So the Hillary speeches are all the rage today with the Sanders crowd spouting about them on twitter since they were mentioned again last night. I’d like to demonstrate doing something that is apparently unpossible during an election year. I’m going to keep several thoughts in my head at once!
1.) I thought it was stupid of Hillary to give all the paid speeches between 2008 and now because she knew she would be running for President again, but no one is paying me 250k to do anything, and I’d, well, this:
I'd give out handjobs for 250k a half hour. That kind of money buys a lot of soap.
All she did was boring speeches https://t.co/OCfZCB0FZ5
— John Cole (@Johngcole) April 15, 2016
2.) What she did was not illegal nor a rare occurrence among our nation’s elites.
3.) I think it’s stupid that companies pay someone 250k for a speech. Why not have someone with something so innovative they want to speak to you?
4.) I don’t think there is a quid pro quo or buying friendship with the speakers fees. She was Secretary of State, a former Senator from New York, a former First Lady, and a high powered lawyer. She already knows the people who matter and they know her.
5.) I think she should have released all the transcripts months ago and have said all along there would noise about them and they would be an issue.
6.) I also know that no matter what she does or what was actually said, something in them will be misconstrued or taken out of context, and that she is always going to be held to a different standard.
7.) I also don’t think there is going to be anything in Bernie’s tax records, but I think he should release them just like Hillary has hers.
8.) I can’t fucking wait until the primaries are over.
9.) I’m still going to vote for Hillary in the primary and the Democrat in the general.
That wasn’t difficult now, was it?
Baud
I will NOT reveal my Balloon Juice comments to the public, no matter how much the press hounds me.
redshirt
10.) Profit!
Corner Stone
It’s going to be like feeding a living, breathing wood chipper.
It just doesn’t matter what she says/said, she is fucked.
zzyzx
The main reason why I don’t want her to release the stupid transcripts is that it’ll just lead to a different demand. It’s like how Obama released his birth certificate and then they wanted the long form and then they wanted his college transcripts…
redshirt
So who thinks Obama will give paid speeches once he’s done as President?
guachi
Did Sanders release his tax return yet?
Adam L Silverman
@Corner Stone: @zzyzx: There are, most likely, not transcripts. There are most likely notes that she used when delivering her remarks. They may even be powerpoint slides. Even is her remarks were loaded into a teleprompter, which is may or may not be used at these types of events, even a printout of that isn’t a transcript. Its the actual text of her remarks. Also, a lot of these things are done under Chatham House rules in order to allow the speaker and the audience to be candid. Finally, the real excitement is usually in the question and answer period.
For those who don’t know what they are, here’s the link to the Chatham House’s description of the rule:
https://www.chathamhouse.org/about/chatham-house-rule
Gin & Tonic
@guachi: Apparently he released his 1040 and his state form, but no Sched A. Some discussion downstairs, including my snide commentary about how he collected a whole $11 in interest and $2 in dividends in 2014, so he is clearly not tainted by big banks. Also too fucking stupid to manage his own money, let alone mine, but whatever.
Adam L Silverman
@redshirt: I do. I would be quite surprised if he doesn’t. It’ll be done through his Presidential Center and Library, and any related foundation he establishes.
Gin & Tonic
@guachi: Yeah, anyway, linky for those who care.
jl
@Baud:
” no matter how much the press hounds me. ”
A sad plea for free media from the pathetically inept and invisible virtual campaign of Baud! 2016!
And though I pretend to be neutral in the primary, I am really a Baudist. I also rooted for Jeb!, though I forget why.
David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch
She needs to release her birth certificate!
She must answer if she is now or if she has ever been a member of the communist party!
ps: Benghazi!
smintheus
Except that people who attended said Clinton did fall all over herself defending the Wall St. firms, making a case against their critics and for how much good they had done. Who can say whether that’s accurate.
But what we can say is that it shows classically bad judgment by Clinton in agreeing to give them when she planned to run for president again.
debbie
@Gin & Tonic:
What bank was paying interest in 2014?
The Gray Adder
@redshirt: Your damned straight Obama will give paid speeches starting next year. And he’ll make quite a bit more than a quarter mil per, too.
All I need to know is who will do a better job taking care of the shit ordinary people like me care about. The answer to that question is such a no-brainer it’s hardly worth mentioning. I don’t really have to like Hillary Clinton to know she’s probably the best qualified of everybody who has even thought of running for President this year. So she takes meetings with bankers? Big deal. Do you think she’s going to take on Donald Trump or whoever on just her good looks?
All I have to say to the “Bernie or Bust” people out there is that I hope they enjoy the Trump years. If they follow through on their threats and stay home (or vote for Jill Stein), they’re helping set that dumpster fire.
Adam L Silverman
@debbie: My credit union.
jl
” 5.) I think she should have released all the transcripts months ago and have said all along there would noise about them and they would be an issue. ”
Naw, I disagree. If they are really standard boilerplate, as I think they are, then better to release them after Trump or Cruz waste a lot of time on them, if they chose to waste their time that way. Why waste a good shaggy dog story and anti-climax on the primary?
Corner Stone
@Adam L Silverman: I speechify, in public and private, from time to time. And my prepared comments on content/materials for that presentation would be considered relevant for this kind of discussion. Whether a court reporter transcribed her events or not, the content of those presentations would be used to damage her. No matter what they said.
debbie
@Adam L Silverman:
You’re lucky, then.
gogol's wife
@The Gray Adder:
Thank you.
Adam L Silverman
@Corner Stone: I agree. I’ve done several under Chatham House rule and several where it was being taped – for instance the one on the USAWC youtube channel, but in the “other people are going to see this” I always do the Q&A under Chatham House rule. I don’t know what kind of questions I’m going to get and I want to make sure I can be candid and thorough and not have it come back and bite me or where I’m assigned.
Anya
It’s all bullshit. This reminds me of the flag pin crap. My mom is an executive and a shareholder and she said the speeches from big names is a dog and pony show to impress their shareholders. No one expects a quid pro quo. Companies gain their access and favors through lobbying & that’s why they hire former congresscritters and the like (companies, not my mom).
PsiFighter37
@smintheus: If this was the case, there would be something more concrete out there than that.
As for Bernie’s tax returns, I would not be surprised something is in there. Bernie acts all ‘Man of the People’ things, but then he takes front-row seats that costs thousands of dollars at market value for ‘Hamilton’ and flies his entire family (children + grandchildren) on a chartered plane, all paid for by his supporters’ donations. I’m sure they will say thank you for funding a family vacation to Italy.
Do as I say, not as I do.
Gin & Tonic
@debbie: Plenty. My 1040 shows $218.56 in interest earned in 2015 and $233.12 in 2014, and my wife and I have earned less than Bernie’s Senatorial salary for the duration of his career. And all but a few bucks of that (my) interest comes from credit unions. $1,000 in a credit union CD will give you $11. So after 25 years earning in the top 2% of Americans Bernie and Jane don’t have $1,000 in the bank? That doesn’t pass the laugh test.
khead
(1) There’s no way in hell I’d give you 250K for a hand job. I have standards and a decent grasp of economics.
(2)-(9)? I agree.
Been away for while. Real life intrudes. Will come back with some adorable cat pics in a while.
JUST SOME FUCKHEAD
I’M STILL TAKING NAMES DOWN
geg6
@Corner Stone:
I speechify quite a bit in my job and all they’d get from me would be my PowerPoint presentation and the day planner where I wrote down the names of my hosts. I don’t use prepared remarks. I know my preserAtion backward and forward and never use notes other than names, with which I’m terrible.
PsiFighter37
@redshirt: I think he might give some speeches, but he will be less blatant about it than the Bushes or the Clintons. I think he’s one of those guys who doesn’t like selling himself out. He’ll get a giant book advance, but I don’t see him debasing himself by speaking at a lawn mowers’ industry meeting at this time next year. I think he’ll figure out how he wants to set up his post-presidential career and work on writing his memoir – that’s a book I cannot wait to read.
PsiFighter37
@guachi: Also, he’s only going to release 2014. I think that makes him even less transparent than Mittens.
That would have been a delightful line for Hillary to use on Bernie last night.
jl
@JUST SOME FUCKHEAD: Still no exclamation point in your blog handle!
Baud
If anyone would like to pay me to give a speech, I’d like to charter a plane. Coach leg room sucks.
David ?Canadian Anchor Baby? Koch
@PsiFighter37: Sanders came out of “Hamilton” complaining, “I thought there would be singing cats?!?!”
Meooow?
JUST SOME FUCKHEAD
@jl: I DON’T GIVE A FUCK WHAT KIND OF PIE YOU LIKE FREAKSHOW
Corner Stone
@smintheus:
I think this argument, and Cole’s add on to it is ridiculous. Life is a bitch. There’s no guarantee she would be in a position to run for president again. What if Uncle Joe came out guns blazing that he wanted the job? What if she had some other health thing? What if Chelsea spawned triplets and HRC just wanted to spend time with her family after a lifetime of public service?
This line of argument is doing a fuckton of work for facts not in evidence.
p.a.
Saw the Graham Parker Brinsley Schwarz show last night, click for remaining schedule. And GO! GP seems in a very good mood. Very troubador-like show, nice song origin stories. Don’t know how much set lists may change, but only 1 Squeezing out Sparks song, lots from Stick to Me (as if to say, “weak record huh? listen now!”. Great show.
smintheus
@PsiFighter37: What would you expect that is more concrete than the reminiscences of attendees? Her refusal to release transcripts is striking under the circumstances, if they were truly just boilerplate.
redshirt
@Baud: Ever flown JetBlue? I think they’ve got ample leg room.
AkaDad
I’m pretty sure Cole would give handjobs for $25 a half hour.
Roger Moore
@redshirt:
I expect he will. I wouldn’t be surprised if the money for his speeches went to fund the Obama Foundation (or whatever he calls it) the same way the money for Hillary’s speeches went to the Clinton Foundation.
jl
@JUST SOME FUCKHEAD: Your pie filter doesn’t work. Just trying to be helpful.
Baud
@redshirt: I haven’t. I’ve heard good things about them.
lollipopguild
You are being coy John, please tell us what you really think.
redshirt
@Baud: By far my favorite American airline.
Adam L Silverman
@JUST SOME FUCKHEAD: Just how much coffee have you had today?
jl
@Baud:
” If anyone would like to pay me to give a speech ”
You’ve been campaigning too hard and are becoming delusional, You need a rest.
Corner Stone
@AkaDad:
Sorry, but if Cole’s handjobs last a half hour someone needs to call the fire dept.
Just Some Fuckhead, Clinton Supporter
HRC specifically said she had no intentions of running for President when she was cashing in on the toastmasters circuit.
khead
@Corner Stone:
I once wanted to be President so I refrained from running over people in traffic who annoyed me. I’m pretty sure Hillary could’ve used the same type of forethought to simply skip a few speeches.
Corner Stone
@Adam L Silverman: ALL THE COFFEE!!
schrodinger's cat
Didn’t anyone teach St. Bernard any manners? What is with all the finger wagging?
Anya
Adam, I have a military question for you when there’s an open thread. It relates to our military and proselytization.
Corner Stone
@smintheus:
Link?
a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q)
@jl: Shit, there’s not even
so it’s like a whole different Fuckhead.
smintheus
@Corner Stone: And yet it’s clear she was prepping for a run. If I had invested so much energy in planning to become president, I’d be damned sure that I didn’t do something like that. It shows that Clinton thought nobody would notice or be able to make the case against her if they did – just as with her decision to go with a private server.
Anya
@JUST SOME FUCKHEAD: for what?
Corner Stone
@khead: It’s a ridiculous double standard that doesn’t apply to anyone but HRC, once again.
Baud
@khead:
I wish I had thought of that.
different-church-lady
I thinks I sees the problem…
Marc
@Corner Stone: She’d have to settle for having a hundred goddamn million dollars instead of one hundred and ten million dollars. Cry me a river.
a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q)
@Corner Stone: MADE WITH RED BULL
Corner Stone
@smintheus: See my #56. Ridiculous BS.
jl
@Anya: that impertinence is more than enough.
khead
@Corner Stone:
No, it’s a simple standard that applies to anyone with common sense.
Corner Stone
@Marc: This is such a fucking canard. Ridiculous nonsense and/or GFY.
Corner Stone
@khead: Simple standard applied against what cohort? Who else? Where? When?
BS. GFY.
jl
@Baud: I thought Baud! 2016! was too young to drive. I thought I was supporting new blood in the Democratic Party, for The Future. I’ve been betrayed.
Next I bet it gets out Baud! drives sober.
Marc
@Corner Stone: I actually think that cashing in on your former position and name to get millions of unearned dollars is an indictment of our system, period. The fact that I’m sympathetic to her politics doesn’t change the fact that this is a door to wealth that’s only open to people with the right connections, and it has approximately nothing to do with merit.
AkaDad
@Corner Stone:
It’s hard to concentrate when he’s constantly talking about his pets.
MomSense
Enough with the fucking speeches. Jesus on a pogo stick are people forgetting the horror show that is the Republican Party?
Sanders is not electable and the more he attacks the Democratic Party, the sitting President, and our frontrunner the tougher this election will be to win. We cannot fuck this up because a Republican win will be catastrophic.
I’m a donkey on the edge!
Anya
I am in Toronto, attending a friends pre-wedding crap: fitting, bridal shower, finalizing wedding program, etc. I am seriously tired of Toronto folks’ smug attitudes about Donald Trump. Seriously, do they think we don’t know about their former mayor?
Gin & Tonic
@smintheus:
FTFY
Marc
@Corner Stone: She earned ten million dollars in the year before she declared for president – when she knew full well that she was running. She and Bill were already very, very wealthy. Somewhere in the tens of millions of dollars range I think that you lose the justification that you’re just paying the rent. And I’d say the same damn thing about a CEO or a Wall Street vampire.
JUST SOME FUCKHEAD
EVERYONE GET THE FUCK OUT NOW
khead
@Corner Stone:
Against any fucking person who wanted to run for president while knowing making the speeches would be held against them.
Also, fuck you AkaDad.
Now. Who else wants some? :)
debbie
@Gin & Tonic:
Jeez, it’s been so long, I totally forgot about CDs.
Corner Stone
@MomSense:
Actually, donkeys (and mules) are well regarded for their sure-footedness on risky mountain trails.
So, you’re doing ok?
Corner Stone
@khead: Sure seems to have disqualified her and all, being the front runner.
Damn those speeches! Damn them to hell!
gene108
If she releases the transcripts due to pressure, what is the next thing that will be demanded?
She had her and her husband’s Christmas card list subpoenaed by Congress.
Give them an inch here and folks will demand to see more and more.
And when she says no to another push for stuff she has done that is “suspect”, folks will say, “you released your Wall Street transcripts. What are you hiding this time?”
Corner Stone
@debbie:
Somehow I don’t think you’ve left behind your CDS.
