2016 Postmortem

Playinghardball

(11,665 posts) Mon May 23, 2016, 10:23 AM May 2016

The FULL List of 92 Paychecks Hillary Collected From Wall Street

05/10/2016

By Robert Gehl

The media’s going nuts that Hillary Clinton took three big paychecks for three speeches at Goldman Sachs. At $225,000 a pops that’s pretty good scratch – but it’s just the tip of the iceberg.

She’s been very, very busy, raking in millions in a three-year stretch since she left her post as the Secretary of State. Her defense? It varies from “It’s what they offered me” to the hilarious, “I happen to think we need more conversations about what’s going on in the world.”

Pricey “conversations” indeed.

Here’s a list of the 92 “conversations” that Clinton has had in just the past three years. The total: $21.7 million.

She’s been very, very busy. What did Hillary promise in all these speeches? What was her advice to Deutche Bank, Cisco and the Council of Insurance Agents? What did she tell eBay? Or the “American Camping Association” and why on earth would the American Camping Association pay $260,000 to hear from Hillary?

Has she ever been camping? We may never know because she refuses to tell us.

http://www.newpatriotsblog.com/news/the-full-list-of-92-paychecks-hillary-collected-from-wall-street/

104 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The FULL List of 92 Paychecks Hillary Collected From Wall Street (Original Post) Playinghardball May 2016 OP

New Patriots Blog, eh? Dr Hobbitstein May 2016 #1

Hey, whatever works. FACT, Fox News, the Blaze, National Review... TwilightZone May 2016 #10

It's disgusting. Dr Hobbitstein May 2016 #13

Critical thinking has been suspended for the duration of the campaign. TwilightZone May 2016 #14

see this post for a list complied by someone else... tk2kewl May 2016 #18

Same problem. The American Camping Association and numerous others on that list aren't WS. TwilightZone May 2016 #20

b/c *some* aren't Wall Street? tk2kewl May 2016 #24

Neither is this. polly7 May 2016 #28

Are you saying the list is not legitimate? MrMickeysMom May 2016 #37

The source is not legitimate. Dr Hobbitstein May 2016 #40

Then, see post #38 MrMickeysMom May 2016 #41

That is absolute nonsense... MrMickeysMom May 2016 #70

I don't have any money. Dr Hobbitstein May 2016 #92

The issue has been beaten to death. If the OP has to use a right-wing source that's patently false TwilightZone May 2016 #62

"The issue has been beaten to death".... MrMickeysMom May 2016 #69

While agree with you about sources tazkcmo May 2016 #80

I long for the old days when Blue_Tires May 2016 #60

"The media is going nuts" LOL- from RW nut jobs, that is hilarious. "She has been busy"...nope bettyellen May 2016 #86

Here is another list with a different citation for you. tk2kewl May 2016 #17

The point is to use an appropriate source to begin with. Dr Hobbitstein May 2016 #29

are the facts in dispute? tk2kewl May 2016 #36

Yes, they are in dispute. Dr Hobbitstein May 2016 #39

not my headline tk2kewl May 2016 #42

You're right. It's not your headline. Dr Hobbitstein May 2016 #47

i defend the posting of the list tk2kewl May 2016 #49

If it were posted from a legitimate source, Dr Hobbitstein May 2016 #50

ok tk2kewl May 2016 #51

The fact is that she was paid over 21 million over that period of time. ladjf May 2016 #66

Actually, the Clinton Foundation was paid... Dr Hobbitstein May 2016 #68

Is this list more legitimate? MrMickeysMom May 2016 #38

eBay, GAP, American Camping Association, CISCO, Dr Hobbitstein May 2016 #44

Here's some objectivity for ya... MrMickeysMom May 2016 #46

Thank you for posting a legitimate source. Dr Hobbitstein May 2016 #48

Hey... MrMickeysMom May 2016 #90

It seems to be an accurate quote. Dr Hobbitstein May 2016 #91

Yeah, you revealed your credibility pretty well... MrMickeysMom May 2016 #94

They quoted him accurately. Dr Hobbitstein May 2016 #98

That article doesn't assert that all of the speeches were for Wall Street. TwilightZone May 2016 #65

"The article doesn't assert that ALL the speeches were for Wall Street"... MrMickeysMom May 2016 #72

