here it is ---

"Clinton could have avoided scrutiny by finding different work. "

YESssssssssssssssss

That.

Another way of saying "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."

[loyalsister]

10. The same goes for the email investigation

No matter what happens with it, it was irresponsible for the very same reason. She knew there was at least a that she would face considerable vetting if she ran for president, but did it anyway. And we are supposed to stick our heads in the sand and trust her.

[grasswire]

14. someone was very stupid to think the server could remain hidden.

It's almost as risky and stupid as schtupping an intern in the WH!!!

Just dawned on me. It's the same kind of behavior.

The server is equal to the Lewinsky matter in risk of discovery.

[Segami]

15. Bingo. ....Lies , Deception and Secrets

fall into the Clinton's top attributes for the presidency........these unethical acts mirror themselves closer than we choose to believe.

[grasswire]

17. is there a term for people who engage in extremely risky behavior?

it must be part of a diagnosis for some personality disorder

[mrdmk]

24. yes there is, it is called STUPIDITY n/t

[surrealAmerican]

25. Hubris.

These are special people - the rules don't apply to them. They will be protected from the consequences of their actions because they always have been.

[Uncle Joe]

46. I don't know a specific term but PTSD contributes to risk taking behavior.

What Is the Definition of Risk-Taking Behavior?

What is the definition of risk-taking behavior? In short, this behavior refers to the tendency to engage in activities that have the potential to be harmful or dangerous.

Learn more about risk-taking behavior and why people with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) are particularly vulnerable to acting out in this manner.

(snip)

A 2012 study of 395 military veterans with PTSD found a link between risk-taking behavior and the disorder. In addition to the above forms of riskiness, vets with PTSD have a propensity for firearms play, potentially endangering their lives. People with PTSD have already survived dangerous situations and risk-taking behavior may gave such individuals the feeling that they have more control over their present circumstances than those that led to them developing PTSD.

https://www.verywell.com/risk-taking-2797384

In Hillary's case this would be "political" traumatic stress disorder, I have no doubt the continuous state of living in scandal with her husband being one of only two impeached Presidents greatly contributed to her stress.

How much political stress can an individual take before they succumb to traumatic stress disorder?

[Gwhittey]

105. She could got PTSD

When she was under sniper fire? It only takes 1 event to cause PTSD .

[Uncle Joe]

108. That whole incident is just a microism of what I'm talking about.

Anybody with a lick of common sense or decent judgement would know after being filmed being greeted by a little girl on the tarmac and taking their time greeting the troops, that this lie would be exposed.

Hillary just didn't care, perhaps because she thought along the lines of the adage that to best damage your political opponent "attack their strength" and as integrity wasn't Hillary's strength any potential attacks because of this would cause minimal damage?

It simply didn't matter to her if she was trusted her or not.

[senz]

19. Shortly after Bill was elected to his first term, a reporter asked Hillary

something about how they felt after their first night in the WH as president and first lady, and she said they woke up, looked at each other, and couldn't stop giggling.

I thought this was really cute and sweet at the time, but lately it sort of underscores a defective sense of responsibility, seriousness, etc.

Sometimes when I think of them I get an image of Bonnie and Clyde.

[loyalsister]

79. I have said the same thing

It's a combination of arrogance and recklessness. In both cases they claimed victimhood.
They have used it to their advantage and ultimately created an ideology around it by convincing people to be loyal because they are hated by the people supporters oppose. Then, they can do no wrong and supporters will defend anything.

[grasswire]

91. the only word I have for this is "DIABOLICAL"

What a setup. What a setup.

The biggest con in American history.

And the recklessness seems almost compulsive or psychopathic.

Somethin' sick going on there.

[loyalsister]

97. Truly

I think ti would take a degree of narcissism to believe one can run the country, but not always to the point of pathology.

Narcissism and risk taking:

Another of the symptoms of narcissism is that of excessive risk taking. And it shows up in many ways. They drive recklessly, they have extra-marital affairs, even after they have been caught. They take drugs or drink a lot. They risk their money with little thought for the considerations. Just look at the state of the financial system today in 2013 for evidence that there are narcissists at work.

They will repeatedly do stupid things even though they know they will be caught out. They do not seem to learn from past mistakes, one of the common symptoms of narcissism.