DIFFERENT-FUCKHEAD-LADY
IS THIS A NEW GAME? CAN I PLAY?
khead
@Corner Stone:
No one said it disqualified her. Just that it was plenty stupid. Feel free to put the goal posts back in the end zone where they belong.
redshirt
@Marc: So making money is bad and a disqualification to run for President?
Davis X. Machina
@schrodinger’s cat: It’s a virtue-take-all primary…
different-church-lady
@debbie: I know — it’s all file-based and streaming now.
debbie
@Corner Stone:
I’m pretty sure I don’t want to know what that means.
Corner Stone
@Marc:
Notably I never made that argument. If she has, please link.
Thanks!
a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q)
@MomSense: If you’re on an edge a long ear (donkey/mule) is who you want to be.
/pedant
Jim, Foolish Literalist
everyone calling for the SPEECHES to be released? You’re quoting Chuck Todd.
different-church-lady
Fun fact: Jules calls him “Brad” in that quote, even though in the rest of the scene his name is Brett.
Corner Stone
@khead: The goal post moving is by people like yourself that only hold her to this ridiculous standard. Please to let us ALL HERE KNOW WHO ELSE HAS TO NOT DO WHAT SHE DID TO REMAIN LEGITIMATE IN YOUR EYES.
Godammit, caps lock for Jesus.
Marc
@redshirt: No, but cashing in to the tune of many millions of dollars when you’re preparing for a presidential run demonstrates terrible judgment.
And – seriously – are Democrats now defending the idea that it’s completely OK for people like CEOs to cash in huge checks because they can? Because that’s where this logic leads.
To make it clear – I’m not saying for a minute that she’s corrupt because of this. It’s just a symptom of a system where the rich get unearned, fabulous wealth; and I’d hope that someone running as a candidate of the people could see why that could look bad.
JUST SOME FUCKHEAD
AGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
MomSense
@Corner Stone:
It’s a shrek reference and I’m burnt out on the stupid this election cycle.
Also too I’ve given up on the job search and my mom is going to move in with me as she is about to have some major surgeries and will still end up blind and completely dependent.
The political debate seems pettier and more irresponsible by the minute.
eemom
@MomSense:
Just what I was thinking. Talk about deck chairs on the Titanic. Or has everyone on this blog suddenly turned into Wolf Blitzer?
burnspbesq
@Anya:
Any group that had Harper as their head of government for as long as they did is living in a very glass house.
Gin & Tonic
@debbie: The Federal Employees Credit Union will pay 1.25% on a 48-month “share certificate” if you also have your checking account with them. $1,000 in one of those will pay you $12.50 in interest per year. Bernie and Jane earned $11 in 2014. Serious question, where is their money? In the freezer? You have an adjusted gross income north of $200k and don’t have $1,000 in the bank? Really?
LAO
@a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q): O/T: I saw on Twitter, that the Nevada defendants refused to waive the reading of the indictment at their arraignment today. The indictment is 64 pages. Lol. (That happened to me once)
eemom
@different-church-lady:
I always heard it as Brett. Is there a transcript?
Bailey
@guachi:
According to the news, yes.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Marc: Okay. It was terrible judgment. Do you really give a fuck what was in the speeches?
debbie
@Gin & Tonic:
Yeah, you would think he’d be a supporter of credit unions.
khead
@Corner Stone:
No, you moved the goal posts when you started talking about “disqualified”. You are doing it again by trying to say I am holding Clinton to a “ridiculous standard”. I didn’t. I simply said IT WAS FUCKING STUPID for anyone with a lick of common sense. Since you appear to need some assistance, the goal posts belong at the back of the end zone.
a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q)
@LAO: LOL. Not a surprise from those idiots.
Calouste
@Gin & Tonic: No, that summary from 2014 has been around for weeks, if not months.
Sanders hasn’t released anything new yet today, as far as I can see.
AkaDad
@khead:
If I make a joke and just one person smiles, laughs, or says fuck you it was worth it.
Marc
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: Not at all; water under the bridge. I just want her to have a good answer when people ask about it.
Weaselone
@smintheus:
How so? She doesn’t need to release the speeches in order to secure the nomination, so why would she? I see no up side to her doing so as she’s not going to get Brownie points for releasing them. It’s not as though there is any circumstance where Sander’s goes “Well fuck me, I guess there was nothing in those speeches after all. Sorry I’ve been such a collasal jackass about them.”
gene108
@Gin & Tonic:
Senators make a minimum of 174k, yet his W2 income on the 1040 is 156k.
I find that odd, unless he’s paying 18k in pre-tax income door healthcare, which again would be odd as he’s Medicare eligible.
Otherwise it seems like a relatively simple tax return, where he hasn’t set-up stuff to make himself much richer than his base pay.
Calouste
@Gin & Tonic: $11 is probably what you get over a year on your checking account with 0.1% interest if you have $8,000 coming in twice a month.
Corner Stone
@khead: Nope. You are moving the goal posts by doing your best to hold HRC to a standard that has applied to no one, ever, anywhere.
Roger Moore
@Marc:
I think it’s a bigger indictment of our system that the companies have so much money to throw around in the first place.
Just Some Fuckhead
How much did Marie Antoinette get per speech?
NR
@MomSense: I thought Hillary was the toughest political in America who’d stood up to the brutal Republican attack machine for decades? But all of a sudden, a few pointed criticisms from Bernie Sanders are going to destroy her chance of getting elected?
Which is it? Is she a tough-as-nails fighter, or is she so weak that our only hope is to Shut! Bernie! Up! Now!?
Adam L Silverman
@Corner Stone: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEYd20x2ZII
Adam L Silverman
@Anya: What’s the question?
Gin & Tonic
@Calouste: You’re right. The creation date on that PDF is last September.
Lev
I gotta say, between Clinton being the most out-of-touch, long-term bubble resident to seek the presidency since Bush 41 and Sanders not seeming to have a clue what to do if the glorious revolution fails, the logic of a third Obama term grows increasingly compelling to me.
Also, just a reminder, Clinton’s proposed Syria no-fly zone will lead to war with Russia if actually implemented.
MomSense
@eemom:
Sometimes we completely lose the plot on the D side and this is one of those times.
BTW I’m starting my cooking preparations for May 1st. I’m expecting a crowd of 50. What is wrong with me?!?!
@a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q):
If ever there were a time to invoke the qualities of sure footedness, this is it.
Mnemosyne
@Marc:
You realize that very few average Joes (and Janes) are out there making corporate keynote speeches, right? That’s a little like wondering why they cast Benedict Cumberbatch in the upcoming “Dr. Strange” movie when there are hundreds of unknown actors they could have cast instead.
Weaselone
@NR:
Bernie’s not a Republican. He’s inside the tent pissing on everyone in the tent when he’s supposed to be pissing out. This pisses some people off.
smintheus
@Weaselone: It’s not about what Sanders thinks, is it? She needs to convince a lot of voters that she’s not overly close to Wall Street. Refusing to release perfectly innocuous transcripts would be political malpractice under the circumstances.
Roger Moore
@Gin & Tonic:
They probably don’t have their money in CDs, which don’t pay a worthwhile rate of interest and leave your money tied up. It would be much better to put it in a tax deferred retirement account, where it won’t show up on your 1040.
Marc
@Mnemosyne: Which is precisely my point. We have set up a system where a few select people get a ton of unearned cash. It’d be one thing if she was a consultant who specialized in the problems of an industry and had targeted information that mattered. Instead, it’s just pure who-knows-who. It’s less having a famous actor in a movie and more having the son of someone famous get a well-paying job for which they have no real qualifications.
Mnemosyne
Or, to put it another way, people have been interested in celebrities since at least 1908. It’s about 100 years too late to wonder why people are interested in hearing celebrities mouth banalities in public.
I went to see a lecture about earthquake preparedness because Dr. Lucy Jones was giving it. I probably wouldn’t have made the time to do it if the lecture had been by a non-famous seismologist. Does that make Dr. Jones an awful person who’s just making a buck off her fame?
burnspbesq
@Marc:
Your use of the word “unearned” in that context is complete and utter nonsense. You’re denying the existence of human capital, or, alternatively, denying that there should be any return to human capital. Carried to its logical comclusion, what you’re saying is that if I make more than a freshly minted J.D. by virtue of having 34 years in practice (including nine years in government when i took a way-below-market salary in exchange for learning things that I couldn’t learn anywhere else), the increment is 100 percent ill-gotten gains.
John D.
@Marc: “unearned”? WTF?
I mean, she gave a speech and was paid for it. That looks like “earned” to me. The rate is just a lot higher than I make.
Adam L Silverman
@LAO: That’s because their attorney is Samuel T. Cogley:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERqnwjXkg-0
Weaselone
@smintheus:
Releasing those transcripts won’t convince anyone one way or the other. All it will do is guarantee the release of a few quotable tidbits the Republicans can use in attack adds for the general.
liberal
Her shit still stinks.
Mnemosyne
@Marc:
Wait, Secretary of State is a do-nothing position, the political equivalent of being a Kardashian, so they should be kept off the lecture circuit? Senators from large states do nothing all day? First Ladies just sit around and eat bonbons, so they shouldn’t give keynote speeches anywhere?
Adam L Silverman
@Roger Moore: He has access to the Federal Thrift as a government employee. I would guess they’ve jammed there account in it full. The rate of return is very good.
burnspbesq
@Lev:
It might if Russia were still conducting air operations in Syria. AFAIK, that stopped a month ago.
liberal
@The Gray Adder: yeah, when I help turn a nation into an ISIS stronghold, maybe I’ll think about running for President, too.
Marc
@Mnemosyne: No, Secretary of State has approximately no insight to give to a bunch of investment bankers that justifies a quarter million dollars for a speech. Is that remotely controversial?
Mnemosyne
@John D.:
People who think that giving a 45-minute speech is easy have never had to help their boss prep for one, much less written and given one themselves.
I just spent about 5 hours of my workday sizing images and putting them into a Keynote for one of our managers while he worked on the speech. We’ll probably spend at least another 10 hours on it before it’s ready. But that’s not real work, I guess. Any monkey could do it.
burnspbesq
@Marc:
Not only is it comtroversial, it’s nonsensical. Do you have any idea what investment bankers actually do?
John D.
@Marc: It’s controversial because it is WRONG.
She was not brought there to lecture. She was brought there so that people would want to ATTEND. This is how these speeches have worked for approximately ever.
Butts. In. Seats. That’s why the high-profile speakers are hired.
Iowa Old Lady
@Marc: If I had a chance to hear HRC speak, I’d jump at it even though I’d assume it had nothing to do with my work. She’s done interesting things.
Anya
@Adam L Silverman: I have a cousin who’s a very nominal Muslim who’s in the army. He’s not active duty anymore but he told me his unit was a shit show because it was full of bible thumpers who regularly proselytized their comrades. Is that allowed? Shouldn’t that against the rules?
Mnemosyne
@Marc:
Only if you assume the speech was about banking. Have you ever actually attended a corporate keynote? It’s supposed to be an interesting and motivating speech by and about the speaker, not a lesson plan for the individual audience members.
I went to an internal conference for work about our accounts payable system. NOT ONE of the keynote speakers gave a speech about our accounts payable system. They told us about interesting things happening in their own divisions of the company. Because that’s how a keynote speech works.
PhoenixRising
@Marc:
Yeah, that might be the problem right there. She never said that, and until St Bernard of the Draft Evasion Kingdom declared it to be one of the relevant qualifications to being the Dem nominee for POTUS, ‘most capable of acting as a veto point to stop GOP mayhem while using executive appointments to do good stuff’ were the qualifiers.
It’s only now that the economic populist uprising of the disaffected white people, who are very disappointed that a system designed to exploit everyone exploits them too, has reached both sides of the aisle that “someone running as a candidate of the people” became an option.
To the extent that he’s an option. But yes, your point that she ought to have known better than to take the money when there was every chance she would run for office again is correct. Nothing to do with releasing the transcripts, but correct.
Calouste
@John D.: Exactly. Clinton is an A-list celebrity. People will come to see her regardless of what she says.
Cat48
Myself, I want to see the Camping Equipment’s convention speech she gave in Las Vegas& the question/answer period.
She was not working for the govt nor was she running for president when she gave the speeches. This is like Obama’s birth certificate to me, the long form version bc the short certified copy from HI wasn’t good enough. She also spoke to Car Dealer Conventions & Colleges, besides GS.
Mnemosyne
@John D.:
Also, this. Bringing in a high-profile speaker is the carrot to get you to sign up for all of the individual sessions about vendor setups and expense reports. That, and free lunch.
Heliopause
Of course there isn’t an explicit quid pro quo. Very few politicians are egregiously stupid enough to do such a thing.
But it’s simply a fact that Wall Street gets what they pay for. The punishment for their orgy of crime culminating in the crash? A series of fines that basically are as punitive as traffic tickets would be to you and me. Yes, from the Obama DOJ they got exactly what they paid for.
And who’s going to make a stink about it if we on the left don’t? The MSM don’t give a shit, they’re all in the same country club. The GOP sure as hell won’t do anything about it. Maybe it’s about time we started shaming Dem politicians into being a tiny bit better than the mobsters on Wall Street and the shills in the other party. Maybe? Maybe the next Dem frontrunner will be a tiny bit more attentive to how this sort of thing looks to the masses? Gotta start somewhere.
mclaren
This is the Dick Cheney defense, John. Are you really that venal that you’re using the Dick Cheney defense now?
“Sure, before I was vice president I used to be president of Halliburton. And now that I’m vice president, Halliburton is mysteriously getting lots and lots and lots of no-bid contracts to do reconstruction work after the Iraq invasion that I vociferously argued for. Halliburton got 39 billion dollars in contracts from the Iraq war, so much money wasted so badly by Halliburton that the justice department sued Halliburton for alleged kickbacks. But nothing illegal was done, so it was all fine!”
Are you that fucking corrupt, Cole? That you’re now giving us the Dick Cheney Halliburton defense?
It doesn’t matter whether it was illegal, what Hillary is doing with Goldman Sachs is exactly the same as what Dick Cheney did with Hallburton during the Iraq war. It’s influence peddling and it’s corrupt and it’s grossly dishonest and worst of all it tells us Hillary says one thing in public and an entirely different thing behind closed doors when she’s talking to a bunch of billionaires.
This kind of crass influence peddling tells us Hillary Clinton doesn’t give a shit about economic inequality, she doesn’t give a good goddamn about fixing our broken economy or cleaning up our outrageously corrupt political system, Hilary just wants to help the giant banks and wall street hedge funds loot the system and impoverish the average person until America collapses from all the unsustainable thievery and corruption.
For fuck’s sake, Cole, Goldman Sachs just got hit with a 5 billion dollar fine and forced to admit that it played a key role in wrecking the U.S. economy by committing massive criminal fraud.
Source: “Goldman to Pay Up to $5 Billion to Settle Claims of Faulty Mortgages,” The New York Times, 15 January 2016.