If information is true - 840high May 2016 #77

I prefer not to read articles from racist RW blogs. Dr Hobbitstein May 2016 #93

Maybe she was telling the camping association... Silver_Witch May 2016 #2

........... polly7 May 2016 #26

Yep... NewImproved Deal May 2016 #3

News item: Hillary is paid $675,000 Art_from_Ark May 2016 #84

Holy shit. pinebox May 2016 #4

eBay and The Gap are Wall Street? kstewart33 May 2016 #5

SweatshopsRus reddread May 2016 #7

Of course seekthetruth May 2016 #6

This message was self-deleted by its author artislife May 2016 #16

6/26/14 - GTCR Scuba May 2016 #8

lol, the American Camping Association is Wall Street? TwilightZone May 2016 #9

Are the locations and amounts true? hobbit709 May 2016 #11

The OP is demonstrably false and based on a right-wing hack website. TwilightZone May 2016 #12

You can look up her filings and see the same numbers. hobbit709 May 2016 #15

That doesn't make the OP and its linked chart any less false. TwilightZone May 2016 #21

Are the amounts true-that is the ONLY question. Your major obtuseness not withstanding. hobbit709 May 2016 #22

No, it isn't the only question. randome May 2016 #27

Where does this source distinguish between donations made to the Foundation pnwmom May 2016 #78

HRC's Final Paid Speech - $260K from the ACA? polly7 May 2016 #25

Check out some of her comments from the American Camp Assoc speech: 2cannan May 2016 #30

Edited for my rude misunderstanding. polly7 May 2016 #31

I agree, polly7, I think it's disgusting how much $ she and Bill have made and agree that it smacks 2cannan May 2016 #33

Oh, I'm so sorry. polly7 May 2016 #35

No worries--I always enjoy reading your posts! nt 2cannan May 2016 #53

Unfathonable that so many would think payments of nearly $22 million PufPuf23 May 2016 #19

Is it not unfathomable to think someone is guilty of something they have not done? LonePirate May 2016 #54

No other politians in the history of the USA have enriched themselves to the degree of the Clintons PufPuf23 May 2016 #63

+100 Well said. senz May 2016 #83

Are people really this naive? reformist2 May 2016 #74

Are only poor, uncoonected people entitled to the presumption of innocence? LonePirate May 2016 #75

Do they expect a return on their investments? They're capitalists. Cui bono? Tierra_y_Libertad May 2016 #23

They got what they paid for. ContinentalOp May 2016 #64

Find a better source. Racist libertarian sites like this don't deserve traffic from DU emulatorloo May 2016 #32

This LOOKS, to those who haven't been exposed to popular napi21 May 2016 #34

okay and I agree with you ... then ... why not release the transcripts? what is the harm? Hiraeth May 2016 #67

I think it's become a matter of fairness to her now. napi21 May 2016 #73

If so, then it really is a racket. senz May 2016 #88

I think you're being a bit judgmental on this. napi21 May 2016 #100

Shes running for president. She should be open & transparent senz May 2016 #104

Here is the list but now on CNN. insta8er May 2016 #43

Thank you for posting a legitimate source. nt Dr Hobbitstein May 2016 #45

We know about her Wall Street earnings because she has released her taxes for over two decades. Metric System May 2016 #52

She won't tell the American People what exactly... Herman4747 May 2016 #102

Keystone Pipeline gave her more than $900,000... Herman4747 May 2016 #103

Versus a guy that virtually lives on Wall Street? scscholar May 2016 #55

Why did the American Camping Assoc pay 260K for an HRC speech? EndElectoral May 2016 #56

........... polly7 May 2016 #57

If that's her market rate for speeches, Blue_Tires May 2016 #58

And don't forget the speeches Bill made while she was SOS trudyco May 2016 #59

She was underpaid uponit7771 May 2016 #61

Uh yeh she's such a fabulous speaker senz May 2016 #85

She is, she might not say it with the oratory passion of JFK or Obama but its substance uponit7771 May 2016 #96

Clintons want to buy this election felix_numinous May 2016 #71

Funds going to their charitable foundations do not personally benefit them and pnwmom May 2016 #76

Chelsea gets paid from the Foundation. 840high May 2016 #79

False. Not only does she take NO salary, she donates all her speaking fees to the Foundation. pnwmom May 2016 #82

Thanks. 840high May 2016 #95

Another lie. bettyellen May 2016 #87

I can visualise the add in my head. Background of changing check images with overlayed text. yourout May 2016 #81

I feel ripped off. She's never said anything that good to ordinary citizens. senz May 2016 #89

I'm sure it's nothing. Enthusiast May 2016 #97

Wow, she is a class act. Nt Logical May 2016 #99

I dunno about camping... Orsino May 2016 #101

Dr Hobbitstein

(6,568 posts)

(18,133 posts)

24. b/c *some* aren't Wall Street?