They will even lie when they know there is a high probability of being found out.

They frequently have run-ins with the law. If they are not actually breaking the law, they are on the very edge of it.

http://www.decision-making-confidence.com/symptoms-of-narcissism.html

I also think that the way both Clintons exploit people goes beyond what many politicians are willing to do.

People as objects

Malignant narcissists don't care about people. Period. They pretend to, and sometimes they pretend very well. But underneath the facade, people are objects to the narcissist. Objects to be used, controlled, manipulated and put into service.

The narcissist will consider your needs and wants as information that they can use to manipulate you. Your needs and wants are not of concern, and they are never as important as their needs and wants.

They will use your needs and wants initially to fool you into building a relationship with them. But once they think they have control, there is a drastic change in their behavior and then you become a pawn in their game. You are simply another thing in their life that they use however they please.

This realization can be devastating. Finding out that the person you loved and admired has actually been abusing you is very hard to understand at first. Then comes the rage, the upset, the grief etc.

[grasswire]

98. yes, good points nt

[2banon]

107. I believe the term you may be searching for is

"sociopathic"

From Websters Simple definition:

someone who behaves in a dangerous or violent way towards other people and does not feel guilty about such behavior.

Like Bush/Cheney/Rove/Rice/Rumsfeld et al, in the political context, or public policy context, or foreign policy context, domestic policy context, all of these politicans are sociopaths to some degree.

I guess it comes with the territory.

[grasswire]

110. I guess so.

"Reckless narcissistic behavior" also fits much of what we see.

[IdaBriggs]

99. Don't forget the Republicans got away with it with the RNC, so there

was precedent for "getting away with it" and she was out of office for two years before it was caught. If she had deleted faster....



It's all about entitlement, and being above the law....

[grasswire]

102. and reckless narcissistic risk taking nt

[jfern]

20. The Clintons have earned tens of millions from their books

They only did all these paid speeches with no transcripts because they were so greedy that tens of millions of dollars wasn't enough.

[Yurovsky]

87. Yes, and >$600k/yr in federal pensions...

FOR LIFE. They were loaded. They also had various perks (office staff, security, etc) that the taxpayers provide former POTUS. They had rich friends. They didn't NEED all those millions, but their greed was - and still is - insatiable. I just can't get my head around how anyone who calls themself a Democrat, a liberal, or a progressive would be OK with this.

Greed should have no place on the Left. Leave that for the heartless bastards in the GOP.

[Gwhittey]

106. Don't forget the Foundation

That pays for a shit ton of stuff. Private Jets, 5 start hotels dinners etc.

[peace13]

28. Except she doesn't do kitchens!

She's no cookie baker, remember, Maybe, if she can't stand the stench, stay out of the toilet!

[pnwmom]

31. Bernie could have avoided scrutiny of his tax returns by finding different work.

One year's worth doesn't cut it. Where are the rest, Bernie? And why did you get an extension on your Senate Disclosure form this year?

[Armstead]

36. That's a ridiculous comparison

What Sanders does for a living is public knowledge.

You think in otehr years he put on a disguise and made a lot expensive speeches to sash away a few million dollars? Or maybe made some sweetheart deal with Goldman Sachs, made secret millions and has it stashed away in the Caymans?

The Tribune editorial is reasonable and correct. Think of her speeches as a business and it's up to scrutiny just as much as Democrats held Mittens accountable for Baine in 2012.

[pnwmom]

42. His tax returns aren't public knowledge but they should be if he's a serious candidate.

There's some reason that he hasn't divulged them. Very strange, since it would be as easy as picking up the phone and asking the IRS to send him copies.

[Armstead]

44. yeah I'm sure they're hiding something.

Bernie lives so large.

Meanwhile overlook the editorial.

Deflect.

[pnwmom]

47. Probably their very low tax rate as a result of high deductions. Also very low charitable,

since he has said he's against charity as a principle.

But he shouldn't be against a moderate tax rate as a principle.

[nashville_brook]

96. LOL!

[grasswire]

113. your example is purely silly

NOBODY believes Bernie has anything to hide. NOBODY. The Sanders made in one year what HRC made in one hour.

Jane said today that 2015 tax return was filed today. But who cares? There's NOTHING there, and everyone (except you, apparently) knows it.