And this is what you’re defending with your weak-ass whines of “it’s not illegal,” Cole?
You need to get your goddamn head on straight, Cole. You can decry the corruption and thievery and gross inequality of America’s failed collapsing Ponziconomy…or you can support sleazy influence peddlers like Hillary Clinton who aid and abet that thievery and corruption. But you can’t do both.
You’re not getting it, Cole. That $600,000 isn’t for a speech. It’s a down payment on a bribe and an audition by an aspiring politician for the position of corporate whore.
The billionaires and hedge funds and giant banks aren’t paying for some damn speech, they’re giving a down payment to hear if the politician who is for sale will nod and wink and tell those corporate thieves that, yes, I’m not gonna prosecute you when you commit these crimes while I’m in office, and no, don’t worry about going to jail no what how many people you defraud and impoverish because I’m not gonna let that happen on my watch.
That’s what’s going on, Cole. It has nothing to do with a “speech.” It’s a down payment for a giant bribe (which will come in the form of lavish campaign contributions if the corrupt pol says what the billionaires want to hear) and an audition by a politician who is peddling influence.
The people who matter know Hillary, but they want to make sure Hillary will do what they want when she becomes prez. So they offer her an audition. If she gives speech saying “I understand that Wall Street innovation is important to our financial system but I will not hold back from prosecuting outright criminal fraud,” they know she’s trouble, and that’s $600,000 down the rathole but now at least they know not to waste tens of millions on campaign contributions to her.
If, on the other hand, HIllary says “bashing the bankers is unproductive” and “it has to stop” (as she did say), then they know Hillary is their kind of people and that $600,000 is a good investment in buying the influence Hillary is peddling.
So why didn’t she? Everyone knows why, Cole. Because she told these corporate thieves what they wanted to hear — that it’s going to be carte blanc for corporate fraud and wall street thievery in her presidency.
How do you misconstrue “bashing the bankers is unproductive” and “it has to stop” after the biggest orgy of wall street fraud in 80 years, Cole?
Compare Hillary Clinton’s top donors to Bernie Sanders’: 90 percent of the top 20 contributors to Hillary Clinton are corporations or provide services to corporations. 95 percent of the top 20 contributors to Bernie Sanders are unions. The number two top contributor to Hillary’s campaign was Goldman Sach (which just paid 5 billion dollars to settle SEC charges of criminal fraud), at $711,000.
Which of Bernie Sanders’ top contributors just paid 5 billion dollars to settle government charges of criminal fraud, Cole?
You’re trying to create a false equivalence where there is none.
Hillary’s transcripts matter because of the overwhelming circumstantial evidence that Hillary is involved in sleazy influence peddling. Where’s the circumstantial evidence that Sanders has ever been involved in influence peddling?
If you keep trying to defend indefensible sleazy influence peddling of the kind Hillary Clinton specializes in, you’re going to hate the primaries a lot more over the next few months, Cole, because this kind of crass corruption sickens people. And it’s not going to go away.
Because influence peddling and corruption are good, and you want to make especially sure to nominate a Democrat who polls lower than any other candidate but Trump. Good thinking there, Cole. Why not write in George W. Bush while you’re at it, and agitate for eliminating the capital gains tax and repeal the Voting Rights Act?
Seriously, Cole, how the fuck you think things are going to get better in this joke of a country while you eagerly applaud corrupt influence peddling and corporate thievery and revolving-door political cronyism to enable financial fraud on an epic scale, I don’t begin to understand.
Elie
@PsiFighter37:
She DID ask him about where his returns were, but not how you did it — which would have been more fun…
Bernie is gonna skate with only releasing this 2014 semi return. Dude has got something to hide… why bother with such evasions otherwise. Really, I never thought I would come to despise him as I have but he is truly creepy.
Davis X. Machina
@Mnemosyne: I saw Cornel West speak at a Coalition of Essential Schools convention.
It wasn’t about pedagogy. Strange, that.
PhoenixRising
@Cat48: That was the American Camping Association, dammit, and I’m sure the speech was the same fucking speech she gave in front of the Girl Scouts of America as well as Goldman Sachs’ investment bankers.
There is no one else who could be running against her, now or in the future, who would be raising the speeches as a cudgel–either because pot/kettle or because they have actual policy differences or both. So releasing them is just a trigger for another feeding frenzy, and it’s pointless.
The 30% of Americans who just hate her are going to hate her no matter what she said to whom, when. Why give them something to blame it on?
Davis X. Machina
@burnspbesq: Revolving door! Burn him! Burn him!
Adam L Silverman
@Anya: Yes and no. While their are certain restrictions on the 1st Amendment rights of uniformed personnel, many of them are limited to both “in their official capacity” and on duty. Asking a fellow Soldier, Sailor, Airman, and/or Marine if they want to attend a bible study or a prayer breakfast or some other religious event, while it may be proselytizing is likely okay. Provided that the command climate in the unit, and up the chain of command, such that the impression is given (real or not) that failure to attend these things will be held against the Soldier, Sailor, Airman, and/or Marine in terms of assignments, evaluation of one’s work, promotions, etc and that he was perfectly free to decline without any issues or detriment accruing to him. Without further details, I can’t say much more. You might also want to run this past Omnes. As a former Soldier and a current attorney – he may have a different and more useful answer for you.
StellaB
Here’s the speech:
https://youtu.be/0lKlJ3Ed4fQ
Oh, I know, it’s not the “real” speech. Yes, it’s a speech by Hillary Clinton to Goldman employees, but she isn’t saying anything about her nafarious plans, so it can’t possibly be the “real” one.
Most of her expensive speeches earned large contributions to the Clinton Foundation which is spending very large sums of money on malaria and HIV in Africa among other worthy projects which probably means that Hillary is actually colluding with mosquitos.
mclaren
@Heliopause:
This is the isn’t-as-bad-as-Nixon argument. We’ve heard this before in other threads. It’s a breathtaking defense.
“They didn’t hand Hillary actual hundred dollar bills in paper bags, the way Nixon’s minions got payoffs during Watergate, so it’s perfectly okay!”
Jesus Christ on a minibike. This is the standard you’re now trying to defend, Cole? “Not quite as corrupt as Nixon”?
Fuck me. This country is lost. There is no hope. If corporate thieves plead nolo contendre, people like Cole think it means the same as a “not guilty” verdict. If Wall Street con artists pay a fine to settle criminal fraud indictments instead of going to jail, people like Cole think it means they didn’t commit a crime. If influence peddlers like Hillary accept whopping huge campaign donations and become a triple-digit millionaire giving speeches to corrupt Wall Street crime lords who pay billions to settle government lawsuits for criminal fraud, but she didn’t get actual cash in a paper bag, people like Cole think it means Hillary isn’t influence-peddling.
Holy shit. This country is over. Fuck it all, there’s no chance.
Gin & Tonic
@Roger Moore: Yeah, I pretty much figured that out. Everything is in Jane’s name, and she’s only 65, so she doesn’t have to take any required distributions yet. So it can all sit in the IRA or 401(k) and make non-taxable income.
Makes sense on one level, but having literally nothing liquid would be inadvisable, I’d think.
Elie
@John D.:
“butts in seats” is right on —
I believe however that there are folks on this thread tonight, and generally, who just don’t know how this arena works and because they don’t — automatically ascribe evil to it and “bad things” because you know, they don’t travel in that circuit and they are PISSED about THAT by itself. Because that is not in their experience, they have a judgement that therefore it must be BAD. Bernie makes the same judgement — its a gut feel that I don’t know these people and I resent their money = I don’t like these people.
Feebog
I’m with Adam at post 7. Who says there are any transcripts to be released? And if there are, who owns the rights? If I pay you an outrageous sum to give a speech to my organization, don’t I own the rights to any recording of the speech? And why would HRC release any of these transcripts, assuming they exist? So she can allow Fox News to take parts out of context and use against her during the GE?
Ryan
It’s the insinuations that she’s corrupt because of paid speeches that gets me.
mclaren
@burnspbesq:
Shorter burnspbesq: “Bribe-taking is an honorable profession.”
mclaren
@Elie:
You’ve tried this corrupt and vicious argument before, Elie — “It’s all just envy by poor people!”
Explain why Goldman Sachs paid 5 billion bucks to settle a government lawsuit over their criminal fraud. Was that just envy by the Securities and Exchange Commission?
The real truth is that the hatred is all going the other way — it’s hatred by the rich for the poor, resentment of the thieves for honest people.
smintheus
@Mnemosyne:
You mean it was nothing like this?
Or like this?
Or this?
Weaselone
@mclaren:
You know when I go to open secrets and look at Hillary’s top donors in 2016, I don’t see Goldman Sachs at number 2. I can locate other lists where GS is higher, but it’s not GS cutting a single check. It’s individuals employed by GS giving her the donations.
I’m also going to point out that Hillary gave alot of highly compensated speeches and most if these were not to Wall Street firms, so is she also bought by these groups, or does the money only count if it’s from banks?
normal liberal
@Corner Stone:
And here I was thinking that phrase should be on a t-shirt…
With a suitable graphic.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
Like increased capital reserves, the CFPB and the new rule about financial advisors being obligated to look after their clients’ interests? Funny, I thought they opposed all of those.
Cowardly, corrupt fuck didn’t issue one lettre de cachet, or order one bankster seized and thrown in the dungeons, probably because he wants some of that sweet, sweet speech money.
If we let Nader throw the election to Bush, the People will see, and in four years rise up as one to put Dennis! where he belongs!
Remember Dennis!?
Amaranthine RBG
People who are so fucking stupid that they believe that the people paying Clinton for speeches were not making a rational economic decision are probably so fucking stupid that they believe lobbying doesn’t work, either
mclaren
@Weaselone:
You’re either lying or dyslexic.
Comparing Hillary Clinton’s Top Donors to Bernie Sanders’ Top Donors.
What’s the number two contributor on Hillary’s list?
English, motherfucker! Can you read it?
GOLDMAN SACHS.
This is the kind of astroturfing lying bullshit that tells me there’s a lot of paid sock puppets on this fucking forum. When people tell these kinds of outright lies to try to muddy the water and confuse the facts, that’s the sign we’re in the middle of a massive disinformation campaign paid for by rich people, to benefit rich people, to cover up criminal fraud and give corporate thieves a “get out of jail free” card.
Cut the shit! Stop lying!
Here are Hillary’s top 10 donors since 1999:
Citigroup (bank)
Goldman Sachs (bank)
DLA Piper (corporate law firm)
JPMorgan Chase (bank)
EMILY’s List (Democrat political action committee (PAC))
Morgan Stanley (bank)
Time Warner (corporation)
Skadden, Arps et al. (corporate law firm)
Lehman Brothers (bank)
Cablevision Systems (corporation)
John D.
@Amaranthine RBG: OK, you’re making the claim. Back it up. Where’s the quid pro quo?
I mean, given what keynote speeches are, the rational economic decision has already been paid by the increased attendance at the keynote. But I live in the rational world that is, not the nudge nudge wink wink world you apparently inhabit. So, put up. What did GS, the American Camping Association, and all the rest get for their filthy lucre? Show your receipts as well!
smintheus
@Amaranthine RBG: I’m pretty sure that many of the Republicans who 10 or 12 years ago were making all manner of ridiculous excuses on behalf of George W. Bush knew perfectly well that they were talking nonsense. They just thought their job was to run interference for him no matter how embarrassing.
Gin & Tonic
@efgoldman: Jane Sanders is 65. All the accounts are in her name.
mclaren
@smintheus:
But-but-but…there weren’t paper bags full of hundred-dollar bills! So there’s nothing unethical or dishonest about it!
Now do you believe me when I tell you Mnemosyne is a paid socket puppet for the 1%?
Bobby Thomson
@StellaB: Wow, that’s nefarious.
1. True global economic growth requires investing in women.
2. Thanks for investing in women.
3. Thanks also for doing research on the importance of female entrepreneurship.
4. Women work hard and people should invest in them.
5. Humorous anecdotes about people not realizing how much work is done by women.
6. Thanks again for investing in women.
Now, if you’re the sort of person who thinks that nothing should be said to Goldman Sachs other than “Die! Die! Rot in hell, capitalst running dogs!” I suppose this could be controversial.
LAO
@mclaren:
No. The answer remains no.
mclaren
@burnspbesq:
Let’s go to the http://www.justice.gov site and see what investment bankers actually do, burnsie:
“…serious misconduct in falsely assuring investors that securities it sold were backed by sound mortgages, when it knew that they were full of mortgages that were likely to fail…”
Source: “Goldman Sachs Agrees to Pay More than $5 Billion in Connection with Its Sale of Residential Mortgage Backed Securities,” United States Department of Justice website, 11 April 2016.
That’s what investment bankers do in 2016, burnsie baby. Criminal fraud and lots of it. And they walk away scot free, laughing, all the way to the bank. Goldman Sachs estimated that its record 5 billion settlement for charges of criminal fraud will reduce its profits this year by a mere 1.5 billion dollars.
That’s what investment bankers do. They commit criminal fraud and walk away without going to prison after paying a fine.
John D.
@mclaren: Words mean things.
When Weaselone says “I went to opensecrets and look at Hillary’s top donors in 2016” and you return with a link to:
A) Truthout and
B) Career numbers that are not 2016
ONE of you is lying or dyslexic. It’s not Weaselone.
Here are the 2016 numbers from Open Secrets
Goldman Sachs is not on the list.
Bobby Thomson
@mclaren: you know who else is on the lecture circuit? Ben and Jerry. Are they ethically compromised?
Jim, Foolish Literalist
I gotta say, of all the things I hate about George W Bush, and for that matter his awful parents and his literally evil puppet master, the one thing I haven’t thought about and don’t really give a fuck about is how they’ve fattened the old coffers since they left office.
geg6
@eemom:
Exactly.
redshirt
@mclaren: I believe you mclaren! Mnemosyne is paid by the billionaires to post their propaganda here. Totally makes sense.
Adam L Silverman
@smintheus: Oh look a bunch of anonymous quotes. So I can’t validate anything because I don’t know the actual source. There are three basic issues here: 1) this has never previously been an issue for a candidate, 2) this is only an issue for one candidate, and 3) extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
One and two are easy to deal with: this solely seems to be something to beat Secretary Clinton up with. As for the third one: no one has actually produced, on the record, a recording – audio or video, an outline of remarks, notes, anything to demonstrate anything beyond what usually happens at this thing happened. She went in, she said nice things to her hosts, she answered some questions, she ate some catered chicken, she went home.