Reply to TwilightZone (Reply #20)

Mon May 23, 2016, 11:25 AM

May 2016

They are nearly all finance, oil, or other yuuge corporate interests.

You're right, it isn't difficult.

polly7

(20,582 posts)

28. Neither is this.

Reply to TwilightZone (Reply #20)

Mon May 23, 2016, 11:34 AM

May 2016

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2034369

MrMickeysMom

(20,453 posts)

37. Are you saying the list is not legitimate?

Reply to Dr Hobbitstein (Reply #13)

Mon May 23, 2016, 12:04 PM

May 2016

You write like it is, and if that is so, where is your source?

Dr Hobbitstein

(6,568 posts)

40. The source is not legitimate.

Reply to MrMickeysMom (Reply #37)

Mon May 23, 2016, 12:09 PM

May 2016

The list very well might be, but why post links to a RW racist website on DU? If the list is legitimate, there will be legitimate sources to link to. Use them. Why are DUers going to RW racist websites to find articles on HRC when they can go to legitimate websites for that info?

(20,453 posts)

69. "The issue has been beaten to death"....

Reply to TwilightZone (Reply #62)

Mon May 23, 2016, 06:36 PM

May 2016

... is about the lamest excuse for ignoring the issue that has NOT EVER been addressed.

What the matter? Can you not read who is ON that list? It includes MILLIONS of $$$$ without any acknowledgement of why a candidate gets PAID THAT MUCH.

You have to be pretty dense to think that this unresolved issue means nothing. IT MEANS EVERYTHING. And, not paying it any mind with the excuse that it's "been beaten to death" puts you in the position right along with anyone else who wishes for a WALLET EXTRACTION.

Admit it... The people who control where money is lent, how it's laundered, and who is bought off is just FINE with you.

tazkcmo

(7,300 posts)

(6,568 posts)

50. If it were posted from a legitimate source,

Reply to tk2kewl (Reply #49)

Mon May 23, 2016, 12:24 PM

May 2016

I would be OK with it. Two posters in this thread have posted the list from a legitimate source, and I thanked them for that. My issue is the headline and the source only, not the list itself.

tk2kewl

(18,133 posts)

51. ok

Reply to Dr Hobbitstein (Reply #50)

Mon May 23, 2016, 12:25 PM

May 2016

ladjf

(17,320 posts)

66. The fact is that she was paid over 21 million over that period of time.

Reply to Dr Hobbitstein (Reply #47)

Mon May 23, 2016, 01:52 PM

May 2016

That is public knowledge.

Dr Hobbitstein

(6,568 posts)

68. Actually, the Clinton Foundation was paid...

Reply to ladjf (Reply #66)

Mon May 23, 2016, 02:52 PM

May 2016

Regardless, I'm OK with the money for speeches. I'm ok with compiling a list of said speeches and how much is paid for them. I'm not ok with misrepresentations of said list (ie, Wall Street) or linking to RW racist blogs to show said list (especially when it is readily available at CNN in a unbiased, objective manner.

Sources matter.

MrMickeysMom

(20,453 posts)

38. Is this list more legitimate?

Reply to Dr Hobbitstein (Reply #29)

Mon May 23, 2016, 12:05 PM

May 2016

You just changed your reason for refusing to acknowledge another source.

What does this have "fuck all" to do with Wall Street? Do you have a source behind that claim?

Dr Hobbitstein

(6,568 posts)

44. eBay, GAP, American Camping Association, CISCO,

Reply to MrMickeysMom (Reply #38)

Mon May 23, 2016, 12:12 PM

May 2016

American Jewish University, A&E Television, et al are NOT Wall Street (ie, "have fuck all to do with Wall Street&quot .

Do you not understand bias and objectivity? Sources matter.

MrMickeysMom

(20,453 posts)

46. Here's some objectivity for ya...

Reply to Dr Hobbitstein (Reply #44)

Mon May 23, 2016, 12:15 PM

May 2016

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/05/politics/hillary-clinton-bill-clinton-paid-speeches/

Read it and tell me about sources mattering again...

