Discussion for article #246515
Stonewalling does not seem like a wise strategy when even the NYT editorial board says you should release them.
9 Likes
Oh, for goodness’ sake.
This - this right here - is why I want to bang my head against the desk, repeatedly.
Secretary Clinton has just opened a huge can of worms, for no good reason whatsoever.
Mind you, this is coming from a strong Democratic supporter, but polling numbers already show her with a trust deficit. Why in God’s name would she do anything to cement that narrative???
Release the damn transcripts, for Heaven’s sake.
10 Likes
Whats said behind closed doors is often much different than what is said in the public arena. Just ask Mitt Romney how that worked out, Mrs. Clinton. This is why so many have a hard time trusting you. Sorry, but I’m pretty sure most people who receive millions of dollars from one particular place will be extra-light on policing that place.
But, that won’t stop your fans here from telling us all how this is a non-issue.
8 Likes
Sounds like Donald “the draft dodging coward” Trump on his tax returns.
In other words, there is undoubtedly an African American in the wood pile.
As a Democrat, I hope I’m wrong, but given the Clinton family tendency to prostitute themselves for money, this stupid response scares the hell out of me.
4 Likes
This is all very interesting, but what’s with Joe’s feet?
Roll out of bed late did we, Mr. Scarborough? Where are your socks? Did you free a couple of House Elves this morning?
5 Likes
I like Joe’s no sock thing. He looks 10 years younger.
This is nothing but bullshit, shoveled by people with an agenda.
I’ve asked many times, and never had a response: In your deepest, darkest fever dreams - just what smoking gun do you imagine to be there?
And is there any evidence, whatsoever, that there is any there there?
Just more fodder for the Clinton manufactured controversy fishing expedition.
15 Likes
Then, why not be transparent? Or at least offer up a coherent reason not to?
11 Likes
Well, there was her “cut it out” statement that turns out not to accurately represent what she told them. And her “public record” can’t be used to prove she’ll break up banks if necessary. The big thing we have from her record is her vote for bankruptcy reform – after vigorously opposing it as First Lady.
You are free to not care about this issue. But to claim there is no reason for those who do to what to know what she said to bankers when the public wasn’t listening? Oh, and she’s the only candidate who made such private speeches – her condition of “everyone should release the transcripts” is already satisfied.
5 Likes
Yep. Partly by those who have shamefully taken GOP talking points and media memes as “fact”.
8 Likes
Because no one has her best interests at heart more than the NYT.
Seriously, either one of two things is happening here. The first is that she’s trolling Bernie’s supporters the same way she did Obama’s supporters with her tax returns. She delayed releasing them and delayed, and delayed, and delayed, and all the while Obama’s supporters and the MSM worked themselves up into a frenzy of anticipation that her returns would reveal–hell, none of us knew but it had to be bad. And then she did and it was a big nothing. She and Bill made about as much as anyone knew they did, they gave a hefty chunk to charity, but kept most of it and that was that. It was the biggest fizzle ever, and made complete asses out of a lot of us.
The second possibility is that this is yet another instance where the person who above all others knows how the Clinton Rules work didn’t anticipate how they might work in a different environment. She may well have not anticipated the direction of the antipathy toward Big Finance by the time she ran and talked to them about stuff that showed she understands their jargon–as indeed, most powerful people do–not realizing how that would validate the belief that she’s somehow too cozy with them to regulate them. (You know, like FDR was).
I suspect the latter. I suspect this is another case where she failed to foresee how she would once again be held to a standard no other candidate had to comply with because, the truth is no one can anticipate every new manifestation of the Clinton Rules, not even the Clintons.
Either way, no matter what she said in those speeches–if she got up and told them they should all be shot and she was going to do it if she got elected–the people who’ve worked themselves up into frothing Hate Week frenzy over the coming revelation of the full extent of her perfidious conspiracy against the 99% (and the New York Times as well) will find a few passages that validate the things they think they already know.
23 Likes
I guess Hillary didn’t have the benefit of a producer speaking into Mika’s and Joe’s earpieces with instructions to skip over any “too hard” questions.
9 Likes
Well, I see that Scarbourogh didn’t even pause to wipe Trump’s spooge off his lips before going after Hillary.
What a pathetic excuse for a journalist.
8 Likes
Well, we have already seen one speech she gave to GS after leaving State, and its a great big nothing burger…she talks about how engaging women in business produces higher growth in economies world wide.
I suspect the other one is probably just as benign, but given the nature of such speeches to get wonky, it wouldn’t surprise me that there is a line in there that can be ripped out of context (and would by the Bernie camp) to say “Aha! She likes Wall Street!!”
She is fighting against a double standard here as well. She has already had to have every email she sent for 4 years being slowly dumped out to the public…something NO SoS has ever had to undergo, let alone any Presidential candidate. And now the press is trying to demand that she release all her speeches (and if she releases just the GS ones, it will quickly become all speeches…because there is a devil in there SOMEWHERE…they just need to fish longer).
We know that Trump is going to play games on releasing his taxes if he ever does. And we certainly are not going to see him releasing the details of paid speeches he gave. So taking a stand now, she is trying to prevent herself being on uneven ground come the General.
16 Likes
I agree. It’s just another opportunity to take statements out of context.
Why are Democrats held to a higher standard?
With all the bile streaming from the three leading Republicans candidates on so many topics, this is supposed to amount to anything?
6 Likes
She says: “…I told them what I’m going to do. I said I’m going to go after big banks that pose a systemic risk. I want you to hold me accountable for that because I will do that exactly,…”
We know what she’s said to us, what some of us would like to know is what she’s been telling them. No smoking gun, just what is she saying and is it different from what she’s said to us. For instance, she’s a bit late to the party on TPP, but now she says she has problems with it. The CEO of the US Chamber of Commerce is confident TPP will pass if Clinton becomes President. What has he been hearing that we have not? Release the speeches.
6 Likes
I think this is a slippery slope. Next they’ll want her personal correspondence. Several speeches are available on line.
WHY ARE we going after her private speeches and no one elsees? Maybe “I am woman”. This is so ridiculous it is anger producing.
11 Likes
The dishonesty meme is a Right Wing construct, but doesn’t justify her attempting to avoid scrutiny.
6 Likes
Also, those emails showed us who she really is behind doors and it got her more admirers,
I am so ANGRY about this double standard,
6 Likes