[pnwmom]

114. Plenty of people do. Just not Bernie supporters. I personally think he took a lot of deductions

in years prior to 2014 and ended up with a tax rate below 10%. And at his income level that's not something he might want to advertise.

I also think he doesn't want to make public his 2011 tax return with Jane's $200K pay-off from Burlington College after she was asked to leave.

[politicaljunkie41910]

112. Perhaps the same could be said about you. Think what you might have accomplished

if you had done something more productive than having spent the past 14 years posting 47,000 plus of your personal opinions that nobody here but people with a similar mindset, really gives a darn about. For good or for bad, at least she's doing something productive with her time whether you find it of value or not. Some people make things happen. Some people watch things happen. And some people look up one day and ask, "what happened". In spite of any flaws you might find with HRC, at least she's got herself in the arena attempting to make a difference in people's lives whether people here at DU agree with her or not. No one's life was ever changed for the better by someone's 47,000 anonymous posts on a message board. Get over yourself.

[snot]

6. K&R'd.

[bjo59]

7. "She sounded more like a Goldman Sachs managing director" said the witness.

[Jack Bone]

8. I LOVE the Chicago Tribune!!

[nemo137]

73. The same paper that can't give Rauner too vigorous of a rubdown?

and stood fully behind Rahm until it became clear that he was involved with the cover-up of the Laquan McDonald shooting? That Chicago Tribune?

This is neither here nor there for the purposes of the OP, but just because a newspaper publishes a single editorial you agree with doesn't make them rock. The Trib is a reliable source of CBOE and FOP propaganda, not a crusader for anything we'd recognize as progress.

[Jack Bone]

104. Here in central Indiana Redstate hell ...

They are a breath of fresh air, usually, compared to our repug rags.

I do appreciate and respect your perspective, as a local...perhaps?

In the future I will take that into consideration...thank you!

[bbgrunt]

9. she knew what she was doing and how to

cash in on her ambition. There is no excuse for not full disclosure of these speeches.

[randome]

68. 'Cash in'? If she was as greedy as you imagine, you'd think she would own a fleet of yachts by now.

A mansion in every state. Thirty-one sports cars for every day of the month. With elevators! That's Romney and Trump you're thinking about.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

[bahrbearian]

72. Well they were dead broke fifteen years ago so give them time

[NWCorona]

78. Real power doesn't role like that

Different priorities.

[arcane1]

80. Logical fallacy instead of reasoned response.

Fail.

[Yurovsky]

88. Except she extorted her cash, Trump & Romney more or less "earned it"..

I still think both Trump and Romney are exploitive capitalists, but Hillary essentially used her political power, connections, and presidential aspirations to squeeze corporations, governments, and even colleges for tens of millions of dollars. I'm not comfortable with any of it, but I'm far less comfortable with Hillary's accumulation of exorbitant wealth, not to mention she's supposed to be a DEMOCRAT, not a wholly owned subsidiary of Goldman Sachs.

[Unicorn]

11. I think we all expect the same thing which is the most likely thing - duplicity.

[LibDemAlways]

12. You'd have to be a naive gullible

rube to believe that she did anything other than heap praise on those signing the six figure checks. No one pays that kind of money to be raked over the coals.

A Presidential candidate needs to be fully vetted and that includes scrutiny of past business dealings and sources of income. Bernie's request that she reveal the speech transcripts was nothing compared to the pressure she'll get from Trump and the Repukes. She may come to regret that she didn't release them long ago. By now the dust might have settled. As it is, the longer she stonewalls, the worse she'll look.

[pnwmom]

32. Bernie needs to release his tax returns. One year's worth doesn't cut it. She's released 30. n/t

[Beowulf]

58. Second verse, same as the first

A little bit louder and a little bit worse.

[bahrbearian]

74. and and F-35's , .... Sexisim ... Racist...am I missing any?

[Marr]

119. I expect they'd have been fine with her just reciting the alphabet.

The whole thing was just a pretense for writing very fat checks to a person who would soon hold public office. It's simple bribery, and I'm amazed that anyone can argue otherwise with a straight face.