Dr Hobbitstein

(6,568 posts)

48. Thank you for posting a legitimate source.

Reply to MrMickeysMom (Reply #46)

Mon May 23, 2016, 12:15 PM

May 2016

Sources matter.

MrMickeysMom

(20,453 posts)

90. Hey...

Reply to Dr Hobbitstein (Reply #48)

Mon May 23, 2016, 08:51 PM

May 2016

What do you think of THIS source for this tripe (LBN link)?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1461156

Dr Hobbitstein

(6,568 posts)

91. It seems to be an accurate quote.

Reply to MrMickeysMom (Reply #90)

Mon May 23, 2016, 09:10 PM

May 2016

Do you dispute it? You can disagree with what he said, but it is what he said. I'd have to look at the numbers to know whether or not he is correct. But the article is correct.

MrMickeysMom

(20,453 posts)

(534 posts)

3. Yep...

Reply to Playinghardball (Original post)

Mon May 23, 2016, 10:27 AM

May 2016

[link:|

Art_from_Ark

(27,247 posts)

84. News item: Hillary is paid $675,000

Reply to NewImproved Deal (Reply #3)

Mon May 23, 2016, 08:38 PM

May 2016

for THREE speeches to Goldman-Sachs.

http://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/02/04/nh-democratic-town-hall-hillary-clinton-goldman-sachs-15.cnn

(504 posts)

6. Of course

Reply to Playinghardball (Original post)

Mon May 23, 2016, 10:37 AM

May 2016

Hillbots will deny reality.

Do we want a president who's willing to take this sort of money in the first place just for standing up at a podium?

Response to seekthetruth (Reply #6)

artislife This message was self-deleted by its author.

Scuba

(53,475 posts)

8. 6/26/14 - GTCR

Reply to Playinghardball (Original post)

Mon May 23, 2016, 10:47 AM

May 2016

http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/Felsenthal-Files/February-2016/Hillary-Clinton-speech-GTCR/

Hillary Clinton Got $280,000 for One Speech to Bruce Rauner’s Former Firm

On June 28, 2014, Hillary Clinton, gone more than a year from her job as Obama’s secretary of state and obviously preparing to move back to the White House, traveled to her hometown of Chicago to deliver a speech to GTCR. That’s GTCR, the private equity firm that Bruce Rauner once headed—the “R” stands for Rauner—and that earned him the millions he would use in his successful run for governor.

For that one speech, Hillary was paid $280,000—almost six times the median income for American households.

...

Rauner had left GTCR in 2012. I was curious whether he had attended the speech, but email to Rauner’s press secretary was not answered, nor were calls and email seeking further details from GTCR and from Don Walker, president of Hillary’s lecture agency.

If only we knew what she said to those GTCR executives and their clients and investors.

TwilightZone

(25,472 posts)

9. lol, the American Camping Association is Wall Street?

Reply to Playinghardball (Original post)

Mon May 23, 2016, 10:50 AM

May 2016

You should have read the list before you posted it. It's a joke. A significant fraction of them have nothing to do with Wall Street.

Your source is also a joke. I guess libertarian jackasses are in vogue for the Bernie camp.

They link to Hannity, no less.

hobbit709

(41,694 posts)

pnwmom

(108,980 posts)

78. Where does this source distinguish between donations made to the Foundation

Reply to hobbit709 (Reply #11)

Mon May 23, 2016, 07:39 PM

May 2016

and payments made personally to the Clintons?

The fact that it doesn't shows that this source can't be relied on.

polly7

(20,582 posts)

25. HRC's Final Paid Speech - $260K from the ACA?

Reply to TwilightZone (Reply #9)

Mon May 23, 2016, 11:29 AM

May 2016

Major Problems with the J-1 Labor Pipeline

In 2014, The Southern Policy Law Center (SPLC) presented a report titled Culture Shock: The Exploitation of J-1 Cultural Exchange Workers,[7] which argued

“The undeniable conclusion is that these J-1 programs, an initiative once envisioned as a tool of diplomacy, has become little more than a source of cheap labor for employers.”

Bernie Sanders, during debate on the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill S.744 , called the program “a scam.”

