2016 Postmortem

MADem

(135,425 posts)

87. Stow the drama--please.

Sun Feb 7, 2016, 04:23 AM

Feb 2016

When that money appears on his line-item, it doesn't say "DSCC money that came from Wall Street" -- it says DSCC and nothing else.

Now, if that's not the classic definition of "laundered" I don't know what is.

He can say "I don't take money from Wall Street" all he wants.

But we know that he jollies up those Wall Street types, and gets them to bundle a hundred grand here, and donate thirty some odd grand there, and gets them to give the money to the DSCC...who then gives a big chunk of it to HIM.

He's not just 'part of the system.' He's an INSIDER.

One more time--I don't 'blame' him for playing the game. I do think he's fronting when he pretends he's not playing it, though. Most of his supporters have the idea that he doesn't "take" Wall Street money...but he DOES. Only it's been laundered, see?

If I give ten bucks to your buddy to give to you, are you going to try to claim that I didn't give you ten bucks? Come on--no one buys that.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

103 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

48 hours later:Has Hillary Released the Goldman Sacs Transcripts Yet? [View all] Joe the Revelator Feb 2016 OP

must be still looking Duckhunter935 Feb 2016 #1

They're being edited, that takes a little time. n/t Avalux Feb 2016 #2

She's "looking into it". johnnyrocket Feb 2016 #3

No. She's not falling into any anti Hillary trap. oasis Feb 2016 #4

Sorry-too late.... catnhatnh Feb 2016 #6

You forgot the second part of #3... Agschmid Feb 2016 #7

No catnhatnh Feb 2016 #13

Nah... I think I nailed it the first time. Agschmid Feb 2016 #14

Just to be clear, you're good with no transparency? Joe the Revelator Feb 2016 #12

So you want Senator Sanders to release details of his retreat conversations with Goldman Sachs, JP MADem Feb 2016 #18

You do see a difference between.... Joe the Revelator Feb 2016 #22

One person is badgered to report what she said for money as a private citizen, while the public MADem Feb 2016 #37

So, you agree that Hillary should release her transcripts? Joe the Revelator Feb 2016 #39

You might want to check the link at post 68.... MADem Feb 2016 #73

I'm good with Hillary avoiding any manufactured bullshit. oasis Feb 2016 #90

If she has nothing to hide Lorien Feb 2016 #31

How can she "produce" them .... if none were made? MADem Feb 2016 #38

Did you know that Chuck Todd stated they have knowledge there are transcripts? JRLeft Feb 2016 #45

Mmmm. Chuck TAWD--I don't put much stock in what he has to say but sure, whatever. MADem Feb 2016 #49

Even Rachel acknowledged just that. JRLeft Feb 2016 #56

You sure about that? Or are you "interpreting" what you thought she said. MADem Feb 2016 #70

If you don't put much stock in Chuck how about the Intercept? aesop55 Feb 2016 #102

Do you really believe that speech was extemporaneous, that she didn't even have crib notes? hobbit709 Feb 2016 #93

Have you ever seen her at a town hall? Apparently not. MADem Feb 2016 #100

"You have nothing to fear ... NanceGreggs Feb 2016 #76

There has been one released, guess you missed it. Thinkingabout Feb 2016 #5

That was a Clinton Foundation speech - not one that paid her directly $250K RiverLover Feb 2016 #8

Must have been worth it, she gave more than one, I doubt they Thinkingabout Feb 2016 #15

I'm sure it will be worth it if she's elected. frylock Feb 2016 #29

that was a public speech........it was not her private speech to Goldman Sachs virtualobserver Feb 2016 #9

Then maybe we could get Sanders fund raisers with Goldman Sachs. Thinkingabout Feb 2016 #10

why do you think that Goldman Sachs just handing cash to Hillary for her personal use..... virtualobserver Feb 2016 #19

Maybe I want to know what he said in a fund raiser verses what Thinkingabout Feb 2016 #23

Bernie was fundraising for the DSCC, not for himself. virtualobserver Feb 2016 #32

Crickets....... libdem4life Feb 2016 #36

She has also donated to charities, so glad to know Sanders has donated money to charities, Thinkingabout Feb 2016 #43

bernie never cashes in, and hillary cashes in like no one I've ever seen virtualobserver Feb 2016 #44

Establishment, going to Goldman Sachs to get funds, isn't this what Sanders said made establishment? Thinkingabout Feb 2016 #46

you have no idea who Bernie talked to at these fundraisers virtualobserver Feb 2016 #48

Yes, we do. He gave "speeches" at those fundraisers. MADem Feb 2016 #52

"one of the Big Money Donors said he didn't say anything that was disturbing to the banking set." virtualobserver Feb 2016 #59

His "crime" (that's your embarrassing word, not mine) was telling his supporters that he doesn't MADem Feb 2016 #63

DSCC donations are from many sources,did they specifically direct the dirty wall st money to Bernie? virtualobserver Feb 2016 #66

Gee, sixty grand of that Wall Street money went to one of his Senate campaigns.... MADem Feb 2016 #50

please stop embarrassing yourself virtualobserver Feb 2016 #60

Why don't you take your own advice, there, sport? How many times are you going to repeat MADem Feb 2016 #65

so the Democratic donors are exclusively wall streeters? virtualobserver Feb 2016 #67