[moriah]

13. Well, here's one GS speech.

http://www.dailynewsbin.com/opinion/when-hillary-clinton-gave-a-speech-to-goldman-sachs-the-topic-was-female-entrepreneurship/23763/

I think if there is nothing to hide Hillary can go one of two ways -- she could release them now, or wait until Republicans instead of Democrats decide to make it a big issue or there's something that the GOP nominee is hiding. I can see her saying "Here's my paid speeches, Trump. Where's all the businessess you didn't drive into bankruptcy? Ylu can't run a country by flipping it for a profit or filing bankruptcy when you fail."

[grasswire]

18. newsbin

more like rubbish bin.

[pnwmom]

34. It's been on youtube since 2014. Right here.

[Armstead]

38. That's a public speech for the Clinton Global Iniative

Not a private speech to a corporate meeting

[pnwmom]

43. That was a private speech sponsored by Goldman Sachs for their Women's Entrepreneur initiative.

It was one of the speeches that resulted in a large donation to the Clinton Foundation that you and others have been yelling about.

[Armstead]

53. How about this?

I'll agree with you that Sanders should release more of his tax returns if Clinton releases transcripts of he speeches, for the reason given in the editorial.

Not a speech at a public relations event connected with the Clinton Foundation. But the nitty gritty speeches she gave behibnd closed doors.

I'm confident Sanders returns wold be more of the same as the ones that were released. But if it'll make you happy...

[pnwmom]

54. No. The tax returns come first. They are the standard, not speech transcripts. n/t

[Armstead]

55. Well we're at a deadlock then

But since I'm not Bernie and you're not Clinton we'll have to lave it at that

[grasswire]

121. who put you in charge, anyway?

Geez. Get over yourself.

[Bluenorthwest]

56. Her attempts to deflect with that video are simply dishonest, she's claiming that is the

speech the Tribune wants to see. Mendacious in a way that is absolutely toxic to political discourse.

[Segami]

21. DailyNewsBin = David Brock

[moriah]

22. Sorry, thanks. Was posting for the video in it, though.

That's less biased and for some reason my Silk browser (I use a large tablet and touchscreen because of a disability) hates trying to embed or link to Youtube videos on DU Mobile.

I have been warning people that press statements by PrioritiesUSA aren't news until we actually have a nominee (they were Obama's PAC and will be credible in the general, but not now.

Still, mea culpa.

[pnwmom]

33. Then watch it here.

[Armstead]

39. A public speech for the Clinton Global Initiative

Apple and Orange

[pnwmom]

45. Not a public speech. This was a Goldman Sachs event and it wasn't open to the public. And it was

one of the speeches whose fees were listed by the Clinton Foundation as a Goldman Sachs donation that year.

[jeff47]

69. That's why it says Goldman Sachs on the podium.....oh wait... (nt)

[pnwmom]

83. That's why Goldman Sachs shows this speech on its website.

http://www.goldmansachs.com/citizenship/10000women/news-and-events/cgi-proving-the-case-for-women-entrepreneurs.html

THE FUTURE OF GLOBAL ECONOMIC GROWTH: THE CASE FOR WOMEN ENTREPRENEURS

On September 23, 2014, Goldman Sachs 10,000 Women hosted its annual dinner at the Clinton Global Initiative.

The event featured a keynote address from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on the business case for empowering women to ensure future economic growth.

[jeff47]

84. Here, lemme bold the part you keep desperately ignoring.

On September 23, 2014, Goldman Sachs 10,000 Women hosted its annual dinner at the Clinton Global Initiative.

[pnwmom]

85. So what? The Goldman Sachs initiative hosted its own annual dinner, at which HRC spoke.

They held it at CBI because they were sending a big check to CBI.

[snowy owl]

16. Chicago Tribune: Why now? It's almost a done deal. why now?

[ChairmanAgnostic]

26. A good question indeed.

[Broward]

49. Too little too late.

[CharlotteVale]

23. K&R

[pnwmom]

30. Still waiting for Bernie and Donald's tax returns . . . as all candidates have provided

for decades.

And, no, Bernie, a single year's worth isn't adequate.

[Armstead]

37. To repeat.....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511862464#post36

[Vinca]

50. Let's be real. I love Bernie, but barring a miracle he's out of it.

His tax returns are meaningless. Hillary's speeches, however, are not. If we are expected to vote for her we should be allowed to read speeches she's given. If she's ashamed of them, she shouldn't be running for president.