“It is not a cultural-exchange program,” he said. “It is displacing young American workers at a time of double-digit unemployment among young people, and it is putting downward pressure on wages at a time when the American people are working longer hours for lower wages.” [8]

In response, the ACA lobbied to keep the program alive. Quoting from its 2014 annual report, it argued that the ”ACA successfully mobilized the community to advocate for the continuation of the government program that allows for international visitors to serve as camp staff, thereby providing amazing cultural exchange programs for American kids and foreign nationals. This program was at risk during the Congressional debates regarding immigration reform.[9]”

Daniel Costa, Director of Immigration Law and Policy Research at the Economic Policy Institute, summed up the disastrous state of the program exactly one year to the day before former secretary of state Clinton delivered her American Camp Association speech.[10]

“It’s now clear to almost everyone that the Summer Work Travel Program is in dire straits - and it’s a black eye on our immigration system. And because the noble goal of facilitating cultural exchanges will NOT be negatively affected if the program is shrunk dramatically or even eliminated, it’s time for President Obama and Congress to direct the State Department to suspend and fix the SWT program immediately. If State fails to act, Congress should eliminate SWT altogether.

Returning then to my original question: Why does a non-profit spend 10 per cent of its annual budget, ten times what it would normally pay for a keynote speaker,[12] increase its annual total expense line item for “speaker presentations” from $102,784 to $350,619 for a high-profile politician and present her to an audience probably split in its political loyalties?

The answer is obvious. It was a strategic calculation on the association’s part to secure future consideration for the J-1 visa programs the industry relies on. As a near-term-future president the former Secretary of State would have tremendous discretion in rule-making given both her familiarity with the subject and the likelihood that immigration reform in a partisan Washington may be achievable only through piecemeal executive action.

There can be no doubt that Hillary Clinton was and is aware of the industry’s focused immigration interests. Of course you can make the default argument that this is just the way things are done in American politics and that there is no proof that any quid pro quo will ever take place, but it appears even more cynical to accept $260,000 from this organization in the context of these immigration and economic issues than the bottomless pockets of Goldman Sachs.

Full article: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/2/24/1489983/-HRC-s-Final-Paid-Speech-260K-from-the-ACA

2cannan

(344 posts)

30. Check out some of her comments from the American Camp Assoc speech:

Reply to polly7 (Reply #25)

Mon May 23, 2016, 11:45 AM

May 2016

Hillary Clinton gives likely last paid speech before a 2016 presidential run
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-gives-likely-last-paid-speech-before-a-2016-presidential-run/2015/03/19/0b0e53ac-ce46-11e4-a2a7-9517a3a70506_story.html

snip

Clinton wistfully recalled her late mother and raising her daughter, Chelsea, and cast herself as an approachable person who understood the lives of the counselors in the crowd. She also talked up her love of nature — “I love the outdoors” — and her own middle-class upbringing, where she said her mother, Dorothy Rodham, would encourage her to defend herself in schoolyard fights.

“No room for cowards in this house,” Clinton said of her mother’s message to her.

Clinton also playfully referred to the political storm that has engulfed her outside the cavernous ballroom at the Atlantic City Convention Center, as she responds to criticism of her use of a private e-mail server while secretary of state.

Referring to Chelsea’s time at camp decades ago as “the worst week,” Clinton paused and added, “Well, I have had a few bad weeks” to chuckles from the audience.

polly7

(20,582 posts)

31. Edited for my rude misunderstanding.

Reply to 2cannan (Reply #30)

Mon May 23, 2016, 11:50 AM

May 2016

It's not what was said in the speech - she could have been giving lessons on how to make a peanut butter sandwich - it's the unprecedented amount she was paid for whatever the hell she felt like talking about in return for continuing a program that harms the employment chances of American kids and continuing a program many do not want.

I don't think she spoke on her expertise in pipeline safety and how to run a pig down the line when she gave speeches up here to the Big Banks pushing the Keystone XL.

2cannan

(344 posts)

33. I agree, polly7, I think it's disgusting how much $ she and Bill have made and agree that it smacks

Reply to polly7 (Reply #31)

Mon May 23, 2016, 11:57 AM

May 2016

of selling influence. I was posting some of the comments from the speech which included her "playfully" referring to the political storm surrounding her about her use of a private email server while at the State Dept. and how the audience chuckled when she said she'd had a few bad weeks...

