Democratic Primaries
In reply to the discussion: A few words from Michael Moore [View all]FoxNewsSucks
(10,429 posts)here's what stands out. It was leaked. Why did it have to be leaked? NBC calls it "emails that purport to show transcripts of the remarks Clinton delivered to audiences of Goldman Sachs employees in 2013". The very next paragraph starts by stating that it was unverified. The source was Wikileaks.
I'm not interested in CT about the speech, or in participating in calling her "crooked Hillary". Clearly she would be far far better than MF45, and in fact, she won and republicons stole it.
Here's why it mattered to me. Early in the primaries, it was expected to come down to Clinton and Bush. Wall Street stated that they were the favored candidates. https://www.newsweek.com/bush-and-clinton-are-wall-streets-favorite-candidates-384479
In 2014, Banksters also declared that they didn't care whether Bush or Clinton won. https://theweek.com/speedreads/454351/wall-street-love-hillary-clinton-vs-jeb-bush-2016 From that short article: "If it turns out to be Jeb versus Hillary we would love that and either outcome would be fine," a "top Republican-leaning Wall Street lawyer" told Politico.
I don't see Jamie Dimon as being the kind of person who would pay out all that money if he expected nothing in return. FFS, he doesn't even pay his employees decently! So, yeah. I think we're entitled to find out what any politician tells Wall Street in exchange for 6 and 7 figure payouts. And when Wall Street lawyers are saying they don't care between two candidates, that tells me that I'd better watch my back because my well-being and Wall Street's conflict, they don't coincide.
Finally, if for nothing else, it's bad optics. Being secretive obviously will lead to speculation. Just look at all the speculation we have about MF45's taxes.
primary today, I would vote for: Undecided