[grasswire]

94. Vinca, think of Bernie the way we think of that mid-century tray.

Elusive, but not impossible!

[Lint Head]

57. My opinion. Paying someone ridiculous money to blab

is obscene in itself. $675,000 could have help a few people steamrolled by the financial collapse of 2008.

[Jitter65]

63. You do realize that Goldman Sachs does contribute many worthy social programs. They as many

other Wall Street financial institutions. For that they can be praised. At the same time they can be called on the carpet for their fraudulent (if true) behavior and their obscene salaries and for failing to pay their fair share of taxes. Nothing in life, love, or politics is always black and white.

[imagine2015]

64. Are they tax write-offs? Are they donations to the Clinton Foundation?

[ljm2002]

65. But wait...

...we have been told, today, on this very forum, that NOBODY CARES what is in those transcripts and that anyone who says they do is a LIAR.

So I guess the Chicago Trib's editorial board is a collective liar, since they appear to be saying they DO CARE what is in the transcripts.

Who to believe, who to believe...

[Segami]

66. The "NOBODY CARES" meme is a David Brock talking point...

being pushed as a pacifying new censor.

ChiTrib's Editorial Board are correct and YES, PEOPLE (except weathervaners) DO CARE WHAT'S IN HER TRANSCRIPTS!

[riderinthestorm]

67. Then so is the Washington Post, New York Times and a slew of others - all dupes!

[kgnu_fan]

70. Hillary is an escape artist, disguise artist, don't fall for her lie. Please, wake up.

[grasswire]

92. true dat.

Consummate con artist.

[Ferd Berfel]

71. No one gets THAT kind of money, talking with These kinds of people

without telling them what they want to hear and making promises along those lines.

...if it walks like a duck.....

[Maven]

75. I don't even get why you capitalize certain words and not others anymore

[demwing]

82. Its a code

if you got the PM from HQ, you should know that.

[dchill]

77. "Clinton could have avoided scrutiny by finding different work."

"Instead, she earned big speaking fees based on her experience as a public servant. If she likes that role and wants to be president, she has an obligation to share what she said. "

[grasswire]

93. yes

Nobody forced her to become a victim.

There's always an exit ramp.

[demwing]

81. The TRUTH must be worse than the SPECULATION

otherwise why allow the speculation to continue?

[Yurovsky]

89. It's hard to tell with the Clintons...

they are secretive even when they really don't need to be, and lie even when they don't have to. It's baked into the cake... dishonesty, secrecy, shady financial dealings, layers of lawyers to keep nosey reporters and prosecutors at arms length.

It really resembles an organized crime outfit. Then again, that might just be what it is...

[displacedtexan]

90. "We're guessing"

Truly heavy sigh.

[Land of Enchantment]

95. Anyone with a lick of common sense knows

the reason she has not and will not release the transcripts is because they are damning. Period.

[mooseprime]

100. don't think it matters what clinton says on any given day.

"whatever it would sound good to say right now" seems to be the metric. actions couldn't be plainer though. what're a few cluster bombs in civilian areas if there's something i want?

[tabasco]

101. She's accepting a good bit of damage to keep them secret, so they must be bad

The transcripts likely reveal that H. Clinton is a two-faced liar. Why else keep them secret?

Maybe she thinks the republicans won't care about it.

[John Poet]

111. Hillary Kissinger Nixon W. Bush Clinton

She's getting a lot of names.

[Skwmom]

115. The blanket statement that this wasn't about buying influence. Really?

They paid money to Clinton and her husband. You don't pay that kind of money for nothing.

That is was what the article was trying to push. What a joke.

This was not about buying influence: Goldman executives are savvy enough to know that paying Hillary Clinton in 2013 will get them no special treatment in 2017, should she become president. Besides, Wall Street firms have plenty of ways to lobby the government.

[Marr]

120. She could've stood there and juggled oranges for five minutes, for all Goldman Sachs cared.

It was a pretense for stuffing money into the pockets of someone who would soon be in public office. She knew that, they knew that. It was simple bribery. Legal, soft bribery, but bribery nonetheless.

[raouldukelives]

123. She said don't worry about the calls for addressing climate change.

Keep on keeping on. I got your back.