That's all the email scandal is to her--a big joke and inconvenience, a minor detour on the path to her coronation!

polly7

(20,582 posts)

35. Oh, I'm so sorry.

Reply to 2cannan (Reply #33)

Mon May 23, 2016, 12:02 PM

May 2016

Sometimes I don't fully read and completely miss the point. D'OH! I agree, and don't think she takes the results of her actions seriously - for anything - at all. "We came, we saw, he died ... lol". I used to live with someone who thought like that for a long time - trying to understand nearly drover me crazy. Just the complete self-assurance that anything and everything he did was no big deal - no matter how much it hurt others.

Sorry again, 2Cannan.

2cannan

(344 posts)

53. No worries--I always enjoy reading your posts! nt

Reply to polly7 (Reply #35)

Mon May 23, 2016, 12:38 PM

May 2016

PufPuf23

(8,791 posts)

19. Unfathonable that so many would think payments of nearly $22 million

Reply to Playinghardball (Original post)

Mon May 23, 2016, 11:14 AM

May 2016

would not effect how Hillary Clinton would subsequently act if again in public office.

Also how can an honest person compare the finances of Sanders with the Clintons?

LonePirate

(13,426 posts)

54. Is it not unfathomable to think someone is guilty of something they have not done?

Reply to PufPuf23 (Reply #19)

Mon May 23, 2016, 12:53 PM

May 2016

You're acting as if that influence or corruption has already happened, which it hasn't. Isn't this little more than unsubstantiated profiling? As Democrats/liberals/progressives, aren't we above profiling or the typical guilty until proven innocent approach to justice?

PufPuf23

(8,791 posts)

emulatorloo

(44,133 posts)

32. Find a better source. Racist libertarian sites like this don't deserve traffic from DU

Reply to Playinghardball (Original post)

Mon May 23, 2016, 11:55 AM

May 2016

Probably would take you a couple seconds with the Google.

napi21

(45,806 posts)

34. This LOOKS, to those who haven't been exposed to popular

Reply to Playinghardball (Original post)

Mon May 23, 2016, 11:58 AM

May 2016

speaking fees, to be TERRIBLE! It's really quite normal. You may be surprised to hear that her fees are pretty normal. I admit they are on the higher end of the list, but not at the top.

Businesses, organizations, etc. try very hard to get record attendance at their meetings, conferences, seminars...., and having a popular guest speaker is the best way to do that.

Remember, you're talking about businesses that make billions of $$ in profit every year, and a couple hundred thou is nearly petty cash to them.

Speakers are chosen based on interests, background (international & domestic), views of the future (like a Bill Gates), all different reasons.

They don't give speeches saying things like "If I were President, I'd do it this way." It's mostly entertainment for the group and that's all.

I'd LOVE a President Sanders, voted for him in my primary, and HOPE he can pull a rabbit our of the hat in Calif, but if he doesn't, I'll vote for Hillary. I would like a president as similar to Roosevelt as possible, and that's Bernie, but to not vote for Hillary if she is our candidate because of speeches is foolish.

My guess is if any of us were popular enough to get paid for their speeches, we'd do it in a heartbeat. I know I would

(1,258 posts)

59. And don't forget the speeches Bill made while she was SOS

Reply to Playinghardball (Original post)

Mon May 23, 2016, 01:08 PM

May 2016

His speech fees went way up and some of the hosts received very nice financial gain from the SOS after.

So the Clinton duo have a reputation for pay-for-play. Yes, this would make me think she is not going to rock her financial boat. When she makes "tough choices" it isn't gonna hurt wallstreet/corporatists.

uponit7771

(90,347 posts)

61. She was underpaid

Reply to Playinghardball (Original post)

Mon May 23, 2016, 01:10 PM

May 2016

senz

(11,945 posts)

85. Uh yeh she's such a fabulous speaker

Reply to uponit7771 (Reply #61)

Mon May 23, 2016, 08:38 PM

May 2016

just listen to her campaign speeches, whoo-ee

uponit7771

(90,347 posts)

96. She is, she might not say it with the oratory passion of JFK or Obama but its substance

Reply to senz (Reply #85)

Tue May 24, 2016, 08:42 AM

May 2016

felix_numinous

(5,198 posts)

71. Clintons want to buy this election

Reply to Playinghardball (Original post)

Mon May 23, 2016, 06:42 PM

May 2016

unless they release these transcripts and prove this conclusion wrong.

Otherwise the secrecy surrounding this money from special interest groups appears to be an obvious conflict of interest when it comes to representing the people rather than the wellbeing of these donors.

Her refusal to release these transcripts is an affront to democracy and to American voters who are having doubts as to where her loyalties lie.