I’m going to tell a true story, and in a way that allows me to preserve the intent, if not the letter, of the Chatham House rule. In the summer of 2003 I was invited to attend and participate in a US Army counter-terrorism conference. The keynote speaker at the first night’s dinner was Brian Williams. He told, and this was within 60 days of it happening, the story about the events in Iraq leading to his chopper going down. We most likely heard the original version. It was all about how the Soldiers on the choppers got them on the ground safely, how they got stuck because a sandstorm had blown up, and how there was worry among Williams, his crew, and some other civilians about how safe they were. One of the people accompanying him, as an advisor to NBC was a retired 4 star. He was involved in the conference and at the dinner that night. Williams regaled us with how these young Soldiers were nervous and feeling exposed, but how they drew strength and inspiration from having that general officer with them and, just as the sandstorm really kicked in a maneuver element appeared to provide a personal security detail until the storm cleared and everyone could be evacuated back to base, that retired general looked at the Soldiers and civilians and pronounced confidently that with the arrival of this platoon of Soldiers they were all “now in the safest place in the world!” The whole point of this talk was to butter up this general and to ingratiate himself with the uniformed personnel in the audience. That’s what these talks are like.
As for why Williams felt the need to adapt the account I heard within 60 days of it happening into what has derailed his career, I have no idea. The original story was a bit sappy in the manner of his telling, but it was largely positive, intended to be inspirational, and essentially harmless, if a bit heavy on the ingratiation.
Emma
@Marc: You are remarkably misinformed. The Secretary of State holds sway over so many things that affect international business that those business would always be interested. Here from their website, and this is only one department:
Under Secretary for Economic Growth, Energy, and the Environment
Under Secretary of State for Economic Growth, Energy, and the Environment, Catherine A. Novelli, leads the State Department’s efforts to develop and implement international policies related to economic growth, energy, agriculture, the ocean, the environment, and science and technology.
The Assistant Secretaries of the functional bureaus and offices in the E family advise the Under Secretary and guide the policy direction within their jurisdiction. They include the following:
Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs
Bureau of Energy Resources
Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs
Office of the Chief Economist
Office of the Science & Technology Adviser
These officials work under her leadership and closely with the Department’s regional bureaus and U.S. embassies and Consulates overseas to:
Advance the Department’s economic development agenda;
Elevate and intensify our efforts related to energy security, clean energy, and environmental sustainability; and Foster innovation through robust science, entrepreneurship, and technology policies.
Adam L Silverman
@LAO: I’m still a stooge for the CIA, right?
Anya
@Adam L Silverman: Thanks! He didn’t much want to talk about it but it was clearly a bad experience. This is just me being a bit of a busybody & a concerned cousin.
different-church-lady
@efgoldman:
Oh, I dunno… it might slip out in year seven of her presidency.
gwangung
This is known. This has been known for YEARS. I know about it because it’s part of my job tracking these things.
The only way it gets brought up is that people a) are being mendacious or b) don’t know what the hell they’re talking about.
Given what I know about public speaking (doing it and working with other people who do) and from the statements of people who work at it professionally, I’m pretty sure it’s B.
I would kindly ask folks if you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about….dial it down.
Adam L Silverman
@efgoldman: If they’re not taking advantage of that plan, and access to the Federal Thrift through it, they do not understand how to do micro level financial planning. Its been the only thing I hate about going on civilian mobilizations as a term limited civil servant – I don’t have access to the same retirement plans that regular civil servants do. So no access to the Thrift.
LAO
@Adam L Silverman: Sure, why not. I’m personally flattered that the CIA is so interested in the b-j community, that they maneuvered you into a FP position here.
mclaren
@Ryan:
No, that’s not the insinuation.
The insinuation is that Hillary is corrupt because of insanely overpaid speeches in the aftermath of the biggest financial collapse in 80 years, caused by an orgy of criminal fraud by banks and Wall Street firms, in which the overwhelming frontrunner for president tells a bunch of billionaire bankers and their billionaire clients “bashing the bankers is unproductive” and “it has to stop.”
Get your facts straight.
No one is complaining because Hillary got paid to give a speech. Lots of people get paid to give speeches.
Lots of people get paid modest reasonable amounts of money (like $200 or even $1000) to give reasonable sensible speeches (like “global warming is a serious problem and here’s the evidence” or “here are 10 ways we can inexpensively transition away from fossil fuels to solar power and renewables by 2050”)…
…But none of these people are the overwhelming frontrunner for president of the fucking United States.
Your dishonest and sleazy rephrasing of what Hillary Clinton did is as grossly dishonest as the statement “That man just pulled a metal lever. Why is everyone making such a big deal about pulling a metal lever?”
Maybe it’s the context that matters. Maybe if that person was a bank robber who aimed a gun at a security guard, and maybe if the metal lever is the trigger of that gun, and maybe if the bank robber kills that security guard because the robber pulled that metal lever, maybe then it’s a really big fucking deal.
gwangung
@mclaren: Shut the fuck up.
You don’t know what the hell you’re talking about.
Adam L Silverman
@Anya: If he’s still in and its still ongoing, and he doesn’t feel he has any recourse through his chain of command, then he needs to get a hold of Mikey Weinstein’s crew. They’ll be able to help him out.
smintheus
@Adam L Silverman: You’re persuaded by a Brian Williams war story? But not by any (or afaik, all) of the comments made publicly by attendees of Clinton’s speech to GS? And you blame the absence of definitive proof about what she said on Clinton’s critics, rather than upon the candidate’s own refusal to release the text?
NCSteve
@Adam L Silverman: Right? I mean, are these people under the impression that there was a court reporter or a shorthand secretary (are there still such things as shorthand secretaries?) at these events?
gwangung
@mclaren: Shut the fuck up.
You clearly don’t know what the hell you’re talking about.
Iowa Old Lady
I see we have reached the “Fuck you” “No, fuck you” portion of the evening’s entertainment.
I hope the identity of the D candidate is crystal clear to everyone by the end of this month and we can move on to beating the Rs.
redshirt
@mclaren: mclaren, what percentage of posters here at BJ do you think are paid political operatives posting here only as part of their job?
gwangung
@NCSteve: Pretty sure they do. At most, Clinton has notes or outlines, and she wouldn’t record every single time she spoke. Makes it hard to have a transcript.
And folks would never be satisfied with notes.
Gin & Tonic
@efgoldman:
Sure. So’s not having any sort of liquid funds.
I never said he was smart, and I’ve already spent more time than I intended to this evening poking around in FEC filings and his tax summary. I was already unlikely to vote for him Tuesday after next, and it’s getting less likely by the day.
gwangung
@Iowa Old Lady: Well, I decided we needed to take the shortcut and get there.
Still, there’s been a lot of ill-informed yammering out there.
redshirt
@efgoldman: You’re getting paid for this?! What da fuq?!
Weaselone
@mclaren:
Actually, you’re an idiot. Your information is 9 months old. Goldman Sachs is currently number 4 on her all time donors list. You could have at least bothered to link directly to the site as opposed to an article written in July.
And what’s this at the bottom of the page?
Why, I do believe that right there is a statement that the donations did not come directly from the company, but from individuals affiliated with the company and PACs and if I look to the right, I see that all but 10,000 came from individuals, not the company’s PAC.
Bobby Thomson
Heh.
Another tool of Goldman Sachs.
John D.
@mclaren:
You are an idiot.
Here, a professional speaker company, that you can hire a speaker from.
The more desired the speaker, the higher the fee.
You do not know what you are talking about. Your entire case against these fees is built upon you both not knowing what you are talking about and doing your damnedest to never LEARN what you are talking about.
Iowa Old Lady
@gwangung: Yeah, there’s work to be done.
LAO
@gwangung: I heard Hillary speak, about 6 months or so, at a woman’s bar association and she freestyled. No notes, no TelePrompTer and she was fantastic.
JUST SOME FUCKHEAD
@redshirt: IT’S OVER MAN IT’S ALL OVER GIVE IT UP FOR GOD’S SAKE DOOMED DOOMED DOOMED
eemom
@efgoldman:
Whew, that’s a relief. I was thinking he’s early tonight because the inmates took over the asylum.
Emma
All I have to say is I need a little extra cash so if any of you corporate tools can put me in touch with your paymasters I would appreciate it.
eemom
@JUST SOME FUCKHEAD:
psst — your caps lock is on. You’re welcome.
Weaselone
Oh, but there is this.
That’s the top donors to her candidate committee for this election cycle. Notice the conspicuous absence of a certain firm’s name from the list. The US State Department shows up though. Funny, it’s almost like the people who worked for and with her might actually like her and want her to be President.
Elie
@mclaren:
abl
McLaren — I did not say its just envy by poor people. It is envy by people like YOU who don’t feel empowered and are resentful of those who are. YOU want to be the top dog — which I understand. I am not rich or powerful, but I have watched people friends, and my husband, become bitter with resentment that is not always squarely based in assessing true corruption or taint. It IS tough — but is NOT worthwhile to exclude every person of wealth and power and label them as corrupt and evil. You are wrong on that and have to look honestly about what is going on within your own heart and spirit. Are rich people more likely to be corrupt and exploitive? Yes. Maybe in your mind that means that no rich person can ever be trusted or be able to have morality or honor. Khmer Rouge, baby…. Only the poor and ignorant are “worthwhile” and we should get rid of the rest, right?
Listen, you strike me as an intelligent person who spends way too much time keeping score on your resentments. The world is a big and beautiful place and there are a lot of ways to be rich. We all need to remember that and to follow that rule.
JUST SOME FUCKHEAD
@eemom: BABEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
mclaren
@efgoldman:
I guess you think it’s funny to accuse people of being mentally ill. You know, there are people out there is mental illness, and it’s not funny at all:
Source: comment by Pamela Brown, 26 March 2016.
Yuk, yuk, yuk. Let’s all joke about mental illness, because it’s so hilarious.
You’re a truly vile excuse for a human being, buddy.
Wrong on all counts. I only show up after about 6:00 P.M. West Coast time because I live on the West Coast. Not everyone on the planet lives on the East Coast, clown.
Amaranthine RBG
@smintheus: yep
Tawdry money grubbing is disgusting no matter who does it
Gelfling545
@Marc: Well, it’s certainly only open to people who’ve had experiences others might actually want th hear about. This doesn’t make the money unearned – hired for a speech; gave a speech. The fact that the honorarium was high doesn’t change that. Perhaps you are the type to say “Oh, no, don’t pay me so much” but I personally have never been that noble. Your criticism Is as much as to say that it’s unfair that not everybody can be a former Sec’y of State & be in demand for speeches as I think few people would be attracted to a conference based on Jane Perfectly Ordinary being the keynote speaker.
JUST SOME FUCKHEAD
@mclaren: WHOAWHOAWHOA ON THE CLOWN LIBEL DBAG. MY CLOWN POSSE WILL FUCK YOU UP HEAR ME?????
Amaranthine RBG
@mclaren: @mclaren: that will leave a mark.
mclaren
@gwangung:
Do you have any facts to support that assertion?
Of course you don’t, as usual for Balloon-Juice, your smears are fact-free and devoid of supporting logic. Just name-calling, the lowest level of Graham’s hierarchy of disagreement.
Adam L Silverman
@smintheus: Lets try this again. I’m not persuaded by a Brian Williams’ speech. I was using that as an example of what these types of speeches are like.
I am also stating that there 1) appears to be one set of rules for every other elected and/or appointed official in the US and a different set of rules for Secretary Clinton, 2) anonymously sourced paraphrasing of her remarks is not persuasive – even as anecdote, and 3) what is being done here is that people are making extraordinary claims, it is therefore up to them to provide extraordinary evidence.
Finally, as I wrote way back in comment 7: there are unlikely to be transcripts. There might be notes or an outline she was working off of. But it is unlikely that anyone transcribed her remarks.
Adam L Silverman
@NCSteve: The only way you’d get a transcript is if she had typed out, or a staffer had typed out, the entirety of her paired remarks and loaded them into a teleprompter or prepared them for her as a presentation aide to jog her memory for each portion of the speech. Is it possible? Sure. Since I don’t know how she likes to prepare for public speaking, I can’t say how probable.
LAO
@Adam L Silverman: when I heard her speak, Hillary used no notes or TelePrompTer.
John D.
@mclaren:
I do!
And it is just upthread!
Joe Bauers
Mclaren is right. If someone on the Republican side was so obviously taking money from wealthy interests far in excess of the value of the services rendered, you would be all over it, shrieking in outrage. But because she is “one of us”, and because the groupthink here has coalesced around her as the best option, everything she does must by definition be OK.
Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders, who is right about the corrupting influence of big money, is the worst person of all time because he points his finger.
In the immortal words of that great American philosopher Dave Moss: Fuck you, fuck the lot of you, fuck you all.
mclaren
@John D.:
You’re a sociopath and a compulsive pathological liar.
The typical honorarium for the typical speech, usually in academia or business settings, runs around $100. Sometimes a little more.
You are trying to compare a ridiculous select professional speakers bureau with the typical speech made by the typical person. Not only is that a lie, it’s a stupid lie, and it’s an incompetent lie.
The people who sign up with a professional speakers bureau are people with world-class reputations, often in the midst of major scandals, who make bank by trading on their notoriety. People like the war criminal Henry Kissinger, who peddles influence for money, are clients of a professional speakers bureau. People like General Stanley McChrystal, who resigned for his grossly insubordinate remarks ridiculing the president and vice president of the United States, are lients of a professional speakers bureau. People like former VP Dick Cheney are clients of a professional speakers bureau.
Very very few of the people who get paid those staggering amounts of cash to give speeches as clients of a professional speakers bureau are doing anything but peddling influence and trading on their notoriety as corrupt unindicted thieves and con artists famous for commiting enormities and getting away with them.
Your example, far from disproving my point, confirms it.
People who are very very good as public speaking get at most a few thousands dollars for a speech. People who get acquitted of a spectacular murder despite overwhelming evidence they committed the crime? People who get out of prison after major headline-grabbing financial frauds? Ex-Watergate felons?
Those are the people who make hundreds of thousands of dollars for speeches.
redshirt
@Joe Bauers: I wouldn’t at all be surprised if Ted Cruz gets a lot of money from GS. No shrieking at all.
Hey guess what? Wall Street is a rather important industry in America, and makes a lot of jobs!
redshirt
@mclaren: What’s your source for the average compensation for a speech? $100 seems comically low.
mclaren
@John D.:
No, your facts disprove your claim and support mine.
Once we strip that out of your comments, nothing is left but vacuous name-calling.
Amaranthine RBG
@Joe Bauers: SING IT FROM THE MOTHERFUCKING ROOFTOPS!
redshirt
@mclaren: But just to be clear, you’ll be voting for Hillary in November if she’s the Dem nominee, right?
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Joe Bauers: that theoretical Republican might also have actual policy proposals, say the elimination of taxes on capital gains and dividends, that I would find more objectionable. But I’m dopey that way.
mclaren
@redshirt:
If you’ve ever been invited to give a speech to academics, you will realize that $100 as an honorarium is on the high side. If you’ve ever been invited to give a speech to a group of businesspeople, you will realize that they usually pay nothing at all.
I think your notion of reasonable speaking fees has been distorted by all the Michael Milkens and G. Gordon Liddys and Stanley McChrystals out there who have cashed in on their infamy.
Joe Bauers
Clinton is challenging anybody to prove that she was influenced by Wall Street money. I’m sure there’s not some big obvious smoking gun quid pro quo, like a canceled check to her from Goldman Sachs with a memo that says “in exchange for your vote on Bill X”.
But the whole problem with the Citizens United ruling is that that’s now the level that it has to rise to in order to be illegal. Anything less than that is A-OK under the law, and is simply one person (i.e. corporation) showering another person (i.e. a politician) with free speech (i.e. money), for who knows what reason. Maybe they like them and are too shy to say so using English words, so they use currency words. Maybe they are insane. Who knows? But it’s certainly not that they think they’re buying something! Heaven forfend!
Say what you will about Goldman Sachs, but they’re not stupid, and they’re not bad with money. They don’t pay people with political influence $250,000 to come and tell them how swell they are for 30 minutes because they think that message, those few hundred words, are worth a quarter of a million bucks. And they didn’t pick her name out of a hat.
Still better than a President Trump or President Cruz by a whole lot, but she is very much part of the problem that Sanders (and some Trump) supporters are so angry about. The pervasive corruption and self-dealing that the wealthy and powerful take as their due, and think the rest of us should just shut up and accept.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Joe Bauers: You know that
1) Citizens United has fuck all to do with speaking fees?
and
2) Why the case was called Citizens United?
mclaren
@redshirt:
Of course I’ll be voting for Hillary, and she’s almost certainly going to be the Democratic nominee. Bernie Sanders would have to win California or New York by a shutout to become the nominee, and that’s not going to happen. Some people will vote for Hillary in those primaries.
Look, a sleazy influence peddler like Hillary Clinton may not be ideal as president, but she’s worlds better than a batshit insane sociopath and outright crook like Donald Trump or Ted Cruz.
I might not admire Hillary’s honesty and her policies may strike me as warmed-over canards from the 90s that won’t solve our problems, but at least she’s sane. And she isn’t a mobbed-up out-and-out criminal like Trump, or someone whose first political campaign was probably financed by Miami’s largest cocaine dealer, like Ted Cruz.
Calouste
@Joe Bauers: You might want to read a few posts above, where John D. post a quote from a professional speakers bureau that states that their speakers fees go over $100,000. You’d think that someone who is a former First Lady, former Senator, former Secretary of State, and former Presidential Candidate would fall in that bracket.
Bernie Sanders of course is so right about the corrupting influence of big money that he doesn’t release his tax returns, and doesn’t say how his private plane ride to the Vatican today, which some estimated to have cost $300,000, was paid for.
John D.
@Joe Bauers: Wow, so because I know how speakers’ fees work, having hired some in the past, I’ve succumbed to groupthink.
Well, you’ve certainly convinced me!
Here’s the thing: you used the word “value”. Much like the word “worth”, it gets misused a lot.
Value, at its most basic level, is what you can convince someone to give you for something. When you have a skill that is in high demand and low supply, you can get paid a lot. When you have fame or celebrity, people will pay you to come speak, just to be near you, so that they can say “I met [you] today” to all their friends.
That’s how celebrity works.
It’s why people that are very well-known get paid a lot of money to come speak to a trade association or at a keynote. Because the organizer ran the numbers, looked at the speakers they could afford with their budget, and hired the best value they could get.
Yao Ming. Shaquille O’Neal. Cardinal Dolan. Deepak Chopra. Tom Brokaw. Tony Burch. Madeline Albright. Eric Scmidt.
All Goldman Sachs speakers. Where’s the fucking quid pro quo with all of them?
Calouste
@redshirt: McLaren’s source is his ass.
Emma
@mclaren: As a person who has served in more program committees for two library associations that I care to acknowledge, starting in the late 1980s and ending in the early 2000s, the lowest fee ever paid by any of those committees was hotel room and food, which was considerably above $100, and only because the speaker waived his $2,000 fee because his mother had been a librarian. So, no.
John D.
@mclaren: Uh huh.
Because I linked to a company that provides speakers for professional organizations — and one that gave their price ranges — I’m a sociopath. Sure.
You have a comically narrow view of the world when your response to that is “Academia! $100! Honorarium!” That is not how the wider world works, at all.
Joe Bauers
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
Precisely. It has to do with political contributions, which is obviously what it is when someone gives a politician a quarter of a million dollars for an anodyne 30 minute speech. Obviously, that is, unless you’ve got your heart set on not seeing the obvious.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Joe Bauers: What did she do with the money?
ETA: Also, in 2008 the Clintons were said to be worth around $100 million, which makes these speeches all the more incomprehensible, even if that figure is grossly exaggerated, but… do you really think she was whoring out the White House for one quarter of one percent of her net worth?
Adam L Silverman
@LAO: Yeah, but you’re probably a GCHQ stooge or something. Do you have an English accent?
Aqualad08
@Calouste:
An organization not only complicit in covering-up and enabling centuries of child rape and shady land deals, but also one that pays 0% in taxes and continually fights against providing birth control to their employees. WTG, Bernie! ;)
Weaselone
@Joe Bauers:
As has been noted many times, Hillary has done numerous highly compensated speeches for a variety of organizations, not just Goldman Sachs. I don’t see many people complaining about the money she was paid Massachusetts Conference for Women and demanding transcripts of that speech. Goldman paid the going rate for Hillary speeches as arranged by her agent. That seems to speak against the idea that his was some sort of *wink* *wink* *nudge* *nudge* bribe in return for some future action, unless we believe that every speech she gave came with similar strings attached. Of course, with all the speeches she gave, that means an awful lot of strings, pulling in multiple directions on nearly every issue. She’s owned by so many different competing groups as to dilute that ownership the point of being meaningless.
Adam L Silverman
@mclaren: I don’t know anyone in academia, unless they’re doing a freebee for someone, that doesn’t get at least $1,500 to 2K plus their expenses.
Joe Bauers
@Calouste:
Yes, I’m sure they do. Even as much as 250% of that amount, which is what she got.
Do you hear yourself? You’re arguing that a politician taking a quarter of a million dollars is OK because some unknown people (who might also be politicians for all we know!) get paid over 40% of that much money. How much money would she have to take before you would say, gee, maybe they’re paying for something other than 30 minutes of the mellifluous sound of her voice?
gwangung
@Joe Bauers:
You obviously don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. When someone who DOES know tries to tell you something, you run around screaming “La, la la la I can’t hear you.”
starscream
She should ask Sanders to release these speeches:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/05/politics/sanders-democratic-fundraisers/
Bailey
@redshirt:
Is Ted Cruz promising to go tough on the banks and reign in Wall Street greed and use Dodd Frank to break up the banks if necessary? If not, why the comparison to Ted Cruz?
redshirt
@Joe Bauers: What’s wrong with making money, Joe?
gwangung
@Joe Bauers: We hear you. And you’re not making a whole lot of sense.
Morzer
@Calouste:
Bernie had already released some of his tax returns and released the 2014 returns this very Friday. Details here, plus the fact that he is one of the poorer members of the Senate:
http://time.com/4296683/bernie-sanders-tax-returns-2014/
redshirt
@Bailey: This is tiresome, really. I know Bernie is purer than all other politicians and OBVIOUSLY Clinton getting paid for speeches means she’s in the pocket of every single group that paid her. So expect a lot of pro-camping executive orders under Clinton’s watch.
LAO
@Adam L Silverman: Don’t be a tosser. I’m as American as apple pie.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Joe Bauers: How much did they pay Shaquille O’Neill, Deepak Chopra and someone called Tony Burch. And since according to your theory, the blinding correctness of which is obvious to all but the willfully stupid, GS only gives when they’re gonna get more, what return did they get on those fees, and what did it look like? How about the loathsome Timmy Dolan? Granted, the man knows something about money laundering, but do you think Blankfein et al were buying indulgences? or the secrets of the Ark? Or membership in the Knights of Columbus? I think those go for less than six figures.
Bailey
@Joe Bauers:
Thank you for saying it. With all of the back-bending and bizarre justification going on around here, I assumed I had entered into the comments section of a Republican blog.
And we seriously wonder why that Overton Window keeps moving to the right.
Gin & Tonic
@Morzer: Those 2014 returns released “this very Friday” are a) incomplete and b) were apparently released some time ago. The PDF carries a date of Sep 2, 2015.
Adam L Silverman
@LAO: Okay, cause GCHQ is the Brit’s NSA. But much posher!
Joe Bauers
@redshirt:
It depends on how you make it. Peddling influence isn’t a particularly honorable way to do it.
Morzer
@Gin & Tonic:
You mean Bernie had already released them!? O the outrage!
Now, about those speech transcripts…..
Bailey
@redshirt:
So is she making the promises now to be tough on Wall Street or not? And if she is, you seriously don’t see the contradiction here?
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Bailey: And you’re the one who didn’t care about the speeches at all until last night? My goodness, your conversion has been quick and complete. You’ve got the talking points down as if your initial post was some disingenuous concern trolling. As if.
Gin & Tonic
@Gin & Tonic: OK, I take that back. The first file I found and linked to earlier was the incomplete return he released earlier. I’ve now found the full one.
redshirt
@Bailey: I don’t. Do you really think getting paid to speak means you are beholden to the people who paid?
mclaren
@redshirt:
A vanishingly small percentage, well under 1/100 of one percent, probably less than 1/1000 of one percent. The thing is, it only takes two or three or four dedicated and creative and industrious astroturfers to completely derail any online discussion. Take a look at the JTRIG slides Snowden released.
Source: “How Covert Agents Infiltrate the Internet to Manipulate, Deceive, and Destroy Reputations,” Glenn Greenwald, 24 February 2014.
Naturally the ignorant kooks and cranks who infest this forum will sneer “That’s paranoid crap!” Proof of their ignorance, if not their total dishonesty.
Bear in mind that the CIA has already been caught manipulating the U.S. media.
Source: “Operation Mockingbird,” Wikipedia.
Operation Mockingbird was one of many CIA covert ops revealed by the Church Commission in the late 1970s. We know as a matter of record that the Russian Federation employs a corps of paid astroturfers to manipulate the internet with disinformation; we know as a matter of record from Snowden’s infodump that the British government employs a corps of paid astroturfers to manipulate the internet with disinformation.
See “The Kremlin’s Troll Army: the Kremlin is financing legions of pro-Russian commenters,” The Atlantic magazine, August 2014.
We know as a matter of documented fact that the Chinese government pay many hundreds of thousands of astroturfers to spead pro-Chinese disinformation on the internet. See the BBC News article from 2008 “China’s internet `Spin Doctors.'”
If you really believe that the U.S. government doesn’t do the same thing that the Russian or British or Chinese governments do to “manage perceptions” online, you’re hopelessly naive.
Source: “Spock with a Beard: The Sequel,” Billmon’s diary, 25 March 2010.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Joe Bauers: Shaq, Deepak and Tony Burch, Joe. What ‘influence’ are they peddling? Go.
Also, if you could fill me in on who Tony Burch is, I’d appreciate it.
redshirt
@mclaren: So I’m “hopelessly naive” if I don’t believe your accusation that Mnemes is a paid CIA operative?
Bailey
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
Hillary’s tap-dancing routine was just that impressive and eye-catching last night.
Perhaps you should concern yourself less with my level of education on the matter and the content of the concern.
David M
I still don’t get why we’re supposed to care about the speeches. Even assuming the worst about them, it’s still not as bad as Sanders pretending his “Medicare for All” is a serious proposal. Clinton has long been the only realistic option simply due to that.
mclaren
@Joe Bauers:
Yes, but the really important point is: which of the speakers represented by that professional speakers bureau command a fee of $250,000?
It’s not just famous people. Stephen King does not command a speaking fee of $250,000. It’s not just freakishly talented people. No Nobel Prize winner in physics or medicine commands a speaking fee of $250,000.
No, the tiny select group of clients for professional speaking bureaus who command those fees are always either people who have been convicted of some splashy world-famous crime but who got away with it, politicians who are widely expected to ascend to some incredibly influential position, or politicians who have just stepped down from some incredibly influential position and are totally wired into the Washington D.C. beltway power players, or influential financial or political power players who have been insiders for a long long time and wield incredible influence behind the scenes.
Bailey
@redshirt:
When I take a paycheck from someone, a business or a client, I’m generally beholden to them, yes.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Bailey: Perhaps… perhaps…..
Perhaps you could fill me in on how Shaquille O’Neal feeds the vampire zombie squid, or whatever admittedly funny phrase of Taibbi’s made Goldman Sachs the bête noire of Bernistas. Joe doesn’t seem to want to, to my grave disappointment.
@Bailey: Really? when you’re paid and the work is done, you still feel yourself “beholden”? Poor thing.
Emma
@redshirt: Yes, they do. Because they have no earthly idea of how the real corruption works. It finally dawned on me that in spite of all their conspiracy theories they are terribly naive.
Gin & Tonic
Huh. Jane Sanders earned $4,900 in 2014 as a member of the Texas Low Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Commission.
Adam L Silverman
@Gin & Tonic: That sounds like an unreasonable amount of regulation for Texas. It must be a CIA front.
Gin & Tonic
@Gin & Tonic: I wonder if that’s at all related to the agreement the Vermont Yankee nuclear generating station has to ship its low-level waste to Texas.
mclaren
@redshirt:
I never said Mnemosyne was a paid CIA operative. She is clearly an astroturfer, probably a paid one, who is likely getting some kind of remuneration for her relentlessly aggressive lying on behalf of a corporate/militarist/panopticon-surveillance/plutocratic agenda.
I would be very surprised if the paid astroturfers on forums like this were CIA operatives. That would be too revealing. If their names were revealed it would be too embarrassing.
I expect that the people who are get paid to do this kind disinformational astroturfing have a hard airgap between themselves and any government agency in order to create lots of plausible deniability. They are probably getting paid as “consultants” by front companies set up as cutouts which are then funded by Cayman Islands accounts which are part of shell companies originally set up by other shell companies ultimately financed covertly by some U.S. government or corporate entity.
Bailey
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
Who said her work was done?
I have no idea what you’re talking about. I assume the implication is that Shaq also spoke at GS? If so, am I also to believe that now Shaq is in some official capacity where he vows to reign in Wall Street greed and break up too big to fail banks?
mclaren
@redshirt:
There’s getting paid to speak, and then there’s getting $600,000 to speak.
If you don’t think you’re beholden as a politician to a group of businesspeople who pay you $600,000 for one speech, you will not get far in politics in America.
eemom
@mclaren:
Look y’all, he has this much right. That’s more than one can say for a lot of the insects crawling out of the woodwork here lately. Let’s work with it.
/kumbaya my lord, kumbaya
Gin & Tonic
@mclaren:
I’m going to have to give only a “B” for that one, because you failed to work in Mossack Fonseca.
cbear
@Adam L Silverman:
Yes, you do keep saying there are no transcripts.
You are incorrect.
The contracts that have been published are as follows:
Sec Clinton requires the entity paying for the speech to provide and pay for a stenographer.
She also requires those same entities to agree that those transcripts are her intellectual property and may not be released without her consent.
Make of that what you will.
I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet
@Corner Stone: Yup.
If Geithner could make $200k giving a speech, why should she be paid less? Isn’t SoS more important than SoT?
I agree with a comment I saw here earlier (or later – I’m not reading the threads chronologically – been busy today): If some high-powered person is trying to influence the actions of an agency or the Congress, they do that through lobbying. Asking someone who is out of office and has no official capacity to come and give a speech is different from quid-pro-quo Corruption™. Nobody giving $200k to Geithner or Clinton (or anyone else) is doing it for a quid-pro-quo. It’s about showing how important the inviting organization is to its peers and its staff and its customers. It’s burnishing the brand. It’s not to get the government to do anything – it’s marketing.
Cheers,
Scott.
hamletta
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: Are we sure that’s not Tory Burch, the designer?
redshirt
@mclaren: Is/was Obama beholden to Wall Street? He bailed them out after all.
randy khan
@mclaren:
You’re not getting it. She wasn’t being paid for what she’d do for them in the future; no big corporate speaker is. She was being paid because her presence would impress the people invited to the event. The value wasn’t in what she said or what she’d do at all.
I understand why people don’t believe this, but it’s really how the whole big-name speaker thing works. The real question in almost every case is who you can get given your budget who will most impress the audience. After that, very little matters. (And they all have canned speeches that they give again and again because the people buying the speeches in this particular market don’t really care whether they get original insights or not.)
Emma
@mclaren: Off the top of my head I can think of three ways to funnel serious money to any politician so far away from the public eye that you would need a radio telescope to find it. Why expose yourself like that? $600,000 is chump change for the big boys.
Adam L Silverman
@cbear: I sit corrected. Good catch. I had not seen that/did not know that. So, she has some one transcribe her speeches. I find that interesting. Pure speculation, but my guess its to cover herself in case someone accuses her of saying X, she has a transcribed record if she needs to dispute the accusations. Thanks for the info!
I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet
@I’mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet: (sigh)
I got thrown in the dungeon again after editing an HTML tag. Help?
Thanks.
Cheers,
Scott.
(I guess I shouldn’t do that anymore.)
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Bailey: actually, HRC doesn’t talk about breaking up the banks, she says that banks that overextend will fail, and she’ll let them fail.
Has HRC promised to “rein in Wall St greed”? how would she do that? Shock therapy?
Joe, and you, seem to be convinced that GS would never pay anyone to speak unless it somewhat increased their nefarious wealth and power. They paid Shaq and Deepak Chopra to speak. I’m too naive to understand how that worked to their financial and/or advantage.
J R in WV
I posted this on a thread that was dying by the time I finished it after dinner. It was a lot of typing, so here it is again:
Hillary Clinton’s “negatives” are the result of a drumbeat of negative falsehoods being propagated by the whole mass media industry, which is being controlled by billionaire ownership. And the Billionaire ownership wants a pliable Republican in the White House. [Kay mentioned this fact in the “Open Thread: Paul isn’t running for president NOW”.]
The Ownership Class has hated the Clintons for decades, because the Clintons care more about people than they do the Ownership Class. So the Ownership Class has spent billions of dollars trying to spoil the image of both President Bill Clinton and candidate Hillary Clinton.
The miracle would be if after billions of dollars spent on bogus stories about everything from airplanes loaded with cocaine landing on airstrips in rural Arkansas that somehow were related by Governor Clinton by Whooo Magic!!! The death of Vincent Foster, murdered by Hillary because he wouldn’t do whatever, woooo magic. Lesbian love fests in the Situation Room late at night, with NO pictures, because wooooo magic.
Advertising works. We know this because businesses spend billions of dollars on advertising. They do this because they can measure the payoff in dollars spent on TV, movie placements, endorsements by sports stars, movie stars, etc, versus profits from enhanced sales from those expensive ad campaigns.
So their media campaign, which we know is ongoing from just counting stories about Hillary Clinton and their subject, is bound to have an effect on people exposed to it. See the comment Kay wrote. I don’t watch much TV, about 3 hours a week. Plus the odd sports event in the fall and winter.
So I still think Hillary Clinton is an upstanding person running for office because she believes she can help people – how naive is that? Not at all, why else would a millionaire run for office? She can retire to the south of France, with Secret Service protection, if she wants to. Instead she puts up with the BS the Republicans conjure up about her ethics.
Compared to whom? Republicans like Denny Hastert? Paul Ryan? Donald F’in’ Trump??
Sterling character compared to any Republican. Ask anyone who worked with her.
Reply
LAO
@redshirt: Frankly, I would have nominated you as the CIA operative. ?
But then I remembered this is a crappy little site, why would the government bother! And I say this as a federal criminal defense attorney who is always willing to think the worst of our surveillance state.
redshirt
@LAO: Defense attorney is a good cover for a CIA operative….
LAO
@redshirt: NSA. But you didn’t hear that from me.
marduk
Your point #5 proves that you’re smarter than every adviser Hillary has under her employ. Your other points are good as well but that one… I sure hope her incompetence in hiring campaign people doesn’t extend to incompetence in hiring executive office staff. Hopefully the clownshow from the 90s is all out to pasture.
mclaren
@Emma:
Notice what’s going on here on this thread.
The conversation has shifted away from Hillary Clinton’s sleazy influence peddling and onto [1] the alleged mental illness of people who reported the evidence about Clinon’s influence peddling; [2] bizarre conspiracy theories no one takes seriously and that none of the astroturfers expect anyone to take seriously (viz., “which one of us is a paid CIA operative?”); [3] pikayune minutia involving this or that person’s “standard” speaking fees, this or that commenter’s alleged intelligence or knowledge of professional speaking; [4] bogus arguments like “can you prove that there was a crime committed?”; [5] lots of smears and personal attacks designed to stir up a hornet’s nest and get people like Bailey and me to shift away from Bill and Hillary Clinton’s sleazy lack of ethics and their habit of influence peddling, and onto other less explosive issues.
So let’s shift the conversation back to the Clintons.
Take a look at the story
“Bill Clinton’s pardon of fugitive Marc Rich continues to pay big,” The New York Post, 17 March 2016.
This is the kind of thing the Clintons do. And they do it habitually. They take bribes in a carefully disguised form.
Influence peddling destroys the economy — it’s how billionaires directly influence government to get the legislation passed that they want passed, it’s how corporate criminals get away with paying a fine instead of going to prison.
Take a look at headlines like “The Clinton Machine: Hillary’s Endorsements are Based on Influence Peddling, Not Her Record,” February 2016.
That is very different from what you read on Hillary’s website today:
Source: Hillary clinton’s current website.
Bailey
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
So you’d probably be surprised to learn that when I tuned in for that one and only debate, I also heard HRC talking about breaking up the banks. How did you miss this?
http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clinton-and-bernie-sanders-spar-over-breaking-up-big-banks-1460694883
As far as how she’d go about reining in these institutions, that’s a better question for her, not me. But I bet receiving exorbitant speaking fees at those very banks where she has been described as a virtual member of their executive team probably won’t lead to fruitful results.
mclaren
@Emma:
Boy, are you ever naive!
Deniability. You want to be able to shout “But nothing illegal was done!” when the payoff gets revealed.
No serious power player ever wants to pay cash in a paper bag. That’s criminal stuff. You can be indicted for that. No, they always want to pay a “consultant fee” or “speaking fees” or something like that.
it’s exactly the same way a rich person or a giant corporation will sell someone a 2 million dollar house for $100,000 in return for some valuable favor like voting the right way on some piece of legislation. It’s obviously a bribe, but there’s no way to prove it’s a bribe. “We just got a bad deal when we sold that house, we didn’t realize the sale price was so far below market value.”
Emma
@mclaren: Oy. Never mind. The New York Post. Paste magazine. Great sources for all things logical. And I’m supposed to be convinced.
No, you sweetly naive guy. The real corruption is above ground and quite often legal. There are much easier ways to manipulate things than to pay an ex-politician who may or may not find him/herself back into the political game chump change.
redshirt
@mclaren: You accuse people here of being paid operatives then in the same thread belittle that idea as a way of deflecting attention from the real issues?
different-church-lady
THE GOVERNMENT CAN ARREST YOU! SHAQ CAN’T ARREST YOU!!!
redshirt
@LAO: CIA is much sexier than NSA.
burnspbesq
@mclaren:
Goldman settled CIVIL complaints. There are no criminal charges.
You’re either ignorant or a liar. Which is it?
redshirt
@different-church-lady: I thought I saw a video of Shaq arresting people?
mclaren
@Adam L Silverman:
Let me get this straight, Silverman:
First you assure us that we need hard evidence of a crime in order to accuse Hillary of being an influence peddler.
Then you demand we disprove there wasn’t a crime committed — the old of trick of demanding the impossible, proof of a negative.
Next, you assured us with vast certainty that it would have been ridiculous for Hillary to have had any of her speeches transcribed, and thus it’s preposterous to demand that she release those transcripts.
Now you’ve flipped 180 degrees and you’re telling it’s not only completely reasonable but inevitable that Hillary would have her speeches transcribed.
Silverman, your franctically failed efforts to defend Hillary sound uncannily like the stuff I hear from ufologists who claim to have been adbucted by aliens. Yes, of course they were abducted because there’s memory loss. No, there’s no medical evidence of memory loss because the aliens have some weird amazing technology that doesn’t leave evidence. Yes, thousands of people are abducted by UFOs every year. No, there’s no evidence because there was a special force field that makes them invisible to radar that we didn’t mention. And of course there’s no evidence of that special force field because there’s another even more special force field that keep our instruments from detecting the first force field.
And on and on it goes. Increasingly elaborate and outlandish claims, each one adding new information and new assertions that we never heard before, each time creating an increasingly preposterous jenga tower of paranoia and supposition that we must swallow whole in order to believe the whole fairytale.
Now we must believe that there’s a vast conspiracy against Hillary, that the whole revulsion against her and her hubby’s influence-peddilng and Republican-lite DINO warmongering and anti-crime and anti-welfare legislation was orchestrated by sinister mustachio-twirling billionaires who hide in the shadows, that it was insane to imagine that Hillary would have transcripts made of her speeches, but no! It’s inevitable that she would have those transcripts made because she must defend herself against this vast conspiracy of billionaires! But now we can’t possibly ask her to release said transcriptions, because that plays into the very conspiracy that forced her to make the transcripts in the first place!
Silverman, have you listened to yourself?
Do you have any idea what this stuff sounds like?
It sounds exactly like the frantically failed defenses of George W. Bush’s corrupt administration.
No, there was no cash handed over in paper bags, so it’s not a bribe! No, it wasn’t actually illegal, so it was all okay! No, Dick Cheney went back to work for Halliburton after his policies as VP enriched the company just out of charity, it was all a big coincidence! No, Dubya never dodged the draft, he was just such a fabulous pilot that the Texas Air National guard had to have him as a pilot! No, there was no malfeasance when Dubya set up a commission that the Wall Street crooks could phone to shut down regulatory investigation, it was just an effort to make government more efficient! No Condi wasn’t lying when she said that crap about the mushroom clouds, it was all just bad luck!
Jesus Christ.
patroclus
I’d like to get in on this CIA grift train! How much do they pay for comments on BJ?? How does one apply? That would be so cool to make money from the CIA for posting my opinions!
Emma
@mclaren: Sweetheart, do you know why we found out about the goings-on in the offshore trusts? Because someone got fed up with the whole thing. Do you really think that all the other companies that engage in the same behavior went out of business? One little Swiss bank account accumulating for ten years and that’s all you need. Cash in a paper bag? that’s so… Staten Island.
Adam L Silverman
@different-church-lady: Actually Shaq can arrest you:
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/doral/article7791585.html
He’s a certified law enforcement officer in Florida.
Omnes Omnibus
@patroclus: I was approached at a Skull and Bones gathering. Excuse me, I have to leave the room now.
different-church-lady
@mclaren:
You know, you’re right: we don’t need jack to accuse her of anything we want to accuse her of.
LAO
@redshirt: Agreed but I prefer to operate within the US — my foreign language skills are weak.
redshirt
@efgoldman: I now note your name, EFGOLDMAN. Clearly in the pocket of both EF Hutton and Goldman Sachs.
different-church-lady
@Adam L Silverman: Woah… maybe those “POLICE STATE!” loonies have a point…
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@Bailey: well, you’re right. Clinton does talk about enforcing existing law. But “breaking up the banks” is not an end in itself.
I bet her paymasters at GS didn’t like that last sentence
David M
So, can anyone help Sanders out by pointing out exactly how Clinton is helping out Wall Street? As a reminder, her record doesn’t support this accusation, which is why the speeches are so nefarious. They only matter because there isn’t any other evidence to support the claims.
redshirt
@LAO: LOL yeah the CIA doesn’t operate domestically, right.
Monala
@debbie: Credit unions give interest as a matter of course, on all kinds of accounts, including checking. This is because they are nonprofits, so instead of profits going to shareholders, they are given back as interest to account holders. Nearly 1 in 3 Americans have credit union accounts. Linky
LAO
@redshirt: that’s what we tell people. I mean that’s the law.
StellaB
@mclaren: Bernie’s undoubtedly equally in thrall to Big Maple Syrup, because his donors work for maple syrup manufacturers. HRC was the senator from NY. A lot of her constituents worked in finance because that is one of NY’s biggest — if not the biggest — industries. You’ll see the same pattern for every senator from every state. You deliberately chose the 1999 to present time period because you can include the time where she was getting the bulk of her contributions from her own state.
@Weaselone: Here’s a story about the difference between Hillary campaigning and Hillary working. The bottom line is that she’s a lot happier and more likable when she’s working. I can’t say that I blame her.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/04/hillary-clinton-2016-the-mystery-of-the-two-hillarys-213813?paginate=false
Bailey
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
Or her paymasters know they have nothing to worry about from her. As they haven’t in the past. But at least you’re now acknowledging the inherent conflict.
mclaren
@Bailey:
Mrs. Clinton and her hubby will leave it up to the foxes to make sure that the henhouse is safe and secure. Boy, that’ll work well.
And by the way…Dodd-Frank is worthless.
Source: “The Ten Reasons Why There Will Be Another Systemic Financial Crisis,” Robert Lenzner, Forbes Magazine, 8 December 2014.
So notice what’s going on:
[1] Dodd-Frank was passed as a watered-down fake ‘reform’ that doesn’t actually reform anything, because the real reform would involve identifying and regulating the shadow banking system where the banks and wall street firms make the real money by piling up fantastic leverage with risky derivatives;
[2] But even Dodd-Frank, as weak as it is, is too much for Hillary to stomach as a paid serf of the financial crime lords, so Hillary wants to “leave it to the banks” to figure out how to comply with Dodd-Frank;
[3] Then for good measure Hillary goes and lies about Bernie Sanders’ reforms to discredit him, just in case there’s a dange rof any genuine regulation of Wall Street coming up for discussion.
Source: ““Bold, brash and wholly false”: Hillary Clinton is misleading people about Bernie Sanders’ Wall Street reform, again: Hillary’s Wall Street reform plan is to misrepresent Sanders’, while falsely claiming her’s is tougher. Nice try,” Salon online, 5 January 2016.
And by the way…
…Who is that mysterious “chief financial officer” hired by the Clinton campaign who came up with this crap to discredit Bernie Sanders?
Oh, that would be Gary Gensler — who just so happens to be a former high muckety-muck at (wait for it…drum roll, please!) Goldman Sachs.
Yes, the very company that just paid 5 billion dollars to settle a lawsuit by the justice department asserting that criminal fraud by Sachs played a central role in crashing the economy in 2009.
Omnes Omnibus
@efgoldman:
That’s what they want you to think.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@efgoldman: But…. EF Hutton built Mar-A-Lago, now owned by Donald Trump… so… Ipso fatso I think we have figured out your paymaster!
redshirt
@efgoldman: Shhh. Listen….
mclaren
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
No, they loved it. Seriously. Read that last sentence carefully:
This is the genius of the Clintons. They don’t say anything, but make you think they said it.
What does Hillary say?
She says “I want the law to extend…” She never says: “I will introduce legislation to make the law extend…”
Hey — I want world peace. I want an end to racism. I want total equality for women. I’m not going to lift a finger to make any of that happen, but I sure want it to happen.
That’s the Clinton approach. “I feel your pain.” But you caused it, asshole, with your 1994 crime bill and the legislation you signed off on that ended Glass-Steagall. “I want the law to extend…” But you’re not going to do a goddamn thing to make sure the law extends to those provisions.
This is what I despise about the Clintons. They think they’re so smart when they run these kinds of verbal calisthenics past us, thinking we won’t realize we’re being conned. “It depends what the definition of `is’ is.”
Fuck that shit. Hillary is running the same scam with shadow banking regulation that she’s running with increasing the minimum wage. Hillary has said she wants the minimum wage to increase but she doesn’t want to pass a federal law requiring it — she wants to leave increasing the minimum wage up to individual states.
But that means nothing. Without a federal law, we get a race to the bottom among states to see who can offer the lowest minimum wage and get corporations to relocate their factories there.
Same deal with this “I want the law to extend…” She’s saying nothing but thinks she can con us into believing that she really did say something meaningful about financial reform.
David M
@mclaren:
How have you missed all the “here’s another chart showing how Dodd-Frank is working” posts from the last few years? Actual data trumps random conspiracy theories.
Adam L Silverman
@mclaren: Paying your own stenographer to take notes of your own paid speeches, or even unpaid speeches, is violation of which Federal or state criminal statute?
I have attended a large number of speeches by key leaders and VIPs because of my professional work. I’ve even been responsible for coordinating some of them. I’ve given keynote addresses and other lectures as part of my professional work – some of those were paid and some I did as favors/freebees for friends (including a freebee talk on the Syrian Civil War to a women’s group in Arlington as a favor to a colleague to keep him in good graces with his mother in law. Though I did get lunch out of it). All of mine were substantive – as in I was being asked to speak on a specific topic as a recognized subject matter expert and deliver substantive information that would be useful. You can even find one I did at USAWC for the Central Pennsylvania Great Decisions Series on the same topic on youtube. I’ve done programs that include not just giving the keynote, but running several lessons of instruction on anti and counter-terrorism for corporate security at Disney University in 2004 (resulting in a publication in Security Journal in 2005). I know just a little bit about this stuff and how it works.
Until I was directed to the McClatchy article I’d never seen or heard of anyone having someone sit in the audience and transcribe their remarks. I’ve seen folks come in with a few notes on a 3X5 card. I’ve seen folks come in with a word for word typed version of what they’re going to say. I’ve seen folks come in and just speak off the top of their heads because they’ve given the talk so many times. I’ve seen folks with powerpoints and without and I’ve seen teleprompters. So when presented with documentation that demonstrated I’d gotten it wrong – as in my assertion based on significant experience was incorrect – I thanked cbear and provided some speculation as to why Secretary Clinton might have done this. Would you have preferred if I’d refused to believe it, stuck my fingers in my ears, and gone “nah nah nah, I’m not listening to you!” When someone presents contradictory evidence, a secure person, let alone a smart one, evaluates it and adjusts their understanding. You’ve had a number of people try to do this with you tonight and on many other nights. Your response seems to be to double down, stick your fingers in your ears, and provide comment equivalents of “nah nah nah I’m not listening to you!” Followed by impugning people’s integrity.
I use my real name here. I’m very transparent about who I am and what I do and who I do it for/with. I don’t endorse candidates and I largely avoid dealing with domestic politics in my posts unless it involves my areas of expertise and interest. Some of my formal professional work (reports and articles) can be easily found online with a keyword search, some can be found in JSTOR or other scholarly databases of publications. My past columns and posts here, at Juan Cole’s website, at my previous haunts, and for Tom Ricks at Foreign Policy can be found easily. You hide behind a nom de Internet and an email address that may or may not be accurate. You appear, you rant, you rave, you pick fights, you insult people, and you impugn the integrity of even the people that agree with you. You taking my meaning about the dynamic you’ve built for yourself here?
Aqualad08
@mclaren:
Source: “Pee Wee’s Big Adventure,” Paul Reubens, Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc., 9 August 1985
Jim, Foolish Literalist
Not really. Goldman Sachs paid her to speak in 2013 (?), she spoke, gave the money away, two-plus years later started a campaign for president pledging to enforce and expand a law passed in 2010… what is the Underpants Gnomes Theory of Corruption at work here? Goldman Sachs, to whom five billion dollars is a laughable pittance, paid the inherently evil Hillary $250,000, 1/4 of 1% of her (speculated) net worth, which she gave away, even while it bound her like a magic ring to… what, exactly?
Omnes Omnibus
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: Dude, Goldman Sachs. C’mon.
mclaren
@efgoldman:
Notice that guys like efgoldman never introduce anything substantive into the discussion. Bailey and I and a few others keep citing all the evidence of the Clinton’s long long long long history of influence-peddling and sleaze, and guys like this character just keep making jokes.
Har har har! It’s all so funny. Let’s yuk it up while Bill and Hillary Clinton make the world safe for corporate criminals and pardon money-laundering thieves and take thinly-disguised bribes from Wall Street fraudsters who travel through a revolving door of ever larger fines paid to the U.S. Department of Justice in recompense for their thievery and criminal fraud.
What a laugh. What a hoot. It’s such a howlingly funny spectacle, a regular yukfest.
Meanwhile, here’s what’s happening to the real economy in the real world:
Source: “The Asshole Factory,” economist Umair Haque, April 21 2015.
That’s what the Clinton’s influence-peddling buys us. An economy run by oligarchs that shits all over the average person, while rewarding only the rich criminals.
Yuk yuk yuk! It’s all so hilariou! Make another joke, efgoldman, it’s all so goddamn funny.
You know what’s really funny?
“Yelp Employee Fired After Public Post To CEO Saying She Can’t Afford Food,” The Huffington Post, 21 February 2016.
Make some jokes about that, why don’t you. Yuk it all up over that one. Explain to us all how hilariously funny our economy is when it treats ordinary people like that because corrupt sleazy wardheelers like Hillary Clinton are too busy influence-peddling to billionaire criminals to actually advocate a goddamn federal minimum wage that pays a living goddamn wage to average people.
Omnes Omnibus
@mclaren: It isn’t our fault you lack a sense of humor.
patroclus
@mclaren: You really need to read up on Dodd-Frank. From the CFPB, to the required derivatives disclosure, to the push-out provisions, to the Volcker Rule, to the requirement that all OTC derivatives be traded on open exchanges, to the new FSOC (which the Republicans were trying to gut just yesterday in the House), to the change on the directed lending provisions and much much more. I suggest you read the standard Banking Law texts by Hal Smith (on its international ramifications) and Jerry Markham and Lissa Broome (on domestic stuff) if you’re really interested in educating yourself. Sure, there were compromises and it could have gone further in many areas, but to call it “weak” makes you look like you are unaware of its substantive provisions.
bin Lurkin'
@mclaren:
Silverman is good at sounding oh-so-rational but I agree with mclaren here, the tone of the defenses of Clinton everywhere I look at political argument sound just like Republicans defending C+ Augustus ca. 2006 or so..
Omnes Omnibus
@bin Lurkin’: Right…
David M
@bin Lurkin’:
No. Just no. Bush 2 was a complete disaster on all fronts, and in no way comparable to Clinton. The people supporting Clinton are supporting someone generally recognized to be a successful public official. If anything it’s the people attacking Clinton that are as out of touch as the people who were defending Shrub.
patroclus
@bin Lurkin’: It’s that kind of comment that makes Sanders and his supporters look ridiculous and out of touch with reality. Bush destroyed the economy, including the credit markets, the housing markets, the investment banking markets, the equity markets, the repo markets, the consumer lending markets. he invaded the wrong country after 9/11 and caused thousands of deaths and hundreds of thousands of refugees, he tortured, waterboarded, engaged in extraordinary rendition, he didn’t even pursue OBL, his response to Katrina was atrocious, his people outed CIA agents and commuted the sentences of those who did, the blowback from the idiotic Iraq invasion created ISIS, he pissed on long-time allies; there is almost nothing he did right. To compare a successful Secretary of State to that kind of record is mind-bogglingly inaccurate.
cbear
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
I’m curious, you state (twice) that Sec Clinton gave away the money from the speeches–do you have a reference for that?
Additionally, you mention that this all took place in 2013, which I assume is correct in regards to Goldman, but are you also aware of her 2014 and 2015 speeches paid for and/or underwritten by Canadian banks with a very substantial interest in the Keystone Pipeline?
Thanks.
patroclus
@cbear: I’m curious. Is the Keystone pipeline an active project? Wasn’t it rejected by the U.S. and then canceled by the Canadians?
Thanks!
mclaren
@mclaren:
Whoever said that?
I pointed out that you claimed at first that it was outlandish to expect anyone, much less Hillary Clinton, to have anyone transcribe her speeches. Then you turn around 180 degrees and claim that it was not only inevitable that Hillary would pay people to transcribe her speeches because of the vast conspiracy against her that required she defend herself, but that she shouldn’t have to release those transcripts because it would merely encourage her legion of imaginary enemies to
smear her even further than they already have.
Great. David Brooks’ past columns and posts at the New York Times can also be found easily.
Does that mean that we should take you seriously or believe what you say just because you wrote some columns at prestigious outlets?
William Kristol wrote lots of columns at a very prestigious outlet before they fired his ass for gross dishonesty and intellectual bankruptcy.
This is the argument from authority, Silverman. It’s worthless. “We must believe that women have fewer teeth than man because the great philosopher Aristotle said so.” “We should believe this article about the reactionless EM drive because NASA is studying that Em drive.”
Puh-lease.
Hide? This is my real name. This is my real email address.
Now you’ve descended to ourlight smears. That’s despicable, Silverman. What reason have I ever given you or anyone to believe that this isn’t my real name? It’s my real name and my real email address. Two can play at this game, Silverman. You hide behind a name that may or may not be made up. You claim to have advanced degrees that may or may not be the result of paying a diploma mill. See how easy it is to smear someone? See the way you can do it even if you have no evidence?
Oh, so advocating genuine financial reform is “raving”? I “pick fights”? Really? How many people have I described as assholes or as having butt rabies or as being off their meds? Name three, please.
I make rational sensible statements, viz., we need serious financial reform, the Clintons are influence-peddlers and have a very spotty record what with their Republican-lite policies that gave us messes like NAFTA and the 1994 crime bill and the 1996 welfare ‘reform’ that has currently thrown 100,000 poor people off welfare rolls, and that’s how I “pick fights”?
My advocacy of policies that were standard in the Eisenhower administration while various cranks call me names and accuse me of being mentally ill?
If you think your frantically failed efforts to defend Hillary Clinton’s indefensible influence peddling is a sign that you agree
with me, boy, I’d hate to see what you’re saying when you don’t agree with me, Silverman.
If you genuinely think I’m ‘raving’ and that I ‘pick fights’ when I warn that we seriously need to reform our corrupt financial system and fix our influence-peddling revolving-door political system and make the economy work for the bottom 90% of average people or this country is going to be in real serious riots-in-the-streets trouble, Silverman, then I’d like to know what you think of the following — which is far more radical than anything I’ve written on this forum.
I’m going to outsource my rebuttal to you, Silverman, to a billionaire who has a much more impressive rep than you do — a genuine 100%-guaranteed member of the top 0.001%, Nick Hanauer:
Source: “The Pitchforks Are Coming… For Us Plutocrats,” Nick Hanauer, Politico, July/August 2014.
patroclus
@mclaren: What serious financial reforms are you advocating? Please be specific.
Omnes Omnibus
@mclaren: Arguing with yourself? Wow.
mclaren
@David M:
Major fail in logical reasoning.
The issue is not whether Hillary Cinton is comparable to George W. Bush — obviously she isn’t, he was a fool and an unedcated dunce, she’s smart and competent.
The real issue is that the same kinds of bogus sophistries and trasparently ridiculous rationalizations are getting trotted out to defend Hillary Clinton’s extremely sleazy influence-peddling as were used to defend Dubya’s much much worse outright war crimes and malfeasance and corruption and stupidity and gross incompetence.
Notice the exact parallel — even the same phrases are being used to defend Hillary that were used to defend Dubya:
“It’s not illegal.”
“They’re private citizens, they have every right to do it.”
“No actual cash changed hands.”
“Can you PROVE that something criminal went on?”
“Show us the evidence that anything unethhical happened. It only looks sleazy, but so what?”
“It’s much less dishonest than [fill in fake straw man: the Harding Teapot Dome scandal, Watergate breakins, etc.] that it’s a nothingburger.”
The really grotesque aspect of this failed and bogus defense of Hillary’s influence-peddling is that the people who are doing it are destroying our democracy right in front of our eyes. In their desperate desire to defend Hillary from a truly vicious and cruel and uncalled-for shitstorm of attacks by Republicans, they’re also trying to argue out of existence Hillary’s very real and very worrisome influence-pedding and unethical behavior and her dishonesty in promising one thing to crowds of people who make $35,000 a year, and a very different thing to crowds of people who make 35 million a year.
redshirt
@mclaren: You completely missed the point of Silverman’s critique and instead proved it in spades.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@cbear:
Additionally, you mention that this all took place in 2013, which I assume is correct in regards to Goldman, but are you also aware of her 2014 and 2015 speeches paid for and/or underwritten by Canadian banks with a very substantial interest in the Keystone Pipeline?
Oh, for fuck’s sake. “paid for and/or underwritten… very substantial interest in”… How many degrees of guilt-by-association are there? Find me the pure evil that links beneath the American Camping Association.
Omnes Omnibus
@redshirt: It is what he does.
mclaren
@patroclus:
I am not your monkey. You can google for the policies I’ve advocated. My rule of thumb here is that same as the proprietor of mahablog:
Nice try in your attempt to derail the ongoing valid and fact-based criticism of Hillary Clinton’s influence-peddling. But it didn’t work.
patroclus
@mclaren: What Bush did (torture and outing CIA agents) was illegal, he wasn’t a private citizen, millions (even billions) was wasted in Iraq and Afghanistan in corrupt ways, actual cash changed hands, the torture happened and can be proven, the evidence was there. I’m not seeing your parallel. They seem different. But good try! Now, what serious financial reforms are you advocating? Please be specific.
David M
@mclaren:
Except the evidence for the “influence peddling” is non-existent. There’s nothing to it. Does she want to repeal Dodd-Frank? No. Does she support stronger regulations than Dodd-Frank currently requires? Yes.
Oh, that pretty much ends the discussion, and not in your favor.
mclaren
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
Whoops.
This is where the Clintons are trying to be clever again and wind up falling into their webs of influence-peddling.
Hillary gave the money away to the Clinton Global Initiative foundation of which Hillary Clinton is a director, along with Bill Clinton and along with her daughter Chelsea Clinton.
The Clinton Global Initiative is a vast web of fundraising from big corporations in which 70 billion dollars sloshes around, and some of it spills over into the Clinton’s pockets. The Clintons make lots of money from the CGI.
But how much? And where does the money come from, exactly? And where does it go, exactly? No one is sure.
No one is exactly sure of the net worth of the Clintons because of convoluted crony-capitalism insider dealings like this.
It looks bad. It smells bogus. It reeks of sleaze and dishonesty.
See the New York Times article “Unease at Clinton Foundation Over Finances and Ambitions” 13 August 2013 for a look at the convoluted furball of intersecting finances and self-dealing that is the Clinton Global Initiative.
And, once again, wait for the rebuttal…”But it’s not illegal!” “But no actual cash bribes changed hands!” “But they’re private citizens so they have every right to make money that way!”
Do none of you realize how badly these kinds of rationalizations stink when they’re applied to powerful wired-in politicians who have gotten incredibly rich off their political connections, and who stand to ascend to rarefied heights of power where they’ll be making decisions affecting the finances of the very financial entities that have paid them so much money?
patroclus
@mclaren: I realize you aren’t a monkey. Mine or anybody’s. What serious financial reforms are you advocating? Please be specific.
mclaren
@David M:
No, Hillary doesn’t want to repeal it, she just wants the banks themselves to decide how they’ll be regulated by it.
Same difference.
Wrong. Hillary has very carefully said she “wants” stronger regulations than Dodd-Frank, not that she’ll actually work for those stronger regulations. George W. Bush said in the 2000 campaign that he ‘wanted’ a more humble America. See how that worked out?
Provably false. As you can see, it ends the discussion very much in my favor, and you either looking like a gullible dupe, or a liar.
cbear
@patroclus: According to this articile: 3 phases of the pipeline have already been built and are in operation, and I’m pretty sure that Phase IV will continue to be an issue in either a Democratic or Rethuglican Administration.
You’re welcome.
mclaren
@patroclus:
I can keep doing this all day long.
Nice try once again on derailing the discussion of Hillary Clinton’s influence-peddling, but once again it didn’t work. Keep trying, though.
patroclus
@David M: Yeah, if mclaren would ever actually answer the question about the specific serious financial reforms being advocated for, it just might turn out that both Sanders and Clinton are for them. But the question keeps getting avoided or ignored. In Dodd-Frank, the combination of the push-out rules and the Volcker rule work kind of like Glass-Steagall and commercial banks are vastly disincentivized from engaging in speculative activity; which, instead must be conducted by invesment company affiliates. But Dodd-Frank allows for divestment and new legislation could more specifically do that. Sanders mentioned something like that last night, but wasn’t very specific about it. I’m interested in the specifics.
mclaren
More on the Clinton’s shady practices:
Source: “Unease at Clinton Foundation Over Finances and Ambitions,” New York Times, 13 August 2013.
So the assertion: “But all their speaking fees were given away (to the Clinton Global Initiative)!” just doesn’t work.
To put it bluntly, the Clinton Global Initiative looks from the outside like a very effective form of money laundering for cash from the Clinton’s influence-peddling.
patroclus
@cbear: Thanks – I was referring to what you described as Phase IV, which was rejected by the U.S. State Department and canceled by the Canadians. I’m pretty sure that the original phases were constructed prior to 2014, so how could a speech then have been relevant to them in any way?
Thanks!
David M
@patroclus:
I doubt anything worthwhile could pass Congress until 2021, so it’s not like it matters anyway. Getting down-ballot Democrats elected will matter though, and HRC is doing a lot more than Sanders.
mclaren
As I said, I can keep doing this all day long. There’s a LOT of evidence.
See the article “Clinton Foundation a ‘Money Laundering Operation’ for ‘Influence Peddling’ by Dictators,” Common Dreams website, 18 November 2015.
Keep trying to derail this discussion of the Clinton’s sleaze. It’s not working.
Omnes Omnibus
@mclaren: You do know that rational people read this blog, right?
patroclus
@mclaren: That’s interesting! What specific serious financial reforms are you advocating? Please be specific.
redshirt
@mclaren: What changes would you like to see to the system we have?
David M
So I took mclaren’s advice, and read up on the Clinton Foundation. Not sure what about it was supposed to make me despise Hillary though.
patroclus
@David M: I disagree. Barney Frank has said that many changes are needed and that some of them have Republican support. It’s normal to have a series of legislative acts rather than just one statute. I think it’s quite possible that legislation could pass in the next Congress – just yesterday, the House was debating FSOC reform. The Dems could compromise on that in exchange for some other reforms. The problem is that no one will get specific (on this thread or in Congress). It’s just been a lot of complaining with very little specificity. The BCFP could use enhanced power; the FSOC could be subjected to normal rule-making procedures under the APA, the OFR could get some more authority; capital adequacy provisions could be written into law, Volcker could be altered somewhat, SSFI’s could be redefined. Some of this is not partisan and a bill could emerge.
cbear
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
I was trying to be as accurate as possible in describing my understanding of the article at the link I posted.
I will assuredly vote for Sec Clinton if she is our nominee, but I have gone from being a “Yuge” supporter of hers to less than enthralled. The speeches are part of that.
YMMV.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
I’ve always said the Clinton Foundation is a reflection of its namesake: Overly ambitious, well-intentioned, self-aggrandizing, sloppy and star-fucking. Hillary Clinton should have stayed well away from it. And she never should have agreed to speak to Goldman Sachs. That said, anyone who wants to indulge in “a speech partially underwritten by a bank with significant investments in…”
“Bernie Sanders wanted to abolish the United States military. At a time when ISIS is cutting off Americans’ heads, can we afford….? “.
You’re welcome.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
Why, aside from concern trolling, did you bring up Canadian banks and Keystone?
David M
@patroclus:
I just have a less optimistic view of the GOP. I prefer to assume they won’t ever do anything productive, that way I’m not regularly disappointed and on the rare occasion I’m wrong it’s a nice surprise.
It’s a challenge for them to just keep the lights on. Just look at their recent actions on funding for Zika or the heroin/opiod crisis.
patroclus
@cbear: Well, I don’t think Clinton has been very specific about serious financial reforms either. She, as well as Sanders, could be a lot more informative if they took this issue more seriously. One of the reasons mclaren is having difficulty is that no one has been specific and the only people I’ve seen get specific are Barney Frank and the Republicans yesterday (and their proposals were more of the weakening variety). I think this is an important issue and should be addressed by the candidates of both parties.
patroclus
@David M: Yeah, I know. Inaction is their default position. And certainly nothing will happen this year. You’re probably right, but there actually are Republicans who are not as troglyditic as their overall reputation and Dodd-Frank was passed with at least some Republican support. I’m not totally pessimistic. Banking and finance issues don’t always cleave in definitive partisan ways.
patroclus
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: I think that’s a bit of a stretch and the SWP barely even exists anymore, and Bernie was a private citizen then and Trotsky was long dead. And it wasn’t illegal and there is no evidence that cash changed hands and I doubt if you could actually prove that any illegality took place.
redshirt
@David M: This is my default position as well. You literally can’t count on them for anything anymore. The Republican Party has gone insane.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@patroclus: illegality never entered my mind. I think it would all be nonsense, but I’m not the kind of voter who gets information from TV commercials and top-of-the-hour news recaps. I didn’t highlight “Trotsky” because I doubt 90% of the electorate know who that is. “socialist workers party” might perk up some ears. My point was we have two (one and a quarter really) choices for this November. “Bernie Sanders endorsed the abolition of the military…” Then you’re explaining, and losing. These speeches may not be the biggest problem we could face.
David M
@patroclus:
I don’t think small improvements are out of the realm of possibility, but I think they are more likely than not to be things that a generic Democrat could be prompted into to supporting.
Part of the reason I’m not sad Sanders will still be in the Senate with Warren…and I want to see a Democratic Senate in 2016.
cbear
@patroclus: Phase IV was rejected by PBO in November 2015. The speeches were in 2014 and early 2015.
Look, you and many/most of the folks here have no problems with Sec Clinton’s speeches and her refusal to release the transcripts.
I understand that, but I find them problematic—as do a number of our fellow democrats and other citizens.
What bothers me is the blithe disregard of virtually anything that in any way might counteract the beliefs of SOME commenters here. and their reflexive dismissal of any other viewpoint.
I’m just not a fan of “true believers” of any stripe or affiliation.
Btw, the above statement is not aimed at you personally as I’m just not familiar enough with your past comments to have an opinion.
patroclus
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: Yeah, I know – I was just parroting back mclaren’s summation of the alleged defenses used by Hillary:-) I have a great biography of Trotsky on my bookshelf by Robert Service – completing his trilogy of major Russian revolutionaries.
I’m guessing mclaren is never going to specify the serious financial reforms being advocated. Too bad – I might actually have agreed with them.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
ah, I don’t read that thread-litter
cbear
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
Concern trolling?
You made a comment stating the Sec Clinton “gave away” the money from her Goldman speeches, and implied that because they were given in 2013, they couldn’t possibly be related to her 2015-2016 run.
I provided a link to an article regarding speeches sponsored/paid for by Canadian banks in 2014-2015, which I believe refutes your implication regarding the timing of her bank speeches as not relevant to any discussion of the speech issue.
As always, YMMV.
Btw, I’ve been commenting here on BJ for some 10-11 years—you can take your “concern trolling” and shove it up your ass.
patroclus
@cbear: I don’t have an opinion one way or another on her speeches, mainly because I don’t know what she said. But I used to work for a big bank and I’ve attended some of these “speeches” (one by Zbig Brezezinski) and they’re usually boring and laden with b.s. Basically, the banks pay these hacks, er, former government officials, a bunch of money and both sides at least have to pretend that they’re getting something out of it and that results in boring mind-numbing speeches. If something tangible results from it, I suppose you could label them influence-peddling. But usually, nothing results from it – as with your example of Keystone, given that Phase IV was cancelled. Clearly, the Canadian banks that might have lent money for the construction of it got nothing out of the speech from Clinton. So it’s a non-issue. At least to me. To be true influence-peddling, there has to be a provable quid-pro-quo.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@cbear:
Heavens to Betsy! such vitriol
You’re kind of weird.
cbear
@patroclus:
And yet, virtually all of us on the left find this:
Justice Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion in Citizens United, justified the decision by asserting that “independent expenditures do not lead to, or create the appearance of, quid pro quo corruption.”
–to be laughably ridiculous.
Let’s just a agree to disagree. Thanks for the conversation.
Aqualad08
@mclaren:
COMMON DREAMS!?!? Well, CASE CLOSED!
OK, almost…. maybe some collaborating “evidence” from USUNCUT and a GOS diary and you’ll be in business….
cbear
@Jim, Foolish Literalist: Me, Weird? Hmm, possibly, but at least I’m not some true-believing, clap-louder asswipe that refuses to even question his/her beliefs when confronted with any contradictory evidence or opinions.
Other than that, please to be fucking off.
Aqualad08
@cbear:
Hey, what was the name of the movie Citizens United was trying to air again?
patroclus
@cbear: Well, we don’t disagree on Citizen’s United, which involved independent campaign expenditures by political action committees. We apparently do disagree on the applicable law regarding speeches made to corporation employees, which requires a quid pro quo, to be illegal. You apparently believe that the standard which you and I both believe should be applicable to PAC campaign expenditures should also apply to speeches made to corporate employees by former government employees. We disagree on that.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@cbear: goodness me!
cbear
@patroclus: Ah, crap–of course I don’t believe that the speeches were in any way, shape, or form illegal. I’ve never even come close to stating that.
Have a good night.
different-church-lady
@Omnes Omnibus: Yes, but only so that they can point and laugh.
different-church-lady
@mclaren:
Well whose monkey are you then?
different-church-lady
@mclaren:
Well, you should know, I suppose.
DCF
@mclaren:
The new book by Thomas Frank (Listen, Liberal) exposes – in excruciating and entertaining detail – the Clintons’ style and behavior(s) since their ascension in Arkansas:
Listen, Liberal: Or, What Ever Happened to the Party of the People?
http://www.amazon.com/Listen-Liberal-Happened-Party-People/dp/1627795391/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1460808841&sr=1-1&keywords=thomas+frank+listen+liberal
The Republican Party concerns itself with ‘the 1%’, while the Third Way Democrats focus on the ‘professional/creative’ class – the top 10%. Apparently, neither party cares about the ‘bottom 90%’….
WaterGirl
My guess? If Hillary released the transcripts then everyone would know that they were paying 250,000 for basically the same boring speech that everybody gets.
But I don’t think they were paying for the speeches so much as for the access to someone with power and connections. Like Obama said in one of his speeches before he was elected: They have access; you get to write a letter.
ed
More cowbell! (just thinking that the MSM needs the all the money outrage can buy)
Jkr
There is a very important point that needs to be brought out about theses speeches.
There are only two possible reasons for paying a politician 250K for a speech.
1) They are trying to influence the politician – which is bribery and they should be in jail.
2) They firmly believe in what the politician stands for, in which case they are committing fraud on the shareholders by giving shareholder funds for a personal use.
In either case they should be in jail for either bribery or misappropriation of funds!
Paul T
Is there a price list for these types of speeches? There are many high powered speaking opportunities, there must be a list of who and how much money speakers are paid.
chopper
dang, I turn my back for a while and suddenly we’re close to a TBogg!
of course that’s cause half the posts are mclaren yelling at his keyboard. jesus man even us CIA blog agents take a day off now and then.