No, of course not. They are Big Pharma moguls, like Dena Minning, and MIC types from MADem Feb 2016 #69

so you are saying that the Democratic Party is funded exclusively by Big Business. virtualobserver Feb 2016 #72

Are you going to continue with the "So you are blah blah" line of questioning? MADem Feb 2016 #74

it is what you are saying....I am trying to force you to accept the implications of your assertion virtualobserver Feb 2016 #77

No, I'm not. I am creating a very real comparison between someone who gives a speech MADem Feb 2016 #81

"wall st money" "laundered by the DSCC" that is the smear and not even an artful one virtualobserver Feb 2016 #85

Stow the drama--please. MADem Feb 2016 #87

Actually, nobody buys any of this, unless they have an H with an arrow burned into their brain cells virtualobserver Feb 2016 #95

You keep calling me a liar. That's incredibly uncivil conduct. MADem Feb 2016 #98

I have no idea if you believe what you are saying or not. virtualobserver Feb 2016 #99

IOKIYABS, apparently. He doesn't have to reveal what HE said, while collecting a government MADem Feb 2016 #21

Probably is not the same line he is peddling now, huh. Thinkingabout Feb 2016 #24

I've seen pics of him w/Dena Minning. MADem Feb 2016 #55

Interesting the times he is in the company of lobbyists and Thinkingabout Feb 2016 #91

Too bad that is not one of the three Duckhunter935 Feb 2016 #35

Lame try. 840high Feb 2016 #61

I expect to see the transcripts Aerows Feb 2016 #11

Hey ma! Look! OilemFirchen Feb 2016 #16

I'll bet there aren't any, unless the people who issued the invitation either recorded the speech or MADem Feb 2016 #17

If we are going to be fair, its important to know how a person running for president line their.... Joe the Revelator Feb 2016 #20

No, at the time Sanders was doing this he was an elected official, Thinkingabout Feb 2016 #26

Wow, that's a twister!! MADem Feb 2016 #28

I have no idea what your overly long acronym says.... Joe the Revelator Feb 2016 #30

Sure you do. MADem Feb 2016 #33

Lets cut to the chase, do you think both Bernie and Hillary should release whatever transcripts are Joe the Revelator Feb 2016 #34

Simple answer--I don't think there ARE any "transcripts" -- as I told you upthread. MADem Feb 2016 #42

Another gotcha moment for the Non compos mentis HRC supporters!! Iggy Knorr Feb 2016 #41

Just FYI chervilant Feb 2016 #79

But we already know. She gave speeches, for which she was paid. Like Jimmy Carter gets paid. MADem Feb 2016 #62

It was in her contract that there be transcripts and that she would alone take possession of them Dragonfli Feb 2016 #54

So what? Because Chuck Tawd says this, it "must be true?" nt MADem Feb 2016 #57

Her contract said it also, and more the transcript fee of $1,250 must be paid by the event /nt Dragonfli Feb 2016 #58

I think you're going to have to cough up the specific contract before I believe you or the shoddy MADem Feb 2016 #68

No problem it is a boierplate one that she uses with specific conditions to be met Dragonfli Feb 2016 #71

Unnnnh, no, that's not "proof." There's no evidence that she uses the same contract at every venue MADem Feb 2016 #78

What is she looking into if nothing exists and can you prove the producers of the debate Dragonfli Feb 2016 #82

"You always cut your own throat with Occam's razor on these fabrications of yours" MADem Feb 2016 #84

You think he would lie about that during a televised debate where he could easily be caught Dragonfli Feb 2016 #75

I don't care what's in the 'transcripts' she now may provide. I just count the money paid to her. ViseGrip Feb 2016 #25

tick-tock frylock Feb 2016 #27

Looking is hard. Maybe too hard. She probably 'Can't Do' it. nt Live and Learn Feb 2016 #40

No, there is even a clock website to see how long it takes to look into it Dragonfli Feb 2016 #47

Oh my - love it! 840high Feb 2016 #64

That is Hillarious! jillan Feb 2016 #86

Bookmarked. LOL. hobbit709 Feb 2016 #94

Nope. Not yet. Still waiting. Fearless Feb 2016 #51

Probably on the dining room side table, next to the Rose Law Firm billing records. Nt HooptieWagon Feb 2016 #53

Yes, the whole world is waiting. NanceGreggs Feb 2016 #80

And I am waiting, as are others, of how the Hillary campaign got our information (names, emails) jillan Feb 2016 #88

Why is it ... NanceGreggs Feb 2016 #89

Lol, you get sillier by the week. Nt Logical Feb 2016 #101

And so it goes here at BU ... NanceGreggs Feb 2016 #103

Nope. n/t warrprayer Feb 2016 #83

They will be srubbed if they appear. 2pooped2pop Feb 2016 #92

Let me check if UglyGreed Feb 2016 #96

I think, if they ever see the light of day, they'll be boring as hell. Buns_of_Fire Feb 2016 #97