Hillary Clinton is Done: part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
uke2se said:
There's also the oft brought up fact that releasing the transcripts would be seen as weakness and "caving in to pressure", while not releasing them is seen as "having something to hide".

It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't kind of situation for Clinton. Might as well not do it, as that probably requires the least degree of effort.
Click to expand...

where did this weakness stuff come from? It seems like a made up excuse to avoid transparency.

She's running for President after all.

Seems the easiest thing to do would be to avoid taking 650k from a huge dirty bank
 
16.5 said:
where did this weakness stuff come from? It seems like a made up excuse to avoid transparency.

She's running for President after all.

Seems the easiest thing to do would be to avoid taking 650k from a huge dirty bank
Click to expand...

And yet, Clinton did not take 650k from a "huge dirty bank" while running for President. You previously pointed out that she did so only after leaving any public office, and before choosing to run for President.
 
I don't know why she just doesn't release an altered form of her transcripts, with all of the problematic stuff deleted. She did the same thing with her emails after all.
 
wareyin said:
And yet, Clinton did not take 650k from a "huge dirty bank" while running for President. You previously pointed out that she did so only after leaving any public office, and before choosing to run for President.
Click to expand...
If you think Clinton hasn't been running for President continuously -- announced or otherwise -- since the day she was elected to the Senate, you haven't been paying attention. And everything a politician says and does that illuminates his/her beliefs and character is a fair subject for voter inquiry. If she, as an attorney, had defended shady clients, she couldn't get away with saying "That's my private business, it doesn't count." The question is what did Goldman get -- or hope to get -- for its $675,000? I doubt they paid for investment tips.
 
Bob001 said:
The question is what did Goldman get -- or hope to get -- for its $675,000? I doubt they paid for investment tips.
Click to expand...

A high profile speaker to attend their functions, impart her insight and burnish their reputation.

Same as corporate clients spending £££££s to get a well known sportsperson or entertainer to their corporate junkets.
 
Roger Ramjets said:
George Clooney: ...Hillary Clinton is 'obscene'
Click to expand...

Are you being dishonest or are you just showing us a dishonest link?

Clooney said the money in politics was obscene, not Clinton.

Even the actual title is a lie: "George Clooney: The money I've raised for Hillary Clinton is 'obscene'"

That's not what he said at all either.

He said most of the money they raised at the dinner was going to down ballot candidates, not Clinton. And he said, rightly so, that to change the influence of money in politics one needed to change Congress.
 
Last edited:
jhunter1163 said:
See how one's meaning can be completely altered by some judicious snippage?
Click to expand...

Aw, c'mon, you could play that game with anything:

"I pledge allegiance to .... one God .... indivisible..."

"Four score and seven years ago our fathers .... engaged in a great civil war .... It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this...."

Etc. The point is that any candidate is responsible for whatever she said, and explaining/justifying/rationalizing it if necessary.
 
The Don said:
A high profile speaker to attend their functions, impart her insight and burnish their reputation.

Same as corporate clients spending £££££s to get a well known sportsperson or entertainer to their corporate junkets.
Click to expand...

The difference is that entertainers and athletes don't sign laws, make public policy, appoint judges or decide who to prosecute for crimes.
 
Bob001 said:
The difference is that entertainers and athletes don't sign laws, make public policy, appoint judges or decide who to prosecute for crimes.
Click to expand...

Which is why there are rules regarding what sitting politicians can and cannot do and what they have to disclose.

Hillary Clinton AFAIK was perfectly entitled to take on these speaking engagements as she was no longer Secretary of State.

All that exists is innuendo and suspicion.
 
Bob001 said:
The difference is that entertainers and athletes don't sign laws, make public policy, appoint judges or decide who to prosecute for crimes.
Click to expand...
So a logic fail:

They pay big speaker fees for celebrities. Clinton is a celebrity. They paid for her celebrity.

... as well as a distortion of the facts:

Neither do politicians who are no longer in office.
 
The Don said:
Which is why there are rules regarding what sitting politicians can and cannot do and what they have to disclose.

Hillary Clinton AFAIK was perfectly entitled to take on these speaking engagements as she was no longer Secretary of State.

All that exists is innuendo and suspicion.
Click to expand...

If there are innuendo and suspicion it's because she won't provide the facts. The question remains: Does what she tells a paying private audience conflict with what she tells voters on the stump? If the answer is no, it's easy for her to prove it and would enhance her credibility. If the answer is yes, the voters are entitled to know.

And that would be true whatever her audience. Suppose she told a convention of prosecutors that she would protect the death penalty, even as she called publicly to abolish it? Suppose she told a police convention that she would always have their backs, even as she publicly promised increased scrutiny of police shootings? Suppose she told a convention of evangelicals that gay marriage is an abomination against the Lord? The issue isn't the money; we know she's rich, and we know how she got it. The issue is what does she really believe, and what will she really do?
 
Last edited:
Bob001 said:
If there are innuendo and suspicion it's because she won't provide the facts. The question remains: Does what she tells a paying private audience conflict with what she tells voters on the stump? If the answer is no, it's easy for her to prove it and would enhance her credibility. If the answer is yes, the voters are entitled to know.
Click to expand...

I dispute that it's easy to prove. If she took the unprecedented step of being weak enough to release transcripts and they were in essence no different than her public pronouncements we'd just hear calls for the "real" transcripts to be revealed.

In any case, she provided a service for her clients, I'm not sure what right the public have to the contents of those speeches - not least because they may contain sensitive client information or other items which are company confidential.

Bob001 said:
And that would be true whatever her audience. Suppose she told a convention of prosecutors that she would protect the death penalty, even as she called publicly to abolish it? Suppose she told a police convention that she would always have their backs, even as she publicly promised increased scrutiny of police shootings? Suppose she told a convention of evangelicals that gay marriage is an abomination against the Lord? The issue isn't the money; we know she's rich, and we know how she got it. The issue is what does she really believe, and what will she really do?
Click to expand...

If you're that suspicious of her and her motives then what would lead you to believe that she is being honest to anyone ? As I note above, her releasing the transcripts would serve nothing other than giving people the satisfaction of her jumping through a few hoops for them (and in the process ruining the relationship with her clients).
 
Bob001 said:
If there are innuendo and suspicion it's because she won't provide the facts. ...
Click to expand...
Little cherry picking there?

The facts, as in evidence her actions as a legislator were influenced by money? Sanders dug up one bankruptcy bill from the 90s. :rolleyes:

You'd think with all the time she spent in the Senate and as Secretary of State there must be hundreds of things money could have influenced her actions on. Where are they?
 
Last edited:
sunmaster14 said:
Or let anybody see all of her emails.
Click to expand...
Are you not keeping up on the Emails thread? All of the emails related to the State Department have been released to the government. The State Department recovered everything off the server, nothing was 'scrubbed'.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Are you not keeping up on the Emails thread? All of the emails related to the State Department have been released to the government. The State Department recovered everything off the server, nothing was 'scrubbed'.
Click to expand...

That's news to me. Perhaps you should post it in the email thread. My understanding is that there used to be 60,000 emails, and she deleted half of them. As far as I know, only the 30,000 she didn't delete have been released, minus the stuff that has been deemed